1). Private Defence must Be strictly Preventive, not Punitive or retributive in nature: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India ruled on an appeal regarding a murder conviction. The case involved an appellant who owned an agricultural farm. The deceased was trying to build a fence on land that the appellant’s father objected to. The appellant and his father had an argument with the deceased, and the appellant stabbed him. While the father was acquitted, the appellant was convicted by the trial court, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
The Court examined the laws related to "private defense" under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Private defense can only justify causing death if the accused genuinely feared death or serious harm. The danger must be real or imminent. To determine whether the accused had a reasonable fear, the Court considered several factors like the weapon used, the nature of the attack, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The Court referenced an earlier case, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333,where it was emphasized that self-defense should not be interpreted too narrowly. If self-defense can be proven, it should be accepted, as it serves a social purpose. However, in this case, the Court found that the appellant’s actions did not show a reasonable fear of danger. There was no immediate threat to the appellant’s life or property. The Court also noted that the appellant failed to explain why he and his father strongly opposed the fence being built.
The Court also observed that after the appellant stabbed the deceased twice, he continued to attack him. This showed that the force used was much more than necessary for self-defense, which suggested that the appellant was no longer defending himself but was instead acting aggressively.
The Court made it clear that private defense must be aimed at preventing harm, not punishing or seeking revenge. Continuing the attack after inflicting the initial injuries showed excessive use of force, which goes against the principle of self-defense.
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim for reduced punishment under Section 300, Exception 2 of IPC, which allows reduced charges if the person acted in good faith during self-defense, but went beyond what was necessary. The Court explained that for the exception to apply, the person must act without intention to cause more harm than needed. In this case, the appellant’s actions—attacking the unarmed deceased with a deadly weapon and continuing the assault after the victim was already on the ground—showed that he did not act in good faith.
The appellant also argued that his actions could be considered under Exception 4 (when someone kills in a sudden fight without premeditation). However, the Court rejected this argument because the appellant was carrying a knife, while the deceased was unarmed, making the situation one where the appellant took unfair advantage and acted cruelly.
In the end, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and refused to interfere with the previous decisions. However, considering that the appellant had been in prison for about nine years, the Court allowed him to apply for remission (reduction of sentence) under the remission policy of the State of Kerala. If he meets the criteria, the relevant authorities can consider reducing his sentence.
Case Name: Rathees Kumar @Babu v. State of Kerala and Anr., Criminal Appeal No 1049 of 2018
Note:
Exception 2 of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been replaced by exception 2 of Section 101 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC = Exception 4 of Section 101 of BNS
2). A Woman's Honor is Priceless: Wife Can Live Separately and Claim Maintenance if Her Husband Assassinate or Attacks Her Character without Any Proof: Orissa High Court
Court Decision:
The Orissa High Court recently ruled that if a husband questions his wife's character without proof of infidelity, it is a valid reason for the wife to live separately from her husband. She will still be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background:
- Marriage: The couple got married in 2021.
- Conflict: After living together for a few months, the wife left her husband due to marital issues and filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- Husband’s Defense: The husband denied the wife’s claims and accused her of being unfaithful. He argued that the wife left him without any valid reason and thus should not receive maintenance.
- Section 125(4) of CrPC: This section says that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if:
- She is living in adultery,
- She refuses to live with her husband without a valid reason, or
- They are living separately by mutual consent.
Family Court’s Decision:
- The Family Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to the wife, finding no valid reason for her to be denied maintenance.
Husband's Appeal:
- The husband appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming that the wife left him without cause and that the amount of maintenance was too high.
Court's Observations:
- Issue 1: Did the wife have a valid reason to live separately?
- The court noted that the husband had cast doubts on his wife’s character, accusing her of having an affair, without providing any evidence.
- The court emphasized that a woman’s chastity is very important to her, and if her character is questioned without proof, it is a good reason for her to live separately.
- Therefore, the court held that the wife was justified in leaving her husband because of his baseless accusations.
- Issue 2: Was the maintenance amount too high?
- The court observed that the husband worked as a skilled laborer with a monthly income of Rs. 9,000. Since the wife could not support herself, the court found that the maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month was reasonable and did not need to be changed.
Court's Conclusion:
- The husband's appeal was rejected.
- The court upheld the trial court’s order for the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month in maintenance.
Key Takeaways:
- Character Assassination: A husband questioning his wife's character without evidence is a valid reason for the wife to live separately.
