List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Kauser Edappagath has held that a stone can be considered a dangerous weapon under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if used in a manner likely to cause death. Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that while weapons like knives or guns are inherently dangerous, other objects like stones fall under the second category and must be assessed based on their use. In this case, the stone caused a facial fracture, justifying conviction under Section 326 (Section 118 of BNS). 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Kumaran. v. State of Kerala (2025).

What was the Background of Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, (2025) Case ? 

• The case involves Kumaran, son of Vellan, from Kottothumal Colony, Edakkara Amsom Desom, Kozhikode Taluk, as the revision petitioner (accused), and the State of Kerala as the respondent. 
• On July 1, 1999, at approximately 3:00 p.m., an altercation occurred in Edakkara amsom, Thalakulathur Panchayat, Ward No. 8. According to the prosecution's case, Kumaran intentionally pushed down the de facto complainant (victim) onto the floor, grabbed hold of his neck, and struck his face with a stone, allegedly causing a fracture of the bone. 
• The case was initially filed as C.C. No. 787 of 1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. Kumaran was charged under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. 
•  The prosecution examined witnesses PWs 1 to 10 and marked exhibits P1 to P5. Material objects MOI and MOII were identified during the trial. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence, the trial court found Kumaran guilty under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. In case of default in payment of fine, he was to undergo an additional one month of simple imprisonment. Rs. 1,000 from the fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim. 
• Dissatisfied with the trial court's verdict, Kumaran appealed to the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kozhikode (Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 2004). However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal and confirmed both the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, Kumaran filed this criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.PET NO. 1520 of 2006) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court. 
• Initially, Kumaran was unrepresented when the revision petition came up for hearing. The High Court appointed Smt. Thushara K. as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. Later, Shri P.V. Anoop and Sri Phijo Pradeesh Philip appeared as counsel for the revision petitioner. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 326 IPC specifies two categories of dangerous weapons: instruments designed for shooting, stabbing, or cutting (like guns, knives, swords), and any other instrument that is likely to cause death when used as a weapon of offence. 
• The Court noted that stones do not automatically constitute dangerous weapons and their classification depends on specific characteristics such as nature, size, sharpness, and potential to cause death, with certain types like flint and obsidian being commonly used as cutting tools. 
• The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the stone's nature, size, or sharpness, and could not establish that it qualified as either a cutting instrument or a weapon likely to cause death under Section 326 IPC. 
•  The Court observed that the victim's injuries (circular contusion on cheek, bleeding, pain and swelling) did not fall under any of the eight categories of grievous hurt defined in Section 320 IPC, despite prosecution claims of facial fracture. 
• The Court concluded that the offence constituted simple hurt under Section 323 IPC rather than grievous hurt, and considering the petitioner's age (73 years), illness, and 19 years of prosecution ordeal, reduced the sentence to three days imprisonment already served plus a fine of Rs. 2,000. 

What is Section 118 of BNS ? 

• Before New Criminal Law it was cover under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code.  
• Section 118 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) establishes a two-tier framework addressing both simple hurt and grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons or means, with subsection (1) covering hurt and subsection (2) addressing grievous hurt using the same categories of dangerous instruments.  
• The section enumerates specific categories of dangerous weapons and means including instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting; instruments likely to cause death when used as weapons of offence; fire or heated substances; poison or corrosive substances; explosive substances; deleterious substances harmful to inhale, swallow, or receive into blood; and animals. 
• Unlike the IPC provisions, Section 118 BNS provides enhanced punishment with subsection (1) prescribing imprisonment up to three years or fine up to twenty thousand rupees or both for hurt, while subsection (2) mandates minimum one year imprisonment (extending to ten years) or life imprisonment plus fine for grievous hurt. 
• A significant departure from IPC Section 326 is the introduction of mandatory minimum punishment under subsection (2), which prescribes that imprisonment "shall not be less than one year," removing judicial discretion for sentences below this threshold in grievous hurt cases involving dangerous weapons. 
• Both subsections contain exception clauses referring to Section 122 of BNS, indicating that certain acts performed in good faith for the benefit of the person harmed or with consent (such as medical procedures) are excluded from the scope of this provision. 

What are the Essential Elements of Section 118 of BNS ? 

Section 118(1) - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Means 

Essential Elements: 

• Voluntary Act - The accused must have intentionally caused hurt to another person. 
• Use of Dangerous Weapon/Means - The hurt must be inflicted using:  
  • Sharp-edged or pointed instrument 
  • Fire or heated substance 
  • Poison or corrosive substance 
  • Explosive substance 
  • Machine or instrument (new addition) 
  • Animal (new addition in BNS) 
• Actual Hurt Caused - Physical pain, harm or injury must result 
• No Legal Justification - Act must not fall under exceptions in Section 122 

Section 118(2) - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Means 

Essential Elements: 

• Voluntary Act - Intentional commission of grievous hurt 
• Use of Dangerous Weapon/Means - Same dangerous means as listed in 118(1) 
• Grievous Nature of Injury - Must constitute grievous hurt under law:  
  • Emasculation 
  • Permanent privation of sight/hearing 
  • Destruction/permanent impairing of limb/joint 
  • Destruction/permanent impairing of brain/organ 
  • Permanent disfiguration of head/face 
• No Applicability of Exceptions - Must not fall under Section 122(2) exceptions 

What Constitutes a Dangerous Weapon? 

