1. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 26 Sep 18
MAIN POINTSPer majority ‘Benefits’ and ‘services’ as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the colour of some kind of subsidies etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class. The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory.For the enrolment of children under the Aadhaar Act, it would be essential to have the consent of their parents/guardian.On attaining the age of majority, such children who are enrolled under Aadhaar with the consent of their parents, shall be given the right to exit from Aadhaar, if they so choose.Insofar as the school admissions of children are concerned, requirement of Aadhaar would not be compulsory as it is neither a service nor subsidy. Further, having regard to the fact that a child between the age of 6 to 14 years has the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution, school admission cannot be treated as ‘benefit’ as well.Benefits to children between 6 to 14 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, likewise, shall not require mandatory Aadhaar enrolment.For availing the benefits of other welfare schemes which are covered by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, though enrolment number can be insisted, it would be subject to the consent of the parents.No child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, he/she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents. Regulation 27(1) struck down, Regulation 26 needs suitable amendment, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act read down. Section 33(2) struck down.That portion of Section 57 which enables body corporate and individual to seek authentication struck down, All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy. Aadhaar Act meets the tests of proportionality and balancingSection 2(d) struck down.Section 29 in fact imposes a restriction on sharing information and is, therefore, valid as it protects the interests of Aadhaar number holders. Other provisions of Aadhaar Act including Section 59 held to be valid, Aadhaar Act meets the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance and Constitutional Trust.Aadhaar Act is validly passed as a ‘Money Bill’.Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held valid.Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting) The phrase “shall be final” used under Article 110(3) aims at avoiding any controversy on the issue as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill, with respect to the Rajya Sabha and before the President. The language used in Article 110(3) does not exclude judicial review of the Speaker’s decision. This also applies to Article 199(3).The immunity from judicial review provided to parliamentary proceedings under Article 122 is limited to instances involving “irregularity of procedure”. Validity of proceedings in Parliament or a State Legislature can be subject to judicial review when there is a substantive illegality or a constitutional violation.Article 255 has no relation with the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill is a Money Bill. Decisions in Mohd Saeed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar are overruled.The existence of and the role of the Rajya Sabha, as an institution of federal bicameralism in the Indian Parliament, constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A Bill, which has provisions which fall within subclauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1) and provisions which fall outside their scope, will not qualify to be a Money Bill. Section 7 fails to fulfil the requirement of a Money Bill. The provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not lie within the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). The Aadhaar Act declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the necessary requirements to have been certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).Doctrine of pith and substance is used to examine whether the legislature has the competence to enact a law with regard to any of the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The doctrine cannot be invoked to declare whether a Bill satisfies the requirements set out in Article 110 of the Constitution to be certified a Money Bill. There is a legitimate state aim in maintaining a system of identification to ensure that the welfare benefits provided by the State reach the beneficiaries who are entitled, without diversion.Adequate norms must be laid down for each step from the collection to retention of biometric data. Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Act create a distinction between two classes of information (core biometric information and identity information), which are integral to individual identity and require equal protection. Section 29(4) suffers from over breadth.Sections 2(g), (j), (k) and (t) suffer from over breadth. There is no clarity on how an individual is supposed to update his/her biometric information, in case the biometric information mismatches with the data stored in CIDR. The Aadhaar project has failed to account for and remedy the flaws in its framework and design which has led to serious instances of exclusion of eligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project violates widely recognized data minimisation principle.The architecture of Aadhaar poses a risk of potential surveillance activities through the Aadhaar database. The protection of the data of 1.2 billion citizens is a question of national security and cannot be subjected to the mere terms and conditions of a normal contract.The Act does not place any institutional accountability upon UIDAI to protect the database of citizens’ personal information. The Aadhaar Act is also silent on the liability of UIDAI and its personnel in case of their non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or the regulations.Section 47 of the Act violates citizens’ right to seek remedies. No substantive provisions, such as those providing data minimization, have been laid down as guiding principles for the oversight mechanism provided under Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of identity information and authentication records in the interest of national security.Since Section 57 is manifestly arbitrary, it suffers from overbreadth and violates Article 14.Section 7 suffers from overbreadth since the broad definitions of the expressions ‘services and ‘benefits’ enable the government to regulate almost every facet of its engagement with citizens under the Aadhaar platform. Section 7 is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 in relation to the inclusion of services and benefits as defined.The legitimate aim of the State can be fulfilled by adopting less intrusive measures as opposed to the mandatory enforcement of the Aadhaar scheme as the sole repository of identification. When Aadhaar is seeded into every database, it becomes a bridge across discreet data silos, which allows anyone with access to this information to re-construct a profile of an individual’s life. This is contrary to the right to privacy and poses severe threats due to