List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation for unlawfully detaining a prisoner for 28 days despite a valid bail order, holding that personal liberty cannot be denied over minor clerical errors. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Aftab v. the State Of Uttar Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of Aftab v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The applicant was arrested and charged with offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 5(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.  
• The Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant on 29th April 2025. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad issued a release order on 27th May 2025, containing all necessary particulars including the detainee's name, father's name, crime number, police station details, and relevant sections.  
• The release order mentioned only "Section 5" instead of "Section 5(i)", omitting the sub-section designation. 
• Prison authorities refused to release the prisoner citing the clerical omission of sub-section "(i)" in the bail order. The Jailor filed a correction application on May 28, 2025, seeking modification of the release order. 
• The correction application remained undisposed by the District and Sessions Judge. The prisoner remained detained for 28 additional days beyond the release date.  
• The prisoner was finally released on 24th June 2025, only after the Supreme Court took cognizance of the continued detention. 
• The Supreme Court directed the physical presence of the Jail Superintendent of Ghaziabad Jail and the UP-Director General (Prisons) to appear virtually. The State was represented by the Additional Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be bartered away on the altar of technicalities. 
• The Court observed that personal liberty cannot be denied on "useless technicalities" and "irrelevant errors" when the details of the case and offences are otherwise clear from the bail order.  
• The Court held that the "substance of the order" must be examined, and authorities must not look for "minor and irrelevant errors" as a pretext to deny individual liberty. 
• The Court stated that as long as basic particulars are available and there is no dispute about identifying the individual, nitpicking court orders and refusing to implement them while keeping individuals behind bars constitutes a serious dereliction of duty.  
• The Court questioned whether the non-mention of a sub-section was a valid ground for prison officers to refuse release, particularly when there was no difficulty in identifying the prisoner and the offences. 
• The Court expressed concern about the message being sent by keeping people behind bars for such reasons and questioned what guarantee exists that many other persons are not languishing for similar reasons.  
• The Court reminded prison officials that it is their primordial duty to obey court orders, whether right or wrong.  
• The Court termed the entire episode as "unfortunate" and "preposterous," noting that each stakeholder was aware of the offence, crime number, and sections under which the applicant was charged. 
• The Court warned that if such attitude towards personal liberty persisted, it would increase the compensation amount from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. 
•  The Court expressed hope that no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of similar technicalities and directed a thorough inquiry into this aspect. 
• The Court emphasized the importance of respecting individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need to sensitize officers about this fundamental right. 

What is Section 479 of BNSS ? 

Section 479 of BNSS are as follows:   

• There is a provision for release of first-time offenders in case they have undergone detention for a period extending upto one third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence.   
• A new provision added by way of sub section 2 is that an under-trial prisoner shall not be released on bail if an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than offence or in multiple cases is pending against him.   
• Further, sub section 3 is added which provides that bail can be granted on the report of the Superintendent of jail. 

What are the Rights of Prisoners Under Different Laws India ?  

Rights Under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 

• Pre-Trial Rights: 
  • Right to Information Upon Arrest (Section 50): 
    • Every arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest. 
    • Non-bailable offence arrestees must be informed of their right to bail. 
    • Police must inform about entitlement to arrange sureties. 
  • Right to Prompt Judicial Review (Section 56): 
    • Arrested persons must be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. 
    • Subject to bail provisions, immediate judicial oversight is mandatory. 
  • Right to Legal Representation: 
    • During Interrogation (Section 41D): Right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. 
    • Free Legal Aid (Section 304): State-funded legal representation for those unable to afford counsel in Sessions Court trials. 
• Procedural Rights During Detention: 
  • Right to Medical Examination (Section 54): 
    • Right to request medical examination if it may provide exculpatory evidence. 
    • Medical practitioner's report must be furnished to the arrested person. 
    • Protection against requests made for vexation or delay. 
  • Right to Dignified Search (Section 51(2)): 
    • Female prisoners can only be searched by other females. 
    • Search must be conducted with strict regard to decency. 
• Trial Rights: 
  • Right to Presence During Proceedings (Section 273): 
    • All evidence must be taken in the accused's presence. 
    • Alternative presence through legal counsel when personal attendance is dispensed with. 
  • Right to Access Case Documents (Section 208): 
    • Right to copies of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202. 
    • Access to confessions recorded under Sections 161 and 164. 
    • Right to inspect voluminous documents if copying is impractical. 
  • Right to Appeal (Chapter XXIX): 
    • Statutory right to appeal in prescribed cases. 
    • Welfare Rights 
  • Right to Human Treatment (Section 55A): 
    • Custodial authorities have duty to ensure reasonable care of health and safety. 
    • Protection against inhuman treatment during detention. 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)  

Section 258: Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law. 

