Excerpts from Supreme Court's State of the Judiciary: A report on Infrastructure, Budgeting, Human Resources and ICT

According to the responses received from the High Courts, Constitution Day Celebrations and Chief Justices’ Conference, Supreme Court of India, 26-27 November, 2022, an in-house software named ‘Supreme Court e-register’ has been developed by the Patna High Court to monitor and track the orders of the Supreme Court and communicate them to the District Courts concerned. Notably, each court has been given the flexibility to choose its preferred online platform by the e-Committee, resulting in a lack of uniformity in the virtual hearing process, posing challenges for both litigants and advocates. For instance, CISCO Webex VC licences have been provided to judges of the Patna High Court. In contrast, Microsoft Teams VC licences have been provided to the Judicial Officers of the State of Bihar. 

Although Court premises should be situated where there is end-to-end connectivity of public transport systems, getting sufficient and suitable land is one of the major hurdles to achieve the goal of self-sufficiency in terms of infrastructure. The main roadblock in construction of new court complexes is identification of land in proper area/location. Identification and allotment of land is the responsibility of the State Government. The lands suggested by the local bodies are in isolated places and far away from the prominent places viz. bus stop/railway station, Tehsil office, Police Station. The court complexes are often located in the heart of the town in densely populated areas which does not leave any scope for expansion of additional courtrooms. This presents a unique challenge as there is no scope for additional construction within the existing premises and no suitable land is usually available in the vicinity for additional construction. In Bihar, there are 16 sub-divisions where the State Government is yet to propose suitable land. Land is yet to be identified in locations that are easily accessible to the public, free from encumbrances. Notably, land initially identified for the court complex at Gopalganj, Bihar, turned out to be a moratorium land. 

In an incident, two police officers allegedly assaulted an Additional District Judge in his chamber. Such events inside the court premises shows that it is time that comprehensive steps are taken to ensure that court spaces are secure. Source: “Bihar police officers beat up judge for ‘summoning’ them”, The Times of India, 18 November 2021, available at
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/madhubani-judge-roughed-up-by-two-cops/articleshow/
87787214.cms

This issue was raised in the Chief Justices’ Conference 2022 where the following resolution was passed:

In May 2022, a dilapidated court boundary of Biharsharif District Court collapsed during the court proceedings, killing a woman. Source:1 killed, 6 injured as court wall collapses in Biharsharif’, Hindustan Times, dated 13 May 2022, https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/patna-news/1-killed-6-injured-as-court-wall-collapses-in-biharsharif-101652440150754.html

The Supreme Court took note of the incidents across the country affecting day-to-day functioning of the courts, in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2022) and observed that: “1. Would not hope for the litigants who visit the temples of justice dwindle, if the very halls of justice lack the shield of security? How can the litigants secure justice for them when those entrusted to render justice are themselves insecure? 2.…Preserving the sanctity of a court as a space where justice is administered and the rule of law upheld being non-negotiable, it is critical that judicial institutions take comprehensive steps to safeguard the well-being of all stakeholders. Such incidents, that too in court premises, are deeply concerning and pose significant risks to the safety of not only judges but lawyers, court staff, litigants and the general public.”

The National Court Management Systems (NCMS) Committee of the Supreme Court in its Baseline Report suggested that there should be segregated and dedicated alighting points for judges’ vehicles, from where judges are able to reach their chambers on various floors through separate lifts and stairs to avoid entry by unauthorised persons.

India’s highest court presently has only 3 female judges (9.3%) out of its working strength of 32 judges, as of 1 October 2023.118 Similarly, there are only 103 female judges (13.42%) out of 767 permanent and additional judges in the High Courts across India. In the district judiciary, female judges comprise 36.33% of the total judge strength.

SUGGESTIONS OF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

Justice Sanjiv Khanna of Supreme Court of India made the following suggestions in the Working Session on ‘State of the Judiciary’ at the Supreme Court of India on 26 November 2023 (Constitution Day Celebrations).

