Business growth comes at a cost. Cost of a human culture vanishing within the organisation. Cost of employee mental health and its effect on his/her family. Cost of crossing the ethical line to achieve the target. Cost of tarnished relations amongst colleagues due to undercutting your teammate. And last but not least, which hurts the most, is the cost of the undue burden we put on the environment. So much lost for a successful board room meeting, so much lost for looking down upon your competition!
Cost that doesn’t reflect on the balance sheet
With each passing month, as we embrace so much technology in our lives and witness Sensex cruising towards the $80,000 mark, we are losing on one thing. The one single most important trait we have that differentiates us from animals is humanity. We all have our own experiences; we come across so many instances in print where a corporation is losing its human currency. A corporate culture where ethics, culture and integrity are all on display is virtually nonexistent. Calls and reviews on a week off unapologetically have become common and are considered normal; non-compliance will tag the employee as non-competent, not a team player and a future potential. A leader walking into the office at closing hours and taking the entire team hostage till late for an unplanned review is no longer a rare occurrence. Someone on that team might have been looking forward to the date he had planned—maybe a daughter’s 2nd birthday party at home. These actions have emotional impacts, which we need to address, especially with the growing mental health issues surrounding us. It’s a cost paid by a family for a business growth decision taken by the corporation. The constant fear of being chucked off, impacting millions every day, is a cost for business growth. Needless to say, these impacts extend from the individual suffering to his family most of the time. So many companies ( big brands ) tag the word family to them in their quest to market themselves as employee friendly places on social media. But how many of their employees have been laid off or had to leave due to their toxic culture inside. Is this what we call a family, because a human family would seldom see its members being changed or missing all the time. That qualifies as a shameless act of perversion of the essence of a family.
The ever-increasing pressure to perform, where the worst end is losing your job, sometimes leads employees to take a path that is not ethical. Corporate ethics simply means doing the right thing by staying within legal and moral boundaries. Corporate unethical behaviour is a vast array, from fudging numbers, violating process, forgery to disrespectful behaviour towards colleagues and the list is never ending. While white collar crimes are mostly committed with greed as the backbone, it is also committed to adhere to the business pressure on an employee to achieve growth by doing gamed sales. And that is a cost paid for business growth. We all might have come across a horrible online team review video of a renowned bank a few months ago. In the video, a senior person is seen to be going through a fit of verbal diarrhoea, spurting all possible kinds of invective words to his team members. While the perspective behind what we saw is not clear, one thing is for sure that if the video is not fake, then no person on this earth has the right to disgrace fellow members with such words and rage. Now there can be various possibilities, like the man might be a habitual abuser, but the most relevant reason, it seems, especially after listening to the conversation, is the inability to manage the business pressure from the top, which led to this gross ethics violation, which is a cost paid by all those in the video for business growth. The other frightening part of it is that the organisation in this corporate scandal is a respected bank where many of us put our hard earned money and go for a peaceful sleep.
At India Inc., on a C suit level, the encouraging fact is the increased mention of corporate culture with respect to the past. Also encouraging is the spending on workshops, consultants, and surveys to improve their corporate culture. What is discouraging is the outcome. Now to dissect what is going wrong is beyond my intellectual capabilities; however, one reason is very clear to me, and that is my inability to implement. Inability to walk the talk. Most companies rely on a forced curve performance management system, which essentially pits employees against each other to gain some rewards and needs a certain percentage of employees to be at the bottom. This tactic undercuts collaboration, thereby undercutting team building, another corporate buzzword for years. Employees who are humans end up losing long-term relationships, which at the individual level would have helped them a lot in the unforeseen future. Not to forget the scarring effect on the minds of those who are at the bottom of the performance pyramid. That is a cost paid for business growth.
Finally, the collective cost paid by mankind is the fleecing of natural resources, leading to environmental degradation. In a race to emerge as the winner in the sales quarters to come, is production linked to consumption? Is the consumption habit based on the reduce, reuse, and recycle principle? You may have seen across the major cities in India so many High rise residential units built to near completion and lying vacant as inventory while the builder is on a spree of new launches. Forget the number of units left partially completed and lying under litigation. Just have a look around your own household (none being an exception) and try to estimate the products, clothing, and food items that you may have purchased, not used and will probably never use. That is the effect of consumerism on us. We are being told, guided by the marketing guns, to consume as many products and services as we can, creating a severe imbalance between need and want. The result is depleting flora and fauna, drastic change in weather cycles, dried up rivers and coughed up lungs. That is the cost paid for business growth.
Stopping is not an option
So what should we do? Put a brake on our quarterly targets, lay off sales people, reduce manufacturing capacity and further reduce employment. While India is eyeing stepping further up in the top ranking economies of the world, is it suggesting a pragmatic way ahead? Growth is imperative and is the basis of the world we are living in today. Earning money is important for everyone, but in the race to earn more and more, we, as a society, must not forget all the tangible and intangible costs we end up paying. It’s high time we adopted a sustainable way of living, not just for us, because we will surely see through our earthly odyssey. It is important for future generations who are yet to come or have just arrived. What shall we leave behind? is what we must ask ourselves before we press the buy buttons.
The answer lies in transformative change and not in austerity and sudden changes. It cannot be achieved by putting brakes on our businesses, but by adopting a long-term approach to reduce, reuse and recycle.
Transformation is the way forward
Business growth redefined
The transformation must occur by shifting our approach to how traditionally we have looked at business growth. We have been monitoring our sales team based on units and volume pushed into the market; it’s time we monitored efficiency and quality of sales. Efficiency in manufacturing by reducing waste and using innovation to recycle and reuse will increase the profits we seek. All these parameters have been there but have been the topic of review only towards the end of the review meeting, taking away the sanctity. Businesses need to control the temptation of quarterly growth and shift towards long term growth by investing in research and development of sustainable ways of manufacturing and supply chain management. A circular model of economy with the 3 R’s is the answer for business growth while safeguarding the environment.
Sustainable employment
Hiring should be based on long term vision and commitment and not on a quarterly need basis. Investment must be made in upskilling and training employees, which would help them increase their contribution towards sustainability. Empowering internal controls, ethics committees by appointing independent experts will yield multiple benefits. This will truly safeguard employee interests and provide the will to help safeguard employee well being while creating a superior public perception of being an ethics driven organisation. An independent presence in these departments will present the company with a new perspective and help achieve employee friendly status beyond online postings and presentations.
Culture of sustainability
We, the people, must spread and imbibe sustainable consumerism by keeping the impact on the environment and society in mind with our buying choices. Consciousness when buying is the way forward. Society and not only businesses need to be held accountable with their own sustainability reports stating their carbon footprint. Finally, education and awareness programmes shall be the pillars on which the culture of sustainability shall thrive.
Conclusion
It’s all easier said than done but imagine what the microsteps taken by each of us can result in. As we collectively made Black Friday a huge success, can we make a planet saving buy nothing day or a heartwarming giving day? Instead of going on a buying spree, it’s wise to ignite our creativity and create something out of the pile of leftovers we have at our place. Let’s collectively bring sustainability and the environment out of the hashtags and make them part of our daily lives.
The life of the earliest man was simple, wherein he lived based on agriculture and hunting for survival. As life progressed and man advanced, simple machines were introduced, and life started simplifying automatically as a result of those wonder machines. Gradually, with the passage of time, industrial revolutions took place at various phases in the history of mankind. In each phase, different machines came into existence, changing the life of man bit by bit.
The central hub: AI and creativity
Today, mankind has entered the fourth industrial revolution phase, which is a revolution of different kinds. In this revolutionary phase, machines have become smarter and are directing commands that are as good as human commands and performing work akin to humans. We are now dealing with artificial intelligence, which was never heard of before. It is a trend that is shaping human life differently and sculpting newer trends.
Here, some may say that AI is good, while others may speak against the trend. It, in reality, has taken a huge toll on humanity, with many losing their jobs, generating colossal unemployment and corrupting, hardening, degrading and desensitising humanity. However, analysing and looking at the brighter side of the newest trend called AI, there is some hope, after all for mankind. Different job scopes are created with this evolving technology. Here, it might be wise to inform others that the real challenge does not lie in the new technology itself but in recreating and adapting oneself to this new technology called AI.
Let us now delve deep into the realms of this new technology and how it has either affected or benefited various sectors of human life as far as creativity is concerned.
AI in writing
AI in writing has definitely created ripples where man is left with the ominous and ever-lingering doubt in their mind whether AI will ultimately replace human writing. Today, AI is slowly and very stealthily creeping bit by bit into every nook and cranny of human life. For some, it is threatening their very existence. Say, for instance, that the consummate and hardcore writer or the greenhorn aspiring to make a mark in the field are constantly afraid of their future. However, it is pointless to live in constant fear of getting ousted by this new kid on the block—AI. Instead, you can make it your constant companion and move forward into an exciting future hand-in-glove with AI.
For that, instead of delving deep into the dark crevices and fearing their mighty depths, look at the brighter side of this tool. This is a tool that is here to help you advance properly, provided you can train it as per your requirements. From there on, your journey with AI becomes an absolutely fresh experience that is awesome and wholly exciting.
It helps you to streamline the flow of the work that you want done by helping you improve your writing skills. This allows you to deliver work that is far superior than ever before. In a span of just some time, like magic, you have in front of you a tapestry of finely crafted words that hook your audience. Of course, this is the aim of every seasoned or aspiring writer. So go forward, embrace the new and see what your future holds for you.
The content can be crafted to personal likings and tastes. This comes with enhanced and perfectly crafted writing, making the content even more eye-catching and captivating. Now comes the dilemma of the authenticity of AI generated writing. It is for the user to strike the perfect balance between AI and voicing his or her own opinion. A piece of writing is marked as unique by the voice of the writer. So it is up to you as a writer to train your AI tool to voice your opinions and thoughts and pour your heart out into the writing. Therein, you can say that AI maintains the originality of the writer.
AI in music
AI has come a long way since its inception. It has made a deep impact on music today. By now everyone is aware that Paul McCartney used AI to isolate a vocal track by his bandmate, the late John Lennon, to segregate the instruments from his voice. This not only becomes exciting when you think of it as being able to clearly hear the maestro’s voice once again, but at the same time, it also becomes frightening when you realise what AI can do to music. If you analyse it carefully, you will definitely realise that this does not even scratch the surface. Here, we will dig deeper into the crevices of AI in music.
Music can be tailored to one’s needs with AI apps in music. So also, once your app detects and understands the kind of music that you listen to, it will automatically suggest music that is similar to your taste. You need not search whole libraries of music for the kind that you prefer. This is good news for music lovers – music according to your liking all day without you having to move your fingers too much. This software is capable of creating music in conformity with the listener’s choices, biometric data and mood. A day might come in the history of music where this app is capable of reading the heart rate and thus adjusting and suggesting music accordingly!
Song composition with AI has made the task relatively easier and cheaper. Music can now be whipped up with just a simple prompt. Today, it has become easier for budding musicians to train and learn music by training such apps based on voluminous databases. He can even create new music by trying it out and experimenting with it. This now gives rise to copyright and ownership issues. It comes to such a pass because when the apps create music, it will do so from an existing database, which is music that has already been created. So you are definitely bound to find subtle similarities that might come to your attention if you listen carefully. Those issues aside, if such apps could create the right algorithms, then human musicians are in for quite some trouble. And this also means all the money generated from such music will go to the companies creating the apps and humans will go out of employment and lose their livelihoods on a mass scale.
AI in visual arts
Now, what is visual art? It includes paintings, sculptures, & design concepts. And AI in art is a freshman in this form of art, though AI in itself is not so new, having been present on the horizon since the 1950s, with more prevalence and dominance being gained in the 1990s. You could allude to AI in art as any kind of creative canvas generated by AI.
If you talk about the domain that has to do with visual arts, AI today is playing up and revolutionising the whole thing. With AI in tow, traditional visual art forms have undergone massive upheavals by transcending conventional boundaries and coming up with awe-inspiring and hugely innovative ideas that have the capability of firing up the imagination and goading aspiring young artists to climb new heights.
This, in turn, has aided collaboration between artists and AI to create energising and exhilarating art forms that are totally new. Here we witness the seamless blending of artificial intelligence with human creativity. However, this in turn has given rise to questions about copyright implications and ownership. The debate surrounding this is complex and electrifying at times. Thus, it is imperative that the artist strike the right balance to overcome all the challenges and hurdles that stand in the way of creating new art forms that are fired up with enthusiasm. This has also given rise to legal issues that are an ongoing matter.
Merits of AI in creativity
AI comes with numerous benefits that will definitely take mankind one step ahead in time. It leaves little to almost no room for fallacies and oversight. It is because here a set of algorithms are at play that help reduce flaws. AI is available to humanity 24×7, making it available at all times, unlike humans. It helps to increase the efficiency of the work, leaving space for men to do other work that requires their attention. Tedious work can be overcome with little effort. The best part of AI is that creativity soars to its best with new innovations and hurdles overcome seamlessly. It is accessible to a wider audience, which is its goal. Day by day, newer tools are being used, which is giving rise to technology and science advancing at a fast pace. AI is doing wonders in the world of medicine and medical science, with diseases and symptoms being detected accurately. Where man cannot be sent or do a certain task, AI is coming to the forefront and conducting it with high precision and efficiency. These are just a few of the many wonders that AI has brought with its advent.
Challenges posed by AI
The biggest and by far the worst challenge that AI poses to humanity is the loss of livelihood. With its advent, many people have already lost their jobs and many more are yet to lose theirs. This is a setback for the ever-increasing human population, whose global count has already crossed the “8-billion” mark. So when more people are set to go out of employment, it is going to spell doom for the human race in general.
AI, as you know by now, is a set of algorithms which are used to complete a certain task at hand. Therefore, you cannot expect the human touch to be there. It has to be devoid of any feelings, making the job bereft of any human feelings that can prompt something different. Another fly in the ointment is bias when AI is at work. There have been cases of bias in AI. Facial recognition is one such big impediment to operation and success. Many AI systems have been trained to recognise mostly Caucasian male faces. Some recognise only US and Western faces. Non- Caucasians namely the dark-skinned, have to bear the brunt of this. The success rate of dark-skin tones is lower as compared to white ones.
Ethics of AI
First things first, you must know what ethics is actually about. It simply tells you right from wrong by using a set of moral principles to guide you. The same applies to AI, too. It guides the user on how to use AI in the right way without causing any social disturbances or discrimination. This can begin with considerations of disclosure and transparency. Tagging an AI generated piece gives the audience the right to know the origin of the piece, which further enhances their respect for creativity, which has amalgamated with technology. Now comes the million dollar question, “Who owns the ownership rights and copyright?” Who should be credited for a piece of creation—the artist or the machine? Ethics can strike that balance. It is a partnership between technology and human creativity.
Future of AI and what you can expect
The future of AI looks amazingly bright. It is moving at such break-neck speed that sometimes it is difficult to keep up with it. It is constantly changing the scenario but it is here to change and shape the future of humanity into something that has never been known to the human race. One of the most captivating aspects of AI’s future is its potential to enhance human capabilities. AI-powered tools and technologies are poised to augment our cognitive abilities, enabling us to make better decisions, solve complex problems, and create innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Imagine a world where AI assistants can provide real-time information, analyse vast amounts of data, and offer personalised recommendations, empowering individuals to achieve their full potential.
The fusion of AI with other cutting-edge technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, and 5G networks, is further amplifying its impact. This convergence is creating a hyper-connected, intelligent ecosystem where devices, machines, and systems can communicate seamlessly, automating tasks, optimising processes, and enhancing efficiency. The result is a world that is more responsive, intuitive, and assistive.
In healthcare, AI is revolutionising diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. AI-driven algorithms can analyse medical images, identify patterns, and predict outcomes with remarkable accuracy. This has led to the development of personalised medicine, where treatments are tailored to an individual’s unique genetic makeup and health history. AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants are providing 24/7 support to patients, answering questions, scheduling appointments, and offering guidance on managing chronic conditions.
Transportation is another sector poised for transformation by AI. Self-driving cars, powered by AI, are already a reality, offering safer, more efficient, and more accessible transportation options. AI is also revolutionising traffic management, optimising signal timing, reducing congestion, and improving overall mobility. In the future, AI-powered transportation systems may integrate various modes of transportation, such as cars, trains, and buses, creating a seamless and multimodal transportation network.
Education is another realm where AI is making significant strides. AI-driven personalised learning platforms can adapt to each student’s individual needs, providing tailored lessons, assessments, and feedback. AI-powered tutoring systems can offer real-time assistance, clarifying concepts, answering questions, and providing additional resources. AI can also analyse student data, identify areas for improvement, and provide insights to educators, enabling them to tailor their teaching strategies and interventions accordingly.
The future of AI is indeed bright and holds the potential to usher in a new era of human progress and prosperity. As we embrace the advent of AI, it is essential to navigate its ethical implications, mitigate potential risks, and ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a responsible and equitable manner. The future of AI is in our hands, and it is up to us to shape it into a force for good that benefits all of humanity.
Conclusion
AI is going to change the façade of every industry on this earth. It is gaining that all-important status wherein, you can say, approximately 44% of companies worldwide are delving deep into AI and toying with the idea of incorporating it into their business. Its importance can be gauged by the fact that of the 9130 patents that IBM received in 2021, 2300 were associated with AI. So now, do you have any doubts about the future of AI and what you can expect from it in the near future.
This article is written by Kathakali Banerjee. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgement of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002). The article further elaborates on the facts of the case, issues, arguments of the parties, and critical analysis of the case.
Table of Contents
Introduction
“The object of the fundamental rights is two-fold. First, every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority.” – Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly of India
One of the most important segments of the Indian Constitution is Part III, which delineates fundamental rights. With the notion in mind that basic human rights are the inherent feature of a being, the framers of the Constitution introduced the concept of fundamental rights with the view that these rights are the basic rights that are granted to all Indian citizens as well as non-citizens (Articles 12 to 35), so as to enable them to enjoy basic freedoms and rights and protect them from arbitrary actions of the state. As fundamental rights protect us from unnecessary state intrusions, it’s important for us to understand the concept of the term “state” properly. The inaugural Article to the fundamental rights, that is, Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, gives us the definition of a state, which bears the duty to protect and not to violate our basic rights. A plethora of judicial precedents have been delivered by judges interpreting “state.” As most of the fundamental rights can be enforced against the state and its various instrumentalities, it’s very important for us to understand their scope. From the 1950s itself, efforts through various judicial decisions have been made to give a proper structure and understand the scope of Article 12. The Apex Court considered the various precedents and finally reached a conclusion, removing all kinds of doubts in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002).
In this article, we will discuss the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (2002) and the significance that this landmark case holds in the eyes of the law. Further, we shall also understand the evolution of the concept of “state” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
Details of the case
Name of the case: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 111
Name of the Petitioner: Pradeep Kumar Biswas
Name of the Respondent: Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.
Date of Judgement: 16.04.2002
Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.P. Bharucha, former Chief Justice of India, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Justice Ruma Pal, and Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Background of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
Before the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, the Apex Court ruled that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) could not be classified as a “State” in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors. (1975). In the year 1972, Sabhajit Tewary, who was a junior stenographer appointed under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), filed a writ petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, claiming parity of remuneration with a newly appointed stenographer in the said institute. He claimed his right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claimed that the body, CSIR, registered under the Societies Registration Act, would work as an agency of the government, executing sovereign functions. However, a bench of 5 judges rejected the writ petition. It was stated that the features of the body were not sufficient for categorising it under ‘other authorities’ of Article 12. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as CSIR doesn’t fall within the scope of the ‘state’ under Article 12.
Facts of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Biswas and a few other’s services were terminated by the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which is a unit under the CSIR, a government agency under the control and functioning of the central government. A writ petition was filed by them challenging the termination of their services by CSIR, the parent organisation, in the Calcutta High Court before a single bench. The learned bench dismissed the petition based on the precedent set in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India. Aggrieved by the decision of the Calcutta High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court on 5th August 1986. The matter was initially presented before a division bench, which was subsequently referred to a larger seven-member constitutional bench to review and reconsider the Sabhajit Tiwary case.
