List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar has quashed rape proceedings in exceptional circumstances, citing mutual settlement and noting that continuation would serve no purpose in the interest of justice. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Madhukar & Ors. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) Case ? 

• The present appeals arose from a common order dated 07th March 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. 
• The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeals is as follows: 
  • First Information Report No. 302 of 2023 dated 20th November 2023 was registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.  
  • The said FIR alleged that on 19th November 2023, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and her family members, including her father Prabhakar, allegedly due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the appellants. 
  • Subsequently, First Information Report No. 304 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 was registered at the same police station under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024. The second FIR contained grave allegations against Prabhakar, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation, alleging that he had sexually exploited the complainant over time, recorded videos of the act, and interfered with her subsequent matrimonial alliances. 
  • However, in March 2024, the complainant in the second FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court expressing her desire not to pursue the prosecution and stating that she had no objection to grant of bail to the accused. She further affirmed that the matter had been amicably resolved, and she had received Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses. 
  • The appellants moved Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By the impugned common order dated 07.03.2025, the High Court rejected both applications, holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that "the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly." 
• The Court held that "the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case." 
• The Court noted that it was "confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step." 
• The Court observed that "the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end." 
• The Court held that "the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome." 
• The Court concluded that "having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process." 
• The Court established that while offences under Section 376 IPC are grave and heinous in nature, and quashing of such proceedings on the ground of settlement is ordinarily discouraged, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing in exceptional circumstances where continuation would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process, particularly when the complainant has categorically and consistently expressed her desire not to pursue the prosecution. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offence of rape, which is a non-compoundable and non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life or to death. 
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers inherent power upon the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
  • The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to abuse of process of law or where no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. 
  • Non-compoundable offences under the Indian Penal Code generally cannot be settled or compromised between parties, and courts ordinarily do not permit quashing of such proceedings merely on the basis of settlement or monetary compensation. 
  • However, in exceptional circumstances, where the complainant categorically expresses unwillingness to pursue the case and continuation would serve no meaningful purpose, courts may exercise their inherent power to quash even serious offences to prevent abuse of process. 
  • The principle established is that while grave offences like rape are ordinarily non-quashable on settlement, the court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows for quashing in exceptional cases where continuation would be futile and cause unnecessary harassment to all parties involved. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court observed that "a partnership firm with more than two partners does not dissolve upon the death of one partner, provided the partnership deed contains a clause allowing the firm's continuity" while dismissing an appeal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The Court reiterated that Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 would not apply when there are more than two partners, and the partnership deed provides otherwise. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors.

What was the Background of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal (2025) Case? 

• The Appellant stopped the supply of kerosene to a partnership firm comprising three partners after one of the partners died.  
• The partnership firm was engaged in the kerosene supply business and had a valid agreement with Appellant for procurement of kerosene. 
• The partnership deed contained a specific clause stating that in the event of death of one partner, the firm would not cease to function but would continue to carry on business.  
• The partnership deed further provided that surviving partners may admit any of the competent heirs of the deceased partner to reconstitute the partnership. 
• Appellant argued that the partnership firm stands dissolved upon the death of the partner and therefore stopped the supply.  
• The partnership firm approached the Calcutta High Court challenging Appellant 's decision to stop the supply. 
• The Calcutta High Court directed Appellant to resume the supply to the firm, which was challenged by Appellant in the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah authored the judgment dismissing Appellant 's appeal. 
• The Supreme Court observed that while it is correct that a partnership firm ceases to function upon the death of a partner, this rule would not apply when there exist more than two partners.  
• The Court noted that "It is settled in law by virtue of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 that the partnership will stand dissolved inter alia on the death of the partner but this is applicable in cases where there are only two partners constituting the partnership firm." 
• The Court clarified that "The aforesaid principle would not apply where there are more than two partners in a partnership firm and the deed of partnership provides otherwise that the firm will not stand automatically dissolved on the death of one of the partners." 
• The Court specifically noted that in the present case, the partnership consisted of three partners and the deed of partnership, in unequivocal terms, provided that the death of a partner shall not cause discontinuance of partnership. 
• The Court held that the principle laid down under Section 42 of the Partnership Act would not be applicable and the partnership would continue despite the death of one of the partners. 
• The Court observed that Appellant must not act arbitrarily to disrupt the business activities and justified the High Court's decision directing IOCL to continue the supply. 