SHORT TERM GOAL : Reducing present case pendency
LONG TERM GOAL : Reducing case life cycle

1. Modernising trial proceedings through video conferencing
a. Explore the systemization of video recording in court proceedings. Audio recordings can serve as an alternative when video infrastructure is unavailable. This will lead to effective monitoring of district judiciary by promoting timely court sittings and deterring unnecessary adjournments.
b. Emphasis on capturing evidence stage witness statements for comprehensive documentation and verification.
2. Automated transcription and translation
a. There is an urgent need to transcribe trials using automated tools. Real-time transcription could be a solution to the shortage of stenographers and sluggishness in trials by expediting the documentation process. Digitised transcripts will fasten the supply of trial court records to the appellate court.
b. Speech to Text mechanisms may be used for dictation. It would further enable automated translation from vernacular languages to English.
3. Optimum Approach - Human Resource Management
a. The procedure for calculation of sanctioned posts must take into consideration the grassroot realities and performance indicators.
b. There is a need to move towards an optimum and need-based approach. For example, the district judiciary, specially the CBI Courts of New Delhi, are facing the issue of lack of work due to delay by prosecution in moving the trial. This contributes to underutilisation of judicial time. There is a need for reallocation of judicial work in such cases.
c. Optimum analysis in this regard should be conducted periodically by the State Judicial Academies under the supervision of the High Court.
4. Discounting traffic/police challans and Section 138 NI Act cases from the case pendency. As bulk contributors of pendency, they must be dealt summarily or by Lok Adalats.
5. Establishing stringent timelines for completion of trial, akin to commercial laws of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Commercial Courts Act. The qualitative component of justice must not be compromised in an effort to eliminate delay or clear the arrears.
6. Old criminal appeals pending in the High Court should be allocated to each judge/bench.
7. Measuring Court Performance
a. There is a need to formulate a comprehensive strategy that reflects on and analyses the performance of the courts. Establishment of a robust internal process will foster the objectivity, reliability and comparability of data.
b. An objective grading system for performance assessment of district judges with a bell-curve approach should be adopted. Judges may be divided into performance categories based on where their performance falls on the bell curve. Commonly, these categories include: Judges in the high and above-average categories may receive positive reinforcement, while those in the below-average or poor performer categories may receive targeted feedback and improvement plans. This will ensure transparency in the grading process to maintain the credibility of the performance evaluation system. 

Source: State of the Judiciary A report on Infrastructure, Budgeting, Human Resources and ICT, November 2023

Supreme Court quashes Patna High Court's decision and FIR, stops criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank

In HDFC Bank vs. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Justice Partha Sarthy, the Single Bench of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court's judgement dated October 22, 2024 reads: "We are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank." Besides the State of Bihar, there were four respondents namely, DGP, Patna, SP, Patna, the Officer In Charge and Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV). 

The Court also quashed and set aside the First Information Report being Case No. 549 of 2021 registered at Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna on November 22, 2021, against certain officials of the appellant-bank working at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Notably, a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the locker of Sunita Khemka. 

On October 5, 2021, an order under Section 132(3) of the  Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 was served upon the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna by the concerned Authorized Officer, thereby directing the said branch of the appellant-bank to stop the operation of any bank lockers, bank accounts and fixed deposits standing in the names of Sunil Khemka (HUF), Sunita Khemka and Shivani Khemka, among several other individuals and entities, with immediate effect. It was further clarified that contravention of the order would render the Branch Manager liable under Section 275A of the IT Act and the same would result in penal action. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant-bank stopped the operation of the bank accounts, bank lockers and fixed deposits of the individuals/entities mentioned in the order. Further, on 7th October,2021, the appellant-bank blocked the bank accounts of the income-tax assesses named in the order and also sealed the bank locker bearing No. 462 belonging to Smt. Sunita Khemka.

Later, on November 1, 2021, Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV), the respondent No. 5 had issued an order to the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank directing the appellant-bank to revoke the restraint put on the bank accounts of Sunita Khemka and three other persons, in view of the restraining order dated October 5, 2021 passed under Section 132(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the said persons, including Sunita Khemka, were to be allowed to operate their bank accounts. The said order was received by the concerned Branch Manager of the appellant-bank on November 8, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. However, on November 2, 2021 at 11:24 a.m., an email was sent to the Branch Manager which contained the same order. Thereafter, on November 9, 2021, the concerned branch of the appellant-bank allowed Sunita Khemka to operate her bank locker bearing No. 462 and proper entries recording the operation of the locker were made in the bank’s records. After that on November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 conducted a search and seizure operation at the aforementioned bank locker in the concerned branch of the appellant-bank wherein it was found that Sunita Khemka had operated her bank locker with the assistance of the concerned officers of the appellant-bank. This was validated by the entry made in the bank’s records and the CCTV footage of the bank. 

