Current Affairs

DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (9 JULY 2024)

by | Jul 9, 2024

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS MURDER ACCUSED DUE TO SECTION 313 CRPC NON-COMPLIANCE

Case: Naresh Kumar vs. State of Delhi

The Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused in a 29-year-old case, ruling that the trial was vitiated due to the non-questioning of the accused on incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the CrPC. The bench emphasized that such omissions leading to material prejudice and miscarriage of justice necessitate an acquittal.

Legal Provisions and Framework:
  • Section 313, CrPC: Requires the accused to be questioned on incriminating evidence to explain their perspective.
  • Fair Trial: The Supreme Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 313 violates the accused’s right to a fair trial.
  • Material Prejudice: Failure to question the accused on incriminating evidence resulted in material prejudice and miscarriage of justice, necessitating acquittal.

Source- Supreme Court of India

GUIDELINES FOR SENSITIVE PORTRAYAL OF PwDs IN MEDIA

Case: Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Private Ltd

The Supreme Court issued guidelines for the portrayal of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in media, distinguishing between positive “disability humour” and harmful “disabling humour.” The Court stressed the need for accurate representation and avoiding stereotypes, advocating for the inclusion of PwDs in advisory panels under the Cinematograph Act.

Legal Provisions and Framework:
  • Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Mandates sensitive and respectful portrayal of PwDs.
  • Cinematograph Act, 1952: Guidelines for film content to ensure it does not perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
  • Distinction: Court differentiated between “disability humour” (positive) and “disabling humour” (negative).
  • Inclusion: Advisory panels should include PwDs to ensure accurate representation and uphold dignity.

Source- Supreme Court of India

NO GENDER-BASED ASSUMPTIONS FOR HANDLING SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES

Case: MD. Anas Chaudhary vs. Union of India

The Supreme Court expressed reservations about mandating only female officers, doctors, and prosecutors in sexual assault cases. The bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, emphasized that competence should not be presumed based on gender and highlighted challenges in implementing such directives uniformly.

Legal Provisions and Framework:
  • Article 32 of the Constitution: Petition for enforcement of fundamental rights.
  • Gender Neutrality: Supreme Court emphasized competence over gender-based assumptions in handling sexual assault cases.
  • Practical Challenges: Highlighted difficulties in uniformly implementing directives requiring female officers, doctors, and prosecutors.
  • Procedural Justice: Stressed the importance of ensuring fair procedures without gender bias.

Source- Supreme Court of India

Also Read– DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (8 JULY 2024)

 

 

Written By Vishakha Khatri

My name is Vishakha Khatri. I am an engineering graduate and a civil service aspirant with a passion for spreading knowledge about Indian polity. I believe that understanding our political system is crucial for every citizen, and I am committed to making this information accessible to everyone in my own easy way. Through my experiences in civil service preparation and my unique perspective as an engineering graduate, I hope to inspire and educate others on the importance of Indian polity.

Related Posts