List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to the accused in a minor's rape and murder case, citing strong prima facie evidence and the heinous nature of the offence. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Rajab Ali Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajab Ali Khan V. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) Case? 

• On 22^nd October, 2018, a father named Abid reported his 10-12 year old daughter missing from Delhi. The girl had left home at 10 AM for tuition classes but never returned by 1 PM. A kidnapping case was initially registered. 
• Six days later, the girl's body was found near Biodiversity Park, Wazirabad. Her family identified the body, and the case became a murder investigation. The victim's mother accused Rajab Ali Khan and his wife Ruksaar (who ran the tuition classes) of kidnapping and murdering her daughter. 
• According to the prosecution, Rajab Ali developed inappropriate feelings for the young girl and asked his wife to bring her to their house for religious classes. On October 22, when the child came for tuition, she was allegedly given water mixed with sleeping pills. While unconscious, she was taken to Rajab Ali's family house where she was sexually assaulted repeatedly over several days. 
• Fearing exposure, the accused allegedly murdered the child by smothering her with a handkerchief on October 27, 2018. He then packed her body in a suitcase and dumped it in the park. 
• Police found strong evidence including CCTV footage showing Rajab Ali at the dumping site with a suitcase, sedative tablets in his possession, and forensic evidence linking him to the crime. The post-mortem confirmed sexual assault and murder. 
• Both accused were charged with kidnapping, rape, murder, and offences under the child protection law. This was Rajab Ali's 12th bail application after being in jail for 7 years.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court noted this was Rajab Ali's 12th attempt to get bail, showing his repeated efforts to secure release from jail. 
• The Court found that the evidence against him was very strong. The victim's mother had dropped her daughter at the accused's house for religious classes, making them the last people to see the child alive. CCTV cameras captured Rajab Ali riding his scooter to the area where the body was found, carrying a suitcase at the exact time the body was dumped. 
• The Court observed that forensic evidence strongly supported the prosecution case. Handkerchiefs found at his house matched the cloth used to strangle the victim. Sedative tablets recovered from him contained drugs that could make someone unconscious. A sewing machine at his house was allegedly used to alter the victim's clothes. 
• Most importantly, the Court noted that the post-mortem report provided "clear medical evidence of repeated sexual assault" with injuries showing "violent and repeated sexual abuse." The timing of these injuries matched when the child went missing. 
• The Court said all these pieces of evidence together formed a "tight and coherent evidentiary chain" pointing directly at Rajab Ali's involvement in the crime. The forensic, medical, and electronic evidence was too strong to ignore. 
• The Court emphasized that in serious crimes like rape and murder, courts should be very careful about granting bail once the trial has started. Given the heinous nature of the crime and the strong evidence against him, the Court found no reason to grant bail. 
• The Court directed the trial court to speed up the case since the accused had been in jail for 7 years, and only 14 out of 36 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. 

What is Sexual Abuse to Minor - Definition and Scope? 

• Sexual abuse to a minor refers to any form of sexual exploitation, assault, harassment, or inappropriate sexual conduct involving a child (defined as anyone below 18 years of age under the POCSO Act).  
• This includes both contact and non-contact offences that violate a child's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Sexual Abuse to Minor? 

• The POCSO Act, 2012 (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) 
  The POCSO Act is the primary legislation protecting children from sexual offences in India. Key features include: 
• Enactment Details: 
• Enacted: June 19, 2012 
• Enforced: November 14, 2012 
• Amended: POCSO Amendment Act, 2019 (effective August 16, 2019) 

What are the Key Offences and Punishments under POCSO? 

What are the Other Relevant Legal Provisions ? 

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections: 
  • Section 375-376: Rape and punishment for rape 
  • Section 376(2): Custodial rape with enhanced punishment (minimum 10 years, extendable to life) 
  • Section 354: Assault on woman with intent to outrage her modesty 
  • Section 509: Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty of woman 
• Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983: 
  • Added Section 114(A) to Indian Evidence Act 
  • Introduced rebuttable presumption that victim did not consent in rape cases 
  • Shifted burden of proof to accused in cases where sexual intercourse is established 

What are the Legal Reforms Post-Mathura Case? 