As a result, the concerned officials of the aforementioned branch of the appellant-bank were found to have breached the restraining order dated October 5, 2021. On November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 issued summons under Section 131(1A) of the IT Act to Abha Sinha-Branch Manager, Abhishek Kumar-Branch Operation Manager and Deepak Kumar-Teller Authoriser being the concerned officials of the appellant-bank. These officials attended the office of Respondent No. 5 and their statements were recorded wherein Abha Sinha and Abhishek Kumar stated that there had been an inadvertent error on the part of the bank officials and they had misinterpreted the order dated November 1, 2021. Since the said order pertained to the bank accounts of the concerned individuals including Sunita Khemka, the bank officials had misread the order to understand /assume that the revocation of the restraint extended to the bank lockers as well. Having misunderstood the order, the bank officials under a bona fide assumption that bank locker had been released as well, allowed Sunita Khemka to operate the same. The statement of Sunita Khemka was also recorded wherein she stated that her accountant Surendra Prasad, after speaking with Deepak Kumar, had informed her that the restraint on the aforementioned bank locker had been revoked and she could operate the said locker. This was specifically denied by Deepak Kumar in his statement. Dissatisfied with the said explanations, Respondent No. 5 submitted a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the aforementioned locker. 

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered against Sunita Khemka and the staff of the appellant-bank on November 22, 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 207, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the IPC. HDFC bank preferred a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case to invoke the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the quashing of the FIR. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition finding it to be devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court's judgement reads:"In the present case, the FIR does not show that the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception. For bringing out the offence under the ambit of Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients: (a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception; (b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; and (c) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement."

It observed: "The appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a question of mens rea does not arise. However, even reading the FIR and the complaint at their face value, there is nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. As such, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC would not be available."

With regard to the provisions of Section 409 of IPC, the following ingredients will have to be made out:
(a) That there has been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.; (b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property.

For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

The Court noted that "In the present case, there is not even an allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5. As such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would also not be applicable." It also noted that "since there was no entrustment of any property with the appellant-bank, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable."

The Court observed that "since the offences under Section 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank. The FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences. As such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable."

The Court relied on the observations made in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992). It observed: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

In Bhajan Lal's case, the Supreme Court said: "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 

Notably, High Court too had referred to the decision in the Bhajan Lal case. Drawing on Court's decision in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985)2 SCC 370], the High Court had noted that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It had also relied on the decision in the case of State of Kerala v O.C. Kuttan [(1999)2 SCC 251], wherein the Supreme Court held that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings was to be exercised very sparingly and the Court was not to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It recalled the judgment in Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] wherein the Supreme Court has held that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. What was significant was that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. It also took note of in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (judgment dated 13.4.2021 in Criminal Appeal no. 330 of 2021) wherein the Supreme Court held that it cannot thwart an investigation into a cognizable offences which is the statutory right and duty of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception which is exercised sparingly with circumspection.

In the HDFC case, unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court observed: "We find that the present case would squarely fall within categories (2) and (3) of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra)." It stopped continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank.

Justice Rajesh Bindal reiterated judgement of Justice Indu Malhotra on procedure to be followed for grant of maintenance

With regard to the manner in which maintenance is payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the manner in which maintenance payable is to be assessed, Supreme Court has provided detailed guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Court had noticed that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It recognised that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Therefore, the Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance.

Pursuant to the directions of the Court, on June 25, 2024, Pradeep Kumar Malik, Registrar General, Patna High Court wrote to all the District and Sessions Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts of Bihar to ensure compliance of order dated November 4, 2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 and Judgment dated November 6, 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 by Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Supreme Court. The High Court had drawn their attention towards Court's letters nos. 47051 47087 dated November 11, 2020 and 77130-77166 dated December 1, 2023 through which copies of aforementioned Order and Judgment were forwarded for uploading on the website of the judgeship and for circulation among all Judicial Officers. 

The Registrar General was directed to instruct that in all the District and Sessions Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts that "maintenance proceedings, including pending proceeding before the Family Court/ District Court/ Magistrate's Court, the Affidavit of disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in accordance with the Enclosure I, II and III as given in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha &Anr case" by Supreme Court's judgement of Justice Indu Malhotra. The letter reads: "directions in its para no. 72 [(2021) 2SCC 324] shall be strictly followed and any breach and non-compliance of the direction contained in the aforementioned two judgments shall be seriously viewed."

The decision of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy of the Supreme Court dated November 4, 2020 in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 reads:"we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending
proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

The final paragraph of the judgement reads: "A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation." The judgement in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 was authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.

In Aditi alias Mithi vs Jitendra Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023), on November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal observed: "Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra), which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate." 

The Court's directions reads: "Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well." The judgement was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.  

