Legal Current Affairs for CLAT (January 2024) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Rule of Locus Standi

Why in News?

• Recently, the bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit heard a matter related to the existence of locus standi in the case of the petitioner in the original writ petition.
• The Karnataka High Court addressed the case Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Others.

Background of the Case: Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Others

• The case involved two intra-court appeals challenging a common order passed by a Single Judge.
• The order set aside the grant of a site, favored the private respondents, and directed the refund of the allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.
• The appellant argued that Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, which allows site allotment as an exception, was not adequately considered by the Single Judge.
• The appellant also contended that the private respondents lacked locus standi to challenge the grant orders, a point the Single Judge allegedly overlooked.
• The respondent argued that the Single Judge’s order, issued under Article 227, is ordinarily not subject to appeal.

Court’s Observations

• The Karnataka High Court emphasized that “In matters concerning illegal grant of State Largess, the Rule of locus standi is always liberally construed and that would serve the public interest.”
• The court concluded that the respondent had locus standi and dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

Concept of Locus Standi

• Locus standi, a Latin term, refers to the legal standing or the right to bring a particular lawsuit or legal action.
• It is a legal concept that determines whether a person has sufficient interest in a case to justify initiating legal proceedings.
  • In other words, it concerns whether a person or entity has a direct and personal stake in the outcome of a legal dispute, granting them the right to participate in the case.
• To establish locus standi, a party generally needs to demonstrate that they have suffered specific injury, harm, or have a direct interest in the matter.
  • The principle ensures that only those with a genuine connection to the legal issue are permitted to participate in the legal process.
• Without locus standi, a person or entity may not have the right to initiate or participate in legal proceedings.

Non-Withholding of OCI Card for Loan Security

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court ruled that a bank cannot retain a passport or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card as security for loan repayment.

Background of the Case

• Parties Involved: An OCI cardholder and citizen of the United Kingdom was involved in a legal dispute with Vijaya Bank (now Bank of Baroda).

Timeline:

• On October 3, 2018, the petitioner allegedly agreed to close two housing loan accounts voluntarily.
• When the petitioner failed to meet the commitment, the Bank demanded the surrender of the passport and OCI card.

Petitioner’s Argument:

• The petitioner claimed coercion, asserting that the Bank had no authority to retain a UK-issued passport.
• Only the Ministry of External Affairs has jurisdiction over the OCI card.

Bank’s Stand:

• The Bank denied coercion, referencing an undertaking signed by the petitioner where they agreed to deposit their passport willingly.

Court’s Observation

• The Karnataka High Court ruled that “the action of the Bank in retaining the British passport of the petitioner and the OCI Card is held to be illegal.”

Who are Overseas Citizens of India (OCI)?

About:

• A person of Indian origin with foreign citizenship is allowed to work and live in India indefinitely.
• OCI is an immigration status granted to foreign citizens of Indian origin.
• The scheme was introduced to address the demand for dual citizenship.
• The Overseas Citizen of India scheme was introduced in 2005 by amending the Citizenship Act, 1955, and launched in 2006 on the occasion of Pravasi Bharatiya Divas.

Dual Citizenship Aspect:

• OCI status is not equivalent to dual citizenship.
• It is a form of permanent residency providing certain benefits but does not grant the right to hold an Indian passport.
• OCIs are expected to maintain and renew passports from their country of residence.

Eligibility for OCI Card:
The applicant must:

• Be a citizen of another country but of Indian origin or a citizen of India at the time of the Constitution's commencement.
• Belong to a territory that became part of India after August 15, 1947.
• Be a child, grandchild, or great-grandchild of such a citizen.
• Be a minor child with one or both parents as Indian citizens.
• Be a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or an OCI cardholder.

Exceptions:

• Individuals who are not citizens of any country cannot apply for an OCI card.
• Applicants with parents or grandparents who are/were citizens of Pakistan or Bangladesh are ineligible.

Right to be Considered for Promotion

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justice Suman Shyam made observations regarding the fundamental right to be considered for promotions. 
The Gauhati High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Syed Habibur Rahman v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.

Background of the Case (Syed Habibur Rahman v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.)

• The petitioner was initially appointed as a Fisheries Extension Officer and joined the department in 1982.
• In 1992, he was promoted to the position of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer (SDFDO).
• In 2005, the petitioner was assigned the charge of District Fisheries Development Officer (DFDO), but he was not promoted to the post on a regular basis.
• The petitioner contended that vacancies existed in the cadre of DFDO, which could have been filled through regular promotions.
• Despite these vacancies and the petitioner’s impending retirement, the authorities failed to consider his case for promotion.

Court’s Observations

The Gauhati High Court reiterated that “Law is well-settled that the right to be considered for promotion is a facet of a fundamental right.”

• Whether a specific candidate qualifies for promotion depends on the application of promotional criteria in the individual case.
• If vacancies exist and eligible departmental candidates fall within the zone of consideration, the authorities cannot deny them the opportunity for promotion.
• Depriving such candidates not only hinders career progression but also denies consequential pecuniary benefits.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and disposed of the petition.

Right to Be Considered for Promotions

Constitutional Position

• Article 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides the fundamental right relevant to the consideration for promotion:
  • It ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.

Position Established through Judicial Precedents

• Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999):
  The Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, if an individual meets the eligibility and criteria for promotion but is not considered, it constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights.
• Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Arvind Rai and Ors. (2021):
  The Gauhati High Court held that while there is no fundamental right to promotion, an employee has the right to be considered for promotion, as per the relevant rules, when a vacancy arises.