• The landmark Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra (1979) case led to significant reforms: 
  • Rebuttable Presumption: Courts now presume lack of consent when victim claims so. 
  • Custodial Rape Provisions: Enhanced punishment for rape in custody. 
  • Burden of Proof: Shifted to accused when sexual intercourse is established. 
  • Enhanced Penalties: Stricter punishments for sexual offences. 
• Media and Reporting Obligations: 
  • Section 20: Mandates reporting of sexually exploitative material Section 23: Governs media conduct, restricts disclosure of child's identity without court permission. 
  • Violations: Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year, fine, or both. 
• Failure to Report: 
  • Section 21: Failure to report or record a POCSO offence. Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months, fine, or both. 
  • Section 22: False complaints or false information. Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months, fine, or both. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi resolved the contentious issue of whether employment bonds are valid and legally enforceable in India while upholding the validity of employment bond agreements that mandate minimum service periods or impose financial penalties for early resignation. The Court ruled that such clauses do not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which prohibits restraints on trade, provided the restrictions operate only during the period of employment. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware (2025). 

What was the Background of Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware (2025) Case? 

• The case centered around a contentious clause in Vijaya Bank's employment contract with a respondent-employee, which required him to serve a minimum of three years or pay a penalty of ₹2 lakh for premature resignation. 
• The respondent, a Senior Manager-Cost Accountant, had resigned before completing his tenure to join IDBI Bank, triggering the penalty clause. 
• Challenging the bond's validity, the employee argued that it violated Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as the imposition of Rs. 2 lakh penalty for early exit prohibited him from joining new employment. 
• The respondent further argued that the penalty clause was opposed to public policy as he was compelled to comply with the illegal condition of depositing Rs. 2 lakh, which he had done under protest. 
• The state opposed the validity of employment bonds, contending that such restrictive covenants amount to restraint of trade and are against public policy. 
• The case involved interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) and the balance between employer's legitimate interests and employee's freedom of trade. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi held that employment bonds are legally valid and enforceable when imposing reasonable conditions. 
• The Court emphasized that public sector undertakings have legitimate interest in retaining skilled employees and avoiding expensive recruitment processes. 
• The Court justified the ₹2 lakh penalty as proportionate for a Senior Manager (MMG-III) drawing lucrative salary, stating it was "not so high as to render resignation illusory." 
• The judgment clarified that restrictive covenants operating during employment subsistence do not violate freedom of trade or employment under Section 27.

Legal Principles Established

Restrictive Covenants During Employment: 

• The Court held that restrictive covenants operating during the subsistence of an employment contract do not put a clog on the freedom of a contracting party to trade or employment. 
• Section 27 does not apply to restrictions that operate only during the period of employment and do not prevent the employee's right to seek other job opportunities post-resignation. 
• The Court referenced Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning Co. (1967) which upheld reasonable restrictions during employment but struck down post-termination bans. 
• In Superintendence Company (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai (1981), the Court upheld the validity of restrictive covenants during the subsistence of a contract. 

Public Policy Considerations:

• The Court stated that "re-skilling and preservation of scarce specialized workforce in a free market are emerging heads in the public policy domain" which need to be factored when testing employment contract terms. 
  • "To survive in an atmosphere of deregulated free-market, public sector undertakings were required to review and reset policies which increased efficiency and rationalized administrative overheads." 
• The Court held that "ensuring retention of an efficient and experienced staff contributing to managerial skills was one of the tools inalienable to the interest of such undertakings." 
  • "Incorporating a minimum service tenure for employees, to reduce attrition and improve efficiency" cannot be said to be unconscionable, unfair or unreasonable and thereby in contravention of public policy. 

Reasonableness Test:

• The Court cautioned against oppressive or unconscionable clauses, particularly in standard-form contracts where employees may have little bargaining power. 
• The penalty amount must be proportionate to the employee's salary and position and should not make resignation practically impossible. 
• The terms must be transparent and the employee should have reasonable notice of the restrictive covenant.

What is Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 

About: 

Section 27: Agreement in Restraint of Trade  

• "Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, is to that extent void." 
• This provision categorically invalidates any agreement that restricts an individual's ability to engage in lawful profession, trade, or business activities. 