 

Bengal Police complies with Supreme Court's recommendations for adoption of Delhi Model to stop bias against disadvantaged communities

Before approaching the Supreme Court, Amanatullah Khan, the appellant had approached Delhi High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ opened against him and the proposal to declare him as ‘Bad Character’ with the entry of his name in the Surveillance ‘Register-X, Part II, Bundle A’ at Police Station Jamia Nagar, District: South-East, Delhi. Judge Sudhir Kumar Jain of Delhi High Court had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition by judgment dated January 19, 2023. The High Court's judgement reads: "The present petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation for deletion/cancellation of his name from Surveillance Register X in accordance with Rules and Law which shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law without any delay."

The case was filed in the apex court on April 17, 2023. Supreme Court's bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan modified the impugned judgment of the High Court by its judgement dated May 7, 2024. It has directed that all the State Governments should take necessary preventive measures to safeguard against inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment of individuals from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes by mechanical entries of innocent individuals in the History Sheet. 

Supreme Court has recorded in its judgement that the amended Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi which pertains to ‘Surveillance of History Sheeters and Bad Characters’. The Original Standing order was issued on June 10, 2022 and paragraph 9(2) thereof titled as “Preparation of History Sheet” was replicated from provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. By the amended Standing Order issued on March 21, 2024,  the Commissioner of Police has provided as follows:
“The space for “relation and connection” should be filled in with a view to afford clues about those persons with whom the criminal is likely to harbour when wanted by the police, including relations or friends living at a distance from his home, and his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. It may be noted that the space for “relations and connections” in the history sheet should reflect identities of those persons who can afforded him shelter when the offender is running/wanted by the police (in general) and should include his associates in crime, abettors and receivers (in particular) and no details of any minor relatives i.e. son, daughter, siblings should be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that the minor under question can, or has earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender, “while he was on run from police”. While preparing History Sheet, it may also be kept in mind that as per Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, there is a prohibition on disclosing the Identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection of a child victim or witness of a crime through a report etc. Even though the History Sheet is an internal Police document and not a publicly accessible report, care must be taken that identities of only those minor relatives are entered into the History Sheet against whom evidence exists that minor in question has earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender, while he was on run from police”. In addition to above, the particular nature of each person’s connection should be noted against each, and, when persons shown as connections themselves have history sheets, a cross reference with those History Sheets should be given. Maximum phone numbers/mobile numbers or associates/relatives/acquaintances of BCs should be collected and placed for record. Aadhar Number, EPIC number, e-mail ID, social media accounts/profiles viz, facebook, Instagram ID, Twitter ID etc. to be placed on file. Further mobile numbers & other available details of associates/relatives/acquaintance of BC should be collected and placed on record.”

In view of the above, the Supreme Court directed the police authorities to give effect to is the amended Standing Order dated March 21, 2024 in the appellant’s case as well.  It also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer, in the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, who shall periodically audit/review the contents of the History Sheets and will ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons/juvenile/children who are, in the course of investigation, found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a History Sheet. If a Police Officer of Delhi Police is found to have acted contrary to the amended Standing Order and or the directions given herein above, prompt action against such delinquent officer shall be taken. 

In exercise of its suo motu powers, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Viswanathan expanded the scope of the proceedings in para 14-16 of the judgement "so that the police authorities in other States and Union Territories may also consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. While we are not sure about the degree of their authenticity, but there are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of an unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset. It is alleged that the Police Diaries are maintained selectively of individuals belong to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste-bias, a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times. All the State Governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment. We must bear in mind that these pre-conceived notions often render them ‘invisible victims’ due to prevailing stereotypes associated with their communities, which may often impede their right to live a life with self-respect." The Court observed: "The value for human dignity and life is deeply embedded in Article 21 of our Constitution. The expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it. Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter. It seems that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinize the entries made, so as to ascertain that these are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices. Through the effective implementation of audits, we can secure the elimination of such deprecated practices and kindle the legitimate hope that the right to live with human dignity, as guaranteed."

The Court's judgement reads:"We, therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union Territories to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable amendments on the pattern of the ‘Delhi Model’ are required to be made so that our observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect in true letter and spirit. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of all States and Union Territories to enable them to consider and comply with what has been held above, as early as possible but not later than six months."

In compliance with these recommendations of the Court, Bengal Police has issued guidelines on "disclosing identities of individuals connected with the offender in the history sheet" on October 24, 2024 before the expiry of six months deadline. This requires amendment in the Police Regulations of Bengal (PRB), 1943. The regulation 401 (a) of PRB states: "History sheets shall contain a short account of the life of the person to whom they relate and all facts likely to have a bearing on his criminal history. They shall be opened only for persons who are, or are likely to become, habitual criminals or the aiders or abettors of such criminals." Other States are yet to comply with the Supreme Court's directions of May 2024.