potential surveillance.The State has failed to satisfy that the targeted delivery of subsidies which animate the right to life entails a necessary sacrifice of the right to individual autonomy, data protection and dignity when both these rights are protected by the Constitution.Section 59 seeks to retrospectively validate the actions of the Central Government done prior to the Aadhaar Act pursuant to Notifications dated 28 January 2009. and 12 September 2015. Section 59 does not validate actions of the state governments or of private entities. Moreover, the notification of 2009 did not authorise the collection of biometric data. Consequently, the validation of actions taken under the 2009 notification by Section 59 does not save the collection of biometric data prior to the enforcement of the Act. Section 59 fails to meet the test of a validating law.Since the Aadhaar Act itself is now held to be unconstitutional, the seeding of Aadhaar to PAN under Article 139AA does not stand independently.The 2017 amendments to the PMLA Rules fail to satisfy the test of proportionality. The decision to link Aadhaar numbers with mobile SIM cards is neither valid nor constitutional. The biometric information and Aadhaar details collected by Telecom Service Providers shall be deleted forthwith and no use of the said information or details shall be made by TSPs or any agency or person or their behalf.Defiance of judicial orders (both interim and final) be it by the government or by citizens negates the basis of the rule of law. The Aadhaar Act, the Rules and Regulations framed under it, and the framework prior to the enactment of the Act are unconstitutional.The existing data which has been collected shall not be destroyed for a period of one year. During this period, the data shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever. At the end of one year, if no fresh legislation has been enacted by the Union government in conformity with the principles enunciated in this judgment, the data shall be destroyed.Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)Requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass threefold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).Section 47 cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009 and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill. The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.
provided under the Act to the enrolments done earlier – Article 20(1), Constitution of India – Application of criminal ... 33 – Sub-section (1) an exception to Section 28(2), Section 28(5) and Section 29(2) – Disclosure of information only on orders of ... Section 3. ... (ii) Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2524 of 2014 is allowed. ... Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly. ... (ii) Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2524 of 2014 is allowed.
India - Supreme Court
2. Common Cause (A Registered Society) VS Union Of India - 03 Aug 99
Very Important Points1. An order issued by a Minister of Government in the name of the President of India would remain as an order of the Minister and the immunity available to the President under Article 361 of the Constitution cannot be extended to the orders passed in the name of the President under Article 77(1) or Article 77(2) of the Constitution.2. Mere fact that an act of Minister was not taken up and debated and scrutinised on the floor of the House of Parliament would not render the same immune from judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.3. In jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India the Courts have power to award compensation.4. Where public functionaries are involved and matter relates to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties etc., the remedy would lie, at the option of the petitioner, under the public law notwithstanding that damages are also claimed in those proceedings.5. For torts officers of the Govt. would also be liable in damages for their wrongful acts provided the act does not fall within the purview of “act of the State.6. In case of torts committed by public servant unless there is an identifiable plaintiff, there cannot be any order for compensation or damages to redress the loss caused to that plaintiff.7. In awarding punitive or exemplary damages, the emphasis is not on the plaintiff and the injury caused to him, but on the defendant and his conduct.8. In an action for tort where the plaintiff is found entitled to damages, the matter should not be stretched too far to punish the defendant by awarding exemplary damages except when their conduct, specially those of the Govt. and its officers, is found to be oppressive, obnoxious and arbitrary and is, sometimes, coupled with malice. 9. Where action is taken on basis of torts of misfeasance in public office, if the power has been exercised bona fide and honestly, there cannot be any occasion for exemplary damages being awarded notwithstanding that unintended injury was caused to someone.10. The State itself cannot claim the right of being compensated in damages against its officers on the ground that they had contravened or violated the fundamental rights of a citizen. The State cannot legally claim that since one of its Ministers or Officers had violated the fundamental rights of a citizen or had acted arbitrarily, it should be compensated by awarding exemplary damages against that officer or Minister.11. Doctrine of Public Trust cannot be invoked in fixing the criminal liability under Sections 405 and 409 of IPC and the criminal liability has to be strictly construed and offence can be said to have been committed only when all the ingredients of that offence as defined in the Statute are found to have been satisfied.12. A trust contemplated by Section 405 would arise only when there is an entrustment of property or dominion over property. There has, therefore, to be a property belonging to someone which is entrusted to the person accused of the offence under Section 405.13. The word “property”, used in Section 409, IPC means the property which can be entrusted or over which dominion may be exercised.14. Mere exercise of “power to allot”, it is rightly contended, cannot, be treated as “property”, within the meaning of Section 405, capable of being mis-utilised or mis-appropriated. 15. Direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to the C.B.I. to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of “LIFE” and “LIBERTY” guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
of criminal jurisprudence, one of which is that the criminal liability has to be strictly construed and offence can be said to have ... of public trust cannot be invoked—Mere exercise of power to allot cannot be treated as property within meaning of Section 405—No ... (Para 122) ... A trust contemplated by Section 405 would arise only ... This brings us to the definition of the offence of “Criminal Breach of Trust” as defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code ... Mahesh Kumar Bhada93, the essential ingredients for establishing the offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in Section 405 ... Criminal breach of trust.
