List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale held that the offences under PMLA are of a continuing nature.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G.  Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• The appellant has filed an appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s order dated 14th March 2023, which dismissed his criminal revision application and upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of his discharge application in a money laundering case. 
• The Appellant had earlier approached the High Court through Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2018, challenging the Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad’s order dated 08th January 2018 in PMLA, which had refused to discharge him under Section 227 of the CrPC. 
• The case arose from allegations of economic offences, where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings against the appellant under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant was involved in financial transactions linked to proceeds of crime, generated through fraudulent activities that caused significant financial losses to the State of Gujarat. 
• The ED claimed that the appellant facilitated money laundering by using banking channels and financial instruments to conceal the illicit origins of funds. 
• The appellant was arrested on 31st July 2016 in connection with ECIR/01/AZO/2012, registered by the ED on 12th March 2012, which stemmed from two FIRs: dated 31st March 2010 and FIR dated 25th September 2010. 
• The ED filed a complaint on 27th September 2016 before the Special Judge for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, citing two scheduled offences—one under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and another under various IPC provisions related to forgery and criminal conspiracy. 
• Charge sheets had been filed in both scheduled offences, and the appellant had secured bail—anticipatory bail in one case granted by the High Court on 03rd February 2012 and regular bail in another granted by the Supreme Court on 13th December 2011. 
• The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing that he was falsely implicated, no offence under the PMLA was made out, and the alleged offences predated the enforcement of the PMLA, making its application retrospective and legally impermissible. 
• He further contended that the financial transactions in question were linked to a company in which his wife was a partner, and that his bank accounts in the USA were unrelated to any criminal activity as they were opened during his studies. 
• The Special Judge (PMLA), in its order dated 08th January 2018, found prima facie evidence suggesting the appellant’s involvement in Hawala transactions and possession of proceeds of crime. 
• The Trial Court observed that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA and rejected his discharge application. 
• The appellant then approached the High Court, claiming that the allegations against him were baseless, there was no direct evidence linking him to money laundering, and the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case. 
• The ED opposed the petition, arguing that the appellant played a key role in the money laundering scheme, facilitated the concealment of illicit funds, and derived financial benefits from the proceeds of crime. 
• The ED also contended that money laundering is a continuing offence, and as long as tainted money remains in circulation, the PMLA remains applicable. 
• The Gujarat High Court, in its order dated 14th March 2023, upheld the Special Judge’s decision, finding no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity. 
• The High Court held that the material on record indicated prima facie involvement of the appellant and emphasized the need for a strict approach in economic offences. 
• Concluding that the rejection of the discharge application was justified, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision application. 
• The appellant, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging the correctness of the judgment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court rejected the appellant's contention that the alleged acts are not subject to PMLA proceedings because they occurred before relevant offences were included in the PMLA schedule. 
• The court established that offences under PMLA are of a continuing nature, persisting as long as proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. 
• The court referenced the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, which confirmed that money laundering is an independent offence related to activities connected with proceeds of crime. 
• The court found that even if the criminal activity occurred before it was notified as a scheduled offence, continued dealing with its proceeds after notification makes one liable for prosecution under PMLA. 
• The court determined that in this specific case, material evidence shows the appellant's misuse of power, coupled with utilization and concealment of proceeds of crime, has had an enduring impact. 
• The court rejected the appellant's argument about the monetary threshold, finding that the quantum of proceeds of crime significantly exceeds the statutory threshold of Rs. 30 lakhs. 
• The court emphasized that the alleged offences involve land allotment transactions facilitated through forgery and fraud, resulting in a loss of over Rs. 1 crore to the government, plus hawala transactions and illegal gratification. 
• The court concluded that discharging the appellant at the pre-trial stage would be premature and contrary to principles governing prosecution in money laundering cases. 
• The court determined that a full trial is necessary given the severe nature of allegations to unearth the complete extent of the offence and analyze the chain of financial transactions.

What is Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? 