Issues raised
Whether CSIR should be considered a state under the ambit of Article 12 based on the functions it carries out?
Whether it would be appropriate to overturn the decision given in the Sabhajit Tewary Case (1967), which has served as a prominent precedent for over a quarter of a century?
Arguments of the parties
Contentions raised by the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that, from reading the Memorandum of Association (MoA), CSIR should be considered a state under Article 12, as it was established for national interest purposes and aimed to foster industrial growth in India. They argued that CSIR performs a sovereign function, which warrants its recognition as a state.
The petitioners contended that the notification dated 31.10.1986, bringing CSIR within the purview of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, concluded the fact that CSIR was a state within the meaning of Article 12. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that no notification under the said section of the Act could have been issued by the central government unless the employees of the institute were either appointed to public services and posts in connection with the maintenance of the affairs of the Union or the State or any local or other authority in the territory and were under the control of the government.
Contentions raised by the Respondents
The respondents contended that the majority of the members of the governing body were non-governmental members. The president of the body has the power to nominate as well as terminate the membership of the ex-officio members. Even being the ex-officio President of the society, who in actual is the Prime Minister of India, the power was being exercised by him as the President of the society only.
In response to the contention raised by the petitioners, the respondent argued that the notification dated 31.10.1986, issued, was not conclusive of the fact that CSIR can be classified as a state within the meaning of Article 12. It is open to the government to issue a notification even if an entity is not a state to ensure the benefits of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act for its employees.
Judgement in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
The judgement delivered in this case preferred structuralism and was delivered in a 5:2 ratio, overturning the previous ruling by a 5-judge bench in the Subhajit Tewary case. The judges established that CSIR falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Tests like the formation of the body, object and function of the body, management and control of the body, and the financial aid provided to it were laid down by the Apex Court to assess the nature of the activities performed by the body, which would cause them to be classified under “state”.
Justice SP Barucha (then CJI), Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Justice N Santosh Hegde, Justice Ruma Pal, and Justice Arijit Pasayat delivered the majority decision and opined that CSIR falls under the ambit of “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution. They laid down the following reasons to support their opinion:
Relationship between Article 12 and fundamental rights
Being the inaugural Article of Part III of the Indian Constitution, Article 12 holds a significant position as it defines the entities against whom fundamental rights can be enforced. The Articles mentioned under Part III, which deals with fundamental rights, are granted to each and every individual, and so it creates an obligation on the “state” to protect them. Through a process of judicial interpretation, the scope of Article 14, which talks about equality, and Article 16, which talks about equality in matters of employment, has widened. This right not only ensures the right to be not discriminated against but also protects against arbitrary or irrational state actions. Therefore, the Apex Court, to keep pace with the widening capacity of equality rights, had to increase the scope for the interpretation of “state” under Article 12, so as to ensure the protection of individuals against the arbitrary exercise of power by the entities who have the power.
Society registered under Societies Registration Act is a “state”
The Supreme Court relied on the case of Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr (1975), where it was ruled that public authorities performing public functions are included under the concept of state. In this case, Justice Mathew, while giving his concurring judgement, propounded six indices:
A usual degree of control in the management or finding of state financial support over the body can categorise an operation as state action.
Having a significant combination of state aid and rendering an important public service can categorise a body as an agency of the state.
The public function performed, regardless of its operation, is significant.
Whether the corporation formulated carries out its business for the benefit of the public or not.
Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status that is state-protected
If a department of the government gets transferred to a corporation, then the corporation will be considered as an instrumentality or agency of the state.
The rationale behind delivering the judgements in Sukhdev Singhv. Bhagatram Singh and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India formed the “ratio decidendi” in the Ajay Hasia case. The case was heard by a 5 judge constitutional bench. While delivering its verdict, it was stated that if an entity is functionally, structurally, and financially acting as an agency or instrumentality of the state, it can be classified under “other authorities” as per Article 12 of the Constitution. The functional test focused on the factor of how the entity is operated, as to whether its function is predominantly influenced by the government. The structural test looked at the composition of the body so as to scrutinise whether it has government-dominated appointees. Lastly, the financial test looked at the financial contribution made by the government to the body. With the advancement of society, which leads to the multiplication of governmental tasks with the advent of a welfare state, there is a need to upgrade the framework of the civil service. A new administrative device in the form of a public corporation came into being as another arm of the government. So ultimately, it does not matter in what form the “state” is disguised to perform its public functions. So nothing would take away a corporation’s character as a “state,” which is incorporated under a law.
The tests formulated in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib are flexible, and the body claiming to be a state should be financially, administratively, and functionally dominated or controlled by the government. The control should be found to be pervasive and not a mere regulatory control by the government. The establishment of mere regulatory control would not serve the body as a state under Article 12.
The obiter dicta announced in Sabhajit Tiwary’s case stated that the employees of bodies that are not statutory and are registered under the Companies Act 1956 or the Societies Registration Act 1860 could not enjoy the rights of government employees under Article 311 of the Constitution, which has been overturned in this case. The court, while delivering its judgement, held that CSIR was set up to promote educational and economic public interests; it is governed by the body, which is controlled by the government, as well as its members, which are controlled by the government. Based on the above observations, the court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas overturned the ruling of Sabhajit Tewary, stating that even if a corporation is established under any law like the Companies Act or the Societies Registration Act, it would be considered a state under Article 12. In the case a corporation acts as the agency or instrumentality of the state, it will be automatically considered a “state,” and fundamental rights can also be enforced against them.
Deep and pervasive state control
The tests formulated in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram had “deep and pervasive control by the state” as one of the indicators to categorise a corporation or a society as a state agency or instrumentality. The presence of deep and pervasive government control over CSIR has been another important factor in recognising CSIR as an instrumentality of the state. The dominant role of the Government of India in the governing body of CSIR showed deep governmental influence. All the members present except the ex-officio members are nominated by the President of India, and the Prime Minister is the ex-officio President there. The power to terminate the office of any member also resides in the hands of the president. Even the governing body’s power to make or amend the rules of CSIR required the sanction of the Government of India. Financial assistance, the control of the government in the organisation’s expenditures, and the presence of grants given by the government were two of the crucial factors that established positive ties between CSIR and the government. Being a pioneer of India’s Intellectual Property Movement and covering a wide spectrum of technology as well as science, the functions of CSIR are of great public importance. Since the activities carried out are fundamental to the lives of individuals, they are considered to be intimately associated with governmental functions.
Formation of CSIR by the Central Government
Two bodies, the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Industrial Research Utilisation Committee, were set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India, on 27th April 1940, and 1st February 1941, respectively, with the objective of industrial growth in India. For proper coordination and exercise of administrative control over these two bodies, CSIR was formed under the Registration of Societies Act and duly registered on 12th March 1942. This shows that the body was created by the government itself to perform functions that were performed by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government.
Management and control
The presence of the government in the management and control of CSIR is ubiquitous. As per Rule 43 of the Rules and Regulations of CSIR, the governing body shall exercise all the powers of society, but it is subjected to the restrictions provided by the government. The judges highlighted that “given the fact that the President of CSIR is the Prime Minister, under this Rule, the subjugation of the Governing Body to the will of the Central Government is complete.” Rule 41 empowers the President to amend and regulate any of the decisions passed by the Governing Body, and his order is considered binding on the body. This shows the presence of “deep and pervasive control” by the government in the body.
Financial aid
70 percent of the funding for CSIR was provided by the central government. Besides that, contributions are also made by the state government, institutions, and other agencies. Even the budget and the expenditure of the society are drafted by the governing body of the society as per the instructions issued by the Government of India. The members of CSIR have no power to present their opinions with respect to the distribution of its assets in the event of its winding up. In this matter, the government also has a dominant role to play. Even though the assets are nominally owned by society, they are subjected to ultimate analysis by the government. The non-governmental contribution is much less or nothing as compared to the governmental contribution in the body. This shows the presence of deep and pervasive control over the body by the government.
Considering the above observations, the Apex Court overturned the precedent set in Sabhajit Tewary’s case. Further, the Apex Court quoted:
“Normally, a precedent like Sabhajit Tewary, which has stood for a length of time, should not be reversed, however erroneous the reasoning, if it has stood unquestioned without its reasoning being “distinguished” out of all recognition by subsequent decisions, and if the principles enunciated in the earlier decision can stand consistently and be reconciled with subsequent decisions of this Court, some equally authoritative. In our view, Sabhajit Tewary fulfils both conditions.”
Dissenting opinion in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. India Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
Justice RC Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju opined that Sabhajit Tewary’s ruling was correctly decided and CSIR is not a state under Article 12. They pointed out that even though there was some control by the government to be classified as a state, CSIR lacked deep and pervasive influence by the government. They quoted
“For our purpose, it would suffice to say that Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Article 323A of the Constitution, to which the Act owes its origin, do not apparently contemplate a society being brought within the ambit of the Act by a notification of the Central Government. Though we guardedly abstain from expressing any opinion on this issue, the present one cannot be an occasion for entering into that exercise. Moreover, on the material available, we have recorded a positive finding that CSIR is not a society “owned or controlled by the government”. We cannot ignore that finding solely by relying on the contents of the notification, wherein we find the user of the relevant expression having been mechanically copied but factually unsupportable.”
They asserted that CSIR cannot be regarded as a body falling within the category of a state based on the fact that it does not hold any statutory origin, nor is there any statute that confers it with powers. Simply holding a legal entity as the instrumentality or agency of the state does not automatically classify it as an “other authority” under Article 12. CSIR lacked the statutory flavour conferred either by the Constitution or any statute and its potential to act to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the people. The judges expressed dissatisfaction, as according to them, enough proof was not produced before the court to establish the presence of “deep and pervasive control by the government” to be classified as a state under Article 12.
CSIR is not “state”
Examining the characteristics of CSIR, the judges contended that it lacks the “statutory flavour” to be classified as a state under Article 12. The reasoning can be discussed as follows:
The first reasoning they provided is that the government is not the owner of the complete share capital of the body. It is only one of the five categories of avenues the body uses to derive its funds.
Secondly, the governing body is not entirely composed of nominees presented by the government and contains private individuals.
Thirdly, the functions rendered by the body are not essentially fundamental to the lives of people, and the functions entrusted to CSIR can also be carried out by any private organisation.
Fourthly, it was pointed out that the body was not a department of the government but a society set up under the Societies Registration Act to coordinate and administer the functions of the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Industrial Research Utilisation Committee.
Fifthly, membership-related issues are solved by the Prime Minister (the President of the society) and not by the Government of India. Furthermore, the governing body is headed by the Director General of CSIR and not the President. There is governmental interference while regulating the expenditure of the body, as financial assistance is also granted by the government.
Sixthly, the judges stated that the provisions of the Memorandum of Association (MoA) of CSIR are general and applicable to all societies.
Seventhly, with respect to the notification dated 31.10.1986, it was issued by the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances, and Pensions, as pointed out by the Attorney General.
They concluded that Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and Article 323A of the Indian Constitution, to which the Act owes its origin, “do not apparently contemplate a society being brought within the ambit of the Act by a notification of the Central Government.” Therefore, Justice RC Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju opined that there is a governmental presence, but not so deep to categorise it as a “state” under Article 12.
Critical analysis of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
This case has been pivotal in shaping the interpretation of Article 12. Some of the key legal aspects outlined in this case are as follows:
Interpretation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
This case has delved into the interpretation of Article 12, particularly concerning the inclusion of other authorities, especially public sector undertakings, within its ambit. Factors like object, function, control, and management by the government were explored in this case. By providing clarity on the criteria for categorising entities as “states” under Article 12, it has set an important precedent for interpreting public entities’ status.
Analysis of pervasive governmental control.
A significant aspect examined in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case was the extent of governmental control exerted over entities like CSIR. It established that factors such as financial, administrative, and functional control by the government are essential considerations for an entity to be deemed a “state” under Article 12. This judgement played a pivotal role in developing the test of deep and pervasive state control, thereby expanding the scope of entities considered as “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Judicial Scrutinization of Public Enterprises
In the context of globalisation, the case highlighted the need for evolving interpretations of Article 12 with respect to public entities. It highlighted the need for continuous judicial scrutiny to ensure that such entities adhere to constitutional principles and protect the rights of individuals. By emphasising the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation, the case emphasised the judiciary’s role in adapting to contemporary socio-economic realities.
A seven-judge bench set out an important precedent for interpreting “other authorities” under Article 12, especially in the field of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). This decision has far-reaching implications for PSUs that are set up by privatisation policies. It has been clearly set out that entities like CSIR, which are administratively, functionally, and financially controlled and dominated by the government, will be considered within the definition of a state under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
The reasoning behind the delivery of this judgement can also be criticised on certain specific grounds. The court’s reliance on “the deep and pervasive control of the state” is overly formalistic in nature. The deep and pervasive control test laid down by the court in a few circumstances ignores the evolving nature of governance and the increasing involvement of non-governmental bodies that are devoted towards performing public functions. In an era where the line dividing the public and private sectors is quite blurred, the reasoning provided would have detrimental consequences for the protection of civil liberties, as the reasoning provided in this present judgement may limit the ability of individuals to take the step to challenge the arbitrary actions of various public authorities.
State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution
Article 12 is the inaugural Article of Part III, which defines bodies that can be classified as “state”. As per Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term ‘state’ includes:
The Government and Parliament of India;
The government and the legislatures of each state;
Local authorities situated within the territory of India
Other authorities, whether situated within the territory of India or controlled by the Government of India and situated in any other place outside India.
It can be concluded that the term state includes both the executive and legislative organs of the union and states. Any authority exercising sovereign or governmental functions can be categorised as a state.
Judicial interpretation of local authorities
Local authority is defined under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As per the definition, it includes a municipal committee, the body of Port Commissioners, and other local self-governing bodies like municipalities, district boards, improvement trusts, mining settlement boards, etc. The Apex Court, in its landmark judgement Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981), laid down certain tests that would help us determine if a body falls within the category of local authority.The court ruled that if a body possessed a separate legal existence, functions in a specifically defined area, enjoys self-rule, and is entrusted by statute with functions that are generally entrusted to the municipalities, then such bodies would come under “local authorities” and would be considered states under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
Judicial Interpretation of “Other Authorities”
As per Webster’s Dictionary, authorities are those bodies exercising the power to command. We can properly interpret the term local authorities from the various statutory provisions, but the term “other authorities” has not been defined properly, leaving it open for interpretation by the judiciary. The “other authorities” have been kept open-ended so that the definition of “state” is inclusive and encompasses a broad range of entities that operate under the supervision of the Indian Government. This term is highly ambiguous and has been interpreted differently in different cases. A few important cases that have been regarded as landmarks in the interpretation of the term are discussed below.
The term “other authority” was interpreted for the first time in the case of the University of Madras v. Shantabai (1953). In this case, the Madras High Court directed to apply the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting this term. Ejusdem generis means “of the same kind,” which implies that any authority to be considered under ‘other authorities’ must execute governmental or sovereign functions. Therefore, authorities of the same nature as governmental bodies will be considered states under Article 12. In this case, it was established that for an authority to be considered as a state, sovereign function should be an inherent feature.
However, the interpretation provided in the University of Madras v. Shantabaicase faced challenges in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of UP (1962). Here, the application of ejusdem generis was rejected, as it was deemed to overly restrict the interpretation of other authorities. The absence of a common thread among the other elements of the state mentioned under Article 12 rendered the approach of ejusdem generis inappropriate.
A new method for interpreting other authorities was formulated in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohanlal (1967). The Supreme Court established that bodies created by law or under the Constitution would have enough powers to affect fundamental rights. Such bodies would be considered as a ‘state’ within the scope of Article 12. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the bodies that are invested with the power to make rules and regulations but do not share the sovereign power of the state will not be included under “state” within the meaning of Article 12. Performing governmental or sovereign functions is not an inherent quality that comes under the scope of other authorities. This decision thus broadened the scope of other authorities, encompassing entities beyond those traditionally associated with sovereign functions, such as universities.
The case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram (1975) addressed the question of whether bodies established under statutes but primarily engaged in commercial functions would be considered a state. The Supreme Court laid down that bodies like the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), established under special statutes, would indeed be considered as a state under Article 12. This decision followed the guidelines laid down in the Rajasthan Electricity Board case.
In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), a landmark judgement on Article 12 was delivered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. In this case, the Airport Authority was held to be a state. The Court established that a degree of governmental control over the body or significant financial assistance from the government would qualify even a private entity as an instrumentality or agency of the state. This case introduced the functionality versus instrumentality test, highlighting the importance of governmental control or financial backing in determining an entity’s classification as a state.
In Som Prakash v. Union of India and Anr. (1981), it was held that Bharat Petroleum is an instrumentality of the state. This constitutional judgement by the Apex Court considered that corporations owned by the Indian government were subject to Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that Article 12, read with Article 298, which deals with the government’s authority to carry on trade, clearly encompasses registered societies, statutory corporations, government entities, and other similar entities created for promoting economic activities.
In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehra Vardi (1980), another important case for the interpretation of other authorities, Justice PN Bhagwati declared that a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, qualified as a state. This case further developed and elaborated on the instrumentality test established in previous cases. It was held that if anybody fulfils either of the criteria mentioned below, it will be regarded as a state under Article 12 of the constitution:
If the said body is totally funded by the state,
If the said body is partially funded, with major funding coming from the state, or
If the said body is not funded by the state but the state has granted autonomy to the concerned body,
If there is absolute administrative control over the body by the state.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) considered the key factors laid down in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case while addressing whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) falls within the category of the state under Article 12. This case provided a wider interpretation of the term, emphasising BCCI’s financial independence, absence of governmental shareholding, and dominance as key factors and held that BCCI cannot be considered as a state under Article 12 of the Constitution.
In SS Rana v. Registrar Corp. Societies (2006), the issue arose as to whether cooperative societies fall within the meaning of other authorities. The Apex Court held that mere control of the affairs of the society by the registrar does not automatically make the society “state” unless the other factors enumerated in Pradeep Kumar Biswas and other previous cases are fulfilled. This decision highlighted the importance of factors beyond mere governmental control.
Conclusion
The Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) case, while overturning Subhajit Tewary’s precedent, notably overturned an erroneous judgement. The objective with which CSIR was formed can be understood by reading its resolution. In its resolution, CSIR detailed functions like promotion, guidance, and coordination of scientific and industrial research, among others. From this, it can be manifested that CSIR was formed in the national interest.
A retrospective analysis from Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), and Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association (2002) suggests that entities that are financially, functionally, and administratively controlled and dominated by the government constitute a state, and not any mere regulatory body would suffice. This decision has been set up as an important precedent in the field of recognising whether public entities fall within the ambit of the state or not. It’s an accepted fact that the interpretation of Article 12 has undergone drastic changes over the years.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the scope of Article 12?
Understanding the scope of Article 12 is important, as it helps us to determine to whom fundamental rights apply. The key components of the scope of Article 12 include, mainly:
Government: This includes the Government and Parliament of India, the state governments, and their respective legislatures.
Local and Other Authorities: This includes entities other than the central or state governments that are situated within the territory of India.
Over the years, the interpretation of the term ‘state’ under Article 12 has expanded. Among the four distinct instrumentalities, the term ‘other authorities’ is the most open and widely interpreted term in Article 12. From the discussion of various judgements above, we can conclude that bodies included in ‘other authorities’ must possess certain essential factors. Governmental control, functioning public services, and financial ties with the government are the essentials to be considered as a state under Article 12.
What’s the significance of the case with respect to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?
The case Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) holds immense significance in the interpretation and application of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution guarantee individuals the right to be protected against arbitrary state actions. Now, that’s why defining “state” actions is very important, and the definition given under Article 12 is also very crucial. The reasoning provided by the court in this case had far-reaching implications for the scope and applicability of this constitutional provision. The court analysed the concept of “instrumentality or agency of the state,” which was outlined in the previous judicial precedents. It further added certain conditions for the determination, like the degree of governmental control over the body, its funding sources, and the nature of functions performed by it. The case expanded the scope of Article 12 from traditional governmental agencies to include a wide range of entities that execute public functions.
