List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

The Kerala High Court in the matter of XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., has held that the police cannot refuse to register a First Information Report (FIR) if a cognizable offence is made out, even in cases where the complaint was forwarded from a foreign country. 

What was the Background of  XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Petitioner Background: Soya Antony, aged 48 years, wife of Mohanan Nair, originally from Plathottahil House, Muttom P.O., Thodupuzha, Kerala, currently residing at 21 Cedar Avenue, Alfredton, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. 
• Initial Complaint: The petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in Australia, filed a complaint against her husband through email to the Director General of Police, Kerala. 
• Complaint Forwarding: The Director General of Police, Kerala forwarded the complaint to the jurisdictional police station, i.e., Muttom Police Station. 
• Police Refusal: Muttom Police refused to take action on the complaint stating two grounds:  
  • The complaint was unsigned and sent through email. 
  • Since the petitioner was residing in Australia, her personal presence could not be secured. 
• Police Communication: The rejection communication from Muttom Police was documented as Annexure A9, dated 12th September 2020. 
• High Court Approach: The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala challenging the police refusal (Annexure A9). 
• Case Timeline: The original complaint (Annexure A7) was filed in 2020, and the case came up for admission on 20th June 2025.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Jurisdictional Issue Addressed: The Court observed that police cannot refuse to register an FIR for cognizable offences merely because the complaint is forwarded from a foreign country. 
• Email Complaint Validity: The Court held that rejection of the complaint on the ground that it was unsigned and sent through email from Australia cannot be justified. 
• Zero FIR Recognition: The Court emphasized that Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition under the new legal framework, ensuring victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction. 
• Primary Purpose of Zero FIR: The Court noted that Zero FIR was introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdictional limitations. 
• Fresh Complaint Provision: The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was prepared to give a fresh complaint. 
• Final Direction: The Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case by directing Station House Officer, Muttom Police Station to act upon any complaint given by the petitioner following the proper procedure. 
• Procedural Compliance: The Court specifically directed that the procedure contemplated in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS) especially Section 173, should be followed 

What is Section 173 of BNSS? 

Legislative Background and Overview: 

• Statutory Framework: Section 173 of BNSS is part of the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. 
• Replacement of Previous Law: The provisions for registering a cognizable offence are now provided under Section 173 of BNSS instead of Section 154 of CrPC. 
• Effective Implementation: The new criminal law came into effect replacing the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 1st July 2024.  
• Statutory Recognition of Zero FIR: Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in Section 173 of BNSS, which deals with the registration of FIR in cognizable cases. 
• Jurisdictional Flexibility: The provision ensures that police cannot refuse to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. 

Core Provisions of Section 173 of BNSS:  

Sub-section (1) - Information Registration: 

• Universal Jurisdiction: Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication. 
• Oral Information: If given orally, it shall be reduced to writing and read to the informant. Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person giving it 
• Electronic Communication: Section 173(1) of the BNSS allows the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence to be given to an officer in charge of a police station by electronic communication which was not the case earlier while CrPC was in force. 
• Digital Compliance: If it is given by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it. 

Sub-section (2) - Copy Provision:  

• Complainant Rights: After fulfilling the requirements under section 173 BNSS, the officer registers the Zero FIR and provides a copy to the informant free of cost. 
• Transparency Mechanism: The provision ensures that complainants receive documentation of their complaint registration without any cost. 

Sub-section (3) - Preliminary Enquiry: 

• Discretionary Investigation: On receipt of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer-in-charge may, with prior permission, conduct a preliminary enquiry or proceed with an investigation. 
• Punishment-Based Classification: The provision creates a specific category for offences with punishment between 3-7 years. 

What is Zero FIR? 

Conceptual Foundation:  

• Codification Achievement: A significant alteration concerning the registration of FIRs is the codification of the Zero FIR concept, making it obligatory for police stations to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, regardless of jurisdiction. 
• Historical Context: Zero FIR is a concept which has already been prevailing in Indian law without any statutory backing now for a considerable length of time. 
• Jurisdictional Independence: A Zero FIR allows any police station to register a cognizable offence irrespective of the location where the offence occurred. 