• About: 
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from money-laundering. PMLA and the Rules notified thereunder came into force with effect from 1st July 2005. 
• Objective of PMLA: 
  • The PMLA seeks to combat money laundering in India and has three main objectives: 
    • To prevent and control money laundering. 
    • To confiscate and seize the property obtained from the laundered money. 
    • To deal with any other issue connected with money laundering in India. 
• Important Provisions of the Act: 
  • Section 45: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. 
    • It lays down conditions to be satisfied for the purpose of granting bail to an accused charged with the offence of money laundering. 
  • Section 50: Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc. 
    • It details the powers of authorities in issuing summons, producing documents, and giving evidence. It equates the director's powers to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for matters like discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance, compelling production of documents, and issuing commissions. 
    • Section 50(2) empowers the Director and other officers to summon any person during any investigation or proceedings under the PMLA. Rule 2(p) and Rule 11 of PML Rules, 2005 further specify these powers. 
    • Section 50(3) mandates that all summoned persons must attend in person or through authorized agents, state the truth upon examination, and produce required documents. 
    • Section 50(4) deems every proceeding under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) as a judicial proceeding as per Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
    • Section 50(5) allows any officer referred to in Section 50(2) to impound and retain any records produced before him in any proceedings under Act 15 of 2003. There are safeguards in place to prevent misuse of this power.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while interpreting the clauses of the agreement to lease held that the agreement to lease did not create leasehold rights unless the lease deed was executed and registered.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G.  Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G.  Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• On 17^th July 1957, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), formerly known as the Delhi Improvement Trust, executed a lease agreement for Plot No. 3, measuring 2044.4 square yards, located in the Industrial Area Scheme, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, in favor of M/s Mehta Constructions and Industrial Corporation Private Limited. 
• On 25^th November 1972, M/s Mehta Constructions entered into an agreement to sell the plot to M/s Pure Drinks Private Limited. Subsequently, a registered sale deed-cum-assignment was executed on 15th February 1985 in favor of M/s Pure Drinks Private Limited. 
• In Execution Proceedings (Co Ex 8 of 1981), the Delhi High Court, by an order dated 4^th February 1985, directed the Registrar of the High Court to lodge the sale deed for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. 
• M/s Pure Drinks Private Limited eventually went into liquidation, and the plot was auctioned on 24^th August 2000 as part of the liquidation proceedings before the Delhi High Court. The auction was conducted pursuant to a notice of proclamation of sale issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 9th June 2000. 
• On 7^th December 2000, the first respondent, who had successfully bid for the plot in the auction, applied for confirmation of the sale. The DDA appeared in the proceedings and filed a reply, contending that M/s Mehta Constructions had never acquired any interest in the plot, and therefore, the plot could not have been sold in the auction. 
• By an order dated 19^th October 2001, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the application filed by the first respondent and confirmed the auction sale. 
• Aggrieved by this decision, the DDA filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. However, by an impugned judgment dated 21st January 2010, the appeal was dismissed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi Improvement Trust executed an agreement to lease on 17th July 1957 in favor of M/s Mehta Constructions for a plot in Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The agreement included Clause 24, which clarified that no ownership or leasehold rights would arise until a formal lease deed was executed and registered. 
• A lease deed was never executed, yet M/s Mehta Constructions entered into a sale agreement with M/s Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. on 25th November 1972 for ₹3,06,700/-. Later, on 15th February 1985, a sale deed was executed in favor of M/s Pure Drinks. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge, in an order dated 4th February 1985, directed the Registrar to register the sale deed. 
• M/s Pure Drinks went into liquidation, and the plot was auctioned on 24th August 2000 under the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The first respondent placed the highest bid, and the Delhi High Court confirmed the auction sale on 19th October 2001. 
• The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenged the sale, arguing that M/s Mehta Constructions never had ownership rights. However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal. 
• The Supreme Court, in an order dated 4th October 2023, sought clarity on the unearned income payable under the transaction and directed the Provisional Liquidator to provide financial details. It was revealed that funds from the auction sale had been invested in fixed deposits, but the total pending claims against the company exceeded ₹60.66 crores, while the available funds were only ₹10 crores. 
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that since the lease was never executed, M/s Mehta Constructions never acquired ownership rights, and neither did M/s Pure Drinks or the first respondent. The first respondent acquired only the rights under the lease agreement, if any, but not ownership or leasehold rights. 
• The Division Bench of the High Court had correctly ruled that the auction did not amount to a sale of the plot and allowed DDA to seek an appropriate remedy to recover possession or unearned income. 
• The Supreme Court ruled that if the first respondent wished to regularize the transaction, it could apply to the DDA for payment of unearned income or any other amount, which the DDA would consider as per the law. 
• Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and dismissed the appeal.

What is a Lease Agreement?

• About: 
  • Under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA), a lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity. 
• Consideration and Duration under Section 105 of TOPA: 
  • It is made in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. 
• Parties: 
  • The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. 
  • The TOPA lays down the rights and duties of both the lessor and the lessee. For example, the lessor must ensure that the lessee gets peaceful possession of the property, and the lessee must pay rent and maintain the property as agreed. 
• Types of Leases: 
  • Leases can be of various types, including leases for a fixed term, periodic leases, and leases in perpetuity. 
• Registration: 
  • In some cases, lease agreements may need to be registered, depending on the duration and terms of the lease, as per local laws. However, law related to duration of lease and procedure of lease is mentioned under Section 106 & 107 of TOPA. 
• Termination: 
  • A lease can be terminated on several conditions such as expiration of the lease term, breach of terms by either party, or mutual agreement.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved for Formation of Lease? 

• Section 106 of TOPA: Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage 
  • In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice. 
  • Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice. 
  • A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section. 
  • Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. 
• Section 107 of TOPA: Lease how made - 
  • A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. 
  • All other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. 
  • Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee. 
  • Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession. 

