A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, while hearing a petition to quash a case, highlighted that the police frequently violate Section 172(1-B) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This section requires that case diaries be properly paginated and maintained.

In January, the same concern was raised, prompting the DGP to issue a circular to all police officers. However, the court found the case diary in question to be “shabby” and improperly maintained.

The bench remarked that investigating officers are either unaware of the circular or pretending to be ignorant. The court stressed the need for strict adherence to DGP directives and statutory requirements.

The court ordered the case diary from Kherwadi police station to be forwarded to the DGP for remedial action and demanded a detailed report by June 28.

Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla heard a petition by Jaiprakash Kulkarni and Pharma Search Ayurveda Private Limited challenging the Banking Ombudsman’s refusal to order the refund. Citing a July 2017 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular and the bank’s Consumer Protection Policy, the court asserted that customers have zero liability in such cases.

The HC emphasized the rising incidence of cyber fraud, stating, “Both as per the RBI circular and the policy of the bank, a customer has zero liability when unauthorized transactions occur due to a third-party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but elsewhere in the system.”

On October 1, 2022, beneficiaries were added to the petitioner company’s bank account without any OTP sent to the registered mobile number. The next day, ₹76 lakh was transferred to various unknown individuals. The petitioners promptly lodged a complaint with the Cyber Cell and informed the bank manager.

Despite the complaint, the Banking Ombudsman rejected their claim, stating the transactions were conducted using valid credentials. However, cyber cell reports confirmed no OTPs were sent to the petitioners. The court found no negligence or collusion on the petitioners’ part.

The court concluded that both the bank and the petitioners were victims of third-party fraudsters. As per the RBI circular, the petitioners were entitled to a refund. The court directed Bank of Baroda to refund the ₹76 lakh within six weeks, criticizing the Banking Ombudsman for inadequate inquiry.

A division bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla emphasized that the burden of proof lies on both the complainant and the accused. “No doubt, chapter XVI on ‘sexual offences’ is a women-centric enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the case that the male partner is always wrong,” the court noted.

The case involved an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The accused had also faced charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In 2019, the woman filed a police complaint in Prayagraj, alleging that the accused had established a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her, also making derogatory remarks about her caste. The accused was charge-sheeted in 2020.

On February 8, 2024, the trial court in Prayagraj acquitted the accused of rape but convicted him under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. The complainant then approached the high court.

The accused argued that their relationship was consensual and that he had refused marriage upon discovering that the woman had lied about her caste. The court found that the complainant, who married in 2010 but separated after two years, had hidden her marital status and caste from the accused.

The court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, noting that the woman maintained a physical relationship with the accused for five years without objection, frequently visiting hotels together. The court concluded that the trial court was correct in acquitting the accused, as the victim’s claims of sexual harassment and rape were unsubstantiated.

Justice Swaminathan noted that the assumption that an unmarried woman above 18 cannot give her child for adoption is flawed. He emphasized that a child’s birth circumstances, such as a live-in relationship or illicit intimacy, should not prevent the mother from ensuring a better future through adoption, especially if the father has abandoned the child.

The case involved a journalist, Ashok Kumar, who wanted to adopt a three-year-old boy “A” from “K,” a minor mother at the time of conception. The Registering Authority refused the adoption due to the lack of the biological father’s consent. However, the court found that “K,” being a Hindu and raising “A” as a Hindu, had the right to give her child in adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Githa Hariharan v. RBI, clarifying that the term “after” in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act signifies absence, not necessarily death. Therefore, the father’s indifference equates to absence, making “K” the competent guardian.

The court directed the authority to register the adoption deed upon fulfillment of other formalities, affirming the mother’s right to decide her child’s future.

The Supreme Court ruled that an administrative enquiry recommendation is essential before initiating legal proceedings against a public servant for dereliction of duty under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision overturns the High Court’s previous findings.

Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti emphasized that this administrative step is a prerequisite for starting penal actions under Section 4(2) of the Act. This provision ensures public servants are protected from unwarranted prosecution by dissatisfied complainants.

