Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 27th January 2022

1. Consent Given During Prior Sexual Acts Won't Extend To Future Occasions: Punjab And Haryana High Court

• Stressing that law acknowledges a woman's right to have a sexual relationship, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that the consent given during prior sexual acts won't extend to future occasions.

• The Bench of Justice Vivek Puri further remarked that the withdrawal of the consent for sexual act effectively nullifies the earlier consent and therefore, forcibly sexual intercourse becomes non-consensual attracting the penal provisions of Section 376 IPC.

• The Case in brief: A complaint was submitted by the complainant/prosecutrix alleging that she had been working with the petitioner/rape accused and were acquainted with each other. Further, she alleged that the petitioner committed rape upon the complainant on many occasions and threatened to eliminate her in the event she made any complaint.

• She also complained of an incident wherein the petitioner forcibly entered the room of her PG, fought, hurled abuses, and gave beatings to her. The petitioner was booked under sections 376, 323, 427, 452, 506, and 509 IPC and later on arrested, and therefore, he moved the court with the instant plea seeking bail.

• It may be true that the law acknowledges live-in-relationship, but at the same time, it has also to be borne in mind that the law also acknowledges woman's right to have sexual relations. The crime of rape consists of committing a sexual act without consent or against the will of a person. Even on the assumption that if two persons previously had a consensual sexual relationship for any reason whatsoever, the consent of prior sexual acts will not extend to future occasions.

• Though the investigation of the case is complete, challan has been presented, but the charge is yet to be framed and the prosecutrix is yet to be examine. The possibility of an attempt on the part of the petitioner to win over or influence the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out," the Court observed as it denied bail to the applicant.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Leniency Can't Be Shown For Drunken Driving Merely Because No Major Accident Occurred : Supreme Court

• While dealing with the case of an employee's dismissal from service after being found guilty of driving under influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court of India has observed that merely because no major accident occurred leniency can't be shown for the misconduct of drunken driving.

• The Court stated that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also.

• Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol" Supreme Court said.

• A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee charged with causing an accident under influence of alcohol, against Allahabad High Court's judgement dismissing a writ petition refusing to set aside the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

• It was sheer good luck that the accident was not a fatal accident. It could have been a fatal accident. When the employee was driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel, the lives of those P.A.C. personnel who were travelling in the truck were in the hands of the driver. Therefore, it can be said that he played with the lives of those P.A.C. personnel, who were on duty and travelling from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty. the Bench said.

• However the Bench granted a partial relief to the employee by converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, observing that the award of punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh.

• As the employee has since died, the Bench directed that the death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if any, are to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law and bearing in mind that punishment of dismissal has now been converted into one of compulsory retirement.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation.

• The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab.

• In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.

• The issue considered by the Apex Court bench was whether the State Government's action taking a policy decision to prescribe a particular percentage of reservation/quota for a particular category of persons, can be interfered with by issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government to provide for a particular percentage of reservation for a particular category of persons other than what has been provided in the policy decision taken by the State Government?

• The court noted that the above judgments have held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation.

• "It was further observed that even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation. It was observed that even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation.", the bench noted.

Source: Bar & Bench