In this edition of the Court judgments review, we look at SC’s order that refusal to marry does not constitute Abetment of Suicide or Cheating, SC’s order where the court directed an enquiry against delinquent officials responsible for unjust removal of Woman Sarpanch, that once the aspects of ‘Demand’ and ‘Acceptance’ of Bribe are established beyond doubt, no two views are possible, SC’s orders in a case where it ruled that religious conversions to derive benefits of reservation cannot be permitted, among others.
SC: Refusal to Marry does not constitute Abetment of Suicide or Cheating
In Kamuruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court (SC) held that mere refusal to marry does not constitute abetment to suicide or cheating under the law.
The facts of the case were that the appellant, a Muslim man, was allegedly in a relationship with the 21-year-old victim for eight years. When their relationship came to light, the victim’s mother sought intervention from the elders of the Muslim community. The appellant reportedly agreed to marry the victim in front of the elders. However, four months before the victim’s suicide, the appellant relocated to Kakati, Karnataka. On 18 August 2007, when the victim had met the appellant, he refused to marry her. Following this, the victim spent the entire day at Kakati bus stand, consumed poison, and succumbed the next day, despite being taken to the hospital.
The appellant was charged under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 376 (rape), and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court acquitted him, but the Karnataka High Court (HC) convicted him of abetment to suicide and cheating. This conviction was challenged in the SC.
The SC observed that there was no evidence of a physical or sexual relationship between the appellant and the victim and that the appellant had not instigated the victim to take her own life. The Court noted that, at best, the appellant’s refusal to marry was a case of a broken relationship. It further highlighted that the victim approached the appellant with a premeditated intention to obtain a positive response, failing which she decided to end her life. Concluding that the appellant’s actions did not meet the criteria for abetment or cheating, the SC acquitted him.
SC: Orders enquiry against delinquent officials responsible for unjust removal of Woman Sarpanch
In Sonam Lakra (Appellant) vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors, the SC held that equating elected representatives with public servants completely disregards the democratic legitimacy conferred by the election.
The facts of the case were that the Appellant is a 27-year-old woman and elected Sarpanch of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in Chhattisgarh. She was removed from office on alleged grounds of delays in implementing development projects under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA). The controversy stemmed from a work order issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Janpad Panchayat, mandating project completion within three months. But the order was delivered only after the stipulated time had elapsed. Subsequently, the appellant was served a show-cause notice and a chargesheet, culminating in her removal by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 18 January 2024. Lakra clarified there was no delay attributable to her, as responsibilities for the project lay with multiple stakeholders, including engineers and the CEO. Her explanations were ignored, and her appeal to higher authorities and the HC had failed. The HC order was challenged in SC.
Observations of SC
The SC found the removal unjust, and noting a pattern of administrative bias and high-handedness targeting elected female representatives, it observed:
- The Appellant had faced systemic harassment and baseless allegations orchestrated by members of the Gram Panchayat and bureaucrats.
- The bias and unjust treatment can be pinpointed by the work order of the CEO which was only served after the lapse of the stipulated time period.
- Later, when the proceedings came before the district administration, the Appellant was not even provided the fundamental opportunity of being heard. It is deeply disturbing to see officials misusing their authority by blatantly disregarding well-established principles of natural justice.
- It is incomprehensible how the sub-divisional officer had issued an order directing the removal of an elected representative
- The administrative authorities, with their colonial mindset, have regrettably failed yet again to recognize the fundamental distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant.
- It is self-evident that construction projects require coordinated efforts from engineers, and contractors, timely supply of materials, and are subject to the vagaries of weather etc. Holding the Sarpanch solely accountable for delays, without evidence of her failing in allocating work or performing a duty specific to her elected position, is totally atrocious.
- It is deeply concerning that there is a recurring pattern of similar cases, where administrative authorities and village panchayat members collude to exact vendettas against female Sarpanches. Such instances highlight a systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination.
- In this context, it must be emphasized that as a nation striving to become an economic powerhouse, it is distressing to witness such incidents occurring consistently and being normalized, so much so that they bear striking similarities even in geographically distant regions.
- Administrative authorities being custodians of actual powers and affluent enough, should lead by example, making efforts to promote women’s empowerment and support female-led initiatives in rural and remote areas. Instead of adopting regressive attitudes that discourage women from elected positions, they must foster an environment that encourages their participation and leadership in governance
Making these observations, the SC quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the HC, reinstating the Appellant as Sarpanch and directing her uninterrupted continuation until her term’s completion. Additionally, it also directed the State of Chhattisgarh to initiate enquiry against delinquent officials and also compensate the Appellant with ₹1,00,000 for harassment, recoverable from the delinquent officials.
SC: Once the aspects of ‘Demand’ and ‘Acceptance’ of Bribe are established beyond doubt, no two views are possible
In State of Karnataka (Appellant) vs. Chandrasha (Respondent), the SC held that once the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of bribe are established beyond doubt, no two views are possible for courts to adjudicate against the same facts.
