List of Current Affairs

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

The Centre on 11th Aug 2023 has introduced three new Bills namely Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha that propose to completely change the country’s criminal justice system.

Background

• Three bills have been introduced in Lok Sabha which will replace the IPC by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (IEA) by Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, will completely repeal the offence of sedition under section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by a new provision contained under Section 150 of the new Sanhita.
• The Sanhita also proposes to incorporate new provision of Mob Lynching under Section 101(2) and punishes it with death penalty, life imprisonment, or a prison term of seven years or more.
• The Supreme Court of India on 11th May 2023 asked the Central Government and States to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of Sedition under Section 124A of the IPC in the matter of SG Vombatkere v. Union of India.
• The SC hit the pause button on the provision, ruling that the law was not in sync with the social background anymore.
• The 22nd Law Commission of India in April 2023 had recommended that Section 124A should be retained in the statute book with certain changes.
• The proposed bills once passed by both houses of the parliament and assented to by the President will take the shape of an act of parliament and will replace the current Legislation on Criminal Law System of India.

Sedition

• Section 124A of IPC, which deals with the Sedition Law, was not mentioned when the act was first enforced but was added in the year 1870.
• In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of this provisions of the IPC and Kedar Nath Singh was hence convicted for sedition.
• The United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda are among other democratic nations that have rejected sedition laws as undemocratic, unwanted, and unneeded.

Recommendations of the 22^nd Law Commission – 279^th Report

• Incorporating the Kedar Nath Judgement - In Kedar Nath’s case the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Sedition Law stating that it falls within the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on freedom of speech mentioned under Article 19 (2) of the COI.
• Installing a New Procedural ‘Safeguard’ - The Commission recommends a major procedural amendment to CrPC to prevent the ‘alleged misuse’ of the law. It suggests that a police officer, holding the rank of an Inspector or higher, must conduct a preliminary inquiry before the First Information Report (FIR), is filed.
• Increasing the Term of Punishment - The Commission recommended enhancing the punishment to a period of seven years or life imprisonment, along with a fine. Currently, the punishment is a period of imprisonment of either three years or life imprisonment.
• Inserting New Words in the Provision - The Report recommended the insertion of the words ‘tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder’ in the provision. It defines ‘tendency’ as an ‘inclination to incite violence or public disorder rather than proof of actual violence or imminent threat to violence’.

Major Changes Introduced in the Bills

• IPC — Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
  • IPC contains 511 sections at present.
  • The new Bill proposes to repeal 22 provisions of IPC, proposes changes to 175 existing provisions and introduces 8 new Sections. It contains a total of 356 provisions.
• CrPC — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
  • CrPC contains 484 sections at present.
  • The new bill repeals 9 provisions of the CrPC, proposes changes to 160 provisions and introduced 9 new provisions. The new Bill contains in total 533 Sections.
• IEA — Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023
  • IEA contains 167 sections at present.
  • The new Bill repeals 5 existing provisions of the IEA, proposed changes to 23 provisions and introduced one new provision. It contains 170 Sections in total.

Source – Delhi High Court

Why in News?

• Recently the High Court of Delhi in the case of Dept. of Health, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Kamla Mehndiratta & Ors., has observed that condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government departments.

Background

• The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging order of the Labour Court before the Delhi High Court and vide order dated 15th March 2007 the matter was listed in the category of Regular Matters.
• However, the matter was dismissed in default by the Court vide order dated 3rd May 2017 due to the non-appearance of the advocates on behalf of the petitioner.
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition.
• The application was dismissed by the Court

Court’s Observations

• Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government departments.
• He further added that the courts must not treat Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and that the Government is under “special obligation” to ensure that their duties are properly performed.
• The Court said that despite knowing about dismissal of the petition due to non-appearance, the government department failed to file the application seeking restoration on time and chose to do so only after two years and as per its own convenience.
• The Court further said that the averments made in the application for a delay of 691 days cannot be classified as a reasonable delay in any manner.

Legal Provisions

• The condonation of delay means the extension of prescribed time in certain cases subject to sufficient cause.
• The concept of condoning a delay is primarily preferred to the applications and appeal and does not cover the suits.
• It applies to criminal proceedings only.
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) deals with the concept of condonation of delay.
• Section 5 deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases. It states that -
  • Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
• The provision of Section 5 of LA does not necessarily imply that the power of the court to condone the delay is circumscribed by an application being filed.
• The power to condone delay can be exercised if the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed.
• If an appeal is presented out of time in an explainable circumstance without a formal or written application, then the Courts should afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to amend the matter to avoid miscarriage of justice.
• A written application for claiming relief under Section 5 is not essential and it is open to the Court to give relief without written application under this section if the interest of justice so requires.
• In Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962), SC held that there are two important considerations which must be kept in mind while considering the condonation of delay:
  • The expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to the legal rights in favor of the decree-holder to treat the decree passed in their favor as binding between the parties. The legal right which is accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be lightly disturbed.
  • If sufficient cause for the execution of delay is shown, then the discretion is given to the Court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
• The following are the instances where condonation can be granted:
  • Subsequent changes in the law.
  • Illness of the party.
  • Imprisonment of the party.
  • Party is a pardanashin woman.
  • Party belongs to a minority group with insufficient funds.
  • Poverty or paupers.
  • Party is a government servant.
  • Delay due to the pendency of the writ petition.
  • Party is illiterate.
• In Ram Kali Kuer v. Indradeo Chaudhary (1985), it was held that section 5 does not provide that an application in writing must be filed before relief under the said provision can be granted.