References
Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution-Edited by Sujit Chowdhary, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta,2016
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition,2019
VD Mahajan’s, Constitutional Law of India, 8th Edition,2023
Dr J.N Pandey’s Constitutional Law of India, 58th Edition,2021
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
This article is written by Shilpi. This article contains a detailed analysis of the findings and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar (1977). The article further elaborates on the importance of marital institutions in today’s scenario and presents a critical analysis of the Court’s judgement in shaping the position of the law in seeking dissolution of marriage where parties fail to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Moreover, this article discusses the contentious issue of whether a party to a marriage can file for divorce by taking advantage of his or her own wrong.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Marriage is the union of two souls. A male and a female tie the matrimonial knot and spend the rest of their lives together. This matrimonial relationship gives rise to certain rights and obligations for couples, both individually and jointly. These rights and obligations are referred to as ‘conjugal rights’.
The dynamic of relationships continues to evolve with time. While a married couple may start off their journey on a pleasant note, things may turn bitter over time. Some couples withstand the test of time and emerge stronger than ever. These couples view themselves as a single unit and keep aside their egos. However, not everyone shares this perspective. A few couples let situations get the better of them and lose their love and respect for each other in a sea of ups and downs. Instead of a single unit, they become each other’s competition. Over time, they choose to part ways and start afresh after the dissolution of marriage.
When either spouse feels that they have been devoid of their conjugal rights, they can move the court for restitution. Even when complying with the court’s order, spouses do not end up happily together with each other. The possibility of divorce always lurks on the horizon.
When one spouse chooses to end the marriage, the other may feel wronged or abandoned. The latter may state that the other failed to reciprocate the efforts needed to save the marriage from the brink of divorce. This article aims to discuss one such landmark case relating to restitution of conjugal rights and divorce, wherein the court has discussed the scope of the right of the party to seek dissolution of marriage only when they have not taken advantage of his or her wrong and deprived the other party of their matrimonial rights.
Details of the case
The following are the fundamental details of the case:
Nature of the Petition: Special Leave Petition arising from the judgement and order dated 19.10.1976 of the Delhi High Court in the matter of F.A.O. 170 of 1976.
Background of the case
The case of Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar (1977) primarily sheds light on the phrase ‘taking advantage of his or her own wrong’ used in Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the Respondent. However, after the expiry of 2 years from the date of the grant of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act for dissolution of the marriage between the parties through divorce. The Petitioner raised objections against the petition for divorce filed by the Respondent.
Facts of Dharmendra Kumar vs. Usha Kumar AIR (1977)
The Respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court granted the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the favour of the Respondent on 27.08.1973. On 28.10.1975, the Respondent instituted a petition under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act in order to dissolve the marriage between the parties through a decree of divorce. In response to the petition for divorce, the Petitioner, in his written statement, admitted the fact that even after passing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, no conjugal rights have been resumed between the parties. However, the Petitioner stated that he has taken steps to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by writing several registered letters to the Respondent and inviting the Respondent to live with him.
The Petitioner contended that irrespective of the steps taken by him to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the Respondent refused to receive some of the letters written to her by the Petitioner, and even when she received some of the letters, she omitted to reply to those. Hence, as per the Petitioner, it is the Respondent who is responsible for the failure to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Petitioner added that the Respondent is now trying to ‘make capital out of her own wrong’.
Relevant provisions of Dharmendra Kumar vs. Usha Kumar AIR (1977)
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
In a marriage between a man and a woman, if either spouse withdraws from the life of the other spouse, refuses to participate in their misery and happiness, or stops sharing their life with the other spouse without offering a valid reason for their actions, the other spouse has the right to seek remedy before a district court for restitution of conjugal rights. This is provided under Section 9 of the Act.
When the court has determined that there is no valid cause or legal obstruction in granting the requested remedy to the petitioner, it passes a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, which both parties to the marriage have to comply with.
Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
When there is no resumption of cohabitation between spouses for one year from the day of the issue of a decree for judicial separation, either spouse has the flexibility to file for divorce and seek dissolution of marriage.
In the context of this Section, ‘resumption of cohabitation’ refers to the existence of cordial relationships between the spouses wherein they are living together under the same roof. If the court finds that nothing bars the plaintiff, as per Section 23 of the Act, from seeking divorce, the court will sanction divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Act.
Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
A married person under Hindu law has the right to file for divorce on diverse grounds. However, to ensure that this step is not taken in haste or for personal benefit at the cost of causing distress and hurt to the other spouse, Section 23 of the Act safeguards the rights of the other party and bars the courts from granting matrimonial relief to the petitioner on several grounds.
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act states that when a petitioner himself/herself is guilty of creating circumstances where the respondent acts out of provocation or reaction to the petitioner’s behaviour or activities, the petitioner cannot paint the respondent in a negative light and portray himself/herself as innocent. In this situation, the petitioner cannot file for divorce by holding the respondent guilty and cherry-picking facts for her/his advantage, which is seeking matrimonial relief. For example, if a husband beats his wife regularly in a state of drunkenness and one day the wife refuses to continue living with him under the same roof and walks out with her belongings, the husband cannot file for divorce in this situation since his behaviour and activities were responsible for the wife’s actions. He cannot take advantage of his wife’s reaction and knock on the court’s door for matrimonial relief while his own hands are not clean.
Issues raised
For adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the Court framed the following issue:
Whether the respondent’s refusal to comply with her husband’s efforts for restitution and filing for divorce amounts to taking advantage of her own wrong under Section 23 of the Act?
Arguments of the parties
Appellant
The appellant has stated that he made massive efforts to save his marriage and comply with the restitution of conjugal rights as per the decree of the Court for the two years from the date of judgement. He wrote several registered letters to the respondent, requesting her to come and live with him and save the marriage. However, the respondent never reciprocated his efforts by accepting his invitation to stay with him under the same roof and comply with the decree of the Court. Moreover, not only did she ignore his request, she also refused to receive a few of the registered letters sent by him. The appellant argued that the respondent herself did not strive for restitution of conjugal rights and now wishes to take advantage of her own wrong by seeking dissolution of marriage by filing for divorce.
Respondent
While the judgement does not explicitly mention any argument presented by the respondent in the matter, the respondent could have stated that spouses did not have restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years from the date of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
Judgement in Dharmendra Kumar vs. Usha Kumar AIR (1977)
After application of the law according to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that mere non-compliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not constitute a wrong in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Court opined that for an act to be ‘wrong’ under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the act must go beyond the lack of an effort that portrays a mere attempt to reconcile or reunite. The act must be of a grievous nature that significantly denies the parties to perform their conjugal obligations. Such omission must be of such a nature that it entitles the parties to claim relief granted under the Act. Under Section 13 (1A)(ii) of the Act, the party is not taking advantage of his own wrong but availing of a legal right.
The Court held that even if the allegation made by the Appellant is true, that is, the Respondent has denied receiving or replying to the letters written by the Appellant, it does not amount to misconduct in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the Apex Court held that as the act of the respondent does not amount to misconduct, she is entitled to the relief claimed by her, i.e., dissolution of marriage between the parties through divorce.
Analysis of Dharmendra Kumar vs. Usha Kumar AIR (1977)
A party cannot seek matrimonial relief under Section 23(1) if he takes advantage of his own ‘wrong’. It is a settled principle of law that one cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. Despite holding a considerable amount of importance, the term ‘wrong’ has not been defined in the Act. An act of defining something has the potential to restrict the scope of its application, which in certain circumstances can also lead to injustice. The act of constructing the meaning of ‘wrong’ has been delegated to the judiciary. Henceforth, various courts have defined an act as ‘wrong’ as per the facts and circumstances of a specific matter.
In the case of M. Someswara v. Leelavathi (1968), the Karnataka High Court held that Section 23(1)(a) of the Act entitles the Court to grant the reliefs provided under the Act only when the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not, in any way, taken advantage of his own wrong. In the present case, the wife was willing to perform her marital obligations; however, the husband refused to resume cohabitation and also mistreated his wife. Therefore, the court refused to grant the relief of divorce in favour of the husband.
Similarly, in the case of Geeta Lakshmi v. G.V.R.K. Sarveswara Rao (1982), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the husband mistreated his wife after a decree for maintenance was passed in the favour of the husband. The husband also drove his wife away from his house. Keeping in consideration the present facts and circumstances, the Court refused to grant a decree of divorce to the husband in view of his own wrong.
A mere disinclination to offer for reunion should not be categorised as ‘wrong’ as per Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. In the case of T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a court decree granting restitution of conjugal rights amounts to an invasion of privacy and the right of an individual to take intimate decisions.
Therefore, forcing two unwilling parties to continue with their conjugal rights will be a void attempt to restore a marriage that has been irretrievably broken down. Hence, the decision of the Court to not consider an act of not replying to or receiving the letters sent by one party to another party as a ‘wrong’ in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Act is a logical deduction.
Analysis of Section 13(1A)(ii) read with 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act
Section 13(1A) of the Act was inserted by Amendment Act 44 of 1964. After the insertion of the amendment, Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act lays down the provision that either party to the marriage has the option to file a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce in the case where a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by a court in a proceeding and the parties have failed to comply with the decree within two years of passing of that decree. However, the time period of 2 years was reduced to 1 year under Amendment Act 68 of 1976. The right to file a petition for divorce under this Section is available to both husband and wife.
In the case of Chaman Lal Chuni Lal v. Smt. Mohinder Devi (1967), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the wife had obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the husband; however, the husband moved to the High Court to file the petition for divorce. The Court held that it was the obligation of the husband to prove that he had taken steps to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Once he proves that he made efforts to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, it can be deduced that he has not taken any advantage of his own wrong. However, the husband failed to prove that he had made efforts to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by his wife. Hence, the Court decided that he was not entitled to the decree of divorce, as his omission amounted to him taking advantage of his own wrong.
The Delhi High Court in the case ofRam Kali v. Gopal Dass (1971)discussed the object behind the amendment in Section 13 of the Act. The Court laid down that the fundamental reason behind inserting Section 13(1A) is that even after the expiry of 2 years from the date of passing of the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights, if the parties have failed to resume cohabitation or comply with the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights, the court should presume that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down, and, hence, there is no scope of reconciliation. In the absence of any possibility for reconciliation, the court might pass a decree for the dissolution of marriage by divorce. The enacted provision is in conformity with the modern practice of not forcing the parties to continue with a union that has been irretrievably broken down.
The power of the court to grant divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act is subject to the provisions laid down under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Section 23(1)(a) of the Act provides that while filing a petition under Section 13(1A)(ii), the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong. While interpreting the rule laid down under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the Delhi High Court in the case ofSmt. Gajna Devi v. Purshottam Giri (1976) held that the rule laid down under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act does not apply to the statutory right available to the party to obtain a divorce that has been granted under Section 13(1A) of the Act.
In the case of Sushil Kumari Dang v. Prem Kumar Dang (1976), the Delhi High Court distinguished that the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights while simultaneously alleging that his wife was in an adulterous relationship. It was held that the mere fact of contradiction of such nature proves that the petition filed by the petitioner is not bona fide, and hence, the Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the remedy claimed as per Section 23(1) of the Act.
The Gujarat High Court in Anil Jayantilal Vyas v. Y. Sudhaben (1977) held that the mere omission of the husband to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the wife does not automatically direct that he has taken advantage of his own wrong so as to disentitle him from seeking the relief of divorce.
In the case of Meera Bai v. Rainder Kumar Sobti (1985), the husband remarried during the lifetime of his wife without giving divorce to her. The wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights; however, the husband did not object to the same. The Court granted the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights. The husband failed to comply with the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights as he had no intention to live with the petitioner. Subsequently, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1A) of the Act for dissolution of marriage through a decree for divorce. The Delhi High Court held that the intention of the husband to let the wife receive the decree for restitution of conjugal rights while planning to file a divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Act clearly postulates the wrong on the part of the husband.
The Supreme Court in the case of T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi (Mrs.) (1998) observed that the intention of the husband to obtain the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was to keep his wife away from her rights to perform her conjugal rights rather than to act in consonance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife demanded from her husband that he let her rejoin him; however, he refused her permission to enter the house. He also drove away her relatives and the other people who tried to rehabilitate the wife. The Court held that these acts of the husband amount to “misconduct,” which cannot be condoned as per the provision of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act.
The Karnataka High Court in that case of Smt. Asha N. v. Sri S. Vinay (2023) observed that the petitioner (husband) took such steps that made the resumption of marital life impossible for the wife, and, hence, he failed to act as a dutiful husband. Therefore, this act of husband falls within the term ‘wrong’ provided under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. As he is guilty under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, he is disentitled to the decree of dissolution of marriage by divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act.
The Calcutta High Court in the case of Nityananda Karmi v. Kum Kum Karmi (2002) provided that the court, while interpreting and applying the provisions of Section 13(1A) and 23(1) of the Act, should keep the principle of harmonious construction into consideration.
Conclusion
The Hindu law and Indian judicial system consider marriage a social institution. In their eyes, the fabric of marriage should not be snagged until the last resort. The court tries its level best to reconcile estranged or bickering couples and gives them an extended period to resolve their dispute and resume their married life by keeping aside their differences. However, when the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no scope for reconciliation, it is an injustice to force two individuals to live together in a shared household when they have massive differences.
It is in these situations that the court chooses to grant divorce and allow for the dissolution of marriages. But this relief is not granted in a vacuum. The court takes note of Section 23 of the Act, which outlines the bars for granting matrimonial relief to Hindu couples. Under this, the scope of ‘taking advantage of the wrong done by the petitioner’ proves instrumental in ensuring that the petitioner is not seeking relief for selfish reasons by accusing the respondent of actions or circumstances that the petitioner is primarily responsible for creating in the first place. The ambit of ‘wrong’ under this Section is to be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the meaning of conjugal rights?
When two people marry each other, they must live together and enjoy a certain set of rights and obligations as spouses. These rights are as follows:
The right to be part of each other’s lives and a shared space where one spouse does not lead a solitary life after marriage as he or she did in their bachelorhood. The spouses are part of each other’s society, and one cannot abandon the other as per their whims and fancies. The life that begins with marriage is one of shared journeys and responsibilities.
The right to cohabit as a husband and wife and not deprive the other of this right for any unjust reasons.
These rights are known as conjugal rights.
What is the meaning of restitution of conjugal rights?
The restitution of conjugal rights refers to a remedy for a married couple where they have been staying apart for a prescribed period and one spouse seems to have cut away from the life of another. The restoration of their rights that they enjoyed as a married couple before one withdrew herself/himself from the society of another refers to the restitution of conjugal rights.
Which law provides for restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu law?
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for the restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu law.
What are the essential elements to seek relief under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
The couple applying for restitution of conjugal rights should be legally married to each other. One of them should withdraw themselves or exclude themselves from the society of another. Such withdrawal should not have any reasonable cause. The petitioner must prove to the court’s satisfaction that there is no valid reason according to the law for rejection of such a decree that grants restitution of conjugal rights.
What happens when the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed?
Once the court passes a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a couple, the respondent is bound to cease withdrawing from the society of the petitioner and resume enjoying rights as a couple that the parties did right after marriage. They must live together and cohabit.
If the parties fail to comply with the decree of the court for restitution of conjugal rights for one year from the date of the decree, either party can file for divorce to seek dissolution of marriage.
What are the grounds for divorce in India for Hindu couples that can be filed by either party to a marriage?
The grounds for divorce for Hindu couples that can be filed by either husband and wife are as follows:
Adultery
Cruelty
Desertion
Conversion to another religion
Mental disorder
Communicable disease
Renunciation of the world
Presumption of death
Unsoundness of mind
Which act will not amount to ‘wrong’ in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Act?
As per judicial precedents, the following actions of a party will not amount to ‘wrong’ as per Section 23(1)(a) of the Act:
Continuation of living in adultery by the husband, where a decree for judicial separation has been granted in favour of the wife on the ground of adultery [Bai Mani v. Jayantilal Dahyabhai (1979)]
Failure on the part of the husband to comply with the order to pay alimony to the wife as per the decree for judicial separation obtained by the wife [Sumitra Manna v. Gobind Chandra Manna (1987)]
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
This article is written by Rachel Sethia. This article offers a detailed analysis of the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022). It includes the background, facts, issues, legal aspects involved and the judgement, along with landmark precedents referred to by the Apex Court.
Table of Contents
Introduction
This case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), deals with the concept of bail. It emphasises the norm, that is, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court of India, which while passing its judgement quoted John E.E.D’s Essay on Freedom and Power which was “Liberty is one of the most essential requirements of the modern man. It is said to be the delicate fruit of modern civilization. It is the very quintessence of civilised existence and essential requirement of modern man.” The court observed the shortcomings of the system of bail in India, particularly with respect to the issue of persons under trial. In addition to the guidelines given under the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), some major guidelines for the courts and investigative agencies were laid down.
Details of the case
Case Name: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
Appellant: Satender Kumar Antil
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Supreme Court
Bench of Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh
Type of Case: Special Leave Petition
Date of Judgment: 11th July 2022
Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 51
Background of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022)
The present case was preceded by two judgements on the matter, in 2021. The current applicant was accused, and an FIR was filed against him, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The investigation was completed, without arresting the accused, and the chargesheet was filed in court. Notably, the court then took the chargesheet on record and further issued summons to the applicant, seeking his appearance in the court. Opting to file for an anticipatory bail, the accused did not appear in the court on the required date. The court rejected his anticipatory bail application and issued a non-bailable warrant against him. Eventually, the matter was presented before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court then while hearing the application on anticipatory bail questioned the petitioner the need for an anticipatory bail, as there should exist no fear of being taken into custody and moreover, it was the petitioner who was not appearing before the court.
The petitioner submitted that the system which is generally followed, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is that despite not being arrested during the investigation, if a chargesheet is filed, in such cases of the CBI, the accused is sent to custody and therefore, his appearance and application for bail would have led him to custody. The Supreme Court found this to be unacceptable and decided to clarify the matter. It categorised numerous offences, and laid down guidelines with respect to cases wherein no arrest must have taken place during the investigation and the concerned person must have shown cooperating during the investigation, including appearing before the court when asked to do so.
The categorises and the guidelines for every category are as follows-
Category A: offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less, not falling in Categories B & D.
Once the chargesheet is filed and taken on record, the following is to be done:
Issue ordinary summons, and permit appearance through a lawyer.
Once the summons is duly served and the accused does not appear, a bailable warrant must be issued for physical appearance.
Once the bailable warrant is served and the accused still does not appear, a non-bailable warrant must be issued.
If the accused files an application, undertaking to appear in court on a certain date as required, the non-bailable warrant can be converted into a bailable warrant, or into a summons, without insisting on his physical appearance.
When the accused appears in the court, the bail application must be decided without him being taken into custody, or by granting him interim bail until the bail application is decided.
Category B: offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for more than 7 years.
Once the accused appears in court, the bail application is to be decided on merits.
Once the accused appears in the court, the bail application must be decided on merits, with due compliance of the provisions pertaining to bail, as under the special acts.
Category D: Economic offences not covered by special acts.
Once the accused has appeared in the court as per the process given, the bail application must be decided on merits. Due consideration must be given to factors such as, seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment imposed by the statute.
This formed the Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2021. On 16.12.2021, the Supreme Court went on to issue clarifications with respect to the previous order-
The primary intention behind that order was to expand the scope and simplify the process of bail, not to restrict it.
The interpretation of the order must not differ merely because of the inclusion of economic offences (Category D), which may be non-cognizable.
As held in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), if during investigation, there arise no reasons to arrest the accused, a mere filing of the chargesheet shall not lead to his arrest.
Facts of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022)
The Supreme Court decided to lay down some clarifications on the guidelines in this context and also look into the matter of continuous supply of bail applications after the final report was filed on a wrong interpretation of Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC).