Domestic Violence Case must not be registered as a "Complaint Case": Patna High Court

In order to ensure strict compliance by all Sessions Judges and Magistrates with Patna High Court's order dated April, 2, 2024 passed in Vikash Kumar Giri & Ors. Vs. Sarita Kumari by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, on May 7, 2024, Pradeep Kumar Maik, Registrar General, Patna High Court communicated to all the District and Sessions Judges of the State of Bihar and the Director, Bihar Judicial Academy, Gaighat, Patna that districts and sub-divisions in the State must register proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act as Domestic Violence Case (D.V. Case), not as a Complaint Case. The Appellate Courts are also required to register the appeal, arising out of an order passed in D.V. Case as D.V. Appeal, not as Criminal Appeal.

In this case, the Court had passed an order on January 29, 2024 prior to the final order. It recorded that an order of monetary allowance upon an application under Sections 18/19/20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in D.V. Complaint Case No. 1043 of 2017 on April 20, 2018 which was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on April 9, 2019. Since the impugned order was passed without assessing the income of the parties, the High Court decided to hear the Criminal Revision petition. The interim order reads: "In the meantime, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioner is directed to go on paying monetary allowance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month within 10th of each succeeding month."

In its final order dated April 2, 2024, the Court recorded the submission of the Advocate for the five petitioners. It was submitted the Trial Court did not assess the monthly income of Vikash Kumar Giri, the Petitioner No. 1, who happens to be the husband of the Opposite Party and without assessing the monthly income of the Petitioner No. 1, the Trial Court fixed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards interim monetary relief. It was also submitted that the Opposite Party previously filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceeding was withdrawn on the basis of compromise between the present Petitioner No. 1 and his wife. Subsequently, on the same ground, the Opposite Party preferred another application under various provisions of the said Act, and, therefore, D.V. Complaint Case No. 1043 of 2017 was not maintainable. Both the Trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal failed to consider the said fact and wrongly passed an order of interim monetary relief. 

In the Trial Court, the Petitioner No. 1 made a plea that his wife, the Opposite Party was suffering from mental disorder. However, the Trial Court passed the order on perusal of the DIR, submitted by the Protection Officer before the Trial Court. The said Domestic Incident Report (DIR), prima facie established the case of domestic violence perpetrated upon the aggrieved person, i.e., the wife.

The Court agreed with the submission of the Advocate for the petitioners that there is absolutely no discussion with regard to the income of the Petitioner No. 1. It is bounden duty of the Trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal, while disposing of a case under the Act or an appeal arising from it to consider the income of the husband before passing any order of monetary relief, either interim or final.

The High Court relied on the decision of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy of the Supreme Court dated November 4, 2020 in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The judgement was authored by Justice Malhotra. It reads:"we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending
proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

The final paragraph of the judgement reads: "A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation."

In the same case, Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Sanjiv Khanna of the Supreme Court passed an order dated September 1, 2021 which reads: The husband, "the respondent shall file an affidavit indicating the details of all his bank accounts in various banks, and balances thereof. In the affidavit, petitioner shall indicate, whether he has transferred any assets, to his father or any third party, from the date of filing of the petition in the family court, by the petitioner herein." The matter was decided by 

Drawing on the Supreme Court's orders, Patna High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Trial Court. The order reads: "The Trial Court is directed to first direct both the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities to ascertain the income of the Petitioner No. 1 and after ascertaining the income of Petitioner No. 1, the Trial Court is at liberty to pass proper order of interim monetary relief in favour of the Opposite Party. It is further directed that the parties shall file affidavits of assets and liabilities within one month from the date of communication of this order and on the basis of such affidavits of assets and liabilities, the Trial Court shall pass a fresh order within a period of three weeks thereafter." The final order observed: "I would like to record that in many districts and sub-divisions in the State of Bihar, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is registered as a Complaint Case. It is made clear that an application under the said Act is not a complaint. Therefore, the learned Magistrates are directed to register the cases under the Domestic Violence Act as Domestic Violence Case (D. W. Case). Similarly, the Appellate Courts shall also register the appeal, arising out of an order passed in D. V. Case as D. V. Appeal and not as Criminal Appeal. This order of the Court be circulated through the learned Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna to the learned Sessions Judges and the Magistrates in the State of Bihar for immediate compliance."