India - Supreme Court
3. Women Lawyers Association rep. By its Secretary VS State of Tamil Nadu - 29 Oct 09
Ratios:a. While carrying out any operation or activity inside the Court premises which would otherwise cause prejudice to the judicial institution, the police and other officials are to get necessary instructions and if necessary, permission.b. Before use of force against an unlawful assembly, police should make all attempts to arrest key persons in the assembly and when their attempt to control the assembly fails, as a last resort, force may be used. c. Mere law and order problem cannot be an excuse to the police for the use of force against the members of an assembly.d. Use of lathi charge by police against the members of an unlawful assembly cannot be the first step to disperse it. e. An officer ordering use of force against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he exercised his power in good faith.f. A member of an armed force using force or does any act against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he does any act in obedience of any order which he is bound to obey.g. To establish good faith one will have to show his previous conduct of due care and attention.h. The judiciary is looked upon by every one with high amount of confidence and come for one’s rescue and take all endeavor to remedy the wrong or prevent an evil from taking place or redress the grievance to the extent to which one is entitled/possible and thereby keeping its mettle high in everyone’s esteem and expectation.i. Constitutional provisions regarding the judiciary have been couched in such a manner that the process of judicial institution is kept aloof from the reach of any other wing of the State and thereby ensure confidence in the minds of the common man.j. Any attempt from any quarters either deliberately, subvertly, negligently, recklessly or in any other allied manner to cause a dent to the judicial institution should be seriously dealt with in order to ensure that the greatness of the institution is not undermined by any one to the detriment of the public at large. k. The judiciary should take all appropriate measures to protect its status, glory and dignity and thereby instil confidence in the minds of everyone about its independency and effectiveness to render justice.l. It is high time that the Advocates Associations take a very pragmatic approach and take a firm decision to resort to any other passive method by which they can exhibit their protest in a subtle way instead of resorting to Boycott of Courts.m. Legal profession gives the advocate an insight into the character of his fellow-men, into all their weaknesses and all their strength, and an opportunity to do real good by helping in the proper administration of justice and maintenance of judicial standards. n. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in case of disputed question of fact, the remedy under writ jurisdiction are to be denied. o. Good faith requires not logical infallibility, but due care and attention.p. How far erroneous actions or statements are to be imputed to want of due care and caution must in each case, be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and intelligence of the person, whose conduct is in question.q. When a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good intention but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge.r. It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to regulate the entry of Police in the High Court campus.s. Before deploying additional strength of police force inside the Court campus, either for providing security to VIPs attending the Courts or under other circumstances, permission of the High Court ought to be obtained.t. In case of serious Law and Order problem within the Court campus, the police can take necessary steps immediately even without prior permission from the High Court/Principal District Judge and when such steps are taken, without any delay, the police have to inform the High Court/Principal District Judge about the mobilization of strength, steps taken in handling the situation. u. In the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the police, it is not contempt when an advocate is arrested inside the Court premises.v. When an advocate is arrested for criminal process, to take action for contempt, mala fide on the part of the police has to be shown to indicate that there was an intention to interfere with the due course of justice. w. There is no general immunity for a lawyer against his arrest inside the Court premises.x. Advocates are, subject to their adherence to the Code of Conduct, entitled to protection in discharging their professional duties.y. While dispersing an unlawful assembly, the police should use the minimum amount of force and cause as little injury as possible.z. Only after the use of minimum force by the police failed to disperse the