Review: Kerala HC Rules That Investigations on Acts of Corruption and Malpractice in Selection Process Do Not Require Prior Sanction Under PCA
In this edition of Court Judgements, we look at the SC’s direction bail can be considered under Article 21 of Constitution against Embargo of NDPS Act if the trial doesn’t conclude within reasonable time, Madhya Pradesh HC’s ruling that continuous threats of imposing false cases of Rape and Eve Teasing constitutes to Abetment of Suicide, Kerala HC’s decision that investigations on Acts of Corruption and Malpractice in the Selection process do not require prior sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act, among others.
SC: Bail can be considered under Article 21 of Constitution against Embargo of NDPS Act if the trial doesn’t conclude within reasonable time
In the case of Ankur Chaudhury (Petitioner) vs. State of MP, the Supreme Court (SC) was dealing with bail application filed by the Petitioner who was accused of committing an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The grievance in the bail application was continuing custody of the petitioner for over 2 years and the trial has not been concluded as yet by the prosecution.
The court observed that the failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time militates against the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In cases such cases as that of the petitioner, though section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act stipulates a bar on granting of bail to the accused, the constitutional right overrides it. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and granted bail to the accused.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Continuous threats of imposing false cases of Rape and Eve Teasing constitutes to Abetment of Suicide
In the case of Dr. Shivani Nishad & Anr (Applicants) vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) & Anr, the MP High Court (HC) held that constant threats of falsely implicating a person in cases of Rape and Eve-teasing constitute to abetment of suicide.
The facts of the case were that the second respondent and the Applicants had long-standing dispute between them over the dumping of garbage into the drain situated in front of the house of the second respondent. In another dispute of 2020, both parties have registered cases against each other. However, in the course of time, the Applicants have started threatening the son of the second respondent to falsely implicate him in the cases of rape and eve teasing. This continued on the part of the applicants for a long time, leading to the defaming, demeaning and destroying of the self-esteem of the son of the second respondent. Eventually, leaving a suicide note, the son committed suicide. After subsequent registration of the case and inquiry by the police, criminal proceedings were initiated against the Applicants on charges of abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Subsequently, the Applicants moved HC seeking the revoke of charges against them. The court, relying on a number of judgments passed by the SC, held that the continuous threats to false charges against the deceased have led to the constitution of a crime of abetment to suicide and that sufficient material is placed before it by the prosecution.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Kerala HC: Investigations on Acts of Corruption and Malpractice in the Selection process do not require prior sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)
In the matter of Bindulal V.S. & Ors (Petitioners) vs. State of Kerala & Ors (Respondents), the Kerala HC held that in matters relating to the practice of corruption and malpractice involved in the selection process of public servants, the prior sanction under 17 (A) of PCA by the competent authority is not required.
The facts of the case were that the petitioners were applicants for Sweeper and Cleaner posts at the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The notification for these posts was published in 2008 and the exam was conducted in 2010. However, the selection was delayed due to the pendency of several cases before the court. A new syndicate took charge in 2016 and subsequently 97 persons were selected for the same posts in 2018.
The petitioners alleged that corruption and malpractice were involved in the selection process. Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Director of Vigilance. However, the vigilance department did not take any action citing that the prior sanction of the competent authority was not granted.
On the same grievance, the petitioners approached the HC. When the matter was taken up, the court found that prior sanction from the competent authority under section 17 (a) of PCA was required only when the alleged offence was relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of his official functions or duties. However, the facts of the case are nothing related to it.
Accordingly, the court ordered for a preliminary enquiry to be conducted in accordance with the Law.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Imposes cost for illegal denial of financial benefits to the family of COVID-19 Deceased
In the case of Rajlaxmi Sharma & Anr vs. State of MP & Ors, the MP HC imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondent government department for failing to pay the benefit of Rs. 50 lakhs to the family of public servant, Arun Pateriya, who succumbed to COVID-19 while performing his official duties.
The facts of the case were the deceased public servant held the position of Chief Municipal Officer and was actively involved in discharging his duties in the awareness drive against COVID-19, and in rendering services to the patients infected with it. He succumbed to the same virus during its second wave while discharging his official duties. Though his family was eligible for the financial benefit of Rs. 50 Lakhs under para 3.1 of Mukhyamantri COVID-19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojana, the same was not granted to them. However, the families of other officials, namely the Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector, who also succumbed during the same time to COVID-19, were granted the financial benefit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The family of Arun Pateriya was denied this benefit due to the improper classification of those who are eligible under the scheme.
The court found that such classification created is discriminatory, artificial and meaningless. Accordingly, it held the orders passed to this effect were illegal and malafide, and the family of Arun Pateria was declared as eligible for financial benefit.
Considering that the wife of Arun Pateria is a cancer patient and that she has been victimized by way of running from pillar to post for 3 years with the present legal case, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the wife by the respondent/department.
Kerala HC: Imposes cost of 25 thousand for repeatedly filing Bail Application with no change in circumstances
In Sunil N.S. (Petitioner) vs. State of Kerala, the Kerala HC imposed a cost of Rs. 25 thousand for repeatedly filing the bail application before the same court with no change in circumstances or facts.
The facts of the case were that the Petitioner is the first accused and is under trial for about 7 years in the case known as ‘Assault against Cine Actress’. The petitioner has been in custody since 2017 and the trial is in progress before the Principles Sessions Court. Since the time of his arrest, the petitioner has multiple times filed bail applications before the competent courts. Considering the peculiarity of the facts involved in the case, his bail applications were dismissed by the concerned courts. In its recent order dated 20 May 2024, the Kerala HC has dismissed the bail application dated 16 April 2024 of the petitioner. Subsequently, within 3 days, the petitioner filed another bail application on 23 May 2024.
When this application came before it, the court considered it frivolous as it did not involve a change in the circumstances to those which were considered in the previous bail application, which was dismissed. Accordingly, it sought the opinion of the Amicus Curiae on whether in such frivolous cases, the bail application can be rejected with the imposition of costs. Noting that the SC has in cases such as Vinod Seth imposed fine on frivolous cases, the court dismissed the bail application Petitioner with imposition of cost of Rs. 25 thousand.
