List of Current Affairs

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray have imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a petitioner for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on false statements and misleading contentions regarding development rights. 

• The Gujarat High Court held this in the matter of Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2024). 

What was the Background of Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2024) Case? 

• The petitioner Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal, claiming to be the Chief Editor of Navsari Times Weekly and a journalist for 14 years, filed a PIL challenging the land use permission granted to M/S Mahendra Brothers Export Pvt. Ltd. 
• The challenge was against the development permission granted for commercial use that was converted into non-agricultural use in 1992-93. 
• The petitioner contended that the land in question was purchased by a third party through a registered sale deed in January 1994, who then applied for commercial use in August 2000. 
• The District Development Officer, Navsari granted permission in June 2001 for setting up a Diamond Factory under Section 65(1) and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 
• The land was later transferred to the respondent company following an amalgamation order passed by the Bombay High Court in October 2010. 
• The petitioner's grievance was against the development permission granted to the company even after its application was initially rejected in June 2022, alleging that construction continued illegally. 
• The petitioner made complaints to the Navsari Urban Development Authority in October 2022 and to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat in February 2023, but the Authority granted fresh development permission in April 2023. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that "it is clear that the land use of both plot nos.15 and 16 is industrial. The whole basis of filing of the writ-petition...is absolutely false." 
• The Court found that the present writ-petition has been filed with false statement made by a person who claims to be a journalist of 14 years and is doing social service. 
• The Court emphasized that "A person, who is in such a position has to act responsibly", referring to the petitioner's claimed status as a journalist. 
• The Court observed that "The purpose of filing of the present writ-petition...is nothing but seem to be for personal grudges or with ulterior motive." 
• The Court noted that the PIL was filed with "incomplete and incorrect facts with a view to mislead the Court" regarding the actual land use classification. 
• The Court pointed out that there was "no description of the Company Petition of 2010 or the order passed therein" and no document on record to explain which portion of the land was subject to the Bombay High Court's decision. 
• The Court observed that apart from "vague assertion" made in the petition, there was insufficient documentation to support the claims made. 

What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)? 

About: 

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that allows any citizen to approach the courts for redressal of public grievances and protection of public interest. 
• PIL enables the judiciary to protect and enforce fundamental rights of those who are unable to approach the courts directly due to poverty, ignorance, or social disabilities. 
• The concept was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the 1980s to make justice accessible to the common man and to ensure that the legal system serves the cause of social justice. 
• PIL can be filed by any public-spirited citizen even if they are not directly affected by the matter, provided it relates to a genuine public cause. 

How  Jurisdiction of PIL is Misused? 

• PIL should not be filed for personal gains, private disputes, or to settle personal scores with individuals or authorities. 
• The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the misuse of PIL jurisdiction and has imposed costs on frivolous petitioners. 
• PIL should be based on genuine public interest and not on personal grudges, political vendetta, or for gaining publicity. 
• Courts have the power to impose costs and even initiate contempt proceedings against those who abuse the PIL jurisdiction. 
• The judiciary has emphasized that PIL is not a weapon for vendetta or a tool for harassment of public officials. 
• Responsible journalism and social activism require verification of facts before approaching courts, especially in PIL matters. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to PIL ? 

• Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. 
• Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights. 
• Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code allows representative suits in certain circumstances. 
• Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers magistrates to remove public nuisances. 
• Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of BNSS 2023) to prevent abuse of legal process. 

Case Laws Related  

• In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2001), the Supreme Court cautioned against the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, noting it was increasingly being used as "publicity" or "private" interest litigation. The Court clarified that PIL was intended to protect the rights of the poor and disadvantaged who couldn't access justice, and stressed the need to redefine its permissible limits to prevent abuse. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that a contractual Public Prosecutor cannot seek regularisation in absence of any statutory or constitutional right, as such relief would contravene the structured appointment procedure under the CrPC and applicable state rules. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Case  ? 