unlawful assembly, the executive magistrate present in the secne of occurrence may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces. aa. In the matters of use of force or armed forces to disperse an unlawful assembly, the choice must have to be dictated by public interest, to safeguard law and order as well as public tranquility and it must not be unprincipled or unreasoned.bb. The action of the police in using force to disperse an unlawful assembly and the order of lathi charge is subject to the judicial review.cc. When a question arise as to whether the police have committed excess and exceeded their limits, the Court may lift the veil and decide whether there was good faith and whether the officer has acted with due care and attention.dd. Police carrying deadly weapons and a privileged authority to use force have a special responsibility to keep control of themselves and their fellow officers. ee. Any time a Police officer abuses his or her authority and inflicts undue suffering on any person, it is an affront, not only to the victim of the pain but to society as a whole.ff. Contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary in character, should not be used for the personal protection of the Judges.gg. Contempt jurisdiction is applied against any authority or person whenever there is any kind of interference in the Administration of Justice and to maintain supremacy of law. hh. Contempt is sui generis. There is no prosecution, no summons or warrant, no right of trial by jury. The judge decides the matter, on the basis of his own knowledge of the facts which is the basis of his power. ii. Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for the redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant.jj. Award of compensation by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure.
nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure. ... in a civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation ... ... Per R.Banumathi J:The underlying intention of section Section 129 ... of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure. ... Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as ... Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act reads as under: "2(c) 'Criminal
India - Madras
4. Paras Ram VS Sitan - 08 Nov 86
When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be justified.
cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under this section. ... The proceedings under this section have to be taken with promptitude and finished as quickly as possible. ... (No) ... Held, the object of section 145 Criminal Procedure Code is the ... proceeding under section 145 of the Code, would not be justified. ... The object of section 145 Cr. ... application No. 97 of 1985 decided on 31st May.
India - Crimes
5. Kasab @ Abu Mujahid VS State of Maharashtra - 29 Aug 12
1. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions. An action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression. 2. The right to access to a lawyer in India is not based on the Miranda principles, as protection against self-incrimination, for which there are more than adequate safeguards in Indian laws.3. The object of the criminal law process is to find out the truth and not to shield the accused from the consequences of his wrongdoing. 4. Unless the accused voluntarily makes an informed decision and tells the court, in clear and unambiguous words, that he does not want the assistance of any lawyer and would rather defend himself personally, the obligation to provide him with a lawyer at the commencement of the trial is absolute.5. The protection of the privilege of the accused against self- incrimination is cast as a mandatory duty upon the magistrate, a judicial authority, under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 164 of Crpc.6. Voluntary statements are not proscribed by Article 20(3) and do not amount to violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. 7. The provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act fully incorporate the Constitutional guarantees, and that the statutory framework for the criminal process in India affords the fullest protection to personal liberty and dignity of an individual.8. The transcripts are by no means any confessional statements made under arrest and they are fully covered by the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(i) Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 120B read with Section 302 , Sections 121,34,109 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ... and 122 of the Penal Code. ... conspiracy to commit murder,for criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder ,for committing murder of a ... CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2011 588. ... CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2011 588. ... CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2011 588.
