List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently the Supreme Court observed that the right of an accused to file an appeal against conviction is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right.  

• The aforesaid observation was held in the matter of Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025). 

What was the Background of Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) Case? 

Facts:  

• Parties: Nagarajan (appellant/accused) was a neighbor of deceased Smt. Mariammal. 
• Incident Night (11th July 2003):  
  • Appellant entered the deceased's room at night.  
  • While hugging her, attempted to outrage her modesty. 
  • The mother-in-law of the deceased intervened and scolded the appellant. 
  • Appellant fled from the premises. 
• Next Day (12th July 2003):  
  • At around 5:00 AM, the mother-in-law found the deceased and her infant daughter missing. 
  • Searched for them and enquired about their whereabouts. 
  • The deceased had earlier visited the school where her elder daughter (Class III) was studying. 
  • Attempted to take the elder daughter away but teachers refused due to the warden's absence. 
• Tragic End:  
  • The deceased went to a nearby field with her infant (one and half years old). 
  • Committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds. 
  • Also administered poison to her infant child. 
  • Both were discovered by a passerby grazing cattle who alerted village watchman. 
  • Child was alive when found but declared dead at hospital. 
• Legal Proceedings:  
  • FIR No. 239/2003 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
  • Charge sheet filed on 30th October 2003. 
  • Case committed to Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. 

Trial Court Judgment: 

• Charges Altered: From Section 306 to Sections 354 and 448 IPC. 
• Verdict (29th May 2015):  
  • Acquitted under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). 
  • Convicted under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. 
  • Reasoning: Actions did not constitute abetment of suicide as appellant did not instigate deceased to commit suicide. 
• Sentence:  
  • Simple imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month + fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Section 354). 
  • Simple imprisonment for 3 months (Section 448). 
  • Default imprisonment of 3 months if fine not paid. 

High Court Proceedings: 

• Appeal by Accused: Filed Crl. A. (MD) No. 137/2015 against conviction. 
• Suo Motu Revision: High Court initiated Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 248/2015. 
  • Formed view that acquittal under Section 306 required examination. 
  • Appointed Amicus Curiae to assist. 
  • Neither State nor victim had appealed against acquittal. 
• High Court Judgment (29th November 2021):  
  • Dismissed criminal appeal by appellant. 
  • Allowed suo motu revision. 
  • Convicted appellant under Sections 306 and 448 IPC. 
  • Enhanced Sentence: Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years + fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Section 306). 
  • Reasoning: Appellant played an active role in tarnishing self-esteem of deceased by outraging her modesty, thereby instigating suicide. 

Current Status: 

• Appellant has challenged the High Court’s verdict by filing Criminal Appeals before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The observations were made by the bench comprising of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma while setting aside a judgment of the High Court which had enhanced the sentence of an accused suo motu during the hearing of the accused's own appeal. 

• Right to Appeal: A Vital Safeguard for Accused: 
  • The right of appeal is an invaluable right, especially for the accused, who cannot be condemned solely by a Trial Court’s decision. 
  • This right is twofold: 
    • Statutory rights under procedural laws like CrPC. 
    • Constitutional rights, rooted in principles of fair trial and natural justice. 
• Scope of an Appeal by an Accused: 
  • An accused can: 
    • Challenge the conviction and sentence on merits. 
    • Raise procedural flaws, improprieties, and lapses committed by the Trial Court. 
  • The appellate court has a duty to: 
    • Examine the entire case from the perspective of the accused. 
    • Decide whether to: 
      1. Set aside the conviction and acquit the accused, or 
      2. Remand for re-trial, or 
      3. Reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction, or 
      4. Dismiss the appeal altogether. 
• Limitations on High Court's Jurisdiction: 
  • While exercising appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot assume the role of a revisional court. 
  • Enhancement of sentence is not permissible in an appeal filed solely by the accused, especially: 
    • When no appeal or revision has been filed by the State, victim, or complainant. 
  • Suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC: 
    • Cannot be invoked to enhance punishment while entertaining an appeal filed only by the accused. 
    • Would be a violation of the principles of fair trial and appellate justice. 
• Final Holding of the Court: 
  • The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by: 
    • Enhancing the sentence under suo motu revision, while adjudicating only on the accused's appeal. 
  • Therefore, the Supreme Court: 
    • Set aside the High Court’s judgment that enhanced the sentence. 
    • Reaffirmed that appellate powers and revisional powers are distinct and must not be conflated, especially to the detriment of the accused. 