The case arose from a complaint against a Station House Officer (SHO) for not registering an FIR under the Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the lack of an administrative enquiry recommendation. The High Court reversed this decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice SVN Bhatti clarified that without an administrative enquiry’s recommendation, any commission or omission by a public servant does not become a cognizable offence. This ensures that allegations of neglect are substantiated before legal action.

The Supreme Court underscored the necessity for administrative enquiries to assess whether a public servant’s conduct was willful or bonafide. The ruling aligns with the Delhi High Court’s decision in Bijender Singh v. State and Anr., mandating an enquiry report before criminal proceedings.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards in prosecuting public servants under the Act.

Next month, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will make history by presenting her seventh consecutive Union Budget, surpassing Morarji Desai’s record of six consecutive budgets from six decades ago.

Since July 2019, Sitharaman has delivered five complete budgets and one interim budget, matching Desai’s six-budget record. This upcoming budget will be her seventh, breaking the previous streaks of notable predecessors like Manmohan Singh, Arun Jaitley, P Chidambaram, and Yashwant Sinha.

Scheduled for July 22, the Union Budget 2024-25 will also be the first full budget of the third consecutive union government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Sitharaman’s continuous tenure as Finance Minister has marked significant milestones, including becoming the country’s first full-time woman Finance Minister and the second woman to present the budget after Indira Gandhi.

On June 14, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Centre, asking them to respond to pleas for a probe into allegations of question paper leaks and discrepancies in the NEET-UG 2024 exam. The pleas call for an investigation by a committee led by a retired judge or an investigative agency.

During the session, petitioners highlighted the urgency of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe. Justice Vikram Nath, addressing the petitioners, emphasized the need for the NTA and the Centre to file their responses before considering such a move.

Advocate Charu Mathur, representing one of the petitions, noted a significant demand within the Indian Medical Association’s Junior Doctors Network for a CBI investigation. The petitioners alleged irregularities such as discrepancies between OMR sheets and scorecards, inflation of cut-off scores, and an unprecedented number of perfect scores, including six top scorers from the same exam center in Haryana.

The court has given the NTA and the Centre two weeks to respond, scheduling the next hearing for July 8. The NTA also plans to conduct a re-test for 1563 candidates who received grace marks, an independent decision noted by the court. Additionally, the NTA seeks to transfer related cases from various high courts to the Supreme Court.

Despite the ongoing litigation, the Supreme Court maintained its stance against changing the counselling date from July 6, rejecting a request to move it to July 9.

The NEET-UG exam, conducted on May 5 across 4750 centers in 571 cities for over 24 lakh candidates, remains under scrutiny.

Jana Sena Party (JSP) leader Konidela Pawan Kalyan will serve as the deputy chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, following the allocation of portfolios by the N Chandrababu Naidu government on Friday.

In addition to his role as deputy chief minister, Pawan Kalyan will also take charge as the minister for Panchayati Raj and Rural Development. He will oversee additional portfolios, including Environment and Forests, and Science and Technology.

The 55-year-old actor-turned-politician emerged victorious from the Pithapuram Assembly constituency in the recently concluded elections.

Earlier in the day, Kalyan’s social media account on X hinted at the announcement, as a post addressing him as the deputy chief minister was reposted.

A Jana Sena leader told The Indian Express, “We were hopeful that he would be recognized for his efforts leading up to the elections.”

Pawan Kalyan is credited with facilitating the alliance between the BJP and the Telugu Desam Party prior to the elections. A TDP insider commented, “Pawan Kalyan was the only candidate suitable for the deputy chief minister position.”

Jana Sena sources indicated that Pawan Kalyan is pleased with the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development portfolio. He had previously expressed a desire to implement “gram swaraj” (village self-governance) in Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, Kalyan personally requested the Environment and Forests portfolio to combat red sand smuggling and reduce human-animal conflict in the state, the sources added.