Key Principles and Scope: 

• Absolute Prohibition: Section 27of ICA does not make distinction between reasonable and unreasonable restraints and invalidates any agreement restraining trade outright. Unlike English common law, which distinguishes between total and partial restraints, Section 27 makes all agreements imposing any form of restraint void, whether total or partial. 
• No Consideration of Reasonableness: The general rule established by Section 27 is that any agreement that restrains a person from carrying out a lawful profession, trade, or business is void to the extent of such restraint. This rule is absolute and does not consider whether the restraint is reasonable or not. 

Statutory Exceptions: 

• Sale of Goodwill: 
  • The exception provided in the proviso to Section 27 allows for restraints in agreements for the sale of goodwill. It permits the seller of a business's goodwill to agree with the buyer not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, provided these limits are reasonable and necessary for protecting the buyer's interests.
• Partnership Act Provisions 
  • The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 provides specific instances where restraints may be enforceable: 
    • Section 11: Permits partners to agree on non-compete clauses during the partnership. 
    • Section 36: Allows reasonable restraints on a partner after leaving the firm, provided they are reasonable in duration and geographical scope. 
    • Section 54: Endorses agreements that restrict partners upon dissolution or retirement within reasonable limits.
• Service Contracts During Employment: 
  • Reasonable restraints placed on employees during their employment period for the company's benefit are valid, but these expire when employment ceases. 

Landmark Case Laws: 

• Madhub Chander v. Rajcoomar Doss (1874): 
  • In this case, the Division Bench drew a distinction between the English law and Indian law and opined that any kind of restraint by which a person was prevented from exercising a lawful profession, trade was void.  
  • The Privy Council, through Sir Richard Couch, held that Section 27 makes no distinction between reasonable and unreasonable restraints and invalidates any agreement restraining trade outright.
• Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967): 
  • The Supreme Court of India recognised the enforceability of negative covenants in employment contracts, provided they are operative during the period of employment.  
  • The Apex Court held that a clause preventing an employee from joining a competitor during the term of employment does not amount to a restraint of trade under Section 27. 
• Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai (1980): 
  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that post-employment restraints are void.  
  • The Apex Court struck down a clause that restricted an employee from engaging in a similar business for a certain period after leaving employment, emphasizing the absolute nature of Section 27. 
• Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co. (1995): 
• The Supreme Court ruled that non-compete clauses preventing the franchisee from engaging in similar business during the term of the agreement do not violate Section 27.  
• However, any post-termination restraints were held void. 

Source:  Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke held that granted bail to a woman arrested after sunset, emphasizing that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 cannot be denied without strict compliance with the law. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the matter of Sujata Vilas Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Sujata Vilas Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Case ? 

• Smt. Sujata, wife of Vilas Mahajan, was employed at Babaji Date Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited in Yavatmal district. She began her career as a Clerk, was later promoted to Branch Manager, and eventually became the Chief Executive Officer of the bank. 
• During a routine audit of the bank, the auditor identified several irregularities and illegalities in the loan disbursement process. These findings prompted the appointment of a Special Auditor to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the bank's operations. 
• The Special Auditor's report revealed that various loans were sanctioned in favour of the applicant's husband and her relatives without following proper procedures or obtaining sanction from the Board of Directors. The husband also acted as a guarantor for loans taken by relatives. These loans, totaling Rs. 1.88 crores, were disbursed without due process, causing significant financial loss to the bank. 
• The investigation uncovered that during the applicant's tenure, the total fraud committed amounted to Rs. 2,42,31,21,019, affecting approximately 37,000 investors and depositors. 
• While the loans taken directly by the applicant's husband were subsequently repaid, the loans sanctioned in the names of various relatives remained problematic. The husband had mortgaged property as security, but no proper charge was created on the mortgaged property, and the mortgage deed was not registered in the Registrar's Office. 
• The bank failed to preserve loan records as required by RBI guidelines, which mandate preservation of loan proposal documents for eight years. These crucial documents were either destroyed or not available with the bank or liquidator. 
• Based on the Special Auditor's report, the police registered Crime No. 922/2024 against the applicant and other co-accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. 
• The applicant was arrested on 30th September 2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that the guarantee of life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied even to an accused in custody, and certainly not to a suspect being investigated. The State and courts have an obligation to ensure no infringement of this indefeasible right to life and liberty, which cannot be deprived without following the procedure established by law. 
• The Criminal Procedure Code describes the manner and extent to which a person can be deprived of liberty, necessitating strict compliance. Any violation of prescribed procedures in arrest matters can be declared illegal. 
• The court found that Section 46(4) of the CrPC mandates that no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, except in exceptional circumstances requiring prior permission from a Judicial Magistrate. The court noted inconsistencies in arrest timing documents, with some showing arrest at 22:39 hours (after sunset) and others at 17:58 hours or 5:30 pm. 
• The court emphasized that merely informing relatives about an arrest is completely different from communicating the grounds of arrest. The arrest memo contains only basic information and not the grounds of arrest. The failure to communicate grounds of arrest to the applicant's relatives violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 
• Section 50A of the CrPC requires informing friends, relatives, or nominated persons about the arrest to ensure they can take immediate action to secure the arrested person's release. The arrested person may not have immediate access to legal processes due to detention. 
• While acknowledging that economic offences constitute a distinct class requiring different bail considerations due to their impact on public funds and the economy, the court noted that such offences involve deep-rooted conspiracies and pose serious threats to the country's financial health. 
• The court balanced the serious nature of the economic offence against the procedural violations in arrest, including the illegal arrest after sunset and failure to communicate grounds of arrest to relatives. 
• The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which established that violation of Article 22(1) regarding grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal. 
• The court concluded that despite the applicant's involvement in an economic offence, the illegal arrest after sunset and failure to communicate grounds of arrest to relatives rendered the arrest illegal, thereby making out a case for bail. 