Issues raised
Whether the unnecessary arrest of a person, during an inquiry or both before or after the chargesheet is filed, is valid or not?
Judgement of the case
The Apex Court has made an attempt in addressing the issue in the present case by giving a detailed interpretation of the legal provisions pertaining to arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The interpretation of the court is as follows:
Trial
The definition of the word “Trial” has not been given under the CrPC. An extended meaning is to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement of bail to include, the stage of investigation and thereafter. Primary consideration would be different between the stage of investigation and the stage of trial. In the former stage, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter substantially the proceedings before the court in the form of trial is important. The consequences to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed while considering other factors. Similarly, an appeal or revision shall be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to the consideration of bail on suspension of sentence.
Bail
To elaborate on the purpose of bail, an extended meaning has to be given to this word, which would include the stages of investigation. The primary factors to be looked into differ with the stage. For a thorough investigation, arrest and police custody are the essential factors, whereas for the rest, legal proceeding before the court is the main essence of trial. Therefore, when the investigation comes to an end, with keeping these factors in mind, the court shall have a more favourable approach towards granting bail.
A bail is a personal bond which includes surety from the accused. Bail is the release of the accused by the orders of the court or by the police or by the investigating agency. The accused is released on a conditional basis, where he solemnly undertakes that he will cooperate in both the trial and the investigation procedure.
The existing principle is that, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution deals with the right to life and personal liberty. It is only Article which cannot be suspended in any circumstance, not during emergency also. In the case of Gudikanti Narasimhu vs. State (1978), it was held by Justice Krishna Iyer that the matter of bail involves factors like public safety, liberty, justice, and the burden of public treasury. These factors showcase that a developed jurisprudence on bail is important for a socially sensitised judicial process. Personal liberty of an accused or convicted is important except under procedure established by the law.
Interpretation of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 given by the court in this judgement
Section 41
Section 41 lays down the provisions with respect to the police being allowed to arrest without a warrant or an order of the Magistrate. The police may do so, if the person has committed a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer, or if a person has committed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, with or without a fine. There must exist enough grounds for the police to suspect that the person has committed an offence. The police must also be convinced that the arrest is necessary to prevent the person from committing further offences, or for a detailed inquiry of the offence, or to prevent the person from tampering with the evidence, or to prevent the person from enticing anybody into not disclosing the facts of the circumstances to the court, or if it is difficult to guarantee the presence of that person in court when required. The police officer must record his reasons for both making an arrest and not making an arrest when required.
Nobody suspected of committing a non-cognizable offence, except under Section 42 (arrest on refusal to give name and address), can be arrested without a warrant or order of a Magistrate.
In this case, it is observed by the court that not following the provisions laid down under Section 41 would give an advantage to the person suspected of committing an offence. While deciding on a bail application, the courts must check whether Section 41 is complied with, and if not, bail can be granted.
Section 41A
Section 41A states the procedure which must be followed for appearing before the police officer, when arrest is not required under Section 41(1). The police is required to issue a notice of appearance to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been lodged, or some important information is received, or it is suspected that he has committed an offence which is cognizable in nature. Once the notice is issued, it is the duty of the person to comply with the same. If the person complies and continues to do so, he shall not be arrested unless the police find it necessary.
The court referred to the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), wherein it had interpreted the process of arrest under Section 41 of the CrPC. It stated that the police is not required to arrest the concerned person immediately, despite him having committed a cognizable offence which would attract imprisonment for less than or up to seven years, either with or without a fine. The arrest must be made only if they believe that there exist reasonable grounds for the same, such as, preventing the person from committing further crimes, preventing him from fleeing or damaging evidence, conducting a proper investigation, or preventing from influencing witnesses. The police must make sure to ponder on why an arrest would be required and whether it would be absolutely necessary. They must take into consideration the purpose behind and the goal of such an arrest. Mere commission of the crime is not enough. Furthermore, the police must write down the reasoning behind both making an arrest and not making an arrest. In case the concerned crime is of a very serious nature, the police can be exempted from following these rules. If the police do not follow these rules and fail to provide adequate reasoning for arresting a person, that person can seek bail. He can be released from custody until the time of his trial.
The Court observed that if the police officer followed the procedure mentioned in Section 41, with due diligence, it would lead to a decrease in the need for anticipatory bail. The aim of this Court is to ensure that arrests do not take place unnecessarily.
The following directions were given by the court:
The police officers are required to be instructed by the State Government, that no automatic arrest shall take place when a case is registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC). They must first satisfy themselves that it is necessary to arrest the accused under the guidelines laid down in Section 41 of the CrPC.
All police officers shall be given a checklist, which shall contain that the person is being arrested to prevent that person from committing another offence and for proper investigation of the offence.
The same checklist shall be filled and shall furnish the reason and material which led to the accused to be arrested.
When the Magistrate decides to authorise the detention of the accused, he shall consider the report filled by the police and, upon his satisfaction, shall authorise detention.
If in case the police decide not to arrest the accused, the same decision shall be reported to the Magistrate within two weeks from the day of institution of the case.
Notice of appearance shall be furnished to the accused under Section 41A, within two weeks of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for reasons to be recorded in writing.
If the police fail to comply with the above mentioned guidelines strict departmental actions shall be taken against him, he shall also be liable for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court which has the jurisdiction.
If the Magistrate authrises detention without recording its reasons, he shall also be liable for contempt of court by the High Court possesses jurisdiction for the same.
These directions shall also be applicable to Section 498A of the IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and offences whose prescribed punishment is less than or upto seven years of imprisonment, with or without a fine.
The Court also acknowledged the efforts taken by the courts in Delhi, Jharkhand and Bihar, and went on to observe that there lacked guidelines enforcing the compliance of Section 41A. It stated that the governments of all the States and Union Territories must set up some guidelines as done by the Delhi Police, which promoted strict actions against officers who fail to comply with Section 41 and 41A, and also emphasised on the need for investigating agencies to act in accordance with the case of Arnesh Kumar, which stressed on the concept of presumption of innocence. In addition to this, Section 60A, which states that an arrest must be made only in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC, must be strictly followed.
Section 167
Section 167 prescribes the procedure to be followed when it is not possible to complete the investigation in 24 hours. As per Section 57, when the person is arrested without a warrant, he is required to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. If the investigation is not complete and if a prima facie case exists against the accused, an investigating officer (not lower in than a sub-inspector), shall submit a copy of the case diary entries to the nearest Magistrate, and also produce the accused before the Magistrate. The Magistrate is then empowered to detain the accused for 15 days. If the Magistrate does not hold jurisdiction over the case, it can be transferred to a Magistrate who does. The Magistrate may extend the detention for a period beyond 15 days. However, the maximum period of detention would be 60 days, and in case of serious offences, it would be 90 days. The accused shall be presented before the Magistrate till the time he is in police custody, and the detention can only be extended if the accused is present before the Magistrate. A Magistrate of second class cannot pass an order for detention, unless allowed to do so by a High Court.
In circumstances wherein there is no Judicial Magistrate available, the police officer is required to send the accused and the copy of the diary entries, to an Executive Magistrate, who can detain him for up to 7 days, with reasons recorded in written form. In these 7 days, the Executive Magistrate is required to send the case record to the appropriate Magistrate. Post the completion of this period, unless a competent Judicial Magistrate extends the detention, the accused shall be released on bail. If the detention is extended, the initial time spent in detention will be considered as a part of the total detention period. In a summons case triable by the Magistrate, if the investigation is not completed within 6 months, the Magistrate is required to stop any further investigation, unless the investigating officer satisfies the Magistrate that in the interest of justice and on the basis of special reasons, continuation of investigation beyond 6 months is necessary. If such an order stopping further investigation has been passed, a Sessions Judge has the power to cancel it if he sees it is necessary to be carried on. He may also pass directions regarding bail and other related matters.
The Court stated that Section 167(2) was introduced in the year 1978, with the purpose being, to ensure prompt completion of investigations. The primary focus was to ensure speedy investigation and fair trial, while also keeping in mind the interests of the marginalised society, which forms a vital part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If the investigation is not completed in a speedy manner, it would result in the release of the accused. As held in the case of M.Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue (2020), this is an absolute right of the accused, which cannot be repealed, even in case of unforeseen situations, such as a pandemic.
When the matter has only fine as the punishment and then if the suspect is arrested and brought before the Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and a reasonable conclusion can be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny. The Court referred to Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001), which stated that when the law provides that a Magistrate could authorise the detention of the accused in custody, up to a maximum period as indicated under Section 167(2), any further detention beyond that period, without filing of a challan by the investigating agency, would be deceitful and also violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Earlier, there would occur circumstances where charges would be brought after the maximum period of detention had expired which resulted in prolonged detention, without any definite end. To rectify this, Section 167(2), which set a specific time limit for detention, while keeping the principles of fairness and liberty under Article 21 in mind, was introduced. This Section makes it mandatory for the investigating officer to collect proper evidence, which shall help in prevention of unjustified prolonged detention.
The Court also relied upon the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017), in which the court strengthened the importance of personal liberty and mentioned that no technicalities shall be prioritised over the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Section 87
Section 87 empowers the court to issue a warrant, either in place of, or in addition to a summons. In situations wherein the court holds power to issue a summons, may after writing down its reasoning, issue a warrant for arrest,
if on the basis of reasonable grounds, the court is of the opinion that either before or after the issue of the summons, but before the period allotted for his appearance, the concerned person has fled or will disobey the summons.
If despite the summons being served on time, fails to appear at the fixed time and does not provide any valid reasoning for the same.
In order to get a person to appear before it, the court may issue either a summons or a warrant, on the basis of the situation. Section 87 allows the court to issue a warrant either in addition or in place of a summons. A warrant is bailable or non-bailable.
The Court referred to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), which stressed on the need for courts to adhere to a particular procedure in terms of issuing warrants, that is, begin with a summons, then proceed to a bailable warrant, and resort to a non-bailable warrant only if absolutely required. It frowned upon the practice of regularly issuing non-bailable warrants without adequate investigation and reasoning. It was emphasised that liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and a person must not be deprived of the same. While agreeing that it is vital to maintain law and order, it was highlighted that non-bailable warrants must be used only when the same is required for public safety. A balance between the rights of an individual and the interests of the society, must be achieved while deciding whether non-bailable warrants must be issued.
Section 88
Section 88 lays down the power to take bond for appearance. When any person, for whose appearance or arrest, the court is authorised to issue a summons or warrant, is present in court, the court officer may ask him to sign a bond, either with or without sureties, for his presence when required, in that court or any other court to which the case may be transferred for trial.
While addressing this Section, the Court relied upon the judgement of Pankaj Jain v. Union of India (2018), wherein the issue before the court was whether it was obligated to accept a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC and release the person, since he was not arrested during the investigation. It was held that this Section does not provide rights to the person who is required to appear in the court. It is the court which receives the discretionary power to ensure the appearance of the person in the concerned court. The word “may” used under this Section, establishes that it is the court’s discretion to decide whether the person must sign a bond or not. Section 88 extends to any person, including those who are merely witnesses.
Section 170
Section 170 deals with cases to be sent to the Magistrate when there is sufficient evidence. delves into what is to be done by the police officer, the officer can arrest the person against whom the evidence is sufficient or if the offence is less serious in nature then the person need not be arrested if he produces surety and makes sure of his appearance in the court during the proceeding. The police are also required to give all the important items to the court and must ensure the appearance of witnesses, by getting them to sign an undertaking whose original copy is to be sent to the court by the police. Further, the police are required to inform the accused of any changes on a time to time basis. If the bond mentions the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall include all other courts wherein the Magistrate can send a case for trial or investigation, on a condition that the parties to the case are informed about the same in advance. A signed copy of the bond shall be given to one of the signatories and shall retain the original, along with a report which is required to be sent to the court of the Magistrate trying the case.
The landmark precedent which was heavily relied upon by the Court under this Section, is the case of Siddharth vs. State of U.P (2021). The scope and ambit of Section 170 was discussed, and it was held that this power is reserved for the court to exercise after the investigating agency has completed its investigation, which implies that it is a procedural requirement for the court and the role of the investigating agency is limited. In cases wherein the prosecution does not need to keep the accused in custody, there is no requirement for an arrest when the case is sent to the Magistrate under Section 170. Moreover, there is also no need to file a bail application, as the accused is simply forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and the start of the trial.If the court sees that there is no need for any remand, it can refer to Section 88 and complete the formalities required to ensure the presence of the accused for the commencement of the trial. If a situation arises where remand is required in that situation an opportunity is to be given to the accused persons to present his side if the court is of the view that remand will be required. The court also mentioned that this does not pertain to cases in which the accused persons are already in custody.
This Court went on to state that the refusal by criminal courts, through the Magistrate or through its staff, to accept the chargesheet without production of the accused is not justified under law. Therefore, it shall be the duty of all courts to accept the chargesheet whenever it is produced by the police, with any approval relating to any omission or requirement in the chargesheet, by the staff or the Magistrate. However, when the police submits the chargesheet, it is the duty of the court to accept it. Similarly, all police officers must be directed that if the chargesheet is not accepted for any reason, they must inform the Sessions Judge about the same, and seek appropriate orders. It was noted upon review, that this does not require the officer incharge to arrest every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet.
The Court referred to High Court of Delhi v.CBI (2004), wherein the issue before the court was whether Section 170 prevents the trial court from taking on record the chargesheet, if the accused is not taken into custody. The court held that “custody” does not specifically mean being held by the court or by the police, but refers to the accused being presented before the court by the investigating officer when the chargesheet is being filed. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest the accused, since he might be cooperating, the officer is not required to arrest him. There’s a misconception that the accused shall be arrested in case of serious offences, even if he is not required to be investigated. Arrest is only necessary when it is crucial for investigation and all the other factors like the accused might flee, he might tamper with the evidence, he might not appear as and when required are not present.If the officer believes that the accused is not going to flee or will not ignore court summons then he is not required to be arrested. It is to be noted that the word “custody” refers to the accused being present before the court when the chargesheet is being filed.
The Court also observed that safeguarding personal liberty is an important part of upholding the Constitution. When it is felt that the accused might run away, might tamper with the evidence or might not cooperate during the proceedings, only then shall he be arrested. Just because there is a provision for arrest under the law it does not mean that the accused shall always be arrested. Clear justification is required before making an arrest. Routinely making arrests can severely damage a person’s dignity and image. If the above mentioned factors are not present then the court fails to understand why making an arrest is made necessary.
Section 204
Section 204 deals with the issue of process. A Magistrate taking cognizance,if he sees fit, may in a summons case, issue a summons, and in a warrant case, issue a warrant or a summons, whichever is ideal, to seek the presence of the accused before him. The condition attached to issuing of summons or warrant, is that it can be issued only after the list of prosecution witnesses has been filed. In a situation wherein the complaint is made in writing, a copy of that complaint must be attached with every summon or warrant issued. If there are any fees payable for a legal process, such as court fees or any other charges, the amount must be paid before the process can be carried out. Failure in doing so, gives the Magistrate the authority to dismiss the complaint. None of the provisions mentioned under this Section shall affect Section 87 of the CrPC.
It is a procedural provision and as a matter of course needs to be exercised by following the procedure mentioned in section 88. Hence, issuing a warrant is an exception and if the Magistrate does so he will have to record reasons for doing the same.
Section 209
Section 209 deals with the submission of a case to the Court of Sessions, when it is exclusively triable by the same. The Magistrate shall follow the procedure depending on the circumstances outlined in Section 208 or Section 209 of the CrPC and then send the case to the Court of Sessions and the accused can be remanded to custody during or until the conclusion of trial, in accordance with the provisions of bail. The Magistrate must send the required records, documents and evidence to the Court of Sessions. Furthermore, notification of such a submission must be given to the Public Prosecutor.
Section 309
Section 309 deals with the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings and states that in every inquiry or trial, the proceeding shall be continued on a day to day basis until all the witnesses have appeared in the court and have been cross examined. In case it is adjourned for any reason, the same needs to be recorded. However, if the case pertains to any offence under Section 376 of the IPC, the trial must be completed within two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. The court is given the discretion to adjourn or postpone the proceedings after taking cognizance or after the commencement of the trial, if they find it necessary to do so, and the reasons for the same must be recorded. The court may also remand the accused back to custody. It is to be noted that, a Magistrate cannot remand an accused to custody for more than 15 days. Additionally, if the witnesses are present, no adjournments or postponements can be granted without carrying out their examination, except under special circumstances, which shall be recorded. No adjournment shall be granted merely for the purpose of allowing the accused to show cause against the sentence to be imposed on him. A pleader being engaged in another court shall also not stand as a ground for adjournment. Even if the parties request for it, an adjournment shall be granted only when the circumstances are beyond the control of the parties. Furthermore, when a witness is present, but his pleader or a party is not, or when the party or its pleader is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, even though present, the court may go on to record the witness’s statements and pass any order as required. This Section implies that once a trial has begun, it must also reach a logical end.
In the case of Hussain Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), it was held that if the court is satisfied that the accused has a good reputation in the community, and shall not flee, he may be released on personal bond. However, if the circumstances are different and it is seen that the accused displays criminal behaviour, has committed criminal offences in the past and holds the potential to disappear, he may be released with sureties and not personal bond. The amount of bail must be decided on the basis of relevant factors and must not be pre-determined with respect to the nature of the case. Deprivation of a person’s liberty, by way of any procedure that is not fair, would amount to a violation of Article 21, and such a person may secure his release by having his fundamental rights enforced. A procedure that is not reasonably expeditious cannot be considered as fair.
A bail application is required to be disposed of within 1 week.
Trials before
Magistrates, wherein the accused is in custody, are to be concluded within 6 weeks. In case of a trial before a Court of Sessions, wherein the accused is in custody, the same is to be concluded within 2 years.
Disposal of all cases which are 5 years old by the end of the year, must be attempted.
As an addition to Section 436A, if an undertrial has served a period of custody exceeding the sentence likely to be awarded upon conviction, he shall be released on a personal bond.
The above timelines may serve as a benchmark for evaluating judicial performances in annual confidential reports.
The Court observed that various directions have been issued regarding unnecessary adjournments. However, the court alone cannot be blamed for the same, as there are various factors which lead to adjournments. Although adjournments are the exception, currently, it has become a regular practice.
This Court, while referring to this Section, observed that any type of delay on the part of the court or the prosecution, will lead to a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was also held that this provision is for the benefit of the accused while taking his bail application into consideration. A prolonged trial, revision or appeal against any accused while he is in custody, is a violation of Article 21. The nature of the matter is irrelevant here. Therefore, the Court held that it expects that the provisions of Section 309 will be complied with, but an avoidable and prolonged delay in conclusion of the proceedings will be a factor to consider while deciding on a bail application.
Some guidelines laid down for High Courts, with respect to this Section, were that the High Courts of all the states must make sure that bail applications shall be disposed of within one month and the cases of those who have been in custody for more than 5 years shall be disposed of at the earliest. It is the duty of the High Courts to prepare, issue and monitor plans and steps for speedy trial and investigation for all the subordinate courts and the administrative authorities.
Section 389
Section 389 delves into the procedure for suspension of sentence pending the appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. In case of a pending appeal by a person who has been convicted, the Appellate Court is empowered to suspend the sentence that was appealed against and in case of confinement, release the person on bail or on his own bond. The Public Prosecutor may file an application for the cancellation of such a bail and in case of a serious offence, show cause in writing, against the bail. In case a conviction is challenged in a lower court, a High Court may step in and use this power granted to an Appellate Court. If a person is convicted of a crime and plans to appeal the same, while also already being out on bail, the court which convicted him, may grant him bail again, if the sentence was imprisonment for a term lower than 3 years or if the concerned offence allows for bail. The purpose of this bail is to give the person an opportunity to prepare and present his appeal. During the period of bail, the initial sentence stands suspended. Furthermore, when the appellant is eventually sentenced to imprisonment, including imprisonment for life by the appellate court, the time for which he was released on bail during the appeal, shall be subtracted while computing the term of his sentence.