What is the Right to Appeal? 

• Overview:  
  • The right to appeal is a legal entitlement that allows parties to challenge lower court decisions in higher courts and is recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  
  • It is a statutory right, not an inherent right, and can only be exercised within the framework of specific statutes that grant it.  
  • The law governing the right to appeal is the one in force when the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision is made or appeal is filed.  
  • Historical Development: 4. Ancient India based justice on dharma, where people could approach the king or local courts for redressal.  
• The British rule formalized the legal system by introducing:   
  • Civil Procedure Code (1908) for civil suits.  
  • Criminal Procedure Code (1898) for criminal appeals.  
• Post-independence developments included:   
  • Constitutional recognition of access to justice as a fundamental right.  
  • Establishment of the Supreme Court as the highest appellate authority.  
  • Empowerment of High Courts to hear appeals from lower courts.  
• Right to Appeal Characteristics:   
  • It is a substantive right that vests from the beginning of the case but is exercised only after an unfavorable judgment.  
  • The statute granting the right can impose conditions for its exercise and alter the forum of appeal.  
  • The right combines influences from Hindu legal traditions (mediation) and Islamic legal system (fair trials and appeals).  

What are the Legal Frameworks of Right to Appeal?  

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 

• Section 374 CrPC establishes a hierarchical system of appeals, allowing convicted persons to appeal to three levels of courts - the Supreme Court, High Court, and Court of Session, depending on which court convicted them.  

Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 

• It establishes a three-tiered appellate structure:   
  • Supreme Court for High Court convictions.  
  • High Court for Sessions Court convictions with 7+ year sentences.  
  • Sessions Court for Magistrate convictions.  
• For High Court convictions [Section 415(1)]:   
  • Appeals lie to the Supreme Court.  
  • It only applies to extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction cases.  
  • No minimum sentence requirement specified.  
• For Sessions Court convictions [Section 415(2)]:   
  • Appeals lie to High Court.  
  • Applies to trials by Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges.  
  • Also covers cases with 7+ year sentences from other courts.  
  • Includes co-accused convicted in same trial.  
• For Magistrate Court convictions [Section 415(3)]:   
  • Appeals lie to Sessions Court.  
  • Covers first class and second-class Magistrate trials.  
  • Includes sentences under section 364.  
  • Covers orders/sentences under section 401.  
• Special time limit [Section 415(4)]:   
  • 6-month disposal deadline.  
  • Applies to appeals against sentences under specified sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.  
  • Time starts from appeal filing date.  

Right to Appeal under Section 96 of CPC:  

• Under Section 96 of CPC, any party adversely affected by a decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction has the right to file a first appeal.  
• Legal representatives of deceased parties (under Section 146) and transferees whose names are recorded in the suit can also appeal.  
• Non-parties to the suit can only appeal if they obtain special leave from the appellate court and can prove they are bound, aggrieved, or prejudicially affected by the decree.  

Right to Appeal under Article 21 Constitution of India,1950 and Statutory Law:  

• The right to appeal is recognized as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  
• It is not an inherent right but a substantive right granted through specific statutes.  
• The right vests at the beginning of the case but can only be exercised after an unfavorable judgment.  
• The law governing the appeal is the one in force when the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision is made, or appeal is filed.  
• While statutes can impose conditions on exercising this right, these conditions cannot be so restrictive as to make the right meaningless, as noted by Justice Khanna. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court, in the matter of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) delivered by a two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, held that the constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession or to carry on any trade or business also encompasses the right to close down a business.