• The petitioner was engaged by the District Magistrate, Purulia on 20 June 2014 to discharge functions as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for State cases in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This engagement was made on a contractual basis to address a vacancy in the post. 
• The petitioner was to be paid fees at the rate of Rs. 459 per appearance for a maximum of two cases per day. Subsequently, the petitioner was also assigned to prosecute cases in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur. 
• The petitioner sought enhancement of his fee and filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of his services. The Tribunal initially allowed his application by an order dated 16 December 2022. 
• The Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal rejected the petitioner's claim on 12 June 2023.  
• The petitioner then moved the Tribunal again seeking multiple reliefs including setting aside the order of the Principal Secretary, regularisation of his service, job security till retirement, and equal pay. 
• The Tribunal, on reconsideration, noted that the petitioner was engaged only on a contractual basis and not through any regular appointment. The Tribunal found his claim for regularisation or pay parity with regularly appointed Assistant Public Prosecutors to be unsustainable in law. 
• Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that his current remuneration was inadequate and had not been revised in over eleven years. He argued that he should at least be paid fees equivalent to panel lawyers.  
• The State submitted that there was no law under which the petitioner could claim such relief. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had himself been requesting the District Magistrate of Purulia to allow him to continue in the role on a contractual basis to earn a livelihood. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner had not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional to deserve the relief of regularisation. The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. 
• The Court observed that a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law. 
• The Court noted that the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors was earlier governed by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) (CrPC) and now by Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).  
• Both provisions lay down that such appointments must be made by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, and only from among those who have practised as advocates for at least seven years. 
• The Court observed that where a regular cadre of prosecuting officers exists, appointments are to be made only from within the cadre, unless the State Government finds no suitable person available in it. 
• The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was engaged only on a contractual basis and not through any regular appointments. It also observed that the petitioner had requested continued engagement due to livelihood concerns. 
• The High Court observed that there was no law under which the petitioner could claim relief for regularisation. However, taking note of the petitioner's grievance regarding inadequate fees, the High Court granted liberty to him to approach the authorities for reconsideration of the fee. 

Who are Public Prosecutors? 

• Public Prosecutors are legal officers appointed by the Central Government or State Government to conduct prosecutions, appeals, and other proceedings on behalf of the government in courts, as specified in Section 18(1).  
• They are appointed after consultation with the relevant High Court and must have at least seven years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for the position under Section 18(7). 
• For every High Court, the government appoints a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint Additional Public Prosecutors to handle cases at that level [Section 18(1)]. 
• For every district, the State Government appoints a Public Prosecutor and may appoint Additional Public Prosecutors for district-level prosecutions [Section 18(3)]. 
• The appointment process involves the District Magistrate preparing a panel of suitable candidates in consultation with the Sessions Judge [Section 18(4)], and the State Government can only appoint from this approved panel [Section 18(5)]. However, if a state has a regular cadre of prosecuting officers, appointments must be made from within that cadre unless no suitable person is available [Section 18(6)]. 
• Special Public Prosecutors can be appointed for specific cases or classes of cases, requiring a minimum of ten years of practice as an advocate [Section 18(8)].  
• The law also allows victims to engage their own advocate to assist the prosecution in such cases [Section 18(8) proviso]. 
• Public Prosecutors serve as the government's legal representatives in criminal proceedings, ensuring that prosecutions are conducted effectively and in accordance with the law. They play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by presenting the state's case against accused persons in court. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi  held that Aadhaar card is not a valid proof of citizenship as per Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016; the Election Commission of India justified its exclusion from the list of citizenship documents during the Bihar Special Intensive Revision, clarifying that Aadhaar serves only as proof of identity—not nationality—while the Supreme Court noted that citizenship determination lies with the Ministry of Home Affairs and cautioned against last-minute disenfranchisement ahead of elections. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India (2025). 

What was the Background of Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India Case ? 

