Based on the observation of any sexual activity with a mentally ill woman who is incapable of understanding the nature of the act amounts to rape.

A Sessions Court found a 24-year-old man guilty and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for having an affair with a 23-year-old mentally challenged woman who lived in his neighbourhood.

The woman’s mental age, according to the prosecution, was that of a 9-year-old girl. The woman who conceived post the sexual act, It was discovered that the accused and the survivor were the foetus’s biological parents.

The woman’s mental impairment was slight was argued as a defence.

By taking advantage of the victim’s helplessness, the accused had committed rape. A person with a mental illness or condition is deserving of extra attention, care, and devotion observed the court.

The Judge took note of the survivor’s admission during the defence attorney’s cross-examination that she knew the accused and had a consensual connection with him.

She said that because of their differing religious views, her parents had stopped her from marrying the accused. The victim acknowledged that she hadn’t told the accused that she was pregnant and had not first given the police his name.

The survivor restated that her parents had pushed her to submit a formal complaint even though she had no grievances against the accused. Based on this, the accused claimed that the connection was consenting.

The Judge, however, rejected the defence, stating that the prosecution had demonstrated the survivor’s moderate mental impairment in this instance.

According to the Judge, it has also been ruled by the SC that a girl with mental disabilities is unable to grant permission/consent, which would require her to grasp the consequences of her actions.

The Court confirmed the constitutional validity of J&K’s abrogation of Article 370 last December. But recently, the Supreme Court will examine the legality of the Union Government’s 2019 decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status.

Instructions Given by The Supreme Court

The Election Commission was instructed by the highest court to schedule elections in Kashmir by 30^th September 2024. 5^th August 2019, saw the Centre revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The court confirmed the constitutional validity of J&K’s abrogation of Article 370 law in December.

The Election Commission was instructed by the apex court to schedule elections in Kashmir by 30^th September 2024.

Announcing the rulings, the five-judge panel led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that the Supreme Court does not need to rule on the legality of proclamations because the primary issue is abrogation.

Even if it is determined that a proclamation could not be carried out, there is no evidence to suggest that the president’s rule cannot be invoked.

The court of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, BR Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, and Surya Kant, rendered the historic decision. Muzzafar Shah, the president of the J&K Awami National Conference, and Doctor Hussain, the president of the J&K People’s Movement, have submitted the review petitions.

Critical Evaluation by People Conference President

People Conference president Sajad Lone has stated that while it may have been a mistake to challenge the Supreme Court’s abrogation of Article 370, doing so would have worsened the political situation for the mainstream parties refrained from pursuing legal action, the Centre could have supported anyone to bring the matter to the highest court.

The licenses for 14 Patanjali products, owned by Baba Ram Dev, were immediately suspended by the Uttarakhand licensing department on Monday.

The Licensing authority stated in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court that, about the matter involving deceptive ads, it had suspended the licenses for 14 goods made by Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy.

The following products are prohibited:

• Mukta Vati Extra Power,
• Lipidom,
• BP Grit,
• Madhugrit,
• Madhunashini Vati Extra Power,
• Livamrit Advance,
• Livogrit,
• Eyegrit Gold,
• Bronchom,
• Swasari Gold,
• Swasari Vati,
• Mukta Pharmacy’s Drishti Eye drop.

On 30^th April, the Supreme Court will consider a case involving the apology that yoga teacher Ramdev and his associate, Acharya Balkrishna, published. On Tuesday, they will both be in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court chastised Patanjali during the most recent hearing on 23 April 2024, for failing to post their apology “prominently” in newspapers. `

The court had inquired as to whether Patanjali’s newspaper apology was comparable in scope to full-page product advertisements.

Patanjali had declared that it would not make the same mistakes twice and that it had the utmost respect for the court in an apology that was printed in 67 newspapers.

Following the ruling passed by the court’s ruling issued a larger apology in newspapers after the first one.

Before that, in response to advertising released by the company that made exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of its drugs, such as Coronil, during the epidemic, Ramdev and Balkrishna submitted an “unconditional and unqualified apology” to the Supreme Court.

In November 2023, during the hearing of a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Ramdev for criticising modern medicine, the top court ordered Patanjali to cease advertisements of its products that are claimed to treat ailments and disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was questioned by the Supreme Court (SC) over the reason behind Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest shortly before the general elections, in the money laundering case.

In the Delhi liquor policy case, Arvind Kejriwal had contested his arrest. Justice Sanjeev clarified why the timing of the arrest was a matter of concern by instructing the ED to clarify if the agency can initiate criminal proceedings without first going through the legal process.

In response to that, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju stated that life and liberty are extremely essential in response to a question about the time of the arrest. This was posed by Justice Dipankar Datta, who was also part of the Bench.

According to Justice Khanna, no attachment action had been filed in this case as far. If one has, please demonstrate Kejriwal’s involvement. The Supreme Court (SC) observed that while the investigators in the case involving former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have stated they have uncovered evidence, no such evidence has been presented in Arvind Kejriwal’s case.