Legal Principles: 

The most important aspect is that courts don't maintain a fixed list of "dangerous" versus "non-dangerous" weapons. Instead, they examine each case individually, considering: 

• Manner of use: How the instrument was wielded 
• Actual injuries caused: The severity and nature of harm inflicted 
• Potential for harm: The weapon's capacity to cause death or grievous injury in the specific circumstances 
• Assault: The surrounding facts and circumstances 

Application: 

The approach means that everyday objects like kitchen knives, rods, or even stones can become "dangerous weapons" in the eyes of the law if used in a manner likely to cause death or grievous hurt. The courts focus on the weapon's potential and actual impact rather than its inherent nature. 

Essential Test: 

• The courts consistently States that the "likelihood to cause death" when used as a weapon of offense is the primary test, not the inherent nature of the object itself. 
• These statements establish that dangerousness is determined by usage of weapon  rather than weapon classification. 

Landmark Judgments: 

• Rakesh v. State of Delhi (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court established that dangerousness is determined by potential lethality and contextual usage rather than inherent weapon classification. 
• State of U.P. v. Indrajeet (2000): 
  • This precedent provides that everyday objects can become dangerous weapons depending on their deployment in criminal acts.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court strongly objected to the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's voter list just months before the state elections, criticizing the ECI for seeking proof of citizenship from voters at short notice.

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

What was the Background of Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI (2025) Case? 

• Multiple petitions were filed challenging the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process conducted by the Election Commission of India. 
• The petitioners argued that the ECI was overstepping its jurisdiction by calling upon individuals to prove their citizenship during the electoral roll revision. 
• The challengers contended that citizenship determination was not within the ECI's domain and was the exclusive prerogative of the Union Government. 
• The petitioners argued that the revision process, including the timeline and required documents, violates Fundamental Rights and constitutional provisions. 
• The ECI initiated the SIR process in Bihar to update and verify electoral rolls, requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship for registration or continuation in the voter list. 
• The Supreme Court had orally commented that determination of citizenship was not the function of the ECI and urged consideration of Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration cards in the process. 
• The state and petitioners raised concerns about the burden of proof being placed on citizens to establish their citizenship status. 
• The ECI asserted that Article 324 grants it superintendence over elections while Article 326 mandates citizenship as a prerequisite for voting rights. The Commission argued that these provisions, read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950, constitutionally obligate it to verify voter eligibility including citizenship status. 

What were the Supreme Court's Observations? 

• The bench expressed serious concerns about the potential disenfranchisement, stating that forcing existing voters to prove citizenship through complex processes would deprive them of the right to vote in the forthcoming election. 
• The Court questioned the ECI's document requirements, noting that the prescribed documents "do not prove citizenship by themselves" when referring to the ECI's list. 
• The Court clarified jurisdictional boundaries, stating that citizenship determination "is a separate issue and the prerogative of the Ministry of Home Affairs". 
• The Supreme Court highlighted the practical difficulties faced by voters who were suddenly asked for documents that they do not have. 
• The Court questioned the feasibility of the timeline, comparing it to census operations and asking why such a limited timeframe was provided for a massive population exercise. 
• The Court expressed "serious doubts about adhering to this deadline" and stated the approach was "not practical". 
• The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to accept Aadhaar card, voter ID card, and ration card as valid documents in the SIR process. 

What is the Constitutional Framework for Electoral Registration? 

• Article 324 of the COI: 
  • Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of all elections (Parliament, State Legislatures, President and Vice-President) in the Election Commission, which consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners appointed by the President.  
  • The Chief Election Commissioner enjoys security of tenure similar to Supreme Court judges and can only be removed on similar grounds, while other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. 
• Article 326 of the COI: 
  • Article 326 establishes adult suffrage as the basis for elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies.  
  • Every Indian citizen aged eighteen years or above is entitled to be registered as a voter, unless disqualified on grounds of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, or corrupt/illegal practice. 
• Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution provide fundamental rights to equality and procedural fairness, which excludes arbitrary disenfranchisement of legitimate voters through unreasonable documentation requirements. 

What are the Relevant Sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 Referred to? 