India - Crimes
6. Mihir Saha VS State - 18 Apr 00
Threat to safety and security of a particular party cannot be a valid ground for transfer of a criminal case under Section 407, Cr. P.C.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 407 - Application for transfer of criminal case under Sections 498A, 406, 497 and 120B, IPC ... physical assault at hands of rowdy agents of opposite party - Ground In the petition wag not within one category provided under Section ... . - This is an application under Section 407(1)(C) of the Code Criminal Procedure for an order transferring the Criminal Case being ... Under Section 407(1) Cr. ... Balurghat Police Station Case No. 66/97 dated 14th February, 1997 under Sections 498A, 406, 497 and 120, I.P.C. corresponding to
India - Crimes
7. MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 29 Aug 12
1. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions. An action tending to violate another persons right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression. 2. The right to access to a lawyer in India is not based on the Miranda principles, as protection against self-incrimination, for which there are more than adequate safeguards in Indian laws. 3. The object of the criminal law process is to find out the truth and not to shield the accused from the consequences of his wrongdoing. 4. Unless the accused voluntarily makes an informed decision and tells the court, in clear and unambiguous words, that he does not want the assistance of any lawyer and would rather defend himself personally, the obligation to provide him with a lawyer at the commencement of the trial is absolute. 5. The protection of the privilege of the accused against self- incrimination is cast as a mandatory duty upon the magistrate, a judicial authority, under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 164 of Crpc. 6. Voluntary statements are not proscribed by Article 20(3) and do not amount to violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. 7. The provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act fully incorporate the Constitutional guarantees, and that the statutory framework for the criminal process in India affords the fullest protection to personal liberty and dignity of an individual. 8. The transcripts are by no means any confessional statements made under arrest and they are fully covered by the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 120B read with Section 302 , Sections 121,34,109 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967- Section ... conspiracy to commit murder,for criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder ,for committing murder of a ... number of persons,for attempting to murder with common intention,for criminal conspiracy and abetment,for abduction for murder,for ... Here it may also be noted that Section 39 CrPC read with Section 176 of the Penal Code makes it an offence for any person who is ... In addition, he is separately convicted, under Section 121A, for conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 of the Code ... to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be punished
India - Supreme Court
8. State of Kerala Represented By Detective Inspector of Crime Branch CID VS Jayesh @ Jabar @ Babu S/o. Sumathi - 17 Mar 20
Important Points:There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173(8), Section 235(1) , Section 340 —Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ... Law declared by the court in the above decision is that power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the Magistrate before ... The principles in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya's case will not enable the trial court to exercise its power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C ... PW38 was called up to explain why criminal prosecution under Section 194 IPC should not ... Section 357 Cr.P.C. empowering a criminal court to order compensation also does not apply ... 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available
India - Kerala
9. State of Punjab VS Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar - 07 Dec 11
(1) Judicial bias – The allegations of judicial bias are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand – The court must bear in mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order – Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required – In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party – However, where such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. is vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial “coram non-judice”. (Para 20) (2) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right – It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a right – There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Para 23) (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156 – When CBI inquiry can be ordered – A constitutional court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie, a case against the accused – However, the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard – CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities – The court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary so to do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible. (Para 48) (4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 362 – Review/Alter judgment – The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio – Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (Para 30) (5) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice – Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. – If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. , and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision – In case, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure of investigation, it would be unwarranted in law. (Paras 31, 38) (6) Constitution of India, Art 226 – Investigation – The High Court can always issue appropriate direction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution at the behest of an aggrieved person, if the court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer malafide or the matter is not investigated at all – Even in such a case, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can insist only for the observance of process as provided for in the Cr.P.C. (Para 34) (7) Constitution of India, Art 226 – Second Writ of Habeas Corpus – Res judicata – A second writ petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus is barred by principles of res judicata. (Para 62) (8) Jurisdiction of the Bench – No Judge or a Bench of Judges assumes jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Chief Justice – The Bench gets jurisdiction from the assignment made by the Chief Justice and the Judge cannot choose as which matter he should entertain and he cannot entertain a petition in respect of which jurisdiction has not been assigned to him by the Chief Justice as the order passed by the court may be without jurisdiction and made the Judge coram non-judice. (Paras 42, 43)
/Alter judgment – The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the ... Justice X – There could be no justification for the Bench concerned to entertain applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as ... (Para 23) ... (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156 – When ... proceedings or set the criminal law in motion. ... INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. ... under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.
India - Crimes
10. BRAJESH SINGH VS SUNIL ARORA - 10 Aug 21
(1) Though a political party would have freedom of selecting candidates of its choice, though having criminal antecedents, what would be required is to give reasons in support of such selection, and reasons could be dependent on various factors including qualifications, achievements and other merits.(2) Voter has right to have information as to why a particular political party has chosen a candidate having criminal antecedents and as to why a political party has not chosen a candidate without criminal antecedents.(3) Apex Court cannot read any implied limitations and issue directions which would indirectly provide for disqualification of a candidate.(4) Persons with criminal antecedents and who are involved in criminalisation of political system should not be permitted to be law-makers.
(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 8 – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of election ... read with Article 142 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – Sections 8 and 30 – Contempt of Court – Non-disclosure of criminal ... (Paras 17, 26, 27 and 28)(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 129 ... (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences relating to rape) or section 498A ( ... (4) of Section 8 of the Act is vested in Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Schedule VII List I Entry 97 and Article 248 ... in sub-section (1).
India - Supreme Court