List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court observed that "merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes inter se arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Now Section 85 & Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS))," while quashing a chargesheet filed against in-laws in a matrimonial dispute case. The Court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC while ensuring genuine victims receive justice. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X v. Y (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners approached Delhi High Court seeking quashing of chargesheet filed against them under Section 498A of IPC. 
• The complainant wife had registered an FIR in 2015 against her in-laws allegedly in retaliation for the divorce case filed by her husband. 
• The matrimonial differences led to separation of the parties, but the custody of the child remained with the husband and his parents. 
• The husband alleged that the wife was suffering from violent psychotic fits which were concealed by her family from him and his family members. 
• Apart from the criminal case, the wife had also filed multiple complaints seeking maintenance, alleging dowry harassment and domestic violence. 
• The husband's family contended that the wife suffered from Bipolar Manic Disorder, and the FIR was filed to pressurize them into conceding to her expectations. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that it was a case where the matrimonial relationship did not work out between the husband and wife, and the FIR was registered to "bring the in-laws to their knees." 
• The Court noted that "Section 498A of IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS) has become an easy tool in the hands of the complainants to settle the scores by getting false FIRs registered containing exaggerated and manipulated allegations." 
• The Court found no averment that any demand for dowry was made either prior to or at the time of marriage, and that the wife's family had performed the marriage according to their status. 
• Regarding the mental health allegations, the Court observed: "Whatever may have been her mental psychological indicators, there is nothing to show that there was any forced medication being given to the Complainant or that it resulted in any harm to her health." 
• The Court characterized the case as a "classic example of misuse of the salutary provision of Section 498A IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS)" and noted it was an "abuse and misuse of the process of the Court." 
• The Court emphasized that while true victims must get justice, courts must ensure that Section 498A IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS) is not permitted to be misused to maintain "credibility and faith in the justice delivery system." 

What is Section 498A of Indian Penal Code? 

About: 

• Section 498A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code to address the growing menace of dowry-related harassment and cruelty towards married women. 
• The section makes "cruelty by husband or relatives of husband" a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. 
• It covers both physical and mental cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. 
• The provision was enacted as a social legislation to protect women from domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. 

Essential Elements: 

• Subject: Husband or relative of husband 
• Object: Wife of such husband 
• Mens Rea: Intention to cause cruelty 
• Actus Reus: Conduct that amounts to cruelty 

Definition of Cruelty under Section 498A: 

• Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. 
• Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. 

Punishment: 

• Imprisonment which may extend to three years. 
• Fine or both. 
• The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. 

Comparison: Section 498A IPC vs Sections 85-86 BNS 

• Section 498A IPC has been replaced by Sections 85-86 of BNS, which came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• While IPC had the definition of cruelty in the 'Explanation' clause of Section 498A itself, BNS has separated the offence (Section 85) from the definition (Section 86) for better clarity. 
• The substantive provisions remain identical - both prescribe imprisonment of up to 3 years and fine, with the same definition of cruelty covering willful conduct and harassment for unlawful demands. 
• Section 85 of BNS uses "shall also be liable to fine" making fine mandatory alongside imprisonment, whereas IPC Section 498A provided "and shall also be liable to fine" but the interpretation remained similar. 

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjeev Narula  held that conscious possession" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ,1985 (NDPS) requires the accused to have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance, and merely collecting a package—without evidence of such knowledge—does not meet the legal threshold of possession. In the absence of incriminating material or recovery from the accused personally, bail was justified. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2025). 

What was the Background of Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2025) Case? 

• The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) apprehended Gajender Singh at a DTDC Courier Office in Delhi while he was booking a parcel, recovering 15 LSD paper blots and later 650 additional LSD blots from his residence.  
• Singh's confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act led to the arrest of Shainu Hatwar, who revealed Sarabjeet Singh as the supplier of psychotropic substances from Jaipur.  
• The NCB team searched Sarabjeet Singh's premises and seized 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kilograms of Ganja, and ₹4,65,500 in cash, with Singh confessing to dispatching four separate consignments containing LSD blots.  
• The NCB successfully intercepted these consignments, including one destined for Kottayam, Kerala (courier W60803432), by laying a trap at the DTDC courier office. Saneesh Soman arrived to collect this parcel and was apprehended, with the package containing 100 LSD paper blots weighing 3.5 grams.  
• Soman was arrested for offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and charges were subsequently framed under Sections 22(c) read with 29 of the NDPS Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the 3.5 grams of LSD recovered exceeded the prescribed threshold of 0.1 gram, qualifying as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act and invoking Section 37's statutory embargo. The allegations against Soman were distinguishable from other co-accused as nothing was recovered from his person, nor was his residence searched, with the contraband linked only to the parcel he collected.  
• The Court observed critical discrepancies in the prosecution's case, noting that the phone number allegedly used by Soman to contact the DTDC office actually belonged to the DTDC office itself, and no conclusive determination was made despite his phone being seized. 
• Soman was neither the consignee nor was the parcel addressed to his residence, and despite his cooperation in providing his phone password for forensic analysis, the NCB failed to investigate his claims about acting on behalf of his neighbour Punan C.M. @Robin. 
•  The Court found no independent evidence such as CDRs, financial transactions, or digital communications linking Soman to the trafficking network, with the prosecution relying primarily on his alleged confession under Section 67. 
• The Court concluded that merely receiving a package without awareness of its illicit contents cannot satisfy the legal threshold of "possession" under the NDPS Act, and granted bail noting Soman's lack of criminal antecedents and two-year satisfactory conduct in custody. 

What is Possession under the NDPS Act? 