The facts of the case were that on 29 July 2009, one Mr Subhashchandra (Complainant), working as Second Division Assistant in a High School, submitted bills of Rs. 43,323 towards encashment of surrender leave salary of himself and three non-teaching staff of the school, upon receiving the instructions from Block Education Officer. The respondent, working as First Division Assistant, in the office of Sub Treasury, demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000 to process bills. The Complainant approached Lokayukta. On 30 July 2009, the conversation between the respondent and himself about the demand of a bribe was recorded and was submitted to Lokayuta. The Lokayukta Police on 5 August 2009 laid a trap and caught the respondent taking a bribe of Rs. 2000. The trial court held the respondent guilty. However, the HC of Karnataka acquitted the respondent by accepting the reasons given by the respondent, that the encashment cheque was processed by him by 30 July 2009 and there was no pending work about it by 5 August 2009. Further, the amount Rs. 2000 taken on 5 August 2009 was the loan amount given by the complainant to him. The judgment of HC was challenged in SC by the appellant.
The SC noted that the facts of the case together with the evidence clearly make it evident beyond reasonable doubt the respondent had committed the crime of demanding and accepting the bribe, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, no such evidence, either oral or material, is provided to substantiate the claims of the respondent. Contrary to the claim that no work was pending with the respondent by 5 August 2009, the cheque was neither given to the complainant nor an intimation about it was sent to the school authorities. Further, no material is placed to substantiate loan transactions between the respondent and the complainant. Despite clear evidence available before the HC, the same court acted under the presumption that the respondent had no pending work about the cheque by 5 August 2009 and acquitted him. In cases such as these, once the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount are established beyond doubt, no two views are possible. Thus, the approach adopted by HC is perverse. Accordingly, the SC had set aside the order of HC and directed the trial court to take the necessary steps to commit the respondent to the remaining term of imprisonment.
SC: Religious conversions to derive benefits of Reservation cannot be permitted
In C. Selvarani (Appellant) vs. The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector & Ors, the SC held that religious conversions done only to secure the benefits of reservation cannot be permitted as they are against the social ethos of the policy of reservation.
The facts of the case were that the appellant was born on 22 November 1990 to a Hindu Father and a Christian Mother. She was baptized on 6 January 1991, by virtue of which she became a member of the Christian religion. In 2015, she applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk with the claim that she belongs to Valluvan Caste, recognized as Scheduled Caste (S.C.) under S.C. Order 1964, and thus was eligible for consideration under reservation quota to the said post. During the certificate verification, she was asked to produce the latest community certificate. She was denied the same certificate by the concerned authority for the reason that she did not belong to either Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion, to qualify for the issuance of a certificate under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant went against this order of authorities before the administrative tribunal and other bodies, including the HC, to issue her S.C. community certificate, with the claim that she has been practising the Hindu religion by going to temples and performing other practices of the same religion. Further, her baptism had taken place when she was only about 3 months old. Furthermore, after her parents’ marriage, her mother had converted to Hinduism and has been practising the same religion ever since.
The SC noted that contrary to the claims of the appellant, the authorities and even the HC have clearly noted that local villagers have testified against the appellant that she belongs and also practices the Christian religion and attends to church regularly. Even the entry made into the baptism register on 20 November 2015 makes it evident she was baptized on 6 January 1991. Furthermore, her father had also converted to Christianity after marriage. While it is true that the appellant’s father and other member family members possessed SC Community certificates, they came to be ceased with the conversion to the Christian religion. Lastly, even the contention that she has been practising the Hindu religion by going to temples and by other practices does not suffice to consider her as a Hindu. The normal process would involve taking the initiative to cancel her baptism registration. The conversion to the Hindu religion did not happen through any ceremony, public declaration or through Arya Samaj. When these facts are against the appellant, she cannot simply make statements which are otherwise, without sufficient evidence. Accordingly, the court dismissed her petition.
Kerala HC: Banned Associations/Organizations have no legal entity
In Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd & Ors (Petitioners) vs. Mohammed Basheer & Anr (Respondents), the Kerala HC held that banned organizations do not have a legal entity and cannot initiate legal proceedings.
The facts of the case were that on 17 September 2017, an article was published in the publication named “Organizer” in which the banned organization “Popular Front of India” was accused as the new avatar of another banned organization “SIMI”, with their alleged involvement in Bangalore blasts, undertaking recruitment in Jammu and Kashmir, etc. Concerning the same, respondent no. 1, representing Popular Front of India had initiated defamatory proceedings against the petitioners in the first-class magistrate at Kozhikode, Kerala. This was appealed against by the petitioners in HC, seeking quashing of proceedings in the court at Kozhikode.
The HC held that the Popular Front of India is a banned organization as per the notification Ministry of Home Affairs, issued in 2022. Therefore, it is not a legal entity which can initiate legal proceedings. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the proceedings before the first-class magistrate were quashed.