What Constitutional Rights Protect Women from Arrest After Sunset? 

• The arrest of women after sunset is governed by fundamental constitutional principles, particularly Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This constitutional protection extends to all citizens, including those under investigation or in custody. 
• Section 43(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) explicitly prohibits the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise, except in exceptional circumstances. The provision mandates that where such exceptional circumstances exist, a woman police officer must obtain prior written permission from a Magistrate of the First Class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made. 
• The protection against arrest of women after sunset was previously codified under Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which was inserted by Amendment Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23rd June 2006.  
  • This amendment was prompted by recommendations from the 135th and 154th Reports of the Law Commission of India on Women in Custody (1989). 
    • The Law Commission's recommendations emphasized that ordinarily, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. 
    • In exceptional cases requiring arrest during these hours, prior permission from the immediate superior officer must be obtained, or in cases of extreme urgency, a report with reasons must be made to the immediate superior officer and the Magistrate after arrest. 
• The use of the word "shall" in Section 43(5) of BNSS makes compliance mandatory rather than discretionary. Courts have consistently held that this provision creates an absolute embargo on the arrest of women during prohibited hours without following prescribed procedures. 

Case Laws  

Supreme Court Jurisprudence: 

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025):  
  • The Supreme Court distinguished between information about arrest and grounds of arrest, holding that mere information about arrest does not constitute furnishing grounds of arrest.  
  • The court emphasized that violation of Article 22(1) regarding grounds of arrest communication renders the arrest illegal. 
  • Procedural Requirements for Exceptional Circumstances: When exceptional circumstances necessitate arrest after sunset, the following mandatory procedures must be followed: 
    • Only a woman police officer can effect the arrest. 
    • A written report must be prepared justifying the exceptional circumstances. 
    • Prior permission from the Magistrate of First Class is mandatory. 
    • The jurisdiction must be that where the offence is committed or arrest is to be made. 

Bombay High Court Precedents: 

• Christian Community Welfare Council of India v. Government of Maharashtra (1995):  
  • Prior to the 2005 amendment, the Bombay High Court Division Bench issued comprehensive directions regarding arrest of women, mandating that no female person shall be detained or arrested without the presence of a lady constable and in no case after sunset and before sunrise. 
• Bharati S. Khandhar v. Maruti Govind Jadhav (2012):  
  • The Bombay High Court held that the arrest of a woman at 8:45 pm was totally illegal and unacceptable, constituting a violation of Section 46(4) of the CrPC. The court emphasized that detention of a woman from 5:30 pm until production before the JMFC was in utter violation of statutory provisions. 
• Kavita Manikikar v. CBI(2018)  
  • The Bombay High Court imposed an exemplary fine of Rs. 50,000 on the Central Bureau of Investigation for conducting an illegal arrest of Ms. Kavita Manikikar, who was allegedly an authorized signatory of firms owned by Nirav Modi, demonstrating the court's commitment to enforcing women's protection provisions.