• Officials acting contrary to law with corrupt or malicious intent face punishment 
• Penalties include imprisonment up to seven years, fine, or both 
• Safeguard against abuse of authority by custodial officers

Rights Under Prisons Act, 1894 

• Accommodation and Separation Rights: 
  • Proper Prison Infrastructure (Section 4): 
    • The State government must provide adequate accommodation. 
    • Prisons must comply with statutory requirements for prisoner separation. 
  • Segregation Rights (Section 27): 
    • Separate accommodation for:  
      • Male and female prisoners 
      • Juvenile/under-age prisoners 
      • Unconvicted prisoners 
      • Civil prisoners 
• Health and Medical Rights: 
  • Medical Examination on Admission (Section 24): 
    • Mandatory health assessment upon prison entry. 
    • Documentation of existing wounds or medical conditions. 
    • Assessment of fitness for different types of labor. 
    • Special provisions for female prisoners (examination by matron). 
  • Healthcare for Sick Prisoners (Section 37): 
    • Right to proper medical care during illness. 
    • Access to medical facilities within prison system. 
• Economic and Personal Rights: 
  • Right to Private Maintenance (Section 31): 
    • Civil and unconvicted prisoners may maintain themselves. 
    • Right to purchase or receive food, clothing, and necessities from private sources. 
    • Subject to examination and approved regulations. 
  • Right to Work (Section 34): 
    • Civil prisoners may work and follow trades or professions with superintendent's permission. 
    • Economic activity rights during imprisonment.

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa has held that held that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the definition of 'Ganja' is confined solely to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, explicitly excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. 

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati heard Criminal Petition No. 5306 of 2025 on Monday, 23rd June 2025. The Honourable Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa presided over the proceedings. 
• The petitioners Killo Subbarao, aged 48 years, and his wife Killo Jyothi, aged 35 years, both cultivators from Vellapalem Village, Pedabayalu Mandal, ASR District, filed the petition. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by G. Madugula Police Station, was the respondent in the matter. 
• The petitioners sought regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petition related to Crime No. 01/2025 registered at G. Madugula Police Station. 
• A case was registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 
• The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were caught in possession of 32 kilograms of Ganja. The husband and wife duo had purchased Ganja from Odisha at a lower price. They intended to sell the same in Andhra Pradesh at higher prices for profit. 
• The police authorities seized the contraband substance from the possession of the petitioners during the operation. 
• The petitioners were represented by Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate. The counsel argued that the seized contraband articles could not be classified as 'Ganja' within the statutory definition under Section 2(iii)(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act. 
• The defence contended that the definition of Ganja specifically excludes leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems when not accompanied by flowering tops. The mandatory legal provisions were not properly followed during the seizure and weighing process. 
• The petitioners argued that the police authorities failed to separate the leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems from the flowering tops while weighing the contraband. No adverse presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be justifiably drawn against the petitioners given these procedural lapses. 
• The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that the case involved commercial quantity of the contraband substance. The State prayed for dismissal of the petition based on the serious nature of the offence. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined the statutory definition of 'Ganja' under the NDPS Act and made significant observations regarding its scope and application. Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act defines ganja as "the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops)." 
• The Court observed that the definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act encompasses only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. The statutory definition expressly excludes seeds and leaves when they are not accompanied by the tops. 
• The Court emphasized that this definition is restrictive in nature and does not include the seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant when found separately. The Court noted that the legislature has deliberately limited the scope of what constitutes 'Ganja' under the Act. 
• The Court identified a significant procedural deficiency in the investigation process. Upon examination of the record, the Court observed that the police authorities had failed to segregate the flowering tops from other plant material while weighing the contraband substance. 
• The Court found that the police, while weighing the contraband, did not separate the leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems from the flowering tops as required by proper procedure. This failure to follow the mandatory segregation process was deemed significant by the Court. 
• The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and thoroughly perused the material on record. The Court acknowledged the validity of the petitioners' counsel's argument regarding the restrictive definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act. 
• The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners had rightly pointed out the limitations in the definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court agreed that the definition takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. 
• The Court observed that the definition excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops, making it a restricted definition that does not include all parts of the cannabis plant. 
• After weighing all the evidence and considering the procedural lapses, the Court determined that there were justifiable grounds to release the petitioners on bail. The Court was particularly influenced by the procedural deficiencies in the investigation process. 
• The Court found merit in the petitioners' argument that no adverse presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be drawn against them given the procedural irregularities. The Court concluded that the criminal petition merited allowance based on the legal and procedural grounds established during the hearing. 

What are the Relevant Provisions Referred? 

• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits any person from producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing inter-State, exporting inter-State, importing into India, exporting from India or transhipping any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. This prohibition applies except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made thereunder. 
• Section 8(c) further provides that in cases where any provision imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, such activities must also be in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation. 
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis where such contravention involves commercial quantity. Under this provision, the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years. 
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) also provides that the accused shall be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. The proviso to this section states that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. 
• Section 25 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for allowing premises to be used for commission of an offence. This section provides that whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of the Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. 
• Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates a presumption regarding certain offences under the Act. This section provides for adverse presumption against the accused in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. 

Source: Guidelines for Retention and Destruction of Records 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court, under the guidance of Chief Justice BR Gavai, released comprehensive norms for retaining and destroying administrative records, addressing the previously unregulated non-judicial documents.  

What Are the General Rules? 

• Files signed by CJI or Judges, policy files, circulars, and office orders are to be preserved permanently. 
• Retention periods begin only after final disposal of related litigation/audit. 
• Files under litigation or related to any ongoing court cases cannot be destroyed. 
• Interconnected or confidential records must be cross-checked with other branches before destruction. 
• Destruction requires Registrar’s approval and should be preferably done during court vacations. 
• Scanned copies may be preserved beyond the retention period with reasons recorded. 
• Financial documents are to be classified by financial year; other records by calendar year.

What are the Branch-Wise Record Retention Guidelines? 

• Admin I Branch: 
  • Personal files: 5 years after gratuity (if eligible) or after service ends. 
  • DPC files, vigilance reports, leave & pay commission files: Permanent 
  • RTI without appeal: 3 years; with 2nd appeal: 5 years 
  • Compassionate appointment: 5 years 
  • Creation of posts, promotions: Permanent 
  • Parliamentary questions: 3 years
• Admin II Branch: 
  • Service books, pension files: Permanent 
  • Casual leave: 1 year; other leave: 3–5 years 
  • Leave encashment, non-functional upgrade: 5 years
• Admin III Branch: 
  • Medical claims, LTC, TA/DA: 3 years or 1-year post-audit 
  • HBA: 3 years after recovery + deed handover 
  • GPF: 1-year post-retirement 
  • CGHS & Child Education Allowance: Permanent 
  • Audit files: 3 years or until audit paras resolved 
• Admin J Branch (Judges): 
  • Utility bills: 3–5 years 
  • International visits & appointments: Permanent 
  • Gift & entertainment records: 5 years 
  • Judge salary & tax records: 5 years or 1-year post-audit 
  • Appointments, retirement, conferences, bench establishment: Permanent
• Admin General Branch: 
  • Construction, chamber allotment, seal files: Permanent 
  • Lawyer panel correspondence: 5 years post-finalization 
  • SC events & accommodation allotment: Permanent 
  • Maintenance/vendor contracts: 1–5 years
• Admin Material Branch: 
  • Tender/project files: 5 years post-expiry 
  • Circulars/policy notes: Permanent 
  • Consumable stock: 3 years or 1 year post-audit 
  • Non-consumable: Permanent 
  • Greeting card records: 2 years
• Security Branch: 
  • ID cards & parking: 2 months to 10 years 
  • Digital proximity card data: Permanently stored on server
• Caretaking Branch: 
  • Attendance, requisitions, reports: 1–3 years
• Cash and Accounts: 
  • Cash books: 10 years 
  • Pay bill registers: 35 years 
  • Audit files: 3 years or 1 year post-audit
• Crèche: 
  • Admissions: 1–3 years post-exit 
  • Staff recruitment: 3 years 
  • Policy files: Permanent
• Medical Branch: 
  • Judge reimbursement: 5 years or 1 year post-audit 
  • CGHS files, budget, AYUSH, hospital agreements: Permanent
• Protocol Branch: 
  • CJI/Judge tour files: 1–3 years post-retirement 
  • Foreign delegation, air/debit registers: Permanent 
• Reception Branch: 
  • Photo pass forms: 3 months post-issue 
• Recruitment Cell: 
  • Exam/answer sheets: 1–6 years depending on type 
  • Final result records: 5 years 
  • Law clerk/contract staff: 3 years after exit 
  • Litigation records: 3 years post-disposal
• Transport Branch: 
  • Fuel, maintenance, condemnation: 3 years or 1 year post-audit 
  • Log books, overtime, rosters: 1–3 years 
  • Bill/vehicle registers: Permanent (old volume retained 3 years) 
• Vigilance Cell: 
  • Penalty imposed: 5 years post-judgment or retirement 
  • Exonerated: 5 years post-appeal 
  • Policy files, signed notes: Permanent 
  • Property declarations: till retirement 
  • Annual property returns: 1 year post-retirement 
  • Complaints/FIRs: till closure 
  • Police verification: 1 year (with entry in service record)