Top News Headlines 15th Mar 2022: The Hijab Controversy

The Hijab Controversy [IN W.P. NO.2347 OF 2022]

• After days of protests, counter-protests, allegations, counter-allegations and back-to-back hearings, the Karnataka High Court, in Writ Petition no. 2347 of 2022, has pronounced its verdict on the Hijab case on Tuesday, March 15.
• On January 26, the Karnataka Government had formed an expert committee to resolve the matter. It was also announced that all girls should abide by the uniform rules until the committee offers its recommendations.
• Students from Udupi filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking a declaration that wearing a hijab is a fundamental right. The plea stated that the Indian Constitution through Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to practice, profess and propagate any religion.
• Taking up the holistic view of the entire matter, the court formulated the issue into questions and answered them accordingly.
•  
• The Honourable Court while deciding as to whether wearing hijab/headscarf was protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, observed that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form an essential part of religious practice in Islamic faith.
• While adjudicating whether prescription of school uniform was legally permissible and not violative of petitioner's fundamental rights, guaranteed under 19(1)(a) as freedom of expression and Article 21 as Right to Privacy, The Honourable Court has held that it is only a reasonable restriction. It is constitutionally permissible and the students cannot object to it.
• The Court had to decide if Government Order dated 05.02.2022 apart from being incompetent was issued without application of mind and further was clearly arbitrary, violating Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It was observed that the Government has power to issue the impugned Government order dated (05.02.2022) and no case is made out for its invalidation. 
• It was also contended that whether any case is made out in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2022, for issuance of a direction for initiating disciplinary inquiry against respondent No 6 to 14 and for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent No 15 and 16. The Honourable Court held that no case is made out for issuance of a direction for initiating any disciplinary inquiry. The prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent number 15 and 16 is rejected, being not maintainable.
• Accordingly in the given circumstances all the writ petitions, being devoid of merits, were liable to be and accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of these writ petitions, all the pending applications turned insignificant and were accordingly disposed of.

Absence Of Motive In Circumstantial Cases Does Not Break The Chain Of Circumstances: P&H HC Uphold Conviction In Dowry Death Case

• The Punjab and Haryana HC has, while upholding the conviction in a dowry death case titled Vineet vs. State of Haryana held that though motive is significant in deciding an accused's culpability in cases of circumstantial evidence, the same can be dispensed with if the chain of circumstances otherwise links the accused with the crime. In this case, motive can be dispensed with. 
• In the instant case, an appeal was filed against the order of conviction passed by the trial Court in a dowry death case. The complainant’s daughter was married to the appellant, however, she was being harassed and pressurized for dowry. The appellant would threaten the victim with death if the dowry demands were not met.
• One day, the complainant received a call from the appellant that her daughter had passed away and that her dead body was lying in a government hospital. Upon receiving this information, the complainant and her husband rushed to the hospital only to find their daughter’s body covered in bruises and upon inquiry, they got to know that the appellant/accused had murdered their daughter by brutally beating her up and poisoning her, in his greed for dowry. 
• An FIR was lodged and the accused was booked under section 302 and 498A of IPC. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of 25,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant/accused moved the HC. 
• The Counsel for the appellant argued that the case of the respondents is purely circumstantial in nature and there were major discrepancies between the testimonies of the various witnesses that were produced in support of the prosecution. It was also alleged that there was not a single eyewitness whose evidence could be relied upon, and in the absence of cogent evidence the prosecution’s version of events could not be relied upon. 
• It was also alleged that there was no motive for the accused to have committed the said offence, and in its absence a case under section 302 and 498A is not made out. 
• The Counsel for the respondents alleged that there was enough evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in the commission of the offence. 
• The Hon’ble HC did not agree with the arguments advanced by the appellant. The Court noted that the mere absence of eye-witnesses is not enough to conclude that the appellant is not guilty of the alleged offence. It was held that the prosecution had been able to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of the various witnesses that had been brought forth.
•  
• The Court observed that the alleged fact of the victim being poisoned had been corroborated by the medical evidence and the complete chain of events had been established by the prosecution. 
• As regards the argument that there was no motive and that the case is purely circumstantial, the Court observed that it had been well established that the motive behind the murder was dowry. The Court also observed that circumstantial evidence is, in no way, inferior to direct evidence and can be the sole basis for conviction in case the chain of events remains unbroken and satisfactorily links the accused with the crime. 
• The Court also referred to section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which states when any particular fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Court noted that the burden of proving the reason of the death of the victim Preeti was upon the accused, who could not give any reasonable explanation as to the reason why his wife consumed poison or why should he not be held responsible for her murder in light of the circumstances of the case. 
• Hence, the appeal was rejected and the sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

Appreciation Of Evidence Cannot Be Done In A Discharge Application Under Section 239 CrPC: Allahabad HC

• The Allahabad HC has reiterated, in Chavi Lal and ors. vs. State of UP and anr that when an application for discharge has been moved under section 239 of CrPC, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. Detailed enquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged if the charge against him appears to be groundless. .
• Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed “At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to go into the pros and cons of the case and hold an inquiry to find out the truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not the domain of the Court at that point of time. What is required is that the Court should sift and weigh the material for the purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the purpose of framing a charge”.
• In the instant case, the petitioners were booked under section 167, 218, 466, 467, 468,471, 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioners were booked as co-accused and they alleged that the main culprit was Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath who made an entry in the revenue records without calling for the report of the Lekhpal of the concerned village. 
• The petitioners filed a discharge application which was rejected by the CJM. A revision application was also rejected. Hence, the present application was moved by the applicant/petitioners seeking to set aside the rejection of the discharge application and revision application by the CJM.
• The Counsel for the applicant argued that the decision of the trial Court was without the application of judicial mind and that no incriminating material was found by the Investigating Officer and no offence was hence made out. 
• The HC observed that the power under section 239 of CrPC is very limited. The Court observed that the statute itself states that upon perusal of the report that is forwarded under section 173 CrPC and examining the accused and the prosecution and giving them the opportunity to present their case, if the Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then she shall stand discharged.
• The Court placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (2002)SCC wherein it was held that while exercising the power vested in section 227 (discharge), the Court cannot merely act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before it, however, the Court should not make a thorough inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if the case had gone to trial already. The same was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010).
• Thus, in light of the aforesaid contentions, the Court was of the opinion that the case did not appear to be one that could be disposed of at the stage of framing of charges itself. The Trial Court was also asked to expedite the trial.