• Possession under the NDPS Act requires 'conscious possession', which means the accused must have both physical control over contraband and knowledge of its existence and illicit nature. 
• Conscious possession comprises two critical components - actual physical custody or control over the narcotic substance, and mental awareness or knowledge that the substance in possession is contraband. 
• The accused must have personal knowledge of the existence of the contraband and possess the intent to maintain control or exercise dominion over the illicit substance. 
• Simple physical custody without knowledge of the nature of the substance or without the intention to control it does not constitute possession under the NDPS Act. 
• Once conscious possession is established, Section 54 of the NDPS Act creates a rebuttable presumption that the accused has committed an offence, shifting the burden to the accused to prove innocence. 
• Under Section 54, an accused can escape liability by providing a satisfactory account for the possession of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or related materials found with them. 
• The conscious possession requirement ensures that the legal framework aligns with constitutional principles under Articles 20(3) and 21, preventing conviction based solely on inadvertent or unknowing physical custody. 
• Courts require corroborative evidence beyond confessional statements to establish conscious possession, including circumstantial evidence such as call records, financial transactions, or other material linking the accused to the contraband. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that a registered Will inherently carries a presumption of due execution and genuineness, and this presumption is strengthened when the signature is admitted and the Will benefits all parties involved. It states that the burden lies heavily on the person challenging the Will to disprove its validity. The High Court erred by overlooking this presumption and misapplying the burden of proof. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(d) (2025). 

What was the Background of Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(d) By Lrs. (2025) Case ? 

• The disputed agricultural land measuring 4 acres and 16 guntas was originally owned by one Metpalli Ramanna, who died intestate prior to 1949. 
• The total landed property owned by Metpalli Ramanna comprised 18 acres and 6 guntas spread across multiple survey numbers in different villages including Dasnapur, Mavala, and Savaragaon. 
• Upon Ramanna's death, the property devolved upon his legal heir, Metpalli Rajanna, who subsequently died in 1983. 
• Metpalli Rajanna had contracted two marriages: first with Narsamma, from which union two children were born - Muthaiah (defendant) and Rajamma (daughter); second with Lasum Bai (plaintiff), which marriage remained childless. 
• Narsamma predeceased Rajanna, and Rajamma also died intestate, leaving Muthaiah as the surviving male coparcener from the first marriage. 
• In anticipation of potential disputes between his second wife Lasum Bai and his son Muthaiah from the first marriage, Metpalli Rajanna executed a registered Will dated 24th July 1974. 
• Concurrently, an oral family settlement was allegedly made distributing the properties amongst the legal heirs in specific proportions. 
• Under the purported arrangement, Lasum Bai was granted rights over the northern portion of Survey No. 28 in Dasnapur village, whilst Muthaiah was allocated the southern portion. 
• Lasum Bai, claiming ownership under the registered Will and oral family settlement, sold 2 acres of her purported share to one Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. 
• Subsequently, she entered into an agreement dated 15th July, 1987, to sell the remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas to one Janardhan Reddy. 
• This proposed alienation triggered the dispute, with Muthaiah filing an injunction suit (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) to restrain the sale. 
• Muthaiah's case rested on the contention that the properties were ancestral joint family properties, and being the sole surviving coparcener, he was entitled to the entire estate. 
• He challenged the authenticity and legal efficacy of the registered Will, characterising it as a fabricated document. 
• Lasum Bai, in response, filed Original Suit No. 2 of 1991 seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule properties based on the registered Will and oral family arrangement. 
• The revenue entries (Khasra Pahunis) after Ramanna's death were recorded in the name of Rajanna, establishing prima facie evidence of ownership under the prevailing revenue laws in Andhra Pradesh. 
• Lasum Bai remained in actual physical possession of the northern portion of the disputed land and had been cultivating the same for a considerable period. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of due execution and genuineness, with the burden of proof lying heavily upon the party challenging the Will to establish improper execution or suspicious circumstances. 
• The Court noted that defendant Muthaiah's crucial admissions in cross-examination, acknowledging his father's signatures on the registered Will and the division of land between parties, corroborated the existence of both the Will and the oral family settlement. 
• The Will's genuineness was held to be beyond doubt as it conferred benefits not only upon Lasum Bai but also granted substantial rights to Muthaiah and his sister Rajamma, indicating fair distribution rather than fabrication. 
• The Court held that the oral family settlement was supported by compelling evidence, including exclusive possession by respective parties over their allocated portions, which acquired legal sanctity despite absence of formal documentation. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court manifestly erred in interfering with the well-reasoned trial court judgment, as its reduction of Lasum Bai's share to 1/4th was not supported by evidence on record. 
• The Court emphasised that Muthaiah's conduct of not challenging the earlier sale deed executed by Lasum Bai constituted acquiescence to her ownership rights and operated as estoppel against his claim of exclusive ownership. 
• The Court held that a duly registered Will constitutes valid testamentary disposition, and ancestral character of properties does not invalidate a testator's right to dispose of the same through a Will, provided it does not violate established principles of Hindu law. 

What is Section 78 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA),2023? 

• Section 78 of BSA deals with Presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies. 
• Previously it was cover under Section 78 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA). 
• Section 78(1) states that the court must presume that certain government documents are genuine when they:  
  • Purport to be certificates, certified copies, or other official documents. 
  • Are legally admissible as evidence of particular facts. 
  • Are certified by officers of the Central Government or State Government. 
  • Are substantially in the proper legal form and executed according to prescribed procedures. 
  • Section 78 (2) states that Presumption of Official Authority the court must also presume that any officer who appears to have signed or certified such documents held the official position they claim to have held at the time of signing.

Case Referred

• Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. (2014): 
  • The court established comprehensive principles for proving validity and execution of wills.