What is the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? 

About: 

• This Act is a comprehensive legislation that governs the formation, operation, and dissolution of partnership firms in India. 
• The Act defines partnership as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. 
• The Act provides for the rights and duties of partners, management of partnership business, and various modes of dissolution of partnership firms. 
• The Act empowers partners to enter into partnership deeds that can modify the general provisions of the Act, subject to certain limitations. 

Section 42 of the Act: 

• Section 42 of the act deals with "Dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies" and provides various circumstances under which a partnership firm gets dissolved automatically. 
• Section 42 states that "Subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved" under four specific contingencies: 
• The Four Contingencies under Section 42: 

(a) Fixed Term Expiry: If the partnership is constituted for a fixed term, it dissolves automatically upon the expiry of that term. 

(b) Completion of Adventure/Undertaking: If the partnership is constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, it dissolves upon the completion thereof. 

(c) Death of a Partner: The partnership dissolves upon the death of a partner, which was the key issue in the present case. 

(d) Insolvency of a Partner: The partnership dissolves upon the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi held that pension is a constitutional right to property and cannot be curtailed without authority of law. Any reduction in pension, especially under Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, requires prior consultation with the Board of Directors. The Bank's act of reducing the appellant's pension by one-third without such consultation was arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of procedural safeguards, rendering the action unsustainable in law. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• Vijay Kumar, Chief Manager (Scale IV officer) at Central Bank of India, was charged with sanctioning loans in 12 accounts without proper appraisal of income, non-verification of KYC compliance, and failure to conduct post-sanction inspections, exposing the bank to potential financial loss. 
• A.K. Roy, Assistant General Manager, was appointed as Inquiry Authority. The appellant attained superannuation on 30th November 2014 during inquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings continued post-retirement under Regulation 20(3)(iii).  
• The Inquiry Authority found the appellant failed to discharge duties with integrity, and the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement with effect from superannuation date. 
• During appeal pendency, Field General Manager awarded two-third pension on 07th A2015 without prior consultation with Board of Directors, and subsequently dismissed the appellant's appeal on 30th December 2015. 
• The appellant challenged the pension reduction. The High Court upheld the bank's decision to reduce one-third pension. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging this reduction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that pension is not employer discretion but a constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), which cannot be taken away except by clear legal authority. 
• The Court noted that Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 mandates prior consultation with Board of Directors before awarding pension less than full compensation pension. 
• The Court emphasized that all procedural safeguards must be strictly followed when reducing pension. Prior consultation with Board of Directors is a mandatory safeguard before curtailing an employee's constitutional right to pension. 
• The Court observed that Clauses (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read conjointly, not as mutually exclusive provisions. The bank's argument for independent operation of clauses was rejected. 
• The Court distinguished that prior consultation with Board of Directors is mandatory, not directory. Post facto approval cannot substitute prior consultation before the decision is made. 
• The Court found that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before reducing pension, and no evidence of claimed financial loss was properly considered by authorities. 
• The Court cited established legal principles regarding mandatory consultation and interpretation of statutory provisions to avoid rendering them meaningless. 

Is Pension a Constitutional Right Protected Under Articles 21 and 300A? 

• Pension is a constitutional right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and cannot be denied without proper authority of law. 
• The Supreme Court has established that "pension is a right and not a bounty" - it is neither discretionary nor depends on the sweet will of the employer but is governed by rules and constitutional mandate. 
• The right to family pension has been recognized as a component of the right to life under Article 21, as it is essential for the survival and well-being of the family of a deceased employee. 
• Pension constitutes a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to employees, serving as assurance that they will not be left in lurch during old age, making it a constitutional obligation. 
• Any denial, reduction, or adverse action affecting pension rights must comply with due process and procedural safeguards, as the constitutional protection requires strict adherence to principles of natural justice. 
• The constitutional characterization of pension as a property right enables judicial review and writ jurisdiction to enforce pension rights against arbitrary governmental or employer action.