Re Legal

1

Savarkar defamation case: Pune court allows plea by Rahul Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record. Since Gandhi has claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, the trial would have to be held as a summons trial to allow detailed evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court said.
1

Delhi court says Medha Patkar will not be jailed for defaming Delhi LG VK Saxena
Medha Patkar was sentenced to five months in jail by the trial court. However, the sessions court said the offence was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.
1

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court to halt the administration of oath to Justice Yashwant Varma who was recently transferred from Delhi to Allahabad amidst an in-house probe against him over allegations of possessing illicit cash.
1

Lok Sabha passes Waqf Amendment Bill. The Bill was tabled before the House on Wednesday, April 2. It was passed during the early hours of April 3, Thursday, after over 12 hours of debate.
The Bill instead provides that two members must be non-Muslims. Members of Parliament, former judges, and eminent persons appointed to the Council as per the Act need not be Muslims. Representatives of Muslim organisations, scholars in Islamic law, and chairpersons of Waqf Boards must be Muslims. Of the Muslim members, two must be women.

The Bill empowers the Central government to make rules regarding registration, publication of accounts of waqf, and publication of proceedings of Waqf Boards.

Under the Act, State governments could get the accounts of Waqfs audited at any point. The Bill empowers the Central government to get these audited by the CAG or a designated officer.
1

West Bengal School Jobs for Cash Scam: Supreme Court upholds HC cancellation of 24,000 school staff appointments. The Court further ordered that fresh selection process should be completed within 3 months.

Today’s

Default Bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC
The Supreme Court clarified that 90-day default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only to offences with a minimum punishment of 10 years. The Delhi High Court granted default bail to Rajeev Sharma after 60 days under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) as the investigation was incomplete. Sharma was charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 that was punishable by imprisonment up to 14 years but did not carry a minimum punishment. The State argued that the applicable provision was Section 167(2)(a)(i) for default bail within 90 days. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, relying on Rakesh Kumar Paul v State of Assam (2017). The judges reiterated that the 90-day limit applies only when a minimum 10-year sentence is prescribed. For all other offences, the 60-day period was valid. State (NCT) of Delhi v Rajeev Sharma 3 April 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 456 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4) Bench: Justices B.M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale Key Phrases: Default bail—Section 167(2)(a)(i) 90 days—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days—minimum punishment of 10 years—Rakesh Kumar Paul Read the judgement here. Case comment: In Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam1it was held, “In the context of the word “punishable” occurring in clause (i) and the meaning attached to this word taken from several dictionaries, this Court held in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 277: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 101] that where a minimum and maximum sentence is prescribed, both are imposable depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to or beyond or including 10 years, then the period available for completing investigations would be 90 days before the provision for “default bail” kicks in. It was said in para 15 of the Report: (SCC p. 282) “15. Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed, both are imposable depending on the facts of the cases. It is 1 (2017) 15 SCC 67 for the court, after recording conviction, to impose appropriate sentence. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that only the minimum sentence is imposable and not the maximum sentence. Merely because minimum sentence is provided that does not mean that the sentence imposable is only the minimum sentence.”

Yesterday’s

Charge for Murder and Homicide-Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Supreme Court held that the intention to cause death was essential for conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. An elderly man was killed and his two grandchildren injured in a fatal assault during a dispute over a place of worship in Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted the three accused individuals under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court, acting under Article 136, modified the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Code as the act was committed with the knowledge that it could cause death but was not done with the intention to kill. Key Phrases: Murder—culpable homicide not amounting to murder—Section 302 intention—Section 304 knowledge—Indian Penal Code 1860—Article 136 Read the judgement here. Maukam Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 435 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(3)) Case Comment The medical evidence, that the injury could be caused either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall, does not detract from the finding under Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony; of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the house of the victims, the altercation and fight that ensued and the overt acts of the accused, inflicting injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and victims, totally corroborated by the medical evidence regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.

Terms And condition