20 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal Under Article 32 of Constitution: Supreme Court

Case- Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs. The State of Maharashtra

Date of Order- January 20, 2025

Bench- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. Here are the key facts regarding the case:

Key Legal Findings

Article 32: The Supreme Court clarified that Article 32 does not allow for declaring a High Court judgment illegal. Instead, it serves as a constitutional remedy for enforcing fundamental rights.

Alternative Remedies: If petitioners feel aggrieved by a High Court judgment due to not being heard, they have two options:

1. File a petition/application for recall of the judgment before the High Court.
2. Challenge the judgment through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court.

Case Details

• The petitioners had previously filed a writ petition against a Bombay High Court ruling that ordered the demolition of five apartment complexes due to lack of valid permits from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.
• The Supreme Court noted that a Special Leave Petition filed against this ruling was dismissed because the petitioners wished to explore other legal remedies.
• An application for modification of the High Court's order was also dismissed, as it did not present sufficient grounds for altering the original order.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of following established legal procedures for challenging High Court judgments and dismissed the writ petition while allowing petitioners to pursue other legal remedies available under law.

Article 32 of The Constitution of India-

Article 32 of the Constitution of India is a fundamental provision that guarantees individuals the right to seek judicial redress for the violation of their fundamental rights. Here are the key aspects of Article 32:

Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32 provides the right to individuals to approach the Supreme Court of India directly for enforcement of their fundamental rights, which are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has the power to issue various writs, including:

• Habeas Corpus: To secure an individual's release from unlawful detention.
• Mandamus: To compel a public authority to perform a duty.
• Prohibition: To prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.
• Quo Warranto: To question the authority of a person holding a public office.
• Certiorari: To quash illegal orders or proceedings of lower courts or tribunals.

Non-Suspension Clause: The right guaranteed by Article 32 cannot be suspended except during a national emergency, making it a crucial safeguard for individual rights.

Significance

Protector of Fundamental Rights: Article 32 is often referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, as it empowers individuals to seek protection against arbitrary actions by the state and ensures judicial oversight.

Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court has held that Article 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be amended or abrogated.

Context and Application

• The Supreme Court has emphasized that while individuals can approach it directly under Article 32, they may also be directed to seek remedies through High Courts under Article 226 if appropriate.
• This article plays a critical role in maintaining checks on government power and upholding individual freedoms in India.

In summary, Article 32 serves as a vital mechanism for enforcing fundamental rights, allowing citizens to seek immediate judicial intervention when their rights are infringed.

2. Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault, Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways: Supreme Court

Case- Dalip Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand

Date of Order- January 19, 2025

Bench- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault, addressing common misconceptions surrounding the topic. Here are the key facts from the case:

Case Overview

Context: The Court was deciding an appeal against a conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code [Sections 137 (Kidnapping) and 96 (inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse of BNS, 2023].

Key Findings

Victim's Testimony: The victim indicated that she voluntarily went with the appellant, and her younger sister, who witnessed this, was not presented as a witness.

Medical Evidence: A doctor testified that there were no signs of injury on the victim, leading the Court to emphasize that bodily injuries are not a prerequisite for proving sexual assault.

Court Observations

Trauma Responses: The Court noted that victims react to trauma in varied ways due to factors such as fear, shock, and social stigma. It stated:

“It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction.”

Supreme Court Handbook Reference: The Court referenced its own Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), which highlighted the diversity in human responses to traumatic events.

Conclusion

• The  Court found that Section 366-A was not applicable since the victim was not forcibly taken away. It concluded that sustaining the appellant's conviction would not be justified based on the evidence presented.
• As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the previous judgment was set aside, discharging the appellant from his bail bond.

This ruling underscores the importance of understanding trauma responses and challenges prevailing myths about sexual assault in legal contexts.

Section 363 of Indian Penal Code-

Kidnapping: Section 363 states that "Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Types of Kidnapping

• Kidnapping from India: This involves taking a person outside the territorial limits of India without their consent or the consent of someone legally authorized to give consent on their behalf.
• Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship: This pertains to taking or enticing away a person who is under the lawful guardianship of another, such as minors, where the consent of the minor is not considered valid.

Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code-

Procuration of Minor Girl: Section 366-A states that "Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

3. Order II Rule 2 CPC Doesn’t Bar Second Suit For Relief Which Was Barred At The Time Of First Suit: Supreme Court

Case- Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr.

Date of Order- January 18, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court recently addressed the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in a case involving a subsequent suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Here are the key facts:

Case Background

• Parties Involved: Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) entered into an agreement to sell property with Respondent No. 2 (defendant). Respondent No. 2 later sold the same property to the Appellant.

Initial Suit

• Respondent No. 1 filed a first suit seeking a permanent injunction against alienation of the property due to a government ban on executing sale deeds in the village, which prevented him from seeking specific performance or recovery of possession.

Subsequent Suit

• After the government ban was lifted, Respondent No. 1 filed a second suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and recovery of possession.
• The trial court dismissed this subsequent suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC, stating that Respondent No. 1 should have included all claims in the first suit.

Supreme Court's Findings

• The Supreme Court observed that when a plaintiff cannot seek certain reliefs due to circumstances at the time of filing the first suit, such as a government ban, they are not barred from filing a subsequent suit once those circumstances change.
• The Court emphasized that the occurrence of a subsequent event (lifting of the ban) creates a fresh cause of action, allowing for additional claims that could not have been made earlier.

Legal Principles

• The Court referenced previous cases, noting that Order II Rule 2 does not prevent a plaintiff from filing a second suit based on a different cause of action.
• It stated that courts should interpret Order II Rule 2 flexibly, avoiding rigid technicalities that might deny justice.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision to allow the subsequent suit, ruling that it was justified given the changed circumstances. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed, affirming that Respondent No. 1 had legitimate grounds for not pursuing certain reliefs in the initial suit due to the government order.

This case highlights the importance of recognizing fresh causes of action arising from changed circumstances and reinforces the principle that plaintiffs should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control when seeking legal remedies.

Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code-

Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) governs the requirements for including claims in a suit and aims to prevent the splitting of causes of action. Here are the key provisions and principles:

Whole Claim Requirement:

Rule 2(1): Every suit must include the entire claim that the plaintiff is entitled to make regarding the cause of action. However, a plaintiff may relinquish part of their claim to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of a court.

Relinquishment of Claims:

Rule 2(2): If a plaintiff omits to sue for or intentionally relinquishes any portion of their claim, they cannot later sue for that omitted or relinquished portion.

Omission of Reliefs:

Rule 2(3): A person entitled to multiple reliefs from the same cause of action may sue for any or all reliefs. If they omit to sue for any relief without court permission, they cannot later claim that omitted relief.

Objectives

• Preventing Vexation: The primary purpose is to ensure that a defendant is not subjected to multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action, thereby avoiding vexation.
• Avoiding Multiplicity of Litigation: It aims to minimize litigation by requiring plaintiffs to consolidate their claims in one suit.

Applicability Conditions

• The second suit must arise from the same cause of action as the first.
• The plaintiff must have been entitled to multiple reliefs concerning that cause of action.
• The plaintiff must have omitted to sue for any relief without court permission.

Legal Interpretation

• Courts interpret Order II Rule 2 flexibly, particularly in cases where circumstances change (e.g., new events occur) that allow previously unavailable claims to be pursued in a subsequent suit.
• The rule does not bar a second suit based on a different cause of action.

In summary, Order II Rule 2 CPC is designed to ensure comprehensive claims are made in one legal proceeding, preventing fragmentation and promoting judicial efficiency.