Practical Benefits: 

• Victim-Centric Approach: This is particularly important for ensuring timely justice and support for victims who may not be able to immediately reach the jurisdictional police station. 
• Accessibility Enhancement: The provision removes geographical barriers to complaint registration. 
• Time-Sensitive Cases: Enables immediate action in urgent situations without jurisdictional delays. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court of India has introduced reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in its staff recruitment. This historic move, introduced under the leadership of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, aligns the Apex Court’s internal administration with the constitutional principles of equality and social justice it has long upheld in its judgments. 

• The decision comes after decades of delay in implementing the post-based roster system mandated by the Supreme Court itself in the R.K. Sabharwal case (1995). 
• The reform applies to non-judicial posts and encompasses both direct recruitment and promotions, setting a precedent for other institutions to follow. 

What are the Major Highlights of this Reservation Policy? 

Key Policy Details:  

• Reservation Percentages: The policy allocates 15% quota for SC employees and 7.5% quota for ST employees in both direct recruitment and promotions. 
• Implementation Date: The Model Reservation Roster and Register became effective from 23rd June, 2025. 
• Coverage Scope: The reservation policy applies to both fresh appointments and promotional opportunities for existing staff members. 
• Alignment with Central Norms: The reservation percentages mirror the central government's established reservation framework for scheduled communities. 

Leadership and Historical Context: 

• Chief Justice's Role: This historic policy was introduced during the tenure of CJI B.R. Gavai, who holds the distinction of being the second Chief Justice from the Scheduled Caste community. 
• First-of-its-Kind Initiative: This represents the Supreme Court's maiden attempt at implementing affirmative action policies in its internal staff recruitment processes. 
• Administrative Origin: The policy emanates from the Court's administrative wing rather than through judicial pronouncements. 
• Symbolic Significance: CJI Gavai emphasized that "our actions must reflect our principles," highlighting the Court's commitment to practicing the equality it preaches. 

Positions Covered under the Policy: 

• Senior Administrative Roles: Senior Personal Assistant positions with reserved quotas. 
• Library Services: Assistant Librarian posts included in the reservation framework. 
• Court Operations: Junior Court Assistant positions with dedicated SC/ST allocation. 
• Technical Positions: Junior Court Assistant cum Junior Programmer roles covered. 
• Support Staff: Junior Court Attendant and Chamber Attendant positions included. 
• Comprehensive Coverage: The policy extends across various administrative and technical roles within the Supreme Court structure. 

Implementation Mechanism: 

• Model Roster System: A comprehensive Model Reservation Roster and Register has been developed and uploaded on the Supreme Court's internal network (Supnet). 
• Official Documentation: The policy was formalized through an official circular dated 24th June, 2025, issued by the Supreme Court Registrar. 
• Transparency Measures: Clear guidelines have been provided for implementing the reservation policy across different designation levels. 
• Grievance Mechanism: Staff members can raise objections or representations regarding any mistakes or inaccuracies in the roster through the Registrar (Recruitment). 

Administrative Framework: 

• Competent Authority Direction: The policy implementation follows directions from the competent authority within the Supreme Court administration. 
• Systematic Approach: The reservation system follows a structured model roster approach ensuring systematic implementation. 
• Staff Notification: All concerned personnel have been formally notified about the new policy through official channels. 
• Monitoring System: Provisions for addressing staff concerns and queries about the implementation process have been established. 

Broader Implications: 

• Judicial Leadership: Demonstrates the Supreme Court's proactive approach to ensuring diversity and inclusion within its own institutional framework. 
• Constitutional Alignment: Reflects the Court's commitment to upholding constitutional principles of equality and social justice in its internal operations. 
• Precedent Setting: May influence other judicial institutions to adopt similar affirmative action policies. 
• Social Impact: Represents a significant step toward creating more inclusive representation in India's highest judicial institution. 

Policy Monitoring and Feedback: 

• Error Correction Mechanism: Established procedures for staff members to report discrepancies or inaccuracies in the reservation roster. 
• Continuous Review: Framework for ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the policy implementation. 
• Stakeholder Engagement: Provisions for addressing concerns and representations from affected staff members. 
• Quality Assurance: Built-in mechanisms to ensure accurate and fair implementation of the reservation policy.