This Court observed that the power conferred under this Section is different from that under Section 437 or under Section 439, pending trial. This is for the reason that “presumption of innocence” and “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” may not be available to the appellant who has suffered a conviction. Mere pendency of an appeal is not a sufficient ground for bail. In case of a delay in dealing with the appeal, factors such as the benefits from Section 436A, which concerns itself with release of undertrial prisoners who have already been in jail, on a personal bond, come into effect. If the appeal is not dealt with quickly, the delay would benefit the person appealing. Therefore, delay in dealing with appeals, among other factors, are taken into consideration by the court, to determine whether bail should be granted.
In the case of Atul Tripathi v. State of UP (2014), it was held that there exists a difference between the bail procedure under Section 439 and Section 389. The former deals with pre conviction bail, while the latter deals with post conviction bail. In case of pre-conviction bail, unless it is a serious situation, the prosecutor is merely informed by the court, before granting the bail. However, in case of post-conviction bail, especially in serious circumstances, the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to challenge the bail in writing. Irrespective of whether the public prosecutor objects in writing or not, the court must consider factors such as, the way the offence was committed, age, criminal history of the convict, gravity of the crime, impact on public and justice delivery system. The intention behind this, is to make the process more transparent, fair and free from collusion, and also to ensure that the court makes well-informed decisions, with respect to bail after conviction.
The Court also referred to the case of Sunil Kumar vs. Vipin Kumar (2014). It was observed by the Apex Court that the discretionary power of the High Court under Section 389, had been correctly applied by the High Court. Firstly, both parties’ criminal appeal and criminal revision were pending before the High Court, which implied that the convictions of the respondents were not confirmed yet. Secondly, the respondents could be trusted to follow the conditions of bail, since on previous occasions of being granted bail, they had not misused the liberty. Finally, though the respondents admitted the occurrence of the incident, they presented an alternative explanation for it, on being satisfied with the same the High Court granted them bail and the Apex Court decided not to interfere with the judgement of the High Court.
Section 436A
Section 436A discusses the maximum period for which a person who is undertrial, can be detained. It states that where a person during investigation, inquiry or trial against him, has undergone detention for a period extending up to one half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond, with or without sureties. The court after hearing the public prosecutor (its reasons to be recorded in writing), order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period, or release him on bail in place of the personal bond with or without sureties. Furthermore, it is also provided that no person shall be detained for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law.
The word “shall” in this provision makes it mandatory for the court to pass an order that is to grant bail. Applying for bail would also not be required, particularly if the delay was not caused because of them. Deciding to continue detention, on the basis of the prosecutor’s opinion, must be done only in exceptional situations. This emphasises on “presumption of innocence” and “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. It upholds the concept of liberty, as guaranteed by our Constitution. It is also explained that In a situation wherein the appeal is taking longer than usual to reach finality, the entire period of imprisonment which will include the time of trial, appeal and revision shall be considered to fall under the ambit of section 436A.
In the case of Bhim Singh V. Union of India (2014) the court held that steps are required to be taken, to make sure that the undertrial prisoners are not kept in jail for longer than the maximum period prescribed under the law. Certain judicial officers are directed to hold regular sessions in jail to identify undertrial prisoners who have already served their prescribed time or are close to the maximum limit of their sentence. After this, they must follow the procedure mentioned under Section 436A and promptly release all eligible undertrial prisoners. Reports of these sessions shall be sent to their respective High Court authorities. Any non-compliance of these directions will lead to unnecessary imprisonment of undertrials, which would go against the fundamental principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 437
Section 437 mentions when bail may be granted in case of a non-bailable offence. If a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested without a warrant or is brought before a High Court or a Court of Sessions, bail may be granted. However, the person cannot be released in case there exist valid grounds that indicate that the person has committed an offence punishable by life imprisonment or death; or if the offence is cognizable and the person has been previously convicted for a serious offence. Exceptions can also be made in case of women, minors or those who are sick, and if the court finds reasons for the same. A person may be released on bail, pending an inquiry into whether he committed a non-bailable offence or not. Conditions such as not tampering with evidence, appearing in court when required, etc., shall be imposed while being released on bail. A person out on bail may be arrested if deemed necessary by the court. If the trial of a non-bailable offence exceeds a period of 60 days and the accused has been in custody for the entire period, he shall be released on bail, unless the Magistrate disagrees. The court may also grant bail to a person, if after the trial, but before passing of the judgement, it is felt that he is not guilty. Furthermore, an accused may be required to issue bail bonds to appeal before a higher court for an appeal and failure to do so would lead to forfeiture of the bond.
The Court referred to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001), wherein it was held that while granting bail, Magistrates must pay attention to the intensity of the concerned punishment. Usually, if the punishment is of life imprisonment or death penalty, and if the offence is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate cannot grant bail, except in accordance with provisions under Section 437. It is just more reasonable for an accused to seek bail directly from a Court of Sessions. The reasoning behind this, is that trials are conducted and judgements are passed with respect to serious offences, it is only logical to also address the bail applications.
In the case of Ishan Vasant Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra (2010), it was seen that if the concerned punishment is imprisonment for life or death penalty, and the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail, unless the matter is exempted under Section 437. Therefore, merely because an offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, it does not imply that a Magistrate is not authorised to grant bail, unless the offence is also exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. As long as the offence falls under his jurisdiction, a Magistrate can grant bail, even if the punishment may be imprisonment for life.
Section 439
Section 439 gives special powers to High Courts and to the Court of Sessions, with respect to bail. These courts may order an accused person in custody, to be released and in case it is an offence under Section 437(3), set conditions for the bail. Any conditions set by a lower court while releasing a person on bail, can be altered or removed. Before granting bail in case of offences exclusively triable by a High Court or Court of Sessions, unless there exists a valid reason not to, the Public Prosecutor must be notified. Additionally, if the bail is for a severe offence under Section 376 of the IPC, the Public Prosecutor must be informed within 15 days. The presence of the informant or any other authorised person is required in case of bail hearing with respect to such severe offences. Furthermore, persons released on bail with certain conditions, can be arrested and sent back to custody.
It was emphasised that this power would come into the picture only in case of decisions made by Magistrates under Section 437 or in cases that are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The courts must ensure that the requirements laid down under this Section are met while dealing with a bail application.
The Court went on to differentiate between Section 437 and Section 439, in the following manner. Section 437 authorises Magistrates to take up most cases, except those which attract the punishment of life imprisonment or death penalty, and are exclusively under the Court of Sessions’ jurisdiction. Section 437(1) provides for conditional release on bail for women, minors or the sick. Though this provision was introduced as an exception, it must be taken into consideration determining a bail application. Section 439 comes into play in case of an order rejecting a bail application or in cases exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. Courts must interpret such laws in a manner that would benefit those in need. All necessary factors must also be taken into consideration.
Section 440
Section 440 refers to the amount of bond and reduction. It is stated that a bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed after considering the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. A High Court or a Court of Sessions may direct the reduction of a bail set by a police officer or by a Magistrate.
The court must ensure that the amount of bond is reasonable. Imposing a condition which is impossible to comply with, would defeat the very object of the release. It was mentioned that Sections 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the CrPC must be interpreted together.
Again, the Court referred to Hussain Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), wherein it was held that while determining the conditions to impose to ensure the accused appears before, factors such as nature of the offence, weightage of the evidence against the accused, the accused person’s financial condition, his family ties, character and mental condition, employment, his record of court appearance or of flight to avoid prosecution, must be considered. A discretion is given to the judges to release the accused on bail or personal bond, they shall understand the extent of this discretion and shall use it appropriately.
The Court went on to state that courts hold the massive power of granting bail or releasing a person. It is pertinent for courts to fully grasp the extent of their discretion while using this power.
It was held by the court in the present case that the courts have a very crucial role to play which is safeguarding the fundamental aspects. Any failure in safeguarding will lead to the violation of a right to life and personal liberty which is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. All the courts in India, especially criminal courts are given the responsibility of preserving the principles and constitutional values. The courts are required to balance the need of enforcing criminal law with the need to prevent its misuse against individuals personal liberty. This principle was led down by the court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswani v. State of Maharashtra (2021). The court stressed on the need of preventing misuse of criminal laws against targeting individuals. The court was a firm believer of a fact that liberty is fragile and steps must be taken to prevent it from being violated.
Clarification on the categories of offences
With respect to Category A and Category B offences , the Court observed that the same general principles related to bail will apply. However, with Category A offences, courts are required to be more lenient towards the accused being tried for such offences, while with Category B offences, due consideration shall be given to legal principles and circumstances of the matter, and the decision will differ from case to case.
With respect to Category C, which includes special acts, the general rule regarding delays, holds good. For instance, Section 436A applies to special acts, unless there exist separate provisions for it. Laws, despite being stringent, must not delay justice. Since there are usually only a few witnesses in such cases, the trial should be completed quickly. It is essential to follow the directions of the court, especially Section 309, and speed up the processes. The Court went on to refer to Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021), wherein it was clarified that apart from fair treatment and following due process, the Indian Constitution also guarantees justice and speedy trial. If an accused has been in custody for a considerable period of time and the trial is delayed, he is usually released on bail. The law seeks to speed up the process with the help of Special Courts, as under Section 36 of the CrPC. However, delays in setting up these courts hinders its entire purpose. In this case, delay in setting up Special Courts in the Greater Bombay region also led to a delay in justice. The Court stressed on the injustice that delays in trials cause. It stated that bail conditions must be strictly followed and cases must be prioritised accordingly.
With respect to Category D, the Court questioned whether economic offences should be considered as a separate category or not. It observed that since economic offences include a wide range of circumstances, it would not be right to categorise all these offences into one group and then deny bail purely on the basis of this classification. The court, while referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020), mentioned that factors such as intensity of the offence, objective of the Special Act, duration of the sentence, etc., must be taken into consideration while deciding on such matters.
Guidelines issued
The Supreme Court concluded the matter by laying down the following guidelines-
The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate statute dealing with bail, to smoothen the procedure and concepts related to grant of bail.
It is the duty of the investigating agencies to follow the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41A, and to comply with the directions given under the Arnesh Kumar judgement. Any non-compliance on their part shall be reported to the higher and appropriate authority.
Courts shall ensure compliance of Section 41 and Section 41A. Failure to comply would entitle the accused to grant of bail.
All State Governments and Union Territories shall establish standard procedures for implementing Section 41 and Section 41A.
Bail application shall not be insisted upon while considering the applications under Section 88, Section 170, Section 204 and Section 209.
Strict compliance with the mandate mentioned in the case of Siddharth v. State of UP is needed.
State and Central Governments shall adhere to the court’s directives regarding the establishment of Special Courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Government must undertake an exercise with respect to the need for Special Courts, and the vacancies of the presiding officers must be filed promptly.
Undertrial prisoners who cannot meet the bail conditions need to be identified by the High Court and appropriate actions shall be taken under Section 440, to facilitate their release.
While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 must be kept in mind.
Similar to the directives in Bhim Singh’s case, the High Court and District judiciary must conduct an assessment, to comply with Section 436A of the CrPC, followed by necessary orders.
Bail applications are required to be disposed of within two weeks, except if the provision mentioned otherwise. Anticipatory bail applications shall be disposed of within six weeks, with the exception of an intervening application.
State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are required to file status reports/ affidavits within a period of four months.
Critical analysis of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022)
This judgement is concerned with the prolonged and unwanted detention of individuals waiting for their appeals to be heard. It clarifies the concept of bail in cases wherein the accused is not arrested at the time of filing of chargesheet in the court.
The lower levels of the judiciary usually seem reluctant to grant bail to the accused, due to which, sometimes the innocent person faces imprisonment for a long term. When appeals take too long to be disposed of, there arises a risk that individuals would end up serving an entire sentence even prior to receiving a chance to prove their innocence. It is often overlooked that the only valid justification for denial of bail, as per the Indian Constitution, is when the detention of the accused is necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation. The blunder which is currently being made by the police, is the tendency to arrest all the suspects, which is not required with respect to laws attracting a punishment lower than seven years of imprisonment.
The intention of the Apex Court, behind this decision, was to broaden the concept and the scope of bail and to address all the doubts which could arise in the process of applying for bail. This judgement seeks to uphold human liberty and the duty of criminal courts and investigating agencies to safeguard constitutional values and ethos. Once the investigation is over, no purpose is served by keeping the accused in detention.
It is essential to emphasise on the concept of presumption of innocence, which indicates that the detention of individuals unnecessarily, does not serve any purpose and is against the law. While dealing with the matter at hand, the Court mentioned that the jails in our nation are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics presented before the Court showcases that more than two-third of the inmates are undertrial, and out of them are charged with offences whose punishment is lower than seven years and are not even required to be arrested.
A major point observed by the Court was that the poors face difficulties in furnishing bail, due to factors such as a high bail amount and sometimes the need for sureties, especially when they are under pre-trial detention. The Court has also tried to differentiate the bail applications from the trial proceedings and has observed that there must be a separate statute for bail.
The Court greatly stressed on the unjust nature of continued custody leading to acquittal, and also laid emphasis on the duty of the courts to uphold the Constitution and protect the liberty of individuals. Another importanting holding of the court was to the need of the court to prevent the misuse of the legal procedure while ensuring to meet the ends of justice and requested caution while passing a decision.
In the light of this judgement the Apex Court aims to ensure principles of natural justice and liberty are maintained and individuals are not deprived of their freedom. The court has advocated for a separate statute of bail which indicates that there is a need for clear guidelines and procedural fairness in granting of the bail. This approach not only highlights the importance of presumption of innocence but also highlights the need for judicial sensitivity towards the socio-economic challenges faced by the accused in securing bail.
Conclusion
Clarifying the concept of bail was highly required, considering the current scenario of the criminal side of the legal system. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is not actually in practice, due to which several people end up in jail and serve a term for an offence they are not guilty of which leads to infringement of their certain fundamental rights as enshrined under the Indian Constitution. Receiving bail is not an easy process, it involves bail bond, the sureties which makes it a lengthy procedure. Jails get overcrowded and the number of cases also increase, since bail applications usually go unheard for a long time. The system of bail in India, must be improved, which can be achieved by setting uniform conditions, reasonable bail amounts which people can afford and which makes the process easier. The court has made an attempt to overturn the current scenario which is “jail is the rule and bail is the exception”, but better solutions are always required, else justice with respect to the same, will remain on papers only.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
This article is written by Harshita Agrawal. The article is an analysis of the landmark decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967). It examines the validity of a marriage as per various customs and sections under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with the procedures of annulment outlined within the Act. The judgement is hereby trailed with the appeal made in the High Court’s initial ruling.
Introduction
The case of Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967), is very much important in the context of legal disclosures, particularly regarding how evidence of adultery is handled in divorce and the judicial separation proceedings. In this case, the respondent filed a suit against his wife, alleging her involvement in an extramarital relationship and committing adultery. Initially, the trial court dismissed the petition, but the Allahabad High Court, upon appeal, held that the wife was not living in adultery. But the evidence presented by the third party indicated the fact that there had been sexual intercourse between the wife and the co-respondent after their marriage in 1955 leading the court to grant judicial separation under Section 10(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case also highlights the implication of remarriage during the appeal process as the situation raised here complex legal questions about the legitimacy of the second marriage and the subsequent child. The judgement of the Supreme Court in this case sets a precedent for similar future cases notifying its reference in the further family law cases.
Details of the case
Name of the case
Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava
Name of the court
Supreme Court of India
Date of judgement
13 October, 1966
Citation
1967 AIR 581, 1967 SCR(1) 864
Bench
Justice K. N. Wanchoo and Justice G. K. Mitter
Authored by
Justice K. N. Wanchoo
Name of the parties
Petitioner: Chandra Mohini Srivastava
Respondent: Avinash Prasad Srivastava
Statutes and laws involved in the case
Multiple statutes are involved in the above-mentioned case, clearly indicating the marriage annulment processes depending on various laws and sections applicable under the Act. The legal proceedings addressed in the case of Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1964) were not only contingent upon the judgement and appeal laid therein but also concerns indulging in the status of a child along with the validity of one’s marriage as per customs and rituals. The primary Acts involved in the judgement include:
Background of Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967)
In the case of Avinash Prasad Srivastava v. Chandra Mohini Srivastava (1964), an appeal was filed by the respondent against the judgement and decree issued by the Civil Judge of Bareilly, which dismissed his petition under Section 10 and Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant had sought dissolution of the marriage and judicial separation on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion by his wife. The case presented the fact that both parties got married in 1955, and a son was born in 1957. The appellant alleged that his wife not only, without any reasonable justification, been withholding her society and cohabitation from him but also had been engaged in adultery with the co-respondent, Chandra Prakash Shekhar. He also claimed the recovery of ornaments and garments worth Rs. 2000 from his wife. The co-respondent in this case did not appear, and the respondent denied the allegations. The evidence of adultery was found insufficient by the court, but the proof of emotional involvement was also established between the wife and the co-respondent. Since the respondent denied having and society and cohabitation, the mental cruelty was accepted as a ground by the court. The witnesses of the case testified to the desertion of the wife as claimed by the appellant. After considering all the above circumstances, the court granted the appellant a divorce, citing exceptional hardship and depravity. However, the claim of the appellant relating to the recovery of ornaments and garments was dismissed by the court, and the marriage was dissolved immediately, with no costs.
Facts of Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967)
In the landmark judgement of Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967), the first respondent requested the revocation of special leave granted to the appellant, citing grounds that the High Court’s order of dissolving the marriage between the appellant and initial petitioner was effective immediately. The respondent also claimed that the petitioner filed for the special leave petition without notifying him of her intention to contest the Allahabad High Court’s decision. Since the appellant did not request any kind of suspension order from the court, the respondent, in compliance with the High Court’s ruling, got remarried in 1964. He also claimed to have been notified of a special leave grant after his marriage and thus became aware of the appeal of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent stated that due to the petitioner’s negligence in notifying him of the appeal, he got remarried, and a child was born. Therefore, he requested the court to revoke the grant of special leave, not to question the legitimacy of his child.
The petitioner opposes the statements provided by the respondent mentioning the fact that it was not her responsibility to notify the respondent of the intention to seek special leave. The argument led to the respondent’s duty to ensure that no further legal action had been taken by the petitioner after the order of the court. After knowing the situation, the petitioner argued that the respondent clearly took the risk of remarrying without confirming the legal status. She also stated that an application for revocation of special leave was filed in delay when the appeal was scheduled for hearing.
Issued raised
Whether the appellant had treated the first respondent with such cruelty as to fall within the scope of clause (b) of section 10(1)?
Whether the appellant actually stated the truth about sending the letters or one can comprehend such denial, especially in the context of facing a divorce petition based on allegations of adultery.
Whether the divorce can be granted under Section 13(1)(viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Is a party’s marriage permissible if a divorce petition is under special leave, and would such marriage contravene any law?
Arguments of the parties
Appellant
The appellant denied that she had been living in adultery.
She mentioned not having any kind of illicit relationship with the co-respondent.
She also denied receiving any letters from the co-respondent and has also denied that she ever sent any correspondence to the co-respondent.
She had clearly opposed the application of the respondent, stating that it was not her responsibility to notify the first respondent of her intention to seek special leave from the court.
She stated that it was the duty of the first respondent only to make sure that no further actions had been taken before the decision to remarry as per Sections 15 and 28 of the Act.
Respondent
The respondent stated that the special leave granted to the appellant should be revoked as the High Court granted divorce to the first respondent, resulting in the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent.
The respondent had already been married when the special leave was granted to the appellant, and also, a child was born to his new wife, questioning the legitimacy of the child.
He also contended that he should be notified about the petition or the acceptance to grant the special leave as it was the duty of the appellant to inform him so.
Important laws referred in Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967)
Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
As per Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, judicial separation is available to couples married under this Act. The spouse can file a petition for judicial separation and can claim the relief and once the court grants the order, they are no longer able to cohabit.
