List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, in a prima facie view, held that summoning advocates by investigating agencies for client-related advice threatens the autonomy of the legal profession and undermines justice. The bench emphasized lawyers' duty of confidentiality and raised two key questions: whether lawyers advising clients can be directly summoned, and if exceptional cases require judicial oversight before such summoning. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat and Anr . (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner is a practicing advocate enrolled in 1997 who regularly appears before all courts across Gujarat and serves as President of Vastral Advocates Association. On 24 June 2024, an agreement was executed between Parmar Kamleshkumar Amratlal and Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar concerning a loan transaction. 
• Subsequently, on 13 February 2025, an FIR bearing No.11191037250276 of 2025 was lodged at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The FIR was registered under Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 40, 42(a), 42(d) and 42(e) of Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar was arrested on 25 February 2025 in connection with the said FIR.  
• The petitioner, acting as defence counsel for Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar, filed a regular bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.1399 of 2025 before the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. The Court granted regular bail to the accused after due consideration. 
• On 24 March 2025, while the matter stood thus, a notice under Section 179 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was served upon the petitioner. The notice was issued by D.R. Patel, Assistant Commissioner of Police, SC/ST Cell-2, Ahmedabad City, requiring the petitioner to appear within three days "to know the true details of facts and circumstances of the case." 
• The petitioner challenged this notice before the Gujarat High Court by filing R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.5349/2025. The High Court dismissed the petition after examining a report dated 11 April 2025 prepared by D.R. Patel, which stated that the petitioner had not responded to the summons and due to his non-cooperation, further investigation was stalled. 
• The petitioner's case is that he was neither an accused nor a witness in the matter and was only discharging his professional role as advocate for the accused. The FIR pertains to a dispute between the complainant and the accused, and the petitioner has no connection beyond his role as legal counsel for the accused. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court held that since the summons was served under Section 179 of BNSS in the capacity of witness and the authorities had power to investigate, there was no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through this special leave petition. 
• The Court held that the legal profession constitutes an integral component of the process of administration of justice.  
• The Court observed that permitting investigating agencies or police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and constitute a direct threat to the independence of administration of justice. 
• The Court held that communications between advocates and clients are privileged under Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and cannot be subject-matter of enquiry under Section 179 or any other provisions of BNSS. 
• The Court observed that advocates are bound by professional duty to maintain confidentiality of client information and advice provided. 
• The Court postulated two fundamental questions: whether investigating agencies can directly summon lawyers advising parties, and whether judicial oversight should be prescribed for exceptional cases where the individual's role extends beyond legal representation.  
• The Court held that what is at stake is the efficacy of administration of justice and the capacity of lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties. 
• The Court observed that subjecting a professional to the beck and call of investigating agency where he is counsel in the matter appears prima facie to be untenable. 
• The Court held that the matter requires comprehensive consideration as it involves fundamental questions affecting the independence and autonomy of the legal profession. 
• The Court observed the importance of the matter and called for assistance from Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India Chairman, and Bar Association Presidents to address these important issues. 

What is Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) ? 

• Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam establishes the principle of attorney-client privilege by prohibiting advocates from disclosing communications made to them in the course of their professional service.  
• No advocate shall be permitted to disclose any communication made to him by or on behalf of his client unless with the client's express consent. 
• The provision protects the contents or condition of any document with which the advocate has become acquainted during professional service from disclosure. 
• Advocates are prohibited from disclosing any advice given by them to their client in the course of professional service. 
• The section provides two exceptions where communications are not protected from disclosure: communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, and any fact observed by an advocate showing that crime or fraud has been committed since commencement of his service.  
• The attention of the advocate need not be specifically directed to such facts for the exception to apply.  
• The obligation of confidentiality continues even after the professional service has ceased. The provisions of Section 132 extend to interpreters, clerks, and employees of advocates, ensuring comprehensive protection of client confidentiality within the legal framework. 

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled that a transgender woman in a heterosexual relationship has legal standing to file a complaint for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

What was the Background of Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) Case?    

• The complainant, Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman, alleged that after marrying Accused No.1 (Viswanathan Krishna Murthy) under Hindu rites, she was subjected to mental harassment and threats. 
• She claimed to have given ₹10 lakhs, 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles, and household items as dowry at the time of marriage. 
• After a brief cohabitation, her husband allegedly abandoned her and she later received threatening messages. 
• An FIR was registered under Section 498A IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The accused filed petitions to quash the proceedings, claiming the complainant could not be considered a "woman" under Section 498A. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court referred to NALSA v. Union of India (2014) which upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. 
• It cited the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, emphasizing that gender identity is not contingent upon surgical procedures. 
• The Court referred to the judgment of Madras HC, where a trans woman was held to be a valid "bride" under the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• The Court quoted Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), which acknowledged that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry under existing law. 
• The Court affirmed that denying a transwoman protection under Section 498A IPC due to reproductive incapacity is unconstitutional and discriminatory. 
• Held that trans women are entitled to protection under criminal matrimonial law if in a heterosexual relationship. 
• The complaint lacked specific and concrete allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against any of the accused. 
• There were only general and vague accusations, and no prima facie evidence connecting the in-laws or the fourth accused to the alleged offences. 
• Citing Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024) and ABC v. State of UP (2025), the Court cautioned against dragging entire families into matrimonial disputes without clear evidence. 
• The Court therefore concluded that a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage can file a complaint under Section 498A IPC. 
• In the facts of the present case the Court held that due to lack of prima facie material and vague allegations, the proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC. 

What are the Rights of Transgender Persons? 

• The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) recognized hijras and transgender persons as the “third gender” under the Constitution.  
  • The Court upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as male, female, or third gender.  
  • The Court directed governments to provide legal recognition, reservation, healthcare, public facilities, and social welfare schemes for transgender persons.  
  • The judgment emphasized that insisting on sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for gender recognition is illegal and immoral.  
  • The Court urged awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and ensure transgender persons are treated with dignity and respect.  
• Following this, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted to prohibit discrimination and ensure rights of transgender individuals. 

What are the Cases Cited in the Judgment? 

• Supriyo v. Union of India (2023): 
  • The Court agreed with the Chief Justice's opinion on the right of transgender persons to marry. 
  • It acknowledged the distinction between sex and gender, affirming that gender identity may not match the sex assigned at birth. 
  • The judgment recognized the existence and rights of transgender men and women, intersex individuals, and other queer gendered persons. 
  • The Court supported the right against discrimination under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. 
  • It concurred with the legal interpretation and remedies outlined under the Transgender Act and found no need for further commentary. 
  • The Court affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws, including personal laws. 
  • It endorsed the Madras High Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, finding its reasoning correct. 
• Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024): 
  • Merely naming family members in matrimonial criminal cases without specific allegations should be discouraged. 
  • Courts have observed a trend of falsely implicating all family members of the husband during domestic disputes. 
  • General and vague accusations without concrete evidence cannot justify criminal prosecution. 
  • The judiciary must act cautiously to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and to protect innocent family members from unnecessary harassment. 
  • In the referenced case, family members who lived in different cities and were not part of the matrimonial household were wrongly included in the prosecution. 
  • Section 498A IPC was introduced to address genuine cruelty against women by their husbands and in-laws. 
  • However, there has been an increasing misuse of Section 498A by some women to settle personal scores or enforce unreasonable demands. 
  • Vague complaints during marital conflicts, if not carefully scrutinized, can lead to misuse of the legal process. 
  • The Court reiterated that prosecution under Section 498A should only proceed when a clear prima facie case is established.