Top News Headlines 14th Apr 2022: Limitation Period Under Section 468 CrPC Not Applicable To Section 12 Of DV Act

Limitation Period Under Section 468 CrPC Not Applicable To Section 12 Of DV Act: SC

• In the case of Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the limitation period provided under section 468 of CrPC is inapplicable to the filing of an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• Section 12 of the DV Act allows an aggrieved woman or a Protection Officer to file an application before the Magistrate seeking various kinds of relief like protection order or an order for the payment of compensation. Section 468 CrPC on the other hand, sets out the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offences, which depends on the sentence provided for the offence. 
• In the instant case, an application under section 12 of the DV Act was filed by a woman nearly 10 years after she had left her matrimonial home. The Madras HC had quashed the proceedings as being time barred under section 468 CrPC. The HC observed that a combined reading of section 28 and 32 of the DV Act with Rule 15(6) of the DV Rules, the provisions of CrPC would be applicable. 
• The respondent had relied upon the decision of Adalat Prasad vs Roopal Jindal wherein it was held that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused, or in contravention of the provisions of Section 200 and 202 CrPC, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated. 
• Disagreeing with the HC’s approach, the Apex Court observed that an application under section 12 of the DV Act cannot be treated as an application with respect to an offence. An offence under the DV Act arises only after the order passed under section 12 is violated under section 31 of the Act.
• Responding to the submission regarding Adalat Prasad’s case, the Court observed that the scope of section 12 of the DV Act is to call for a response from the respondent so that after considering the rival submissions, appropriate orders can be issued. A notice issued under section 12 of the Act cannot be regarded as taking cognizance of the offence. 
• Thus, while allowing the appeal, the Court observed that the HC was in error in observing that the application under section 12 of the Act must be filed within a period of one year from the date of the alleged offence. 

Right To Be Forgotten; Bombay HC Orders Removal Of An Acquittal Order From Website: Man Facing Difficulties In Getting A Job

• In the case of ABC vs Union of India, the Hon’ble Bombay HC has ordered the removal of an acquittal order from the HC website upon a moved by the applicant/accused who was facing difficulties in getting a job due to the order of acquittal passed in his favour. 
• In the instant case, the petitioner currently works with a firm in Japan, and was named as an accused in 2013 in a criminal case under section 66A of the Information Technology Act in a JMFC Court in Nagpur. The litigation resulted in his acquittal.
• Even though the order was one of acquittal, the petitioner argued that it was capable of putting a bias in the minds of the prospective employers, customers and bankers due to its descriptive nature. 
• While referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy and anr. vs Union of India and ors (2017) SCC, the HC observed that the issue at hand is of a wide significance and the right to be forgotten is a component of Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner had asserted his right to be forgotten. The petitioner had asserted the delinking of the judgement from the Court website. He did not and cannot assert for the Court records to be destroyed.
• The Court also observed that having regards to the judgement of the Apex Court in Puttaswamy case, the Court is inclined to give a moulded relief to the petitioner. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right and can be traced to the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy connotes a right to be left alone, it safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes the ability of the individual to control the vital aspects of his life. 
• Thus, while ordering the removal of the order and judgement from the Court’s website, the Hon’ble HC also stated that the decision in the present case is limited to the facts of this case only and cannot be used as a precedent in future cases. Each case would have to be judged in light of its peculiar circumstances. 

The UGC Regulations Don't Infringe On The State's Right To Provide Reservations: Kerala HC

• In Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022), Justices A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP observed that the University Grants Commission (UGC), which specifies qualifications for various posts in universities in a State under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, does not affect the State Government's right to provide reservations for backward classes. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Court held that the reservations would not pertain to other states because reservation in appointments to public services in a state is dependent on data related to the representation of specific classes within that State. 
• In this case, a plea that was filed challenging the Associate Processor post in IT at Kannur University given to Muhammed Ismail was dismissed by a Single Judge by stating that no exclusion of non-Keralites was provided in the notification under Regulation 3.1 of the UGC. Aggrieved by the same, the case was moved to the Division Bench. It was contended by the appellant that the principle of reservations envisaged under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules will not permit reservation in favour of the application filed by Ismail as he is a non-domicile candidate coming from Karnataka. 
• Article 16 (4) of the Indian constitution allows for the reservation of state services favoring the underprivileged class of people.
• According to UGC Regulation 3.1, direct recruitment to the posts of Associate Professors in Universities shall be based on merit through all India advertisements and selections by duly constituted Selection Committees in accordance with the provisions made under these Regulations to be assimilated under the Statutes of the concerned University. The composition of such committees should follow the guidelines established by the UGC in these Regulations.
• In a related case, Raj Kumar Meena v. Rankaswami and Others [WA. No. 414 of 2017], it was stated that a candidate who has been certified as belonging to SC/ST/OBC in one State cannot claim benefits or privileges in another state based on the same certification.
• It was contended by the appellant that Ismail's candidature was not maintainable as he was not eligible under the OBC reservation by the Kerala State since he was not a native of Kerala. In contrast, the University contended that recruitment for the Associate Professor post shall be based on merit through an all- India test without a bar for a Muslim candidate from any State in India to participate in the selection process according to the 2018 UGC Regulations. Furthermore, it was contended by the respondents that Ismail belongs to the Muslim Community and is a part of the backward class in Kerala and Karnataka.
• After hearing both the parties and referring to the aforementioned case and statutes, the Hon'ble Court held that a state's reservation policy does not need to be changed to comply with the UGC Regulation and that Ismail did not have the right to lodge his claim in a reserved seat based on the certificate granted by the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court disregarded the selection of Ismail and ordered the University to appoint the petitioner who was the second rank holder for the said post. 
• Hence, the appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Court.