Judicial Separation is a legal mechanism which gives some time for self-analysis to both the parties of a disturbed married life. It allows both husband and wife to reconsider the future of their relationship while living apart, offering them the necessary space and independence to make informed decisions about their future and it is a last step before pursuing a legal dissolution of the marriage.
Any spouse who feels aggrieved by the actions of the other can file a petition for judicial separation in a District Court under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. To proceed, the following conditions should be met:
The marriage must be in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The respondent and the petitioner should be resided within the jurisdiction of the court where the case was filed.
The spouse must have lived together for a particular period of time before filing the petition.
The case law of Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava, (1967) states about the law of judicial separation where the petition for divorce must be filed only after once the order of judicial separation has been passed. The court cannot file a decree of judicial separation in respect of the insufficient grounds where the evidence was not in accordance with the support of the argument.
In the case law of Vinay Khurana v. Shweta Khurana, (2022), the Delhi High Court observed that judicial separation and divorce are completely different although they both are provided on similar grounds. Judicial separation does not dissolve the marital bond between the spouse whereas divorce terminates the marriage granting both the parties to remarry. Hence, in this case the court held that the earlier decision of the Family Court was at fault as it granted a decree for judicial separation rather than divorce.
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
As per Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce is the dissolution of a marriage between two parties. In recent times, the incidence of divorce has risen significantly for various reasons. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there are various grounds under which a petition for divorce can be filed under the Act:
Voluntary Sexual Intercourse – if either spouse engages in voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse after the marriage has been solemnised, the aggrieved spouse can file for divorce in a court of law.
Cruelty – This is the primary reason of divorce among the parties to the marriage. Domestic violence and cruelty have surged in recent years. As per this section, if one spouse subjects the other to cruelty following the process of marriage, the aggrieved party is entitled to file for divorce in a court of law.
Desertion – Desertion means leaving the partner for a period of time without providing any reason. Under this Act, if one spouse has deserted the other for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before the filing of the divorce petition, then that person can file for divorce under the court of law.
Unsound Mind – According to this Act, if a spouse is of unsound mind and cannot be cured, or suffers from a severe or temporary mental disorder that makes it impossible for the other spouse to live peacefully. In such a case, that person can file a suit for divorce under this section.
In the case law of Revathi v. Union of India,(1988), the Supreme Court held that under Section 497 of IPC, a husband cannot prosecute his wife for adultery. The law does not permit the husband to charge his wife with adultery, nor does it permit a wife to prosecute her husband for infidelity. Therefore, both the husband and the wife have no legal right to use the criminal law against each other for acts of disloyalty.
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution states about special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IV Part V of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court retains the authority to, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order issued by any court or tribunal within the territory of India. However, it is also important to note that the said provision shall not apply to any judgement, decree, sentence or order passed by courts or tribunals established under laws pertaining to the Armed Forces.
In the case law of Pritam Singh v. The State, (1950), the Supreme Court held that it should not interfere with the High Court’s decision unless there are exceptional circumstances. Once an appeal is admitted the appellant can challenge any question of law deemed incorrect by the High Court. The court should also maintain a uniform standard when granting special leave to appeal.
Final judgement in Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967)
The judgement of the Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Wanchoo. In its ruling, the court held the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which clearly stated that a spouse can only legally enter into a new marriage after the expiry of the appeal period or if the appeal has already been dismissed. In his opinion, the court held that both parties were aware that the appeal was still pending. Since the first marriage was not dissolved and the wife’s initial marriage was still valid at the time of the second marriage, the marriage between the wife and her current husband is in contravention of the Act as per Section 5(i) and, therefore, is violated. The court also concluded that no such cruelty was being performed as mentioned under Section 10(1)(b).
Grounds on which special leave cannot be revoked
As per Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, all decrees and orders issued by the court in any proceedings may be appealed in accordance with the prevailing laws, as if the decrees and orders of the court were made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Section 15 states that a marriage is said to be dissolved by a decree of the divorce, and there is no right of appeal against the decree or if there is a right of appeal. Still, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal being presented, or if the appeal has been presented but dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to marry again. The provisions of the sections made it clear that after a marriage has been dissolved, a party can legally marry only if there is no right to appeal against the divorce decree or if there is such a right to appeal, the time has expired without an appeal being presented, or the appeal has already been presented but is dismissed.
Even though the provision of Section 15 does not directly apply, it may not have been unlawful for the first respondent to marry immediately after the High Court’s decree. The Supreme Court, in this matter, stated that it was the duty of the first respondent to make sure whether an application of special leave has been filed with the Supreme Court. If he does so, he took a risk and cannot now request the Supreme Court to revoke the special leave on these grounds.
For the consideration of the legitimacy of the child born, the court refrained from indulging into this question extensively, except to mention that in such a scenario, Section 16 of the said Act may come to provide aid for the child. The court also declined to revoke the special leave based on the grounds presented by the first respondent and hereby dismissed his application for revocation of special leave.
Rationale behind the judgement
On the substance of the appeal, it has already been stated that both the High Court and the trial court unanimously agreed that the appellant was not engaged in adultery at the time the petition was filed. As per section 10(1)(b) of the Act, both courts have agreed that no such evidence of cruelty would fall within this reference. The High Court also found that the adultery had not occurred between the appellant and the co-respondent in 1955, citing the two letters were purposely written by the co-respondent to the appellant. As per the case, the co-respondent was married to the appellant’s cousin and he was not a stranger to her; thus, correspondence between them would not be unexpected.
However, in her statement under oath, the appellant denied having any illegitimate relationship with the co-respondent. The attempts made by the first respondent to establish illicit intimacy between the appellant and the co-respondent have been unsuccessful, as both the courts rejected the evidence presented in this regard. Against this backdrop, the High Court can only rely on the validity of the evidence of the two letters, as it is only the sole evidence in proof of adultery in 1955. The court also stated that the mere fact that a male relative wrote such letters to a married woman does not establish the fact of having any sort of illicit relationship. Also, the letters clearly directed that whatever was written in them could not predict the fact that the same kind of relationship was also reciprocated by the appellant. Also, the time discussing the relevance of these letters does not prove that there was any kind of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the co-respondent.
Analysis of Chandra Mohini Srivastava vs. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (1967)
Even though it may not have been legally prohibited for the respondent to remarry immediately following the High Court’s decree, as there is no right to appeal from such a decree to the Supreme Court in these matters, the respondent still had an obligation to ascertain whether the application had been filed by his wife for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He should not be marrying in a hurry after the High Court’s decree, depriving his wife of a chance to petition the Supreme Court for special leave. By doing so, he took a risk already and cannot ask the Supreme Court to revoke the special leave on these grounds.
The High Court’s order to grant the divorce must be reconsidered. Even though the two letters assumed that there was some sort of illegitimate relationship between the wife and the co-respondent, the High Court made an error in granting a divorce under Section 13(1)(viii) as amended by the U.P. amendment.
A decree for judicial separation must first be obtained before a divorce decree is granted under this provision. Under the amendment, the decree of divorce is only followed if two years have passed or if there are circumstances of special hardships on the part of the other party. The court cannot immediately grant a divorce which is based on these special hardships without the decree of judicial separation passed, even if such a decree has been obtained on the grounds specified in Section 10(1)(f).
There were insufficient grounds in favour of the respondent for the degree of judicial separation as the evidence of the two letters cannot determine the fact that there was any kind of sexual relationship between the wife and the co-respondent.
The respondent, in his statement under Order X, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, admitted that he was well aware of the illicit relationship between his wife and the co-respondent even in 1955 or 1956, and he continued to live with her and his son who was born in 1957. He also tried to reframe his statement in his testimony that he was suspicious only, even though he admitted to indulging sexually with her until October 1958. The fact that the husband continued to cohabit with his wife even after discovering infidelity is sufficient to constitute condonation. He also admitted that keeping her with him was only because of the insistence of his friends, further indicating condonation through forgiveness, confirmed or reinforced by continued cohabitation.
Conclusion
The concept of condonation involves forgiveness that is either confirmed or made effective by reinstatement. This is a case of desertion, and in such situations, whether judicial separation is being claimed on the grounds of Section 10(1)(f), the fact that the husband was well aware of her alleged infidelity and continued to cohabit with his wife stating that it was only the insistence of his friends is sufficient to establish condonation. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that the first respondent is not entitled to claim the decree of judicial separation and is also in favour of allowing the appeal along with setting aside the High Court’s order and reinstating the trial court’s dismissal of the petition from the husband. It was also concluded that the wife should be awarded costs by her husband.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are the remedies available to the party under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
The legal remedies available to the party regarding marital disputes are restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation and divorce. The judiciary in India is urging for the irrevertible breakdown of marriage as a separate ground for divorce. It was also held that even when a petition is submitted to the court, the parties have always the option of conciliation.
What are the grounds for judicial separation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
As per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, judicial separation is granted by the court on specific grounds and legally recognized reasons such as adultery, cruelty, desertion, either of the parties is of unsound mind and suffering from leprosy or venereal disease of incurable form.
During the judicial separation, the spouse remains married but the legal obligation and duties towards each other are suspended. It offers a structured and legally recognised way for couples experiencing significant marital challenges to formally separate while maintaining their marital status.
What are the requirements for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
As per Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, parties can seek divorce by mutual consent. A joint petition should be filed before the district court from both the parties for dissolution of marriage, based on Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, The essential requirements for parties seeking divorce are that they should be living separately for at least one year and cannot live together, also the agreement to dissolve the marriage should be mutual.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
This article is written by Avneet Kaur. It offers a comprehensive analysis of the landmark case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala. The article provides an exhaustive exploration of the legal points involved along with various aspects of the judgement in the case. It also attempts to analyse the aftermath of the judgement in succeeding cases.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Supreme Court holds the final authority in the Indian judicial system. There is no other supreme authority which can scrutinise the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also empowered to hear appeals against decisions of High Courts. In doing so, some discretion is also placed upon the Supreme Court to ensure speedier disposal of justice. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not usually resort to providing explanations while dismissing special leave petitions. Accordingly, a large number of special leave petitions are dismissed at the very outset. Henceforth, the question regarding the consequences of dismissal of such petitions and the doctrine of merger becomes an issue of exploration.
The landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) provides valuable insights into this topic. Eventually, the case went around to decide the question of applicability of the doctrine of merger in different situations and the relation between special leave petitions along with the right to file for review of an order.
Details of the case
Name of the case
Kunhayammed and Ors. V. State of Kerala and Anr. (2000)
Date of judgement
19.07.2000
Parties to the case
Petitioner
Kunhayammed and Ors.
Respondent
State of Kerala and Anr.
Equivalent citations
AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2587, 2000 AIR SCW 2608, (2000) 9 JT 110 (SC)
Justice K.T. Thomas, Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Justice R C Lahoti
Facts of Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
The state of Kerala enacted the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Kerala Private Forest Act) which vested in the Government the private forests in Kerala and the power to assign such land to farmers for cultivation. The Act was given retrospective operation from 10. 05. 1971. A large family filed a case before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode regarding 1020 acres of land area. The Forest Tribunal, constituted under the Kerala Private Forest Act, 1971 gave its order on 11. 08. 1982, which stated that the land in question was not vested in the government.
An appeal was filed by the state of Kerala against the order of the Forest Tribunal before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal on 17. 12. 1982. There was also no remedy available for appeal, revision or review against the order of the High Court. The State of Kerala further filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. This petition was also dismissed on 18. 07.1983.
Thereafter, an amendment was introduced in 1986 in the Kerala Private Forest Act by virtue of which Section 8C was enacted by giving it retrospective effect from 19.11.1983. The special provision incorporated through Section 8C allowed the government to ask the High Court to review an order passed under Section 8A of the Act if they had reason to believe that it was based on concessions made without proper authority or due to failure to provide relevant information. This provision was in effect for a specific period of time, from the start of the Kerala Private Forest Amendment Act, 1986 until 31.03.1987.
Accordingly, the state of Kerala filed an application for review before the High Court of Kerala of its order made on 17.12.1982. Aggrieved by the application for review, the petitioners filed a Special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues raised in the case
Whether the High Court of Kerala can entertain a prayer for review of its order passed on 17.12.1982, even if such a review has the potential to disturb or change the order previously passed on 18.07.1983 by the Supreme Court dismissing the Special leave petition filed by the state of Kerala.
When the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court have merged together through affirmation, is it still possible to file a review petition against the order made by the High Court?
Arguments of the parties to Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
Appellant
The counsel for the appellants put forward that the order of the High Court of Kerala dated 17.12.1982 had merged with the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the Special Leave Petition dated 18.07.1983. Therefore, the High Court’s order no longer exists in the eyes of the law any application for review of such an order is completely misguided.
Thus the counsel placed reliance on the doctrine of merger which states that when a higher court passes an order on an appeal or petition, the order of the lower court or tribunal gets merged or incorporated into the order of the higher court. This implies that the lower court’s order no longer exists independently and is considered superseded by the higher court’s order.
The appellants contended that the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.07.1983 affirms the order passed by the High Court of Kerala on 17.12.1982. Therefore, the High Court of Kerala cannot entertain the application for review of its order much less disturb the order in the exercise of review jurisdiction. The arguments were based on the contention that the application for review of the High Court’s order is not maintainable.
Respondent
The counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the order given by the High Court of Kerala on 17.12.1982 was faulty and that the right to ask for a review of the High Court’s order was backed by Section 8C of the Kerala Private Forest Act. The section conferred a right on the state of Kerala to ask for a review of an order of the High Court if the State Government had reason to believe that the order was either based on concessions or was given without proper authority or there was a lack of relevant information.
Judgement in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
The Supreme Court in this case held that the Kerala High Court has the power to review cases under Section 8C of the Kerala Private Forests Act 1971. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by the state government of Kerala against the order of the High Court, as they found no valid reason to grant permission for the appeal.
Applicability of doctrine of merger
The Supreme Court held that the idea behind the doctrine of merger is that multiple orders or rulings cannot coexist when they have the same subject. When the lower court’s order is taken to a higher court for review, the finality of the lower court’s decision becomes uncertain. However, it must be noted that this doctrine does not have universal application. The application of the doctrine depends upon the jurisdiction of the higher court and the specific matters being challenged. The Supreme Court also referred to the decision in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (1969), wherein the court said that for the doctrine of merger to apply, three conditions need to be met:
The court should be exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction,
The court should have issued a notice, and
There should have been a full hearing with both parties present.
The Court also referred to a previous decision of this court in the case of U.J.S. Chopra vs. State of Bombay (1955). In this case, it was held that when a High Court pronounces a judgement in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after providing notice and conducting a full hearing with the presence of both parties, then that judgement replaces the judgement of the lower court. Therefore, the judgement of the High Court becomes the final judgement to be enforced by the lower courts in accordance with the law.
Maintainability of review petition
The court further held that the doctrine of merger and the right to seek review of an order are interconnected concepts. The Supreme Court clarified that in the case of the merger of the order of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court, one cannot seek review from the High Court because its order or judgement no longer exists. This can be the situation when a judgement or order from the High Court is brought before the Supreme Court for appeal through a special leave petition and the Supreme Court dismisses the special leave to appeal.
However, if there is no merger of orders, the right to seek a review can still be availed. The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1966), wherein it was held that the doctrine of merger is not applicable in all situations whenever there are two orders, one passed in appellate or revisionary jurisdiction by an inferior court and other passed in appellate or revisionary jurisdiction by a superior court or tribunal. The applicability of the doctrine of merger depends upon the nature of the order and the jurisdiction conferred upon the concerned court.
In such a situation, the order or judgement of the High Court still exists in the eyes of law and it also has jurisdiction to review the orders made by it. Being a Court of record, the High Court can also review its decisions. However, the High Court only considers an application for review only on its merits.
Review jurisdiction in light of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC 1908
The Supreme Court held that in such a situation Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be considered. This rule states that a person can file for review of a judgement or order if he/she feels aggrieved in the following situations-
Where an application for filing an appeal against a decree or order is permissible but has not been filed, or
Where no appeal is allowed against a decree or order, or
By a decision made by a Court of Small Causes
The review can be sought on other various grounds also, such as the discovery of new and important evidence that was not within prior knowledge or could not be presented during the original proceedings, or due to an apparent mistake or error on the face of the record, or for any other valid reason. The application for review must be made to the court that gave the decree or order. The Supreme Court also held that the availability of the option of filing an appeal against the judgement or order should not act as a bar on the right to apply for review except the grounds for review are the same as those of the appellant.
The Supreme Court in this case delved into the first scenario where an appeal is permissible against a decree or order but has not been filed yet. The Supreme Court relied on the judgement in the case of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Govt. of A.P. (1964) in relation to Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In this case, an application for review was filed after the Supreme Court had rejected an application for special leave to appeal. The High Court dismissed the review application in consonance with the rejection of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. However, it was held that the requirements under Order 47 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code would be satisfied if, on the date of filing the review application, no appeal had been filed. In such a situation, the High Court hearing the review petition has the authority to decide the application on its merits, regardless of the pending appeal. However, if the appeal is disposed of before the review application is decided, the High Court’s jurisdiction over the review petition ceases.
The Supreme Court therefore held that since in the present case, no appeal had been filed when the review application was filed, the High Court had the power to consider the review application.
If the review is granted before the appeal against the decree is disposed of, the decree in question will no longer exist, and the appeal will become irrelevant and will lack competence. It is not possible to file an appeal against a decree after a review of that decree has been granted. Order 47 Rule 1 makes it clear that a review can be filed even after the Special leave petition is dismissed. Therefore, it also includes a situation where special leave is not granted. Until special leave is granted, there is no appeal in the eyes of the law before the superior court. A review can only be filed in the High Court before special leave is granted. The reason is that once the special leave to appeal is granted, the authority to consider the validity of the High Court’s order lies with the Supreme Court, and not with the High Court.
Scope of Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Articles 132 to 136 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. These Articles lay down the different situations in which appeals can be made before the Supreme Court. However, Article 136 is a unique provision through which the Supreme Court derives its extraordinary and wide-ranging jurisdiction. These Articles can be referred to as the residuary power of the Supreme Court to hear appeals in cases which are not covered in other Articles. The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of Article 136 is to override the restrictions imposed by previous Articles. This helps in giving unrestricted discretionary power to the Supreme Court to allow appeals in appropriate cases. However, it must be taken into consideration that Article 136 in no way confers a right of appeal on people rather it empowers the Supreme Court to allow the appeal or not based on its discretion and the merits of the case.
Dual stage of a special leave petition
The Supreme Court held that in every case of entertaining an application for special leave to appeal under Article 136, two steps are involved
Firstly, grant of permission to appeal.
Secondly, hearing of the appeal.
After taking into consideration the arguments and merits of the case, the Supreme Court may either refuse to grant permission and dismiss the petition, either without the presence of the opposite party or after issuing notice. If the Apex Court grants permission, the petition will move onto the stage of appeal. Therefore, the legal position can be summarised through the following points-
When a petition for special leave to appeal lies before the Supreme Court, the first step is to consider whether permission should be granted or not.
The decision to grant permission or not falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and not within its appellate dominion.
If the petition is dismissed, it implies that the Supreme Court is of the view that the case is unsuitable and lacks ground for appeal.
If permission is granted, it implies the beginning of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. After grant of permission, the petitioner can proceed with the appeal before the Supreme Court. This leads the way for the appellate jurisdiction, thereby allowing both the petitioner and the respondent to face each other.
Moreover, even if a petition for special leave to appeal is filed, the original judgement, decree, or order remains final and binding between the parties. However, once leave to appeal is granted, the finality of the original decision becomes uncertain and is put in jeopardy. However, it still holds power and is binding unless it’s considered null or the court issues a specific order to suspend its execution.
