Top News Headlines 22nd Feb 2022: Non-Adherence To Fundamental Duties Has A Direct Bearing On The Fundamental Rights Of Others: Plea In SC To Enforce Fundamental Duties

Non-Adherence To Fundamental Duties Has A Direct Bearing On The Fundamental Rights Of Others; Plea In SC To Enforce Fundamental Duties

• A writ petition titled Mr. Durga Dutt vs. Union of India and ors. has been filed in the Hon’ble Apex Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights as enshrined in Part IV A of the Constitution.
• The bench comprising Justices Kaul and MM Sundresh have sought the response of the Union and the States.
• It was argued before the Court that non-adherence to the fundamental duties has a direct impact on the fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• It was also argued by the petitioner that rights and duties are correlative and that violation of one leads to the violation of the other. Fundamental duties serve as a constant reminder that while the Constitution has conferred on the people certain rights, it has also required the citizens to follow certain norms of conduct and behaviour. Fundamental duties are an important tool to protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the Nation.
• The petitioner also argued that in recent times, there have been numerous instances of flagrant violations of the Fundamental Duties, not just by the citizens but also by the authorities, which has led to the violation of the Fundamental Rights of other citizens of the Country.
• Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Rangnath Mishra vs. Union of India (2003) where the Court issued guidelines to the central Gov. for taking steps for the implementation of the Report of National Commission to review the working of the Constitution.
• It was averred that there is no uniform policy or a comprehensive code for the enforcement of Fundamental duties and that the time has come to motivate every citizen of India to follow through with their Fundamental Duties of upholding the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, to preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture, to preserve the forests and natural environment and to have regard for all living creatures, among others.
• The petitioner has also sought for directions to be issued to the Central Government for framing of comprehensive guidelines for ensuring the adherence of fundamental duties so that the aforementioned judgement can be complied with.
• The petitioner has also sought for framing regulations to sensitize the people to raise awareness in relation to the performance of fundamental duties.

Sale Pursuant To The Public Auction Cannot Be Set Aside At The Instance Of Strangers To The Auction Proceeding: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in the case of K. Kumara Gupta v Sri Markandaya and Sri Omakreswara Swamy Temple & Ors, quashed and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (HC) observing that a sale pursuant to public auction cannot be set aside on the basis of an alternate offer made by a third party subsequently, who did not participate in the initial auction.
• The writ before SC was filed against the impugned order of the Division Bench where in it directed the authorities to conduct a re-auction of the entire property by fixing an higher upset price than was fixed earlier.
• The Court also observed that until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/ or illegality in holding the public auction and/ or auction/ sale was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it was not open to set aside the auction/ sale in favour of the highest bidder.
• The Appellant participated in a public auction sale conducted in 1998 to purchase a land belonging to the Respondent and was declared the highest bidder. However, on the representation of a party, who did not participate in the auction (writ petitioner), that the auctioned land could command more value, the auction was cancelled.
• A revision petition was filed and an order confirming sale was issued and a sale deed was registered in the name of the Appellant, being the highest bidder. Thereafter, the Appellant deposited the full amount and physical possession of land was delivered to the Appellant.
• However, the sale deed could not be registered owing to non-availability of the Clearance Certificate (CC) from the Income Tax department. Subsequently, the CC was granted.
• In the second round of litigation, the High Court granted an interim stay on the execution of the sale deed at the instance of a writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and unilaterally passed an order cancelling the auction and ordered a re-auction. This ex-parte order was challenged by the Appellant by way another petition and the appeal was allowed by the Learned Single Judge.
• Eventually, in 2018, the Division Bench of HC set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and directed the authorities concerned to conduct the re-auction of the entire land. The Court directed the upset price to be fixed higher than what had been fixed earlier. The Bench also observed that both the writ petitioner as well as the appellant shall be allowed to participate in the re-auction, if they are otherwise eligible.
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal before the SC.
• After considering all the material facts placed on record before it and the arguments advanced from both sides, the Court observed that the Division Bench of the HC erred in ordering a re-auction of the entire land after 23 years of sale and execution of the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser by observing that the value of the property might have been much more.
• The Court observed that the Division Bench had no material to confirm that the valuation of the property in the year 1998 was higher than the Appellant’s bid price. Unless the Respondents have made out any case of fraud in the conduct of the auction/ sale, they are estopped from raising objections on the conduct of the sale proceedings.
• The Court further observed that the third-party writ petitioner had no locus standi to approach the High Court in the first place owing to his non-participation in the original auction-cum-sale. Merely stating that the land would fetch more value is not an argument that can be looked into without establishing any malafides or fraud played by the vendor or vendee.
• In effect, the appeal was allowed in favour of the Appellant.

Proof Of Demand Of Bribe And Its Acceptance By A Public Servant Is Sine Qua Non For Establishing An Offence Under Section 7 Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), dismissing the observations made by the High in the case of K Shanthamma v State of Telangana, has held that in order to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) in relation to acceptance of a bribe, proof of demand of bribe and its acceptance by a public servant is an essential prerequisite.
• Mere discovery of a certain sum of money from a public servant without proof of demand for illegal gratification is not sufficient for conviction under Sections 7 and/ or 13 of POCA.
• The Appellant, a Commercial Tax Officer, was convicted by a Special Court under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(2) of POCA for demanding a bribe of ₹3,000. This Conviction was approved by the HC of Telangana.
• The Appellant refuted all claims and pointed out that the amount was recovered from a diary and the acceptance of a bribe has not been proved. It was also pointed out to the Court that when the sodium carbonate test was conducted, the fingers of the Appellant did not turn pink; therefore, it was not established that she accepted the currency notes. Further, it was also argued that since the society was not liable to pay any tax, the prosecution’s case appears doubtful.
• Taking note of the witnesses’ statements and the evidence placed on record before it, the Court came to the conclusion that nothing stated in the submission made by the prosecution pointed out that the Appellant made a demand for bribes in the first place.
• The witness on behalf of the prosecution himself stated that on the day of the trap, no demand for bribe was made. Further, there was no other witness or evidence produced to corroborate the demand or acceptance of the bribe.
• Based on the observations above, the SC set aside the impugned order of the conviction of the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of POCA and acquitted her of all the charges framed against her.