June 2021 SC

Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment': Supreme Court

Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua

[Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 266]

A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR against senior

journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist will be entitled to protection
in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of
the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as
explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh." In the
case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read down
Section 124A IPC and held that the application of the provision should be limited to
"acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order;
or incitement to violence".

The Court however refused the second prayer made by Vinod Dua seeking the
formation of a committee to verify allegations against journalists before lodging FIR and
that no FIR should be registered against a journalist with experience over 10 years
unless cleared by the committee. The Court said that this prayer would be an
encroachment into the legislative domain.

Trial Courts Have To Clearly Specify Whether Sentences Would Run Concurrently
Or Consecutively: Supreme Court

[Case: Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021

SC 267]

A bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed

that the Trial Courts, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, have to
specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or
consecutively. Any omission to carry out this obligation causes unnecessary and
avoidable prejudice to the parties, the Court opined. It further reiterated that the
omission to state whether the sentences awarded to the accused would run
concurrently or would run consecutively essentially operates against the accused
because, unless stated so by the Court. The omission to state the order of consecutive
running cannot ipso facto lead to concurrent running of sentences, the bench said.

Stop Illegal Adoption Of Children Orphaned By COVID; Public Advertisements

For Adoptions Unlawful: Supreme Court

[Case: In Re Contagion of COVID Virus In Children Protection Homes; Citation: LL

2021 SC 268]
June 2021 SC

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose in the suo

moto case initiated by the Court to deal with the problems of children affected by COVID
observed "No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the
provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to
law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement of CARA.
Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against
agencies/individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity." The Court
also directed the State governments and Union Territories to prevent any NGO from
collecting funds in the names of the affected children by disclosing their identity and
inviting interested persons to adopt them.

Wide publicity should be given to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and the prevailing
schemes of the Union of India and the State Governments/Union Territories which
would benefit the affected children, the Court added.

Kidnapping For Ransom - Necessary To Prove Threat To Cause Death Or Harm

For Conviction Under Section 364A IPC: Supreme Court

[Case: Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 272]

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhuhsan and R Subhash Reddy held that

merely proving the kidnap of a person is not sufficient for conviction for the offence of
'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. It must also be
proved that there was threat to cause death or harm to the kidnapped person or the
kidnapper, by his conduct, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such
person may be put to death. The Court was considering a criminal appeal wherein the
appellant, an auto-rickshaw driver, was convicted for kidnapping a school boy who had
taken ride in the auto and for demanding a ransom of Rs. 2 lakhs from his father.

The Court held that the essential ingredients to be proved by the prosecution for proving
the offence under Section 364A IPC are as follows :i) Kidnapping or abduction of any
person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and (ii)
threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that such person maybe put to death or hurt or; (iii) causes
hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or
any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act
or to pay a ransom. Accordingly, the Court observed, "Thus, after establishing first
condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is
"and". Thus, in addition to first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved,
failing which conviction under Section364A cannot be sustained."
June 2021 SC

Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under

Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court

[Case: M/s. Silpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; Citation:

LL 2021 SC 276]

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy held that the

provisions of Limitation Act will apply to to arbitration proceedings initiated under
Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED
Act). It also observed that counter-claim is maintainable before the statutory authorities
under MSMED Act. Thus the Court observed, "In view of the express provision applying
the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitrations as per Section 43 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly
relied on the judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee
and held that Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the arbitration proceedings under
Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. Thus, we are of the view that no further elaboration is
necessary on this issue and we hold that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 will
apply to the arbitrations covered by Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act."