Dismissal at the stage of permission to Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order
The Supreme Court held that when the Special Leave Petition is dismissed at the stage of application for permission to appeal without reasons, do not constitute res judicata and also does not lead to merger. The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Anr. (1978), where the Supreme Court had held that when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed by a non-speaking order without reasons, it does not imply res judicata. Rather, what can be inferred is that the need for a Special leave to appeal was not required in the case.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the dismissal of a special leave petition under Article 136 against a tribunal’s order does not automatically prevent the filing of a writ petition under Article 226 against the order in question. The Supreme Court referred to a decision by the Madras High Court in The Management of W. India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (1958), where the High Court held that the right to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 is not the same as the right to appeal, and a High Court cannot reject an application under Article 226 on the basis that the petitioner has another remedy for approaching the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Supreme Court clarified that the statement of the Madras High Court is not entirely accurate.
The Supreme Court further explained that it is customary to consider a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution only when there is a substantial question of law or fact of general importance or apparent injustice from the challenged order or judgement. Dismissing a special leave petition without providing reasons doesn’t imply that the Court has rejected the arguments of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that it must be realised that due to the heavy workload, the Court often grants special leave in cases where the party can’t obtain effective relief through a High Court under Article 226. In such cases, the special leave petition is dismissed without explanation, however, it doesn’t prevent the party from seeking relief under Article 226. It would be unfair if the High Court refused relief solely based on the dismissal of the special leave petition. The Supreme Court also referred to the judgement in the case of M/s. Rup Diamonds and others Vs. Union of India and others (1989), where the Supreme Court clarified that the mere rejection of a special leave petition cannot be considered as the Court’s endorsement of acceptance of the correctness of the decision being appealed against.
The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr (1989), wherein it was said that when the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition and provides reasons under Article 136, that decision becomes binding under Article 141. But if the special leave petition is summarily dismissed without any reasons given, it doesn’t establish any law under Article 141. Therefore, when a special leave petition is dismissed without reason, it implies that the Supreme Court simply decided that it wasn’t a suitable case to grant special leave.
Dismissal of Special Leave Petition by a speaking order
The Supreme Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking order does not result in a merger. However, it might attract the application of the Rule of Discipline and Article 141 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court explained when a petition for leave to appeal is dismissed by the court, it can be done through a non-speaking order (without stating reasons) or a speaking order (with reasons). In the case of a non-speaking order, the Supreme Court’s order or decision doesn’t replace the original order or declare any new law. If the dismissal is backed by reasons, it still doesn’t result in a merger because the court is exercising discretionary jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. However, the reasons stated in the order can be considered a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, which is binding on all courts and parties involved. The parties and the court or tribunal whose order was challenged are bound by the statement in the order based on the principle of judicial discipline and uniformity.
Henceforth, in the present case, the Supreme Court held that the current case did not present any problems for resolution. The state of Kerala appealed previously against the High Court order before the Supreme Court, but their appeal was unsuccessful. The Supreme Court found no sufficient reasons to grant permission for the appeal. The order itself did not provide detailed explanations for the decision and was a non-speaking order dismissed on the basis of merits, but it basically means that the Court did not see a need to review the case. Significantly, the Kerala High Court’s order from 17.12.1982, can still be reviewed because it didn’t merge with the Supreme Court’s order from 18.07.1983. The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Kerala has the power to review such cases as empowered by Section 8C of the Kerala Private Forests Act. It is also worth noting that the constitutionality of this provision hasn’t been challenged. The appellant counsel made an attempt to raise this argument during the hearing, but it wasn’t successful since it hadn’t been raised before the High Court or in the petition filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declared the Kerala High Court’s approach to be reasonable and ordered to dismiss the appeal without cost.
Critical analysis of Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
The detailed analysis of the implications of the judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala can be inferred through the following points-
The Supreme Court in this judgement held that when a superior authority modifies, reverses, or affirms a decision made by a lower court, tribunal, or authority, the decision of the lower authority merges with the decision of the superior authority. The decision of the superior authority is the one that is effective and enforceable by law. However, the concept of merger in the context of superior and lower courts can be a bit complex. While it is correct that a decision made by a superior court generally takes precedence over the decision of a lower court, there can be some exceptions as well depending on the jurisdiction and subject matter. The doctrine of merger has its flaws, uncertainties and exceptions, and its application can be influenced by specific laws, regulations, and the particular circumstances of each case.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that the doctrine of merger is not universally applicable. Its applicability depends on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior authority and the subject matter of the particular case. The superior authority should have the power to reverse, modify, or affirm the order in question. The doctrine of merger can be applied to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, not discretionary jurisdiction in deciding the special leave petition. Furthermore, it’s important to note that the doctrine of merger does not replace the challenged order with the decision of the higher court. Instead, it signifies that the decision of the higher court becomes binding and authoritative, while the decision of the lower court remains intact.
In this case, the Supreme Court of India examined several significant matters, the most fundamental of them being whether a review petition under Article 226 could be filed against a previous order of a High Court after the dismissal of a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court under Article 136. The Supreme Court held that a review petition could be filed in such circumstances, overriding previous judgments that suggested otherwise. The rationale behind this judgement was to ensure fairness and justice. The Supreme Court recognized that dismissing a special leave petition should not be considered a final determination of the rights of the parties involved and neither as exhaustion of all remedies. By allowing a review petition after the dismissal of a special leave petition, it would provide an opportunity for parties to seek redress if they believed there was an error or injustice in the earlier decision. The Supreme Court also recognized the importance of preserving the integrity and authority of the Supreme Court.
Laws discussed in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 has several provisions aimed at the management and conservation of private forests in Kerala. These provisions related to matters around private forests such as their classification, rights and obligations of the government, forest owners and assignees. One of the main features of the Act was that ownership and control of private forests in the state of Kerala was to be with the state government.
Section 8A: It confers power on the state government to file an appeal to the High Court within 60 days of the date of the order made by the Forest Tribunal if the state does not see eye to eye with the decision. Upon receiving such an appeal, the High Court can either confirm or cancel the Tribunal’s decision or send it back to the Tribunal or make any other appropriate order. Any decision made by the High Court in such an appeal preferred under Section 8A is considered final.
Section 8C: It also allows the state government to file for review in certain cases despite the existence of any limitations. The Government can file an appeal against the decision of the Forest Tribunal if they have reason to believe that the same has been based on concessions or without the proper information. Additionally, in case of delay in obtaining a certified copy of the decision, the government can file an appeal. Similarly, the government is also entitled to file an appeal against an order made by the High Court on the basis of the above grounds.
The controversial aspect of this provision is that it came into effect just after the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government of Kerala.
Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the provisions for filing an application for review of a decree or order. This provision lists down the process and the situations under which a person can file for review of a judgement. A person can file for review in the following situations-
If an appeal though has been allowed but not yet preferred.
If no appeal is allowed for a decree or order
If a decision has been made on reference from the Court of Small Causes.
Apart from that, it must also be shown that the reason behind filing for review is either the discovery of new evidence that is material to the case, or there is any prima facie mistake or error, or any other valid reason. It further provides that an application for review should be made to the same Court which made the order in the first stance. Therefore, the objective is to allow a way to correct mistakes and consider any new evidence that may impact the decision of the case. It is worth noting that the grant or rejection of the application depends upon the discretion of the court. The application can only be filed within the time limit as may be prescribed.
Constitution of India, 1950
Several provisions of the Constitution of India were discussed in the Kunhayammed case such as Articles 136, 141 and 226. These Articles are significant provisions that grant certain powers and jurisdiction to different entities within the Indian legal system.
Article 136: This article empowers the Supreme Court of India with the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal in a matter if there is any exceptional circumstance or a substantial question of law or fact is involved. However, the Supreme Court holds discretion in granting or rejecting a special leave to appeal. The time limit specified for filing a special leave to appeal is 90 days from the date of judgement or order against which appeal is sought. But if an application is filed after that, the Supreme Court may allow it if there is any exceptional circumstance justifying the delay. There are certain matters which remain outside the purview of Article 136 such as judgments, orders, sentences, and determinations passed by a Court or tribunal related to the armed forces.
Article 141: This article lays the foundation of the Doctrine of precedents also known as stare decisis in the Indian legal system. This article establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It means that the decisions and interpretations made by the Supreme Court in cases set legal precedents that lower courts must follow. However, the entire judgement of the Supreme Court is not binding. It is the rationale behind the judgement which should be taken into consideration while deciding a question regarding similar circumstances.
Article 226: This article confers the power to the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. These writs are essential tools for the protection of fundamental rights and the enforcement of the rule of law. The High Courts can use these writs to ensure that the actions of the government and its authorities are in compliance with the law.
These constitutional provisions play a crucial role in upholding the principles of justice, ensuring uniformity in the application of law, and safeguarding the rights of individuals in India.
Conclusion
The judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v State of Kerala was a landmark decision that had a significant impact on the Indian legal system. By allowing the filing of review petitions even after the dismissal of a special leave petition, the Supreme Court of India demonstrated a promise to ensure fairness and justice. This decision recognized the importance of providing an opportunity for parties to seek redress if they believed there was an error or injustice in the previous judgement. By allowing review petitions in such cases, the court showed its willingness to adapt and evolve the legal framework to better serve the interests of justice.
Conclusively, the judgement in the Kunhayammed case stands as a commitment to the evolving nature of the law. It serves as a precedent for future cases and underpins the notion that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a special leave petition?
It is a legal remedy available in India that allows persons aggrieved by any order, decision or judgement of any Court or tribunal to seek permission before the Supreme Court to appeal against such order, decision or judgement. Article 136 of the Constitution of India lays down the provision in this regard. However, this opportunity of asking for appeal is not available in case of any judgement, order, decree or determination relating to the armed forces.
What is the doctrine of merger?
The Doctrine of Merger is a legal principle that provides that when an appeal is filed against a lower court’s decision and the higher court reviews and passes its own judgement on the matter, the lower court’s decision is considered “merged” into the higher court’s decision. The higher court’s order is the only operative order and the order of the lower court ceases to exist.
What are the two stages of a special leave petition?
In a Special Leave Petition (SLP), there are two stages involved. The first stage is the filing of the application requesting for permission to appeal itself. This is when the petitioner submits the petition to the Supreme Court, seeking special permission to appeal against a judgement or order of a lower court or tribunal. The second stage is the hearing of the Special leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court grants permission to hear the appeal, it will then proceed to review the case and make a decision on whether to affirm or override the lower court’s decision.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Every year, hundreds to thousands of startups are incorporated. According to a press release by DPIIT (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade), there were over 1,17,254 recognised startups that had generated 12.42 lakh jobs as of December 31, 2023. Some of them grow big, very big, headline-grabbing valuations, while others shut down their operations. Startups are all about turning innovative ideas into industry leaders, but to become these leaders, a startup requires fuel. Investments are the fuel for startups. Just like a child goes through different stages of development, a startup also experiences distinct phases, each with its own funding needs, thus attracting a specific type of investor with a unique mindset. Let’s understand these stages and explore the intricate funding landscape for Indian startups.
Idea stage (building the foundation)
The idea is the inception of every startup journey. It’s where a spark of inspiration transforms into a potential solution for a real-world problem. But turning that spark into a flame requires resources, and for many aspiring entrepreneurs, bootstrapping becomes the launchpad. This stage is often characterised by a focus on market research, validating the problem-solution fit, and building a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Bootstrapping essentially means financing your startup using your own resources. This could involve:
Personal Savings: This is the most common form of bootstrapping. Founders turn to their personal savings to cover initial expenses like market research, building a basic website or prototype, and initial marketing efforts.
Sweat Equity: Initially, founders handle various tasks like coding, designing, marketing, and even customer service. This dedication and hard work are also a form of investment in the idea’s future success.
Bootstrapping offers several advantages for a startup:
Maintaining Control: By bootstrapping, founders retain complete control over decision-making and the direction of the company because they haven’t diluted any part of their equity yet. This is crucial when the idea is still evolving and requires agility.
Validation and Learning: Bootstrapping forces founders to be resourceful and make the most use of their limited resources. This develops a culture of frugality and helps validate the problem-solution fit before seeking external funding.
However, if the initial requirement of funds can’t be satisfied using personal resources, founders usually turn to family, relatives, or friends to support the business. It is the family or friends who believe in the founder’s dream and support the business by either giving investment in return for a very low equity stake or by giving credit to the founders at minimal rates of interest.
Seed stage
After the startup has built a basic, functional version of the product that has been tested by a small group of users and received positive feedback, and after the founder has a clear understanding of the problem he’s looking to solve, the target market, and how his product or service addresses market needs, it’s time to take the business to the next level, and this is where angel investors come into the picture.
Angel investors are the rainmakers of the seed stage. They are wealthy individuals, often successful entrepreneurs themselves, who invest their own money in very promising early-stage ventures. Angel investors understand that seed-stage ventures are inherently risky. However, they are also attracted to the potential for high returns if the startup becomes successful. Many angel investors are passionate about innovation and supporting new ventures that can disrupt existing industries. They enjoy being a part of the startup ecosystem and helping ideas become big businesses. Angel investors not only provide funds, but there are some other benefits to securing angel investors that go beyond just the money. Here are some additional advantages:
Angel investors often have a vast network of contacts in the industry. They can connect a startup with potential customers, partners, and advisors, opening doors that might otherwise have remained closed.
Because angel investors themselves were founders or entrepreneurs, they also provide invaluable guidance on everything from product development and marketing to fundraising and team building.
If a startup succeeds in securing investment from a respected angel investor, it can validate its idea and give the startup credibility in the eyes of future investors and potential customers. Many prominent Indian angel investors, like Sachin Bansal and Sandeep Aggarwal of Flipkart, actively support promising startups.
Beyond angel investors, incubators and accelerators can also play a crucial role at this stage. These organisations provide startups with mentorship, workspace, access to potential investors, and industry connections. Prominent Indian incubators and accelerators include NASSCOM Startup Warehouse, T-Hub, and Y Combinator India.
Early growth stage (Scaling up operations):
After the startup has gained traction, with a working product and an initial customer base, venture capitalists (VCs) come into play. VCs are firms that manage pooled funds from various investors, like pension funds, insurance companies, and high-net-worth individuals. Unlike angel investors, who take calculated risks on individual ventures, VCs invest in a portfolio of startups, aiming to achieve high returns through multiple successes. VCs are driven by a primary objective, to maximize returns for their investors. However, their investment decisions are influenced by several factors:
High-Growth Potential: VCs look for startups with the potential for explosive growth and the ability to scale rapidly. They typically invest in sectors with high projected growth rates, like technology or biotechnology.
Strong Management Team: VCs invest in people as much as they do in ideas. They look for a passionate and experienced founding team with a proven track record of success. If the founder has a record of building decent businesses, it becomes easier to get investments from the VCs.
Exit Strategy: Because VCs have to give returns to their investors, they look for a clear exit strategy for their investment. This could involve an initial public offering (IPO), where the company goes public, or an acquisition by a larger company.
VC funding typically follows a staged approach known as “series funding rounds.” Each series (Series A, B, C, etc.) represents a distinct stage of growth for the startup and comes with progressively larger investment amounts and stricter criteria. The number of series funding rounds a startup goes through can vary depending on the industry, business model, and funding requirements. Some startups may only require Series A funding, while others might go through multiple rounds (C, D, and E) before an exit.
Indian VC firms like Sequoia Capital India, Kalaari Capital, and Blume Ventures have been instrumental in the success of many Indian startups. It’s important to note that the funding landscape at this stage can be competitive. Founders need to craft a compelling pitch deck that clearly articulates the problem they are solving, their target market, the competitive advantage, the business model, the go-to-market strategy, the financial projections, and the team’s experience.
Expansion stage (reaching new markets):
After securing funding from venture capitalists, a high-growth Indian startup might find itself at a crossroads. The company is well past the initial stages, but a final push is needed to solidify its position or achieve a successful exit. This is where growth equity investors or private equity firms step onto the scene.
Growth Equity investors: Fueling the final ascent
Growth equity investors are firms or individuals who specialise in investing in companies experiencing rapid growth. They bridge the gap between venture capital and private equity, providing larger sums of capital than VCs but focusing on slightly later-stage companies. Growth equity investors are drawn to the following factors:
Proven Business Model: They invest in companies with a demonstrably successful business model and a clear path to continued growth.
Strong Market Position: The company should be a leader or strong contender in its target market.
High-Quality Management Team: A proven and experienced management team with a track record of success is crucial.
Exit Potential: Just like VCs, growth equity investors seek a successful exit, typically through an IPO or acquisition.
Private Equity: The endgame investors
These firms operate investment funds on behalf of institutional and accredited investors. They acquire private companies or even public ones entirely, often as part of a consortium. Unlike venture capital firms, which typically invest in startups, private equity firms focus on mature companies with a strong track record of profitability. Their primary goal is to acquire a controlling interest in a company, drive further growth, and then achieve a lucrative exit within a defined timeframe (typically 3-5 years). Private equity firms are motivated by:
Strong Financial Performance: They invest in companies with established revenue streams and high profitability.
Untapped Potential: They may see opportunities to unlock further value through operational improvements or strategic acquisitions.
Exit Strategy: Their primary focus is maximising returns through an IPO or a strategic sale to another company.
Advantages for startups:
The advantages of getting connected to growth investors or private equity firms can be as follows:
Large-Scale Funding: Growth investors and private equity firms provide massive capital injections to fuel large-scale acquisitions, market consolidation, or even international expansion.
Operational Expertise: These firms often have a team of experts who can help optimise operations and improve efficiency.
Exit Strategy Guidance: Private equity firms have extensive experience in structuring and executing successful exits, which can be invaluable for founders.
Beyond growth equity and private equity firms, companies at this stage might also attract strategic investors. These are established companies, often within the same industry, that see potential benefits from a partnership or eventual acquisition. Strategic investors provide access to new markets, distribution channels, or valuable partnerships. A strategic investor might also be a potential acquirer, offering a clear exit strategy for the startup.
Maturity Stage (Debt Financing & IPO):
The maturity stage represents the pinnacle of a successful startup journey. The company is well-established, generating significant revenue and profitability. Here, the focus shifts from rapid growth to maintaining market share, optimising operations, and potentially preparing for a public offering.
Debt Financing: Fueling strategic moves
While equity financing has driven the startup’s growth so far, debt financing becomes a viable option at the maturity stage. This involves taking out loans from banks or other financial institutions. Debt financing can be used for several purposes:
Strategic Acquisitions: Funds can be used to acquire smaller competitors, expand into new markets, or consolidate market share.
Product Development: Debt financing can fuel the development of new products or technologies that can further solidify the company’s position in the market.
Shareholder Repurchase: Mature companies might use debt to repurchase shares from existing investors, increasing ownership for remaining shareholders.
The reasons why debt financing is preferred in mature stages are as follows:
Preserves Ownership: Unlike equity financing, debt doesn’t dilute ownership for founders and existing investors.
Tax Benefits: Interest payments on debt are often tax-deductible, reducing the company’s overall tax burden.
Flexibility: Debt financing can be tailored to specific needs, with varying repayment terms and interest rates.
However, debt comes with its own set of considerations, as debt repayment includes interest, which can impact profitability. Also, excessive debt can burden the company and limit its financial flexibility in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
Public offerings: Taking the company public
The ultimate goal for many successful startups is an initial public offering (IPO). An IPO involves selling shares of the company’s stock to the public on a stock exchange. This allows the company to raise a significant amount of capital and gain access to a wider pool of investors.
Here are some benefits of an IPO:
Increased Capital: An IPO can provide a massive influx of capital that can be used for further expansion, debt repayment, or strategic acquisitions.
Enhanced Credibility: Going public signifies a company’s success and stability, attracting new investors and talent.
Liquidity for Investors: An IPO provides an exit strategy for early investors and founders who can sell their shares on the stock market.
However, an IPO is not the only exit strategy for a mature company. Here are some alternatives:
Acquisition: A larger, established company might acquire the startup for its technology, market share, or talent.
Merger: Two companies might merge to create a stronger entity with a wider market reach and combined resources.
Conclusion
The Indian startup world is booming with ideas! This article was an attempt to highlight the different ways in which startups get funding, from the very beginning (using your own savings and help from friends) to when the company becomes big and successful.
