List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K acquitted the accused, holding that rashness and negligence could not be established due to the deceased’s contributory inebriation and the accused driving on the correct side, making the incident unforeseeable. 

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the matter of Harish v. State of Karnataka (2025).

What was the Background of Harish v. State of Karnataka,2025 Case? 

• On 14th April, 2018, complainant Manohara D.U. and deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar were returning to Bangalore from Mysore on a two-wheeler motorcycle. 
• As they approached Ullala Bridge at Nice Road, they parked their motorbike on the extreme left side of the road so that one of them could attend to nature's call. 
• While the pillion rider was away attending to nature's call, the deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar remained seated on the parked motorbike. 
• At that time, petitioner Harish, who was driving a car, allegedly crashed his vehicle into the deceased's motorbike. 
• The deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar sustained grievous bleeding injuries from the collision and was immediately admitted to Victoria Hospital for medical treatment. 
• Despite medical intervention, B.T. Dilip Kumar succumbed to his injuries on the same day at the hospital. 
• The prosecution filed charges against Harish under Sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304(A) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused, with the complainant serving as the primary eyewitness to the incident. 
• The trial court convicted Harish based on the evidence presented and sentenced him to two months of simple imprisonment for the offences. 
• The appellate court subsequently confirmed the conviction, prompting Harish to file a revision petition before the Karnataka High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that "rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, as they significantly depend on facts and circumstances of each case." 
• Applying the 'Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity' as established in Donoghue v. Stevenson, the Court noted that "rashness innately implies recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care." 
• The Court found that the complainant, despite being the alleged eyewitness, failed to locate the precise place of incident to police and was not present during the drawing of spot mahazar, creating doubt about his credibility as a witness. 
• The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased's stomach contents "smelt pungent with strong traces of alcohol," indicating that the deceased was inebriated and under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. 
• The Court determined that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate that the accused drove rashly and negligently, noting that mere assertions of "high speed" without specific details were insufficient to establish the offence. 
• Considering that the accused was driving on the correct side of the road and the deceased appeared suddenly while intoxicated, the Court concluded that the degree of negligence could not be ascertained, leading to the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What is Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) ? 

• Section 106 of the BNS 2023, India's new criminal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code. This section deals with "Causing death by negligence" and contains two main provisions: 
• Subsection (1) - General negligence causing death: 
  • Covers death caused by rash or negligent acts that don't amount to culpable homicide. 
  • General punishment: Up to 5 years imprisonment (simple or rigorous) plus fine. 
  • Special provision for medical practitioners: Reduced punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment plus fine when death occurs during medical procedures. 
  • Defines "registered medical practitioner" as someone qualified under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and registered in the National or State Medical Register.
• Subsection (2) - Hit-and-run cases: 
  • Specifically addresses death caused by rash and negligent vehicle driving. 
  • Enhanced punishment of up to 10 years imprisonment plus fine when the driver escapes without reporting to police or magistrate. 
  • This represents a significant increase from previous penalties to address the serious issue of hit-and-run accidents. 

Source: Kerala High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that passport guidelines cannot override the Passports Act, 1967 or rules framed thereunder. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others, (2025) Case ? 