What was the Background of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) challenging orders of the Bombay High Court related to the closure of its business. 
• Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (HSML) has been running a biscuit manufacturing unit for over 30 years exclusively for Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) under Job Work Agreements (JWAs). 
• In 2019, Britannia Industries Limited terminated the JWA, leading HSML to initiate closure proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
• HSML submitted its closure application on 28th August 2019, using Form XXIV-C as required under the Maharashtra Industrial Disputes Rules. 
• The Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Government rejected the application citing incompleteness and demanded a revised submission. 
• Despite providing additional details, delay ensued, and no formal closure approval was granted. 
• In the meantime, workers' unions approached the Industrial Tribunal seeking a stay on the closure, which the Tribunal granted. 
• HSML's challenge to the Tribunal’s interim order and rejection of the application was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court. 

HSML's Arguments: 

• Their closure application was valid and complete as of 28th August, 2019. 
• The statutory 60-day period for deemed closure had lapsed in October 2019, and thus, closure should have taken effect. 
• Only the Minister-in-Charge had the legal authority to accept or reject the application — the Deputy Secretary had no such jurisdiction to demand modifications or obstruct closure. 
• HSML emphasized that after decades of exclusive work for BIL, the termination left them with no viable business alternative, making closure unavoidable. 

Respondents' (Government and Workers') Arguments: 

• The closure application was incomplete, and thus, the 60-day deemed approval rule did not apply. 
• The Government urged restraint on closure, emphasizing protection of workers' rights and employment. 
• Workers and their unions opposed the closure, citing statutory protections under labour laws. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court acknowledged the need to balance: 
  • The constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on or shut down a business. 
  • With reasonable restrictions aimed at protecting employees and ensuring statutory compliance. 
• Held that the closure application dated 28th August 2019, was: 
  • Complete and valid. 
  • Triggered the 60-day statutory period under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
  • Resulted in a deemed closure effective from October 2019. 
• The Deputy Secretary was not the “appropriate Government” under Section 25-O. 
  • He lacked legal authority to demand revisions or reject the closure application. 
  • The communications issued by the Deputy Secretary were thus held to be invalid. 
• The Minister-in-Charge failed to: 
  • Independently apply his mind. 
  • Unlawfully delegated decision-making to the Deputy Secretary, which amounted to a legal defect. 
• The Court recognized HSML's compelling circumstances: 
  • After the termination of its long-standing agreement with Britannia Industries Ltd., HSML had no alternative business avenues. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, and: 
  • Set aside the Bombay High Court’s orders. 
  • Declared the closure valid from 28th August, 2019. 
  • Confirmed that the deemed closure took effect in October 2019. 
• The Deputy Secretary’s interference in demanding revisions and delaying closure was held to be unauthorized and ultra vires. 
• Employee compensation: 
  • The Court held that any compensation paid during the litigation was not recoverable from the workers. 
  • Appreciating HSML’s approach, the Court directed an additional ₹5 crores to be paid in compensation to workers. 
  • The amount is to be disbursed within eight weeks. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

Article 19 of the COI: 

• Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression and is typically invoked against the state. 
  • As per Article 19(1), all citizens shall have the right: 
    • (a) to freedom of speech and expression; 
    • (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; 
    • (c) to form associations or unions; 
    • (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; 
    • (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and 
    • (f) omitted 
    • (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Article 19(1)(g) of the COI: 

• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India grants all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. 
• This right is subject to Article 19(6), which allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. 
• The right under Article 19(1)(g) is: 
  • Broad and general, allowing individuals to choose their business or profession. 
  • Not absolute — does not extend to illegal activities or professions prohibited by law. 
• Limitations and Clarifications: 
  • Citizens cannot claim a right to hold a specific post or job of their choice. 
  • There is no obligation on the State or any statutory body to: 
    • Make a business profitable, or 
    • Provide customers or business opportunities. 
• If a person's occupation of a place is unlawful, they cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g) to justify conducting business there. 
• Fundamental rights cannot be used to: 
  • Justify illegal acts, or 
  • Prevent authorities from performing their lawful statutory duties. 
• The Supreme Court, recognizing India's controlled and planned economy, has: 
  • Upheld legislation aimed at social control of private enterprise. 
  • Allowed restrictions on private activities to align with Directive Principles of State Policy. 
• Article 19(6) allows: 
  • The State to impose reasonable restrictions on business rights. 
  • The enactment of laws concerning professional or technical qualifications necessary to practice certain professions.