Remember, different investors look for different things. Angel investors love passionate founders with unique ideas, while VCs want companies that can grow really fast. Therefore, it is important to understand what investors want so a founder can convince them to give him the money he needs to turn his dream into a reality.
Data gets accumulated on a day-to-day basis in multiple forms during an organisation’s operations. This data may pertain to product/service quality, sales, service, after-sales service, customer service, finance, accounts, and many more. It may also come from customer behaviour or internally from the operations of different departments.
In today’s competitive world, each enterprise is struggling to gain and improve its foothold. Every organisation is grappling to increase its customer base by giving customised, suitable offers and services to convert and consolidate its customers. Despite massive volumes of data in hand, organisations have been capable of doing little to augment their market size and achieve their goals. Computers and manhours are being used to analyse and deduce these data figures to derive conclusions to facilitate the achievement of their goals, to be utilised to further the customer base, revenue, and market size. Such activities take a long time and expensive efforts, but still, the results remain restricted and constrained. Managing and leveraging this strategic asset to derive business objectives remains a major challenge.
Artificial intelligence: meaning
The importance of data has grown exponentially. In 2022, the IT industry came up with a concept that analyses data and produces results that could converge the focus and vision of business enterprises and catalyse operations. This concept works as the brain of the organisation, supporting their vision of enhanced presence and trust. This concept is called artificial intelligence.
In other words, artificial intelligence analyses the provided input and creates output or results within a predefined strategy and a set framework of rules and guidelines. It does not produce anything novel or new results, but, in a better understanding, produces results from its analysis or creates a setup for a framework or a guideline for smart decisions to accelerate and streamline the operations. It refers to systems designed to work on a particular set of inputs. Artificial intelligence excels in task-specific applications. It works as a predictive analytics tool and improves efficiency across industries.
Generative artificial intelligence: meaning
Generative artificial intelligence is a derivative of artificial intelligence but represents the next generation in generating output. Generative artificial intelligence, or GAI, is capable of generating and transforming results, producing similar, improved, and advanced output on the basis of input information.
Generative artificial intelligence creates new and original content using neural networks and by identifying different patterns and structures within existing data. Generative artificial intelligence is capable of creating structured & organised output from arbitrary and asymetrical data or input on the basis of algorithms. It is also capable of generating new results or specifications from basic data by merging and evaluating a large number of different ideas to produce improvised ones. It even generates new and creative content based on a variety of inputs. These inputs can be text, sound, images or videos, animation, 3D models, any type of analytical data, or even computer codes.
Generative artificial intelligence enables companies to offer personalised products and experiences to their customers Generative artificial intelligence is fast emerging as an advanced and transformative force in data-based decision-making.
The key difference between artificial intelligence and Generative artificial intelligence
The key difference between AI and GAI lies in their capabilities and applications. Artificial intelligence solves specific tasks with predefined rules. Generative artificial intelligence uses unsupervised learning and generative models. It mimics the fundamental patterns of existing data to produce new output that resonates with the original source. Generative artificial intelligence is built upon massive neural networks (LLMs) that have been organised on enormous datasets. While artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence have distinct functionalities, they supplement each other to provide powerful solutions.
For instance, AI analyses user behaviour data, and GAI creates personalised content for the user. This plays an important role in shaping our future with unique possibilities. In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, embracing these advanced technologies will be the key for individuals and businesses to stay ahead of the curve.
Requirements of a successful GAI model
The key requirements of a successful generative AI model are:
Quality
Diversity
Speed
Uses and Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence
There are various uses and applications of GAI in the industry, some of which are:
In language:
Marketing Content
Note Taking
Gene Sequencing
Code Development
Essay Generation
In visuals:
Video Generation
3D Models
Design
Image Generation
Animation
In audio / sounds:
Music Generation
Voice Generation
In data input-to-output conversion
Synthetic Data: It is extremely useful to train AI models when data doesn’t exist or is restricted and unable to address requirements with the highest accuracy. The development of synthetic data through GAI is perhaps one of the most impactful solutions for overcoming the data challenges of many organisations.
Application areas of GAI
The application areas of generative artificial intelligence can be understood by categorising them as follows:
Content Creation:
Text
Images
Videos
Codes
Creative Fields:
Design
Music
Research & Development:
Drug Discovery
Scientific Exploration
Customer Service & Marketing:
Chatbots
Personalised Marketing
Benefits of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Its Uses in Businesses and Organisations
Some key benefits of using generative artificial intelligence in business include:
These algorithms are used to create new and original content.
These algorithms are used to improve the efficiency and accuracy of existing AI systems.
They are used to explore and analyse complex data.
Generative artificial intelligence algorithms save time and resources for an organisation by helping it automate a variety of tasks and processes.
Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to give a significant thrust to a wide range of industries and is an important area of artificial intelligence research and development. It can create new content, insights, and ideas, catalysing innovation across diverse sectors.
Senior business professionals are increasingly and rapidly realising that generative artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionise business models and transform the world of work. Generative artificial intelligence has the capability to make humans better at work and work better for humans.
Benefits of Generative Artificial Intelligence in a Senior Professional’s Growth
Generative artificial intelligence analyses data sources to generate detailed descriptions of required tasks, responsibilities, and skills. Generative artificial intelligence enhances the personalisation of the customer experience, customer service, fraud detection, supply chain management, predictive maintenance, business process automation, and many more. Generative artificial intelligence behaves like an architect, giving new multi-dimensional suggestions and propositions based on fundamental parameters. A senior professional controlling and leading a business or an enterprise uses this powerful tool to implement a new approach with new outcomes to deepen its hold and achieve business objectives.
Enhancing market research, Ecosystem trends & data analytics
Rapid prototyping
Personalised content
Streamlines workflow
Key Areas to implement GAI for Senior Professionals
These are the key areas for a senior professional to implement GAI:
Strategic Planning: Identification of potential disruptions, market shifts, and new opportunities.
Research & Development: Exploration of novel product areas and refinement of concepts.
Marketing & Sales: Creation of highly targeted campaigns and outreach.
Operations: The optimisation of processes and identification of areas for automation
Training & Development: Creation of engaging and personalised Training modules
Important Considerations while implementing GAI
While implementing GAI, the following are important considerations:
Data Quality: It is important to verify the quality of the data being fed to the GAI.
Clear Objectives and Scope: While implementing GAI, it is crucial to know what the business wants the AI to perform.
Legal and ethical implications: Before implementing AI, it is important to check the regulatory framework, including IP, data privacy, etc.
With proper guardrails in place, generative AI can not only unlock novel use cases for businesses but also speed up, scale, or otherwise improve existing ones. Senior professionals, CEOs, and their teams reflect on the value creation case for generative AI and how to start their journey. Some may see an opportunity to leapfrog the competition. Senior professionals can use the imaginative outputs of generative artificial intelligence to spiral their businesses to achieve better team collaborations.
Lately, generative artificial intelligence models are being used to streamline searches. Models securely filter and extract all organisational documentation, like contracts, research reports, and business trend analysis, and can highlight important sections or clauses for ready reference. The excitement around generative AI is noticeable, and senior professionals can move ahead with thoughtful and intentional speed.
Caution and Misuses
Generative artificial intelligence poses a variety of risks, including:
Algorithmic bias may be the outcome due to imperfect or incorrect input.
Data and model outputs can lead to significant IP risks, including infringing legally protected materials (copyrights, trademarks, and patents).
Privacy concerns could arise if, due to user-specific data input, output is in a form that makes any individual identifiable.
It could also be used to create and disseminate malicious content such as disinformation, deepfakes, etc.
Conclusion
Generative AI has shifted far away from being a mere advanced tech concept. Today, senior professionals in organisations are actively implementing this technology to create generative artificial intelligence applications that lead to business transformation, innovation, growth, and better scalability. This helps and supports senior professionals and their businesses in their perseverance to be and remain ahead of their competition. From creating and completing videos to expediting coding and enhancing chatbots, the generative artificial intelligence use cases are continuously expanding.
Artificial intelligence refers to non-human intelligence. While most of the century’s humans have been known to be the supremely intelligent species living on earth, in today’s world, this does not seem to hold much truth. The challenger is no other living species with flesh, blood, and DNA, but non-living things known as machines. Of course, the challenger has been created by the veteran, which makes it all the more interesting. Humans have been by nature sceptical towards changes and new technology. A very fresh memory for us was the challenges faced by senior team members when they faced the transition from paper to computers. From the telephone to the television to the elevator, most of the things that have made it to our essential list faced a lot of apprehensions and doubts in the beginning. As per records and evidence, AI was conceptualised way back in the 1950’s; however, the real progress has happened in the last decade.
Now that AI has already found a place in our lives, sometimes we do not realise its presence. The curated content on Netflix based on your search and like patterns is the work of AI for you. AI will be valuable to the future of business across the length and breadth of its ecosystem. From helping customers with initial information about a product as a digital assistant to complex data analytics in environmental sustainability by analysing how much solar power a factory needs and optimising power consumption by automating electricity consuming devices and machines, it will help businesses by predicting maintenance required for the equipment’s there by avoiding sudden shut downs and disruptions in the production process. From boardrooms to retail shops, artificial intelligence is already rewriting the rules of the game and is well poised to shake the very foundation of how corporations have operated and competed till now.
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on businesses
The impact of artificial intelligence can be huge and can be noticeable in the following ways:
Automated process
Process has been the backbone of successful business. The more robust the process, the higher the success due to the high level of efficiency and minimum downturn time, all leading to higher customer satisfaction. But with process comes more and more repetitive tasks, increasing non-skilled manpower hours and thereby increasing the chances of errors. With artificial intelligence, these repetitive tasks are being automated. Business transformation shall be witnessed with traditional repetitive tasks being completed at lightning speeds and higher rates of accuracy. Consider the onboarding of employees. In industries with a high level of attrition and continuous hiring, the onboarding part becomes a repetitive job for the human resources department. Imagine this process getting automated. It has crossed the point of imagination and is now a reality, transforming businesses. In the past decade, we have witnessed the increase and refinement of chatbots. What they do essentially is get millions of customers connected to the company at the same time, be it an initial product inquiry or registering service calls. Traditionally, a customer would rely on connecting with a sales representative for the most basic query, with a risk for the company of losing a potential customer due to a non-response or delayed response from the sales representative. That’s a tremendous transformation for businesses with the advent of artificial intelligence.
Faster and better-informed decision-making
The future of business decision-making rests in automated and augmented business decision-making, where the beauty lies in processing vast amounts of data and identifying patterns that elude the human eye. The outcome of data analytics is not clouded by human emotions and biases. Typically and traditionally, arriving at a strategic business decision would pivot on data and subsequent analysis from multiple functions, keeping in mind the dynamic external and internal environment. Arriving at a desired decision would require a huge amount of data processing with the highest level of accuracy, which is diluted more and more with human layers involved.
A simple example would be an FMCG company that needs to take the call to reintroduce the soap brand, which was a success back in the 90’s. This needs a lot of past historical marketing data combined with the current trend analysis to see whether and where it fits. Now this organisation has a mid-level executive responsible for providing input on a major demographic’s acceptance level for this soap during the 1990s. Now this person is not a very satisfied employee of the company, looking for opportunities outside, which suggests his motivation and focus on his job. Also, this person has first-hand information about his father’s bad experience, as he didn’t like the lavender smell and had told his son that the soap was not so popular amongst his circle. So, a negative input goes to the strategic team, which is a highly distorted analysis based on no data at all. This can be just one such scenario, and one can imagine the number of leaks that this whole system may have, which will ensure that the desired result is not achieved. AI would give CXO’s pure inputs based on vast amounts of data analysed in no time, making their decision-making faster and more efficient.
Supporting content creation
From topic ideation to research and drafting content, artificial intelligence can do it all in the blink of an eye. Traditionally, businesses have had to invest a lot of time in content generation. Humans take a lot of time to curate articles and content, as it is a laborious process. Researching itself is a huge task, followed by drafting and proofreading. It is to be noted that content created by humans may come with emotional and empathetic biases. After putting in so much effort, more often than not, the desired result is missed. Without proper content optimisation with related key words, the content does not stand out in the search engine results. Thereby not reaching the target audience. Articles need to be regularly updated to keep them relevant, which is very easily lost with human handling, while automated processes can take care of this easily. All these automated processes are set to transform the world of business, with relevant, updated content readily available.
Cybersecurity
With the ever-expanding information technology and digital world, businesses are highly dependent on cloud computing and digital platforms. While this has and will reduce lead time and significantly increase efficiency for businesses, it also exposes them to cyber-attacks, which can potentially cost them billions and billions of dollars and completely reshape their future prospects. Artificially intelligent solutions can winnow a large amount of data at once, detect any breach or abnormal activity, and take necessary preventive action all at once. Hence, adopting a better cyber security posture powered by AI will benefit all businesses.
Customer Relationship Management
The first point of contact between a business and a potential customer is typically one of confusion and lack of knowledge at the customer’s end. With artificial intelligence coming in, business transformation has started happening from this first point of contact itself. Digital assistants or chat bots come with this solution, providing a benefit to businesses in the entire spectrum of their sales life cycle and CRM. By presenting the customer with initial support about its products, retaining valuable customer data to be used by the business in the future, and providing demographic data on all the potential customers. As artificial intelligence matures in the future, the possibility of bettering its customer relationship management is exponential, thereby completely transforming the business.
Digital personal assistants
How valuable have assistants been, and who does not want to have an assistant take care of their calendar, reply to emails, remind them of important dates, and so on? Traditionally, only the top bosses have had the privilege of having an assistant. Artificial intelligence is set to change that by providing digital assistants to anyone who needs them. We are already witnessing tremendous changes in Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa, and so on. From taking screenshots to managing our calendars, digital assistants are here to improve human efficiency and productivity.
Environmental sustainability
Artificial intelligence brings with it three unique qualities that can help the earth achieve environmental sustainability. First is its ability to perform repetitive tasks in a much faster manner compared to the same work done by its human counterpart. The other ability is to integrate multiple computers and machines to solve a complex problem. One more underlying quality of integration is updating it with a click. This entire integration of computers can be upgraded with one click of a button. The third unique ability is to make sense of the sea of unstructured data that is available, which is humanly impossible to do. Information asymmetry is one of the key challenges to environmental sustainability, which AI takes care of. The transformation will cover the length and breadth of sectors like biodiversity, energy, transportation, and water.
Artificial intelligence : ushering a business transformation
Anyone in the vertical transportation industry, be it an end user, a buyer, a consultant, or a supplier or manufacturer, knows well that the lead time from lead generation to finally handing over an elevator is a time-consuming and sometimes arduous process. The result is a highly dissatisfied customer and a battered brand image for the supplier. This typically happens due to a lot of entangled stakeholders with different results in mind and depending on the passing, sharing, and understanding of information related to the entire execution process. Needless to say, a lot of time is spent on repetitive tasks, which adds to the complexity. With AI coming in, this value chain would cool off a lot, and the end result would be achieved at a much faster pace, increasing customer satisfaction significantly.
Sales is the backbone of any industry, employing platoons of salesforce going out in the market, generating leads, and meeting prospective clients to win the order. With digital assistants, lead generation can be very well eliminated, saving thousands of man hours. It would go to a different level by providing basic and standard information to the prospect client there, again saving up significant efforts required traditionally. The salesperson would then be in a better position to invest his time in quality discussions with clients where more cognitive abilities are required to win a deal.
Impact of AI on businesses
AI will have an impact on the entire length and breadth of businesses, leaving no sector untouched. Restricting human interventions in areas, especially those that are prone to human cognitive biases and emotions, will usher disruption in not only faster and more efficient delivery but a significant reduction in fraud and misgovernance. Take an example of the banking sector: the issuance of mortgages as humans at every checkpoint, which has led to many fraudulent incidents and huge NPA’s to the financial books of the institutions. With increased artificial intelligence incorporated in these critical business processes, not only the dispersal of mortgages can be achieved at lightning speed but with far more accuracy and a cleaner outcome. With the colossal ability of vast and insightful data analytics, artificial intelligence will open the doors to far more tailor made offerings than anyone could have imagined in the past.
With the rapid increase in digitalization and accessibility to superfast internet, the threat of cybercrime is no longer something in the distant future. Cybercrimes and cyber frauds are increasing day by day.
Every rose has its thorn; AI is no exception
While AI, without a shadow of a doubt, will revolutionise and transform the world of business, it comes with its own shortfalls and pitfalls. The first shortfall is the dependency on a huge amount of data. For artificial intelligence to achieve its true potential, it needs a huge amount of data to derive a high level of accuracy. For example, if one wants an AI arsenal to help in waste management for a city, it needs a huge amount of historical and present data to understand the patterns of waste generated again based on different times of the year and to analyse the areas where improvements can be made. The second shortfall is the quality of the data available. AI would function following the simple rule of garbage in, garbage out. Controlling and ensuring that garbage is not fed in the form of data is an uphill task. The third, which can be considered a pitfall, is the bias in the data fed. Just imagine if a person is a pure vegetarian, but if he provides data inputs as being a non-vegetarian, what will be the impact on the analytics done by artificial intelligence working on a waste management project for a city? And further imagine the distortion done to the data if, unfortunately, there are many individuals doing the same. Finally, humans need to be responsible when handling the tremendous power at hand. Needless to say, this aspect is the most worrying, as we humans have a tremendous track record of mishandling great inventions and pushing the world and its residents towards catastrophe time and again.
Imagine a dine-out in 2034, all powered by AI
Imagine an AI-powered dine-out in 2034. It might have the following features:
Smart Reservation: Book your table online and receive a code that guides your car directly to a parking spot.
Personalized Welcome: A digital voice greets you, and a holographic host escorts you to your table.
Augmented Reality Menu: Interact with the menu, see dishes come to life, and read customer reviews.
AI-powered Music: The music adapts to your preferences and those of other diners.
Real-time Kitchen View: Watch your meal being prepared and discover other menu options.
Touchless Payment: Settle your bill seamlessly without hassle.
Captured Memories: Receive happy moments captured during your meal via WhatsApp.
Personalised Farewell: A holographic host chats with you and sends you off with a warm goodbye.
Smart Car Integration: Your fully charged car awaits, ready to take you home.
Conclusion
We are well past the finish line of speculating whether artificial intelligence will be imbibed by modern-day businesses, as it is already happening. One cannot possibly identify any segment of business that is directly or indirectly not utilising or incorporating artificial intelligence in its business ecosystem. The absorption of artificial intelligence will only be seen rapidly increasing from here on. Business transformation shall be witnessed at a breathtaking speed beyond our imagination and calculations. It cannot be challenged at all that not only businesses will reap the benefits of the positive impact, but the end customer will also benefit hugely. Lightning-fast deliveries, easier access to product information in real time, a seamless service experience, and a considerable decrease in product failure. However, the question remains primarily whether artificial intelligence can be put to use within ethical boundaries. With such a huge amount of data in hand and business houses having to report to their boardrooms quarterly of the profits they shall bring in, ethics is and has been compromised. Unfortunately, with artificial intelligence, the outcomes can be devastating, as they put the personal information of a large number of human populations across various demographics in the hands of a select few. While it has immense potential to safeguard against cybercrimes, when wrongly used, it will prove to be a cybercriminal, which is beyond what we have ever comprehended.
Thus, it would largely lie in the hands of governing bodies to have regulatory policies in place to monitor, restrict, and punish artificially intelligent crimes. Unfortunately, negligible steps have been taken on this front, and not to forget, it is humans who are seated on governing body-high chairs with their own priorities and desire to retain their powers. The human race has exemplified throughout its existence to take stringent steps not as a prevention to a calamity but always as a cure.
All inventions have two sides of a coin; one is good and the other is bad. Artificial intelligence is no exception. In the end, it all ends with us and how we put it to use. Do we use it for sustainable development and the betterment of the human race, or mere profits? Do we use it to heal our environment, which has already lost so much or reaped benefits from short-term goals? Do we use new innovations keeping in mind job creations for us, or do we just replace the human workforce with artificial intelligence to improve our balance sheet? Only time will give us the answers.
Allow notifications