Article 20(3) of the COI

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., recently held that under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), an accused cannot be compelled to reveal or disclose passwords or similar details of digital devices during the course of an investigation.

Background of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

• The applicant filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Delhi High Court, seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
• The FIR alleged that the company E-Sampark Softech Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors, had operated fraudulent call centres in India to make millions of scam phone calls to the USA, cheating US citizens out of approximately 20 million USD.
• The applicant and at least 12 others were accused in this case and had been in custody since 19th July 2023.
• The High Court granted bail to the applicant.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that investigating agencies cannot expect an accused, such as the applicant, to comply in a manner that suits their investigation, especially when the accused is protected under Article 20(3) of the COI.
• The Court ruled that the accused cannot be coerced into revealing passwords or other similar details related to digital devices seized during an ongoing investigation or trial.

About Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India (COI)

Key Provisions:

• Article 20(3) ensures that no person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
• This article grants the accused the right to remain silent during investigation or trial, and the State cannot claim any confession made by the accused.

Relevant Case Laws:

• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court emphasized that justice must be administered fairly and equitably.
• In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) is a vital safeguard in criminal procedure, offering protection against coercion, torture, and other methods used by investigating authorities.

Right to Live with Dignity

Why in News?

Recently, in the matter of Mahuya Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court held that the right to live with dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), cannot be deprived merely because a person is convicted.

Background of Mahuya Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

• The petitioner, before the Calcutta High Court, challenged the decision of the State Sentence Review Board, West Bengal (SSRB), which rejected her application.
• The petitioner is the wife of a convict sentenced to life imprisonment, who has already been in custody for over two decades.
• The petitioner argued that the SSRB was improperly constituted and that the rejection grounds were inconsistent with precedents set by the Supreme Court, this Court, and other High Courts.
• The High Court directed the respondent authorities to ensure that a properly constituted SSRB reconsiders the petitioner’s request for her husband’s premature release.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya stated that under Article 21 of the COI, the petitioner’s right to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived solely due to the conviction.
• The Court noted that the convict had already served a significant period of incarceration. Denying him the opportunity to reintegrate into mainstream society would amount to double punishment, provided he is otherwise eligible for release.

About Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI)

Definition:

• Article 21 ensures the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
• The right to life includes living with human dignity and encompasses all aspects of life that make it meaningful, complete, and worth living.

Secures Two Rights:

• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty

Features:

• Known as the procedural Magna Carta of life and liberty.
• Available to all persons, including citizens and foreigners.
• Described by the Supreme Court as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• Enforceable only against the State.

Rights Covered Under Article 21

• Right to privacy
• Right to go abroad
• Right to shelter
• Right against solitary confinement
• Right to social justice and economic empowerment
• Right against handcuffing
• Right against custodial death
• Right against delayed execution
• Right to doctors' assistance
• Right against public hanging
• Protection of cultural heritage
• Right to pollution-free water and air
• Right of every child to full development
• Right to health and medical aid
• Right to education
• Protection of under-trials

Case Laws

• Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981): Justice P. Bhagwati remarked that Article 21 embodies a constitutional value of utmost importance in a democratic society.
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): The Supreme Court held that the term "life" implies more than mere animal existence. It includes all limbs and faculties that make life enjoyable, prohibiting any form of mutilation or destruction of bodily integrity.

Right to Privacy of Biological Parents

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Fabian Ricklin alias Ranabir Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that the right to privacy of a biological parent takes precedence over the right of a child to trace their biological origins.

Background of the Case

• A Swiss citizen (the petitioner) approached the High Court of Kerala, seeking to trace his biological origins.
• He requested access to the relinquishment deed executed by the adoption agency that facilitated his adoption.
• The petitioner’s biological mother, an unmarried woman, had given him up for adoption in 1988. She expressed her unwillingness to maintain any connection with the child and became untraceable shortly after his adoption by Swiss parents.
• The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea.

Court’s Observations

• The Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya ruled that the right to privacy of a biological parent, particularly an unwed mother who gave up her child for adoption and went untraceable, prevails over the child’s right to conduct a root search to trace their origins.
• The Court emphasized that Section 47 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, explicitly protects the biological parent’s right to privacy and restricts an adoptee's right to infringe upon it.
• The Court acknowledged the significance of the right to know one’s roots, as it is intrinsic to human existence. However, it stated that the right to privacy and identity protection of biological parents is more fundamental, as it ensures their survival and autonomy.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Right to Privacy

• Importance: Recognized as one of the most critical human rights today.

Constitutional Protection:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI) safeguards the right to privacy as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty.
• Privacy represents an individual’s right to personal autonomy and being “let alone.”

Key Judicial Precedent:

• In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court underscored that privacy underpins all liberties, enabling individuals to exercise freedom with dignity. It is integral to individual identity within a plural society.

Adoption Regulations, 2022

• Purpose: Introduced by the Ministry of Women and Child Development to streamline adoption processes.

Section 47: Root Search

• If biological parents request anonymity during the child’s surrender, their written consent must be obtained by the adoption agency or District Child Protection Unit before sharing any information.
• For older adoptees, agencies like the Authorized Foreign Adoption Agency or District Child Protection Unit facilitate root searches.
• Persons over 18 years can apply for a root search independently, while those under 18 must apply jointly with their adoptive parents.
• If the biological parents deny consent or remain untraceable, reasons and circumstances will be disclosed to the adoptee.
• Root searches by third parties are not allowed, and adoption-related information about biological or adoptive parents cannot be made public.
• The right of an adoptee to trace their origins must not infringe upon the right to privacy of the biological parents.