• A government employee approached the Kerala High Court through a writ petition seeking direction to the Regional Passport Office, Cochin for re-issue of her passport with corrected date of birth as per her Birth Certificate. 
• The petitioner had submitted an application (Exhibit P16) to the passport authorities requesting correction of date of birth in her passport to match her official Birth Certificate. 
• The Regional Passport Office refused to process her application and insisted that she must first correct the date of birth in her service records before they would consider issuing a passport with the corrected date. 
• The petitioner explained that according to a Government Order (Exhibit P11), corrections to date of birth in Service Books must be made within five years of entering service, or alternatively within one year from the date of that particular order. 
• Since both these prescribed time periods had already lapsed, it had become legally impossible for the petitioner to comply with the passport office's requirement of correcting her service records first. 
• The petitioner argued that under the Passport (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (Exhibit P15), only an affidavit stating the reason for change in date of birth is required for such corrections. 
• She contended that the guidelines and manual being relied upon by the passport authorities were contrary to the statutory provisions and created an additional requirement not mandated by law. 
• The petitioner maintained that the passport office's insistence on service record correction was beyond their legal authority and contradicted the established rules. 
• The case essentially involved a conflict between administrative guidelines used by passport authorities and the actual statutory requirements under the Passports Act and Rules.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Kerala High Court's decision in Sulfikar v. The Kerala State Election Commission to establish the legal principle of impossibility of performance. 
• The Court observed that when performance of statutory formalities becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of interested parties, such circumstances constitute a valid excuse for non-performance. 
• The Court found that since compliance with the condition insisted upon by the respondents had become impossible, the petitioner should be excused from such performance. 
• The Court determined that there exists no statutory provision under the Passports Act, 1967 or related rules that require government servants to correct their service records as a prerequisite for date of birth correction in passports. 
• The Court held that administrative guidelines and instructions relating to passport issuance cannot override or contradict the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, its Rules, or any other instrument having the force of law. 
• The Court concluded that the compendium of instructions relied upon by the passport office was ultra vires to the extent it imposed requirements not sanctioned by the governing statute and rules. 

What is the Passports Act, 1967? 

About 

• The Passports Act, 1967 is a comprehensive legislation enacted by the Parliament of India that governs the issuance of passports and travel documents to Indian citizens and regulates their departure from India. The Act serves as the primary legal framework for passport administration in India and establishes the authority, procedures, and conditions for passport issuance. 
• The Act came into force on 24th June, 1967, and extends to the whole of India while also applying to Indian citizens residing outside India. It provides for the issue of passports and travel documents, regulates the departure of Indian citizens and other persons from India, and addresses matters incidental or ancillary to passport administration. 

Relevant Provisions 

• Section 3 - Passport Requirement for Departure: 
  • No person shall depart from, or attempt to depart from India unless he holds a valid passport or travel document. This establishes the fundamental requirement that all persons must possess proper documentation before leaving India. 
• Section 4 - Classes of Passports and Travel Documents: 
  • The Act provides for three classes of passports: ordinary passport, official passport, and diplomatic passport. It also establishes various travel documents including emergency certificates, certificates of identity, and other prescribed documents. 
• Section 5 - Applications for Passports and Orders: 
  • Applications for passport issuance may be made to the passport authority accompanied by prescribed fees.  
  • The passport authority shall, after necessary inquiry, either issue the passport/travel document, issue with limited endorsement, or refuse issuance. Reasons for refusal must be recorded in writing and furnished to the applicant unless contrary to national interests. 
• Section 6 - Refusal of Passports: 
  • The Act specifies exhaustive grounds for refusing passport endorsements or issuance, including activities prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, detriment to national security, prejudice to friendly foreign relations, criminal convictions involving moral turpitude, pending criminal proceedings, outstanding warrants, unpaid repatriation expenses, and public interest considerations. 
• Section 7 - Duration of Passports: 
  • Passports and travel documents continue in force for prescribed periods unless revoked earlier. Different periods may be prescribed for different classes of documents. Shorter periods may be issued upon request or if deemed necessary by the passport authority. 
• Section 9 - Conditions and Forms: 
  • The conditions and forms for passport issuance shall be as prescribed, with different conditions possible for different classes of documents.  
  • Additional conditions may be imposed by passport authorities with Central Government approval. 
• Section 10 - Variation, Impounding and Revocation: 
  • Passport authorities may vary or cancel endorsements, impound or revoke passports on specified grounds including wrongful possession, suppression of material information, national security concerns, criminal convictions, pending proceedings, breach of conditions, non-compliance with notices, and outstanding warrants. 
• Section 11 – Appeals: 
  • Persons aggrieved by passport authority orders may prefer appeals to prescribed appellate authorities within prescribed periods. No appeal lies against Central Government orders. Appeals must be accompanied by prescribed fees and copies of reasons for the original order. 
• Section 12 - Offences and Penalties: 
  • The Act prescribes punishments for various offences including departure without valid documents, furnishing false information, failing to produce documents for inspection, using another person's passport, and allowing misuse of one's passport. Penalties include imprisonment up to two years and fines up to five thousand rupees.