• Section 21(3):  
  • It provides special provisions for revision of electoral rolls in cases involving preparation for elections. 
  • The section empowers the Election Commission to order intensive revision when circumstances warrant such action. 
• Section 16: 
  • Provides for the preparation of electoral rolls by the Electoral Registration Officer. 
  • Mandates that every person whose name is included in the electoral roll shall be entitled to vote. 
• Section 19: 
  • Specifies eligibility criteria for registration in electoral rolls. 
  • Requires that a person "must be a citizen of India" among other conditions. 
  • Empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to verify eligibility before inclusion. 
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: 
  • Form 6 requires applicants to provide necessary documentation and establish eligibility for voter registration. 
  • Places the initial burden on the applicant to demonstrate qualification for inclusion in electoral rolls. 

Why in News? 

Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned as the Vice President of India on 21st July 2025, citing health concerns and medical advice. This resignation makes him only the third Vice President in Indian history to step down before completing his full term, submitting his resignation under Article 67(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to President Droupadi Murmu.

• The resignation is historically significant as it occurs mid-term, following his controversial tenure marked by strong advocacy for parliamentary supremacy and criticism of judicial overreach, particularly targeting the Supreme Court's Basic Structure Doctrine and collegium system. 

Why Have the Vice Presidents of India Resigned?

What Happens Next after Resignation of the Vice President? 

• The Election Commission will announce Vice Presidential election schedule "as soon as possible" under Constitutional mandate, with ruling NDA coalition expected to secure comfortable victory given current parliamentary arithmetic. 
• Rajya Sabha continues normal functioning under Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh with full presiding powers, ensuring no constitutional vacuum or legislative disruption during interim period. 
• New Vice President will serve complete five-year term from assumption date through electoral college voting by all MPs via secret ballot using proportional representation system. 
• The presidential succession line remains intact with zero impact on executive functions, demonstrating the constitutional framework's robustness until a new VP takes oath and restores complete institutional normalcy. 

What are the Constitution Provisions for Vice President? 

Article 63 - Office of Vice President 

• Establishes the constitutional office of Vice President of India. 
• The second highest constitutional office in the country. 

Article 64 - Ex-Officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha 

• Vice President serves as ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha). 
• Cannot hold any other office of profit simultaneously. 
• During presidential duties, cannot perform Chairman functions or receive Chairman's salary. 

Article 65 - Acting as President 

• Vice President acts as President during casual vacancies. 
• Functions during the President's absence, illness, or other causes. 
• Enjoys all presidential powers and immunities during such periods. 
• Entitled presidential emoluments during acting capacity. 

Article 66 - Election of Vice President 

Clause (1) - Electoral College: 

• Elected by members of both Houses of Parliament. 
• Includes both elected and nominated members of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. 
• State legislatures do not participate (unlike presidential elections). 

Clause (3) - Eligibility Criteria: 

• Must be a citizen of India. 
• Minimum age of 35 years. 
• Qualified for election as Rajya Sabha member. 
• Cannot hold any office of profit under Union/State governments. 
• Must be registered as elector in any parliamentary constituency. 

Article 67 - Term and Resignation 

Clause (a) - Resignation Provision: 

• Vice President may resign by writing under his hand addressed to the President. 
• No specific format prescribed beyond written communication. 
• Immediate effect upon submission to President. 

Term of Office: 

• Five-year term from date of assuming office. 
• Continues in office until successor assumes charge. 
• New elected VP serves full five-year term, not remainder of predecessor's term. 

Article 69 - Oath of Office 

• Vice President takes oath before President or appointed person. 
• Must subscribe to oath before entering office. 
• Constitutional requirement for assuming duties. 

Election Process for New Vice President 

Timeline and Authority 

• No fixed constitutional deadline for conducting election. 
• Requirement: Election to be held "as soon as possible". 
• Election Commission announces schedule. 
• Conducted under Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. 

Voting Mechanism 

• Location: Parliament House, New Delhi 
• Method: Secret ballot using proportional representation with single transferable vote. 
• Process: MPs rank candidates by preference order. 
• Vote Value: Equal value for all MPs regardless of constituency size. 

Quota Calculation 

• Formula: (Total valid votes ÷ 2) + 1 (fractions ignored) 
• Elimination Process: Candidate with lowest first preference votes eliminated. 
• Transfer: Votes transferred based on second preferences. 
• Victory: First candidate to cross quota declared elected. 

Returning Officer 

• Secretary General of either House of Parliament (by rotation). 
• Appointed as per established convention. 

Removal Provisions (Article 67) 

Constitutional Process 

• Resolution must pass in Rajya Sabha by majority of all members. 
• Resolution must be "agreed to" by Lok Sabha. 
• Minimum 14 days' notice required before moving resolution. 
• Different from presidential impeachment process. 

Historical Event 

• No Vice President has ever been removed through this process. 
• Process similar to removal of Lok Sabha Speaker. 
• Constituent Assembly debates highlighted procedural clarity concerns.