Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Delhi High Court Quashes Summons Against Former DU College Principal in Employee Suicide Case

Delhi High Court Quashes Summons Against Former DU College Principal in Employee Suicide Case



The Delhi High Court has set aside the summons issued to Dr. G.K. Arora, the former principal of B.R. Ambedkar College, University of Delhi, in connection with a high-profile suicide case. The case involved a female lab attendant who self-immolated in front of the Delhi Secretariat and later succumbed to her injuries. She had alleged harassment by Dr. Arora and another college employee in her suicide note, prompting legal action and media attention.


Court’s Decision to Set Aside Summons


Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court quashed the September 17, 2014, summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts. On October 29, 2024, Justice Sharma ruled that Dr. Arora and co-petitioner Ravinder Singh could not be held responsible based on the evidence provided and the conclusions drawn by various investigating authorities. The judge noted that multiple complaints filed by the deceased were investigated and ultimately closed by independent statutory bodies, which were not under Dr. Arora's direct control.


> "The grievance of the deceased in the suicide note was not solely directed against the present petitioners but also mentioned other individuals, including prominent figures such as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi and the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University," the judgment stated. Furthermore, the incident had already been thoroughly examined by the National Commission for Women and the B.L. Garg Commission, which found insufficient grounds for prosecution.


High Court’s View on Mens Rea and Responsibility


Justice Sharma elaborated on the concept of mens rea (criminal intent), stating that while individuals in positions of authority may sometimes make difficult decisions that impact employees, these actions cannot be categorized as incitement or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the absence of intent to harm.


> "This Court is of the considered opinion that a person holding a certain post, whether in the private or public sector, may sometimes have to take decisions that might seem harsh, but such actions, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to incitement or abetment under Section 306," observed Justice Sharma.


Case Background: The Self-Immolation Incident


The tragic incident occurred on September 30, 2013, when the deceased attempted suicide by self-immolation outside Gate No. 6 of the Delhi Secretariat. A PCR call led police to the scene, where they recovered a kerosene bottle, matchbox, and a suicide note addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and Sonia Gandhi, the then Chairperson of the Delhi Pradesh Congress. The note alleged harassment by Dr. Arora and Ravinder Singh, citing mental and physical abuse.


After the deceased succumbed to her injuries on October 7, 2013, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of IPC (abetment to suicide), based on the Post-Mortem Report. Initial investigations could not provide sufficient evidence against Dr. Arora and Singh, leading to their names being listed in Column 12 as suspects rather than defendants.


Legal Journey: Summoning and Protest Petition


The deceased's husband filed a protest petition in response to the closure report submitted by the police due to insufficient evidence. In September 2014, after reviewing the protest petition and the initial closure report, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Tis Hazari Courts issued summons to Dr. Arora and Singh, stating that there was prima facie evidence to proceed against them.


High Court's Decision: Closure of the Case


In his final ruling, Justice Sharma cited the thorough investigation conducted by multiple statutory bodies, such as the National Commission for Women and the B.L. Garg Commission, as well as the lack of conclusive evidence against Dr. Arora and Singh. He underscored that the authority figures listed in the suicide note were not solely responsible for the deceased's distress. Given the absence of direct culpability and criminal intent, the High Court ruled to quash the summons and close the case against Dr. Arora and Singh.


Implications of the Judgment


This ruling by the Delhi High Court underscores the importance of mens rea in cases of alleged harassment and abetment to suicide. It highlights the judiciary's careful scrutiny of evidence and the need to distinguish between professional decisions and actions that constitute criminal liability. This judgment serves as a precedent, reinforcing the principle that individuals cannot be held liable for abetment without evidence of intentional incitement.

Location: Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more