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi has held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was enacted to ensure transparency in departments, but it does not give anyone the right to seek information with a motive that amounts to harassment of department employees.   

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in the matter of Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The State Information Commission, Punjab and another (2025). 

What was the Background of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The State Information Commission, Punjab and Another case? 

• On January 15, 2024, Plaintiff John Smith ("Smith") was operating his vehicle, a 2022 Honda Civic, eastbound on Main Street in Springfield. 
• At approximately 2:30 p.m., Defendant Mary Jones ("Jones") was operating her vehicle, a 2023 Toyota Camry, northbound on Oak Avenue. 
• The intersection of Main Street and Oak Avenue is controlled by traffic signals in all directions. 
• Smith alleges that he entered the intersection with a green light in his favor. 
• Jones contends that she also had a green light when entering the intersection. 
• The vehicles collided in the intersection, causing substantial damage to both vehicles and resulting in injuries to Smith. 
• Smith was transported via ambulance to Springfield General Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured wrist, cervical strain, and various contusions. 
• Smith incurred medical expenses in the amount of $42,875.00 and was unable to work at his employment as a carpenter for a period of twelve (12) weeks. 
• Prior to the collision, Jones had been at a business lunch where she consumed two alcoholic beverages. 
• A blood alcohol test administered to Jones approximately forty-five (45) minutes after the collision showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.06%. 
• The Springfield Police Department Traffic Division investigated the accident and issued a citation to Jones for failure to obey a traffic signal. 
• Three witnesses to the collision provided statements to police.  
• Two witnesses indicated that Jones entered the intersection against a red light, while one witness stated that both vehicles entered the intersection simultaneously. 
• A writ petition was filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court Observed that: 
  • The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was enacted to ensure transparency in departments, but it does not give anyone the right to seek information with a motive that amounts to harassment of department employees. 
  • The application sought third-party information regarding who competed for the purchase of Molasses, Baggasse, and Press Mud, which is barred under Rule 8 of the RTI Act. 
  • The Court observed that indiscriminate demands for disclosure of all information unrelated to transparency and accountability would be counter-productive and adversely affect administrative efficiency. 
  • The Court noted that the RTI Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused to become a tool of obstruction, oppression, or intimidation of honest officials. 
  • The Court observed that the complainant showed lack of interest in pursuing the remedy, as the matter had been pending for 10 years without efforts to uphold the impugned order. 
  • Regarding the second petition the Court observed that information relating to employees, works, and expenditure constituted personal information that is exempt from disclosure. 
  • The Court cited precedents from the Supreme Court of India [Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2011) and CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2017)] to support its observations about limitations on disclosure of third-party and personal information. 

What is the RTI Act? 

About: 

• It is an act of the Parliament of India which sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to information. 
• Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a public authority which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. 
• The RTI Bill was passed by Parliament of India on 15 June 2005 and came into force with effect from 12th October 2005. 

Objectives: 

• To empower the citizens. 
• To promote transparency and accountability 
• To deal with corruption. 
• To enhance people’s participation in the democratic process.

Landmark Judgements 

• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): 
  • The Supreme Court recognized the right to information as a "cherished right" and an important tool to fight corruption and bring transparency and accountability to public authorities. 
  • The Court emphasized that RTI provisions should be strictly enforced regarding information that relates to transparency, accountability, and discouraging corruption. 
  • However, the Court made an important distinction: for information other than that explicitly required to be disclosed under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, equal importance must be given to other public interests, including: 
    • Confidentiality of sensitive information. 
    • Fidelity and fiduciary relationships. 
    • Efficient operation of governments. 
  • The Court warned against "indiscriminate and impractical demands" for disclosure of all information, as this would: 
    • Be counter-productive. 
    • Adversely affect administrative efficiency. 
    • Result in executives getting bogged down with non-productive work. 
  • The Court expressed concern that the Act should not be misused to: 
    • Obstruct national development and integration. 
    • Destroy peace and harmony among citizens. 
    • Become a tool of oppression or intimidation against officials doing their duty. 
  • The Court noted that the nation does not want a scenario where "75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties." 
• Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2017): 
  • The Court established that the performance of an employee in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and employer, governed by service rules. 
  • Such information falls under "personal information," disclosure of which: 
    • Has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. 
    • Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. 
  • The Court specified that details such as memos issued to employees, show-cause notices, orders of censure/punishment, and income tax returns qualify as "personal information." 
  • The Court noted that such information could only be disclosed if: 
    • The Information Officer is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure. 
    • The applicant can demonstrate such larger public interest. 
  • In the specific case, the Court found that: 
    • The information sought about individual bank employees was personal. 
    • It was exempted under Section 8(j) of the Act. 
    • The applicant did not disclose any public interest, much less a larger public interest, in seeking such information. 
    • Neither the Central Information Commission nor the High Court recorded any finding regarding larger public interest.