{"id":3721,"date":"2025-04-08T11:40:07","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T11:40:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/?p=3721"},"modified":"2025-04-08T11:40:07","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T11:40:07","slug":"mlc-daily-current-affairs-08-april-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/mlc-daily-current-affairs-08-april-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"MLC Daily Current Affairs – 08 April 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today in History (April 8th<\/sup>,1857)<\/h1>\n

Mangal Pandey, a sepoy in the 34th Bengal Native Infantry, played a pivotal role in the events leading to the Indian Rebellion of 1857. On March 29, 1857, he attacked British officers at Barrackpore, protesting against the use of greased cartridges believed to contain cow and pig fat, which offended Hindu and Muslim religious sentiments. He was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death. His execution, initially scheduled for April 18, was advanced to April 8, 1857, to prevent further unrest.<\/p>\n

Summary of Today’s News<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Civil disputes turn criminal: CJI says shows collapse of rule of law in U.P.<\/span><\/h3>\n

\"Civil-disputes-turn-criminal\"<\/p>\n

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s Observations:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
    \n
  • Found it \u201cabsurd\u201d that civil disputes in Uttar Pradesh are frequently converted into criminal cases.<\/li>\n
  • Highlighted that this reflects a collapse of the rule of law in the state.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Court Proceedings:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
      \n
    • The remarks were made during the hearing of an appeal filed by Debu Singh and Deepak Singh.<\/li>\n
    • The Allahabad High Court had declined to quash a criminal case filed against them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Details of the Case:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
        \n
      • The duo faced a cheque bounce case but were additionally charge-sheeted for criminal offences such as breach of trust, intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.<\/li>\n
      • Their counsel argued that converting civil cases into criminal ones is often a tactic for quicker resolution, given the delays in civil litigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Supreme Court’s Actions:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
          \n
        • Stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused but allowed the dishonoured cheque case to proceed.<\/li>\n
        • Directed the police officer investigating the case to testify in court and justify turning a cheque bounce case into a criminal matter.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          CJI’s Statements:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
            \n
          • Criticized the police’s approach to filing charge sheets in such cases.<\/li>\n
          • Stated that investigating officers need to learn their lessons for misusing criminal law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            \u00a0Instructions to Authorities:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
              \n
            • The Supreme Court ordered the Director-General of Police and the investigating officer to submit affidavits within two weeks.<\/li>\n
            • These affidavits must explain why criminal law was applied in a civil dispute.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              Next Steps:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                \n
              • The case has been scheduled for May 5 for further hearings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                How the police view custodial torture in India<\/span><\/h3>\n

                \"Violence-Against-Suspects\"\"custodial-torture\"<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Concerns over police brutality and custodial torture<\/strong> have intensified, sparking debates about justice, accountability, and human rights.<\/li>\n
                • Findings from the \u2018Status of Policing in India Report\u2019<\/strong> by Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and Common Cause highlight this grim reality.<\/li>\n
                • The study analyzed responses from 8,276 police personnel across 82 locations in 17 States<\/strong>, including Delhi.<\/li>\n
                • It provides troubling insights into the culture of abuse behind closed doors<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Violence Against Suspects<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                    \n
                  • 63% of police personnel<\/strong> agreed that violence against suspects of serious offences is acceptable for the greater good of society.<\/li>\n
                  • 22% strongly agreed<\/strong>, and 41% moderately agreed<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                  • 35% opposed<\/strong> the idea.<\/li>\n
                  • Support for violence remained consistent across ranks<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                  • Support for Torture<\/strong><\/li>\n
                  • A significant number of police personnel expressed strong support for torture<\/strong> in interrogations across various crime categories:<\/li>\n
                  • 42% strongly supported torture<\/strong> in cases related to national security, such as terrorism.<\/li>\n
                  • 34% strongly supported torture<\/strong> in cases of rape, sexual assault, and serious violent crimes like murder.<\/li>\n
                  • 28% strongly agreed<\/strong> torture should be used against history sheeters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    Coercive Tactics<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                      \n
                    • Police personnel justified the use of coercive and violent acts<\/strong> to solve criminal cases:<\/li>\n
                    • 49% justified verbal abuse or threats<\/strong> in minor offences like theft.<\/li>\n
                    • 32% endorsed slapping<\/strong>, and 9% supported third-degree methods<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                    • Support for violent methods increased in serious crimes:<\/li>\n
                    • 30% justified third-degree methods<\/strong> in cases like rape and murder.<\/li>\n
                    • 50% approved slapping suspects<\/strong>, and 55% endorsed verbal abuse or threats<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      Frequency of Coercive Acts<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                        \n
                      • 26% said suspects are threatened often<\/strong>, and 34% said it happens sometimes<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                      • 18% said slapping or light force is common<\/strong>, and 28% said it happens occasionally<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                      • Regarding third-degree methods:<\/li>\n
                      • 10% admitted extreme violence occurs often<\/strong>, and 16% said it happens sometimes<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                      • One in three respondents<\/strong> reported frequent use of coercive tactics by investigating officers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                        Reporting Custodial Torture<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                          \n
                        • Nearly 40% supported mandatory reporting<\/strong> of custodial torture.<\/li>\n
                        • A similar proportion supported mandatory reporting in some cases<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                        • 10% felt it should never be mandatory<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                        • Hesitation or conditional acceptance was evident, as the largest group favoured reporting only \u2018sometimes\u2019.<\/li>\n
                        • Police station-level officers<\/strong> favoured mandatory reporting more than senior counterparts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                          Complaints Against Seniors<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                            \n
                          • Over 40% strongly agreed<\/strong> that junior police personnel would feel comfortable filing complaints against seniors for violence if legal protection is provided.<\/li>\n
                          • 36% moderately agreed<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n