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered a "Special Intensive Revision" (SIR)  of electoral rolls in Bihar in June 2024.  
• This is the first time in India's history that such an exercise has been undertaken by the ECI. Unlike regular revisions of voter lists, this SIR specifically targets voters who were enrolled after 2003 and requires them to prove their citizenship using only 11 specified documents. 
• The SIR is not recognised in the Representation of the People Act or related rules 
• It differs from both "intensive revision" (complete fresh preparation of rolls) and "summary revision" (updating existing rolls) 
• The ECI created an arbitrary cut-off date of 2003, affecting millions of voters 
• The ECI specified 11 documents as acceptable proof of citizenship 
• Notably excluded were: 
  • Aadhaar cards (despite being widely used and accepted under the Representation of People Act) 
  • Voter ID cards (ironically, issued by the ECI itself) 
  • Ration cards 
  • MNREGA job cards 
  • Birth certificates 
• Approximately 4.74 crore voters out of Bihar's 8 crore total voters require verification 
• The exercise disproportionately affects marginalised communities including Muslims, Dalits, and poor migrant workers 
• Many of the required documents are possessed by only a small percentage of Bihar's population (e.g., passports by only 2.5%) 
• Constitutional Violations 
  • The petitioners argue that the SIR violates several constitutional provisions: 
    • Article 14: Equal protection under law (due to discriminatory treatment) 
    • Article 19: Freedom of movement (affecting migrants) 
    • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty 
    • Articles 325 & 326: Right to vote and universal adult franchise 
• Procedural Irregularities 
  • Timing: The exercise was initiated just months before Bihar's scheduled November 2025 elections 
  • Burden of proof: Shifts the responsibility from the state to citizens to prove their eligibility 
  • Inadequate timelines: Voters given insufficient time to arrange required documents 
• Discrimination Concerns 
  • The process appears to target specific communities disproportionately 
  • Creates different standards for different categories of people 
  • Potentially disenfranchises voters who have been exercising their franchise for decades 
• The Central Controversy 
  • The heart of the dispute lies in the ECI's authority to determine citizenship. While the ECI claims powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, critics argue that: 
  • Citizenship determination is primarily the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the ECI 
  • Aadhaar exclusion is particularly problematic since the Representation of People Act recognizes it as valid identification 
  • Practical impossibility of the exercise given the tight timelines and document requirements 
  • Democratic principles are at stake when long-time voters face potential disenfranchisement 
• This case raises fundamental questions about: 
  • The balance between electoral integrity and voting rights 
  • The role of different constitutional bodies in determining citizenship 
  • The procedural safeguards necessary for any electoral roll revision 
  • The timing and manner of such exercises in relation to upcoming elections 
  • The outcome of this case will likely set important precedents for how electoral roll revisions are conducted across India and the extent of the ECI's powers in matters relating to citizenship verification. 
• The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, with the next hearing scheduled for 28th July, 2025. The ECI has been directed to file its counter-affidavit by 21th July, 2025, and the draft electoral roll publication (originally scheduled for August 1, 2025) has been effectively stayed pending the court's decision. 
• The case represents a significant test of India's democratic institutions and the balance between ensuring electoral integrity and protecting fundamental voting rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the petitions raised "an important question which goes to the very root of the functioning of the democracy in the country - the right to vote." 
• The bench noted that three critical issues were involved in the case: (a) the very powers of the Election Commission to undertake the exercise; (b) the procedure and manner in which the exercise is being undertaken; and (c) the timing, including the timelines given for preparation of draft electoral roll, seeking objections and making the final electoral roll, which are very short considering that Bihar elections are due in November 2025. 
• Justice Dhulia observed that "citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA," questioning the ECI's authority to make determinations on citizenship matters. 
• The Court expressed serious doubts about the realistic nature of the timelines, with Justice Dhulia stating: "We have a serious doubt whether this timeline is realistic. It is a question of practicality." 
• Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI's decision to disenfranchise persons already on the electoral roll would "compel this individual to appeal against decision and go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election," highlighting the procedural burden and potential offence to democratic rights. 
• The bench questioned the exclusion of Aadhaar cards, noting that "many documents specified by the ECI are based on Aadhaar itself" and asked why this fundamental identification document cannot be included when all specified documents relate to identity rather than citizenship. 
• The Court agreed with Senior Advocate Singhvi's submission that "disenfranchising even one single eligible voter affects the level playing field, hits democracy and hits the basic structure," recognising the constitutional significance of electoral participation. 
• Justice Dhulia observed regarding the timing: "The question is why you are making this exercise relatable to an election coming in November, if it is an exercise that can be independent of the election for the whole of the country," expressing concern about the proximate timing to the electoral process and potential offence to electoral fairness. 

What is Definition of Citizen under Indian Constitution? 

• Under Article 5 of the Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and was born in the territory of India, or either of whose parents was born in the territory of India, or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution, shall be a citizen of India. 
• Article 6 provides that notwithstanding Article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution if he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and has fulfilled the prescribed residence and registration requirements. 
• Article 7 stipulates that notwithstanding Articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India, except where such person has returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return. 
• Under Article 8, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is residing. 
• Article 9 declares that no person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State. 
• Article 10 provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen. 
• Article 11 empowers Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law, stating that nothing in the foregoing provisions shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. 
• The constitutional framework establishes that citizenship is determined primarily through birth, descent, domicile, and residence criteria as enumerated in Articles 5 through 11, with Parliament having the ultimate authority to legislate on citizenship matters under Article 11.