- Maintenance: A wife who cannot support herself is entitled to maintenance, even if the couple is living apart due to the husband’s unfounded accusations.
- Reasonable Maintenance: The amount of maintenance should be based on the husband's income and the wife's needs.
Case Title: Indrajit Mohanta v. Mamuni Mohanta
Case No: RPFAM No. 09 of 2024
Date of Judgment: January 09, 2025
Note: Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code(Cr.P.C.) has been replaced by Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (BNSS)
3). ‘Direct CBI to Lodge FIR Against Justice Shekhar Yadav’: 13 Senior Advocate Write to CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Key Points:
- 13 Senior Advocates’ Letter: Thirteen senior advocates have written a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, urging him to take action against Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. The letter asks the CJI to take suo motu (self-initiated) notice of the issue and request the CBI to file an FIR against Justice Yadav.
Allegations Against Justice Yadav:
- Hate Speech: Justice Yadav delivered a speech on December 8, 2024, at a gathering organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). His speech was recorded and widely shared, with many describing it as hate speech. He reportedly made divisive remarks about Muslims and promoted a majoritarian view of governance.
- Unconstitutional Remarks: His comments were seen as unconstitutional and contrary to the oath of office taken by judges. He made derogatory references to Muslims, including using the term "kathmulla" (a derogatory term for Muslims), and spoke negatively about Islamic practices like polygamy and triple talaq.
- Divisive Rhetoric: Justice Yadav emphasized a divide between Hindus and Muslims with terms like “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran). He further commented that Hindus are more tolerant than Muslims, alleging that Muslims teach violence to their children.
- Offensive Imagery: He also invoked the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, suggesting that India might become like Bangladesh or the Taliban. He made comments about Muslims lacking generosity and tolerance compared to Hindus.
Background Information:
- Concerns Over Appointment: Justice Yadav's appointment to the Allahabad High Court was opposed by former CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who pointed out Yadav's limited experience and his connections with the RSS (the ideological parent of the BJP), as well as his closeness to a BJP MP.
- Violation of Judicial Impartiality: The senior advocates argue that his speech violated the principles of judicial impartiality and equality under the Indian Constitution. Judges must remain neutral, and their actions should not undermine public trust in the judiciary.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns:
- Violation of Constitutional Values: The advocates argue that Justice Yadav’s speech violated the Constitutional principles of secularism, equality, and fraternity. It was an affront to the Preamble of the Constitution, which guarantees equality for all, regardless of religion.
- Judicial Oath: By making such statements, Justice Yadav violated his oath of office as a judge, which requires him to uphold the Constitution and deliver justice impartially.
- Criminal Offences: The speech is said to potentially involve criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)., including promoting enmity between different religious groups, which is punishable under Sections 196 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Reference to Past Case (K. Veeraswami Case):
The letter cites the K. Veeraswami v. UOI (1991) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that no criminal case should be registered against a sitting judge without consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI). In that case, the CJI’s opinion is required before any investigation or prosecution against a judge, to ensure fairness and prevent misuse of power.
Actions Requested:
- The 13 Senior Advocates urge the CJI to take suo motu action based on the seriousness of the matter. They want the CBI to investigate and file an FIR against Justice Yadav for his alleged criminal actions.
- They also highlight that the speech undermines judicial independence and impartiality, which are essential for public trust in the judiciary.
Signatories of the Letter:
The letter is signed by prominent senior advocates, including:
- Indira Jaising, Aspi Chinoy, Navroz Seervai, Anand Grover, Chander Uday Singh, and others.
Conclusion:
The letter calls for urgent action, emphasizing the seriousness of the issue and the need to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. It urges the CJI and the Supreme Court Collegium to take appropriate steps to ensure that judges uphold the constitutional values of equality, justice, and secularism.
Note: 196 of BNS = 153A of IPC and 203 of BNS = 169 of IPC
4). Complete Firecracker Ban in NCR District of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana Extended by Supreme Court Amid Delhi Air Pollution Concerns
On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India extended the firecracker ban in the districts of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana that are part of the National Capital Region (NCR) until further orders. This decision was made while hearing the MC Mehta case, which concerns air pollution in Delhi and the surrounding NCR.
The Court had previously ordered a complete ban on firecrackers in these states, similar to the ban imposed in Delhi. Today’s order extended the ban, which was originally set to expire on January 17, 2025, and the Court will review the situation again on March 24, 2025.