The SC ordered the ED to explain the lengthy delay between the start of the legal process and the arrest. The ED was subsequently given a Friday deadline by the Court to reply.

Following his detention on 21^st March, Arvind Kejriwal has chosen to serve as Chief Minister while detained and is being held in judicial custody in Tihar, Delhi. On 15^th April, the SC served notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a response to Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against his arrest.

The Delhi High Court (HC) affirmed Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest on 9^th April, stating that there was no illegality and that the ED had “little option” because he had ignored a summons and declined to cooperate with the inquiry.

Leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Atishi and Saurabh Bharadwaj, along with other top party comrades, oversee running the party’s election campaign. Sunita, the spouse of Arvind Kejriwal, has also aided in contacting her husband’s followers.

On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court (HC) dismissed a formal complaint filed by a wife against her former husband, concerning unnatural offenses, threats in 2016, and rape. The HC even quashed all other cases against the man, who was accused by his ex-wife.

While the Mazgaon Mumbai Magistrate was hosting the hearings, the FIR was filed at the Mumbai police station in Agripada.

The woman brought the above complaint with malicious intentions, and hence the court declared the complaint fabricated and dismissed the same. Advocate Subhash Jha, who was representing the accused, stated that the FIR was fabricated and was filed only out of bitterness and malice.

Advocate’s Evidence

Jha stated that the couple had six children and lived together for several years. So, the relationship between them appears to be voluntary and the commitment of grave offenses like rape was a made-up story by the ex-wife. This suo-moto rape offense was untrue.

He further stated that carrying out legal actions against the man would be a misuse and abuse of the judicial system. As per testimony presented in the court hearing, the couple married on 12^th May 1991, as per Islamic law.

Family’s Statements

After moving in with the man’s joint family, the woman gave birth to 6 children. But when their relationship soured, the lady complained that the man had engaged in unnatural habits and he forced her into sexual encounters without her consent.

She further stated that she was beaten and threatened when she protested against his actions. The lady also stated that even though they are married to each other, she was intimidated and assaulted, and repeatedly was a victim of unwanted sexual advances by the man. She has documented and presented evidence to support her statements.

Role of Family Members

The family members of the man got together to determine the reasons behind the allegations that the woman had declared. They said that she was unwilling to live with the man, and was having an extramarital affair with someone else during the family gathering.

When the man found out about her extramarital affair, he obtained phone recording software from her mobile phone to clarify his doubts. The man claimed that the woman had earlier engaged in “obscene conversations” with the person she was seeing outside of her marriage.

It is said that the woman admitted to the family members that she wanted to live with her boyfriend and was ready to leave her husband when he tried to confront her.

Judge’s observations

The Bench of Justices NR Borkar and PD Naik concluded after reviewing the case’s circumstances that the “factual matrix of this case would directly point out that the said complaint was filed by the woman out of malice.”

The Bench took note of the son and daughter’s recorded statements in the case. The Bench thus concluded that, after reviewing the woman’s adult children’s statements, it is evident that the intent of the woman is malicious.

Naming her ex-husband as a criminal and filing an FIR was the result of her malicious intentions and it was out of vendetta.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) dismissed a plea presented by Kalyani Singh, the primary accused in the Sukhmanpreet Singh murder case, requesting case diaries or the police filed kept by the Chandigarh Police during the initial investigation.

Facts of the Case:

Singh is the daughter of retired High Court Judge Justice Sabina and Sidhu was the grandson of the late Justice S S Sighu, who is a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC).

It stated that unlimited access to such data could endanger the informants’ security and discourage cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Singh is accused of killing Sippu Sindhu, a corporate lawyer and national shooter, whose bullet-riddled body was discovered in Chandigarh Park on 20^th September 2015.

Singh had gone to the HC to overturn the contested judgement, which was issued on 6^th April 2024, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special judge in Chandigarh. The order denied her request for crucial case resources and materials.

Facts Represented by The Public Prosecutor:

In the meantime, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Ravi Kamal Gupta, contended earlier in the HC hearing that Singh had already received all the materials “relied upon” by the prosecution.

In addition to a list of “unreliable documents” and all the documents that had been given to the deceased’s family. Gupta further added that neither the untraced report that the CBI filed nor the list of papers and articles that it relied upon in the chargesheet included the materials that Singh was seeking.

Judge’s Observations in the Court

In a detailed order posted on the court website on Tuesday, the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul stated that it is necessary to emphasize that the request for an unrestricted right to view case diary entries based solely on an unfolded fear that the mother or family of the dead has been granted such access by the court.

On the other hand, police in untenable and violate established legal precedents. Given such a wife, access would jeopardise the public interest, particularly in cases when the case diary contains sensitive information such as the identification details of the informants.

Sections of the Cr. P.C. Involved

The restriction described in Sub Section (3) of Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal systems and protect the public interest. According to Justice Kaul, who made this assertion after hearing the case facts.

It is well-established law that, certain documents are essential and have the potential to affect an accused person’s case, even when it was not cited by the prosecution.

The accused person’s case where the accused person may still have resources under Section 91 Cr. P.C. at the proper trial stage, which it goes without saying, must be determined by a court by law.

