Batting for e-courts
Backlog of cases is an issue that has bothered the judiciary no end. The chief justice himself has suggested measures to tackle the issue.
Now it’s the turn of Justice B Lokur to come up with solutions. In a meeting with law interns from law schools across the world, he suggested that the country should have e-courts, go digital on cases, ensure that courts are computerized and video conferencing between jails and courts is enabled.
Expressing regret that cases drag on for years despite advancements in information technology and a glut of computer professionals in India, Lokur stated that e-courts, where case proceedings and witness deposition can be recorded and retrieved, will be useful for all stakeholders.
Rape can’t be a weapon
There is no doubt that law enforcing agencies and society at large need to wake up to rape. However, women, too, have used rape to settle scores with men.
A two-judge vacation bench was faced with a legal dilemma in a case, wherein a woman had accused her partner of rape after their three-year live-in relationship broke up. She alleged that her partner had sexually abused her, promising they would get married, and even shot an indecent video.
The man, who had filed a petition in the apex court against his arrest, contended that she had entered into the relationship fully aware that he was married with two children, and his divo-rce petition was pending.
On its enquiry if “breach of promise to marry” could lead to rape charges and if a precedent existed of indictment by the apex court, the bench learned that a judgment did exist, provided other factors are taken into account.
Pulling up the man for the indecent video, the court decided to take up legal issues in the case at a later date. It also slapped a notice to the Delhi police, which was investigating the case for more than a year.
Fatwa has no legal basis
After its ruling this February that fatwas are a matter of faith and the courts can only come in when an individual’s rights are violated, the Supreme Court said in July that ignoring such diktats from Shariat courts or muftis will not attract legal proceedings.
Categorically stating that fatwas have no legal sanction, a two-judge bench dismissed their existence in a free India. It also made it clear that if anybody tries to ensure their observance through coercion, the action will be deemed illegal. The judgment was in response to a petition by a Delhi-based advocate, who objected to bodies like Darul Qaza and Darul Iftaa influencing the social and religious freedom of people through parallel courts, run to settle disputes.
The flip side of Section 498A
This is a ruling that will bring immense relief to men who land up in prison along with parents on false charges of tormenting their wives for dowry. The apex court observed that women were using stringent anti-dowry laws to harass or blackmail their husbands and in-laws. Low conviction rate in dowry cases indicate that something is amiss.
A two-judge bench warned the police that it should refrain from arresting or detaining anybody under Section 498A in a dowry complaint, and follow the checklist under Section 41 of CrPC thoroughly, before taking any action. The checklist takes into account all possible angles to justify the arrest.
Adding another layer of sieve, the bench added that in case of arrest, the officer needs to submit a report to and produce the person in front of a magistrate. The arrest will be held valid only if the magistrate validates it. Noting that the nature of Section 498A has earned dubious distinction, the bench said the ruling shall apply to all offences which entail imprisonment of less than seven years.
Bail, not jail for Tejpal
Even persons accused of shocking crimes have the right to life and liberty. This was the standpoint of the apex court while granting regular bail to former editor of the Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal, who had filed a petition.
Seeking to end the culture of “jail, not bail”, wherein the judiciary has been averse to granting bail during the trial stage for people charged in heinous crimes, the apex court in this case enforced “bail, not jail” practice in the interest of fair trial. It took cognizance of the fact that the investigation was over, the chargesheet had been filed in court and there was no way the trial would be over soon. The bench ruled that holding back Tejpal in prison would violate right to life under Article 21. It directed the trial court in Goa to give the judgment within eight months, and warned Tejpal not to influence the trial or tamper with evidence.
Quantum of punishment
Instances of people spending a few years in prison or undergoing life imprisonment, or going to the gallows for a single crime are common. But what happens if a person has been indicted for multiple offenses in a single trial?
In such cases, the courts in some cases settle for life imprisonment for the most serious crime and opt for successive jail terms of various periods for other offenses. But the Supreme Court barred the courts from doing so, saying it was against the tenets of law.
A two-judge bench ruled that once a convict got a life imprisonment, there was no need for further imprisonment. Section 31 (2) clearly states that the total punishment for a convict in several crimes must not exceed 14 years, and the bench took cognizance of this legal provision. It said that life imprisonment implied “imprisonment for full and complete span of life” so there was no room for further sentences.
The judgment was given in an Odisha case, where the trial court had ordered death for man who was found guilty of kidnapping a minor girl, raping her and finally murdering her. However, the high court converted the death penalty to life imprisonment after looking into other factors.