During the hearing, Uttar Pradesh’s Additional Advocate General, Garima Prashad, informed the Court that the state had followed the order by imposing a complete ban on firecrackers. Justice Oka clarified that the Court did not intend the ban to be temporary, but rather to explore a permanent solution similar to Delhi’s approach. The Court made it clear that the ban on firecrackers would stay in effect until further orders.
An application was also filed by the Federation of Fireworks Traders, asking the Court to allow the sale of firecrackers. Justice Oka questioned why the Court should listen to the Federation’s argument, asking if burning firecrackers truly did not cause pollution. The Federation’s lawyer argued that firecracker pollution varies depending on the area and sometimes is negligible. However, the Court remained firm, stating that firecrackers could still be sold in other parts of India where there is no ban.
BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court had earlier raised concerns about the poor enforcement of firecracker bans in Delhi-NCR. On November 11, 2024, the Court stated that no religion encourages polluting activities and emphasized the need for strict enforcement of firecracker bans to protect citizens' right to a clean environment, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
On December 12, 2024, the Court directed the Delhi government and the other states in the NCR to decide whether to impose a complete ban on firecrackers for the entire year. This included banning their manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, and use. The Court explained that such a ban was necessary to control both air and noise pollution.
On December 19, 2024, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the Delhi Government, informed the Court that Delhi had already imposed a comprehensive ban on firecrackers. This ban covered all aspects, including their manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, and use.
The Court also learned that while Haryana had allowed the use of "green crackers" (which are considered less harmful), Rajasthan had imposed a complete ban on firecrackers in its NCR areas.
As a result, the Supreme Court directed Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to follow Delhi's example and implement a full firecracker ban. The Court also noted that for the ban to be truly effective, other states in the NCR region would also need to take similar steps.
Case Name- MC Mehta v. Union of India [WP (C) 13029/1985]
5). Supreme Court: Abetment of Suicide Law Should Not Be Misused to Pacify Families, Calls for Sensitisation of Police and Trial Courts
The Supreme Court of India, on January 17, 2025, reminded investigating agencies and trial courts to exercise caution while invoking the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court emphasized that these provisions cannot be mechanically applied merely to satisfy the sentiments of a deceased person's family.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice K.V. Viswanathan made these observations while discharging a bank manager accused of abetting suicide through demands for loan repayment in the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Crl.A No. 221/2025). The Court held that the acts of the accused did not meet the legal threshold required to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court:
- Ingredients of Abetment Must Be Present:
The Court clarified that to invoke Section 306 IPC/S.108 BNS, there must be clear evidence of incitement or intention to provoke the deceased to take their own life. Simply alleging demands for loan repayment or other routine exchanges does not automatically constitute abetment. - Practical Approach to Evidence:
Justice Viswanathan stressed that interactions between the accused and the deceased must be viewed realistically, considering everyday life. Hyperbolic or emotional exchanges should not be exaggerated as incitement to suicide. - Police Sensitisation:
The Court noted the urgent need to sensitise investigating agencies to avoid misuse of abetment of suicide provisions. Police must follow the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and ensure that baseless cases are not pursued. - Trial Courts' Responsibility:
Trial courts were urged to avoid mechanically framing charges under Section 306 IPC without properly assessing the investigation. The Court cautioned against adopting a "play safe" approach, which often results in untenable prosecutions.
Judgment Highlights:
The Court discharged the petitioner, a bank manager, as it found that his actions—demanding repayment of a loan—did not reflect any intention to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. The Court took a realistic view of the facts and held that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner’s conduct met the legal requirements for abetment of suicide.
Justice Viswanathan’s Statement:
“While genuine cases should not be spared, the provision (S.306 IPC/S.108 BNS) should not be used merely to assuage the immediate feelings of a distressed family. Interactions between the accused and the deceased must be viewed from a practical perspective, and informal exchanges should not be glorified as instigation to commit suicide. Both investigating agencies and trial courts must exercise caution to avoid misuse of the law.”
Relevant Sections:
- Section 306 IPC: Punishes abetment of suicide, requiring clear evidence of incitement or intentional encouragement.
- Section 108 BNS: Corresponds to Section 306 IPC in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The judgment underlines the importance of judicial scrutiny and adherence to legal principles to prevent the misuse of laws meant to address serious offences.
Case Name: Case : Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl.A No.221/2025