According to sources, Singh was taken into custody by the CBI on 15^th June 2022, following multiple rounds of questioning. In September 2022, the HC granted her bail after the CBI Chandigarh court rejected her bail request.

The Chandigarh Police initially investigated the Sippy Sidhu murder case after receiving a complaint against unidentified individuals under Section 302 (murder) and the Arms Act at the Sector 26 police station in Chandigarh. In April of 2016, the case was sent to the CBI.

Judge Kaul noted that the above-mentioned petition is currently “untenable” given the statutory disentitlement outlined in Section 172(3) of the CrPC.

In the matter of unauthorized appointments of 25,000 teachers, made by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in West Bengal, the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday, imposed a stay order on additional investigation into this matter.

There has been no stay of the order terminating 25,000 teachers who were hired without authorization. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) ordered this ruling, in which no coercive actions were implemented, signalling a temporary suspension of the investigation, that postpones further judicial review.

It was informed that the panel’s validity expired on 4^th May 2019, still, it was said that the Commission continued to illegally advise nominations from the panel.

Later, many candidates who had been on the panel were not appointed and filed a lawsuit. The petition claimed that the Commission had illegally recommended appointments from the panel, even when it had expired its tenure.

Relating to these controversial appointments of teachers, this step was taken by the SC, after CBI was asked by the Calcutta High Court to investigate Group-C and Group-D (non-teaching) appointment fraud in the state-run higher secondary and secondary schools.

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) and the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) were supposed to provide an affidavit. This affidavit was asked to be present before the Chief Justice’s division bench.

After the submission of the affidavit to the division bench, CBI issued an order for a probe. CJI declared that the guilty parties must be identified and actions will be taken against them.

Subsequently, the court-mandated the formation of an investigating committee headed by a DIG rank officer. This committee will investigate the fraudulent appointment of at least 25 Group-D employees, as well as a CBI investigation will be taken ahead.

The controversial appointments of at least 25,000 Group D employees are the result of influential people behind the scam. Hence, these defaulters must be exposed. The deadline as mentioned by the court to the investigating agency is 21^st December to submit the preliminary report.

Approximately, 13,000 Group D employees were suggested for appointment by the state to work in state-run schools in 2016. Based on the advice, state WBCSSC conducted examinations and based on further interviews, the state commission finalised a panel of prospective employees.

Deep-Rooted Corruption In The Case:

The system of governance in Bengal is deeply infected by corruption in this case. The petitioners brought the facts in front of the Supreme Court that pertain to illegal appointments of teachers, with 25 similar appointment scams.

The court after having back-to-back hearings, criticised the Commission and threatened to launch a CBI investigation into such grave corruption allegations.

Following that, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay also mentioned that to restrict and stop recruitment paperwork from being tempered, he is considering deploying central forces at the Commission’s office.

The Tamil Nadu Government has been directed by the Madras High Court (HC) to simply follow the guidelines mentioned in the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to remove corporal punishments in schools (GECP).

Subject Matter of the Petition

A petition was filed recently by Kamatchi Shanker Arumugam, who wanted to execute the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishments (GECP) in schools by the authorities, which is supplied by the NCPCR. Hence, Justice S M Subramaniam gave a directive to the Principal Secretary to the Government, the School Education Department. This directive was an interim order related to the above petition, concerning the implementation of NCPCR’s guidelines.

Judge’s Observations

The Judge stated that to safeguard the mental health of the students, it is significant that the educational establishments follow the guidelines given by NCPCR.

There must be awareness initiatives from these authorities, that can guide the public about student safety, and urge them to take strict actions against the defaulters.

The Judge stated that to properly execute the recommendations provided by the NCPCR, a set of instructions must be given to the district educational authorities for arranging awareness camps and seminars on this subject matter.

For instance, if there is any complaint against a person going against the NCPCR’s guidelines, then the authorized agency must take appropriate and immediate action.

The Judge further stated that the officials in question must face disciplinary actions by the department, as per Service rules. These actions are prone to any form of negligence, lapses, or dereliction.

As per court observations, appropriate remedial actions, in case of physical punishments in schools, by the authorized educational department, for any form of child harassment situations, can reduce the negative impact of the situation on the child’s and parents’ mental health.

Role of Principal Secretary

To ensure that the guidelines are implemented as intended, the Principal Secretary will have to instruct the district educational authorities to form a monitoring committee in each school. This Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, is held responsible for forming these monitoring committees.

Monitoring committees will be led by the Head of the Educational Institution and will include parents, senior students, teachers and all other members as determined by the Government.

There will be strict observance of following the NCPCR’s guidelines by the committees. These committees will keep a check on any unusual and undesirable behaviour by the staff or the kids and will then report it to the competent authority. Following that, corrective action plans will be taken.

The guidelines as directed to the Principal Secretary will be given under Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the GECP framework.

The judge stated that a deadline of a maximum of 5 weeks is given for the issuance of a combined directive and circular. It is expected on 14^th June 2024 by the Judge from the Registry circular to list the subject matter under the caption “For Reporting Compliance.”