List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed the doctor's plea, observing that private hospitals misusing patients as 'guinea pigs/ATMs' for profit cannot be protected under the guise of medical diligence.  

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and another, Case? 

• Mrs. Usha Pandey, wife of Brijesh Pandey from village Saroura, Deoria, was admitted to Savitri Nursing Home owned by Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai on 28th July 2007 for delivery, having been under his ante-natal care since March 2007 with a previous caesarean section history. 
• The patient was admitted on 28th July 2007, consent for caesarean surgery was obtained from family members at 11:00 AM on 29th July 2007, but the surgery was only performed at 5:30 PM on the same day, resulting in the death of the foetus. 
• An FIR was lodged on 29th July 2007 alleging medical negligence due to delayed surgery, physical assault on family members by nursing home staff when they objected, and financial exploitation with demands of ₹8,700 plus additional ₹10,000 without providing proper discharge documentation. 
• The post-mortem examination of the deceased foetus revealed the cause of death as "Prolonged Labour", indicating that timely surgical intervention could have prevented the death. 
• The Chief Medical Officer constituted a Medical Board which examined only the applicant's version and concluded no negligence, but crucially, the post-mortem report and contradictory medical records were not placed before the Board. 
• Multiple discrepancies emerged including different times of admission stated in various documents (10:30 AM in FIR, 3:30 PM to Medical Board, 7:00 PM in cross-FIR), and two different Operation Theatre notes raising questions about manufactured evidence. 
• After the Investigating Officer submitted a final report closing the case based on the Medical Board's findings, the complainant filed a protest petition on 15th March 2008 challenging this closure. 
• The Magistrate rejected the final report, found prima facie case of medical negligence, and issued summons against Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai under Sections 304A, 315, 323, and 506 IPC, prompting him to file this application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summons and entire proceedings. 
• The central question before the Court was whether the unexplained 4-5 hour delay between obtaining consent for surgery and actually performing the operation, which allegedly led to foetal death due to prolonged labour, constituted criminal medical negligence warranting prosecution. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that while medical professionals deserve protection from frivolous prosecutions to maintain the doctor-patient relationship, such protection only extends to those who exercise due diligence and skill, and cannot shield doctors who operate nursing homes without proper facilities, doctors, and infrastructure while enticing patients merely to extract money. 
• The Court found the Medical Board's clean chit unreliable because crucial evidence including the post-mortem report showing death due to "prolonged labour" and contradictory Operation Theatre notes were not placed before the Board, making their investigation one-sided and incomplete. 
• The Court emphasized that for criminal liability in medical negligence cases, the degree of negligence must be gross or of very high degree with mens rea, distinguishing it from civil negligence, and requiring conduct that falls below ordinary standards of care expected from a competent medical professional. 
• The Court found this to be a "classic case" where consent was obtained at 12:00 PM but surgery was delayed until 4:00-5:00 PM without any justifiable reason, coupled with post-mortem evidence of death due to prolonged labour, clearly establishing prima facie medical negligence and malafide intention to cheat the patient. 
• The Court made strong observations that private hospitals and nursing homes have started treating patients as "guinea pig/ATM machines" only to extort money, operating without adequate medical staff and calling doctors only after admitting patients rather than maintaining proper medical infrastructure. 
• The Court characterized the case as "pure misadventure" where the doctor admitted the patient, obtained consent for surgery, but failed to perform the operation timely due to lack of an anaesthetist, with the unexplained 4-5 hour delay being directly attributable to the applicant's inadequate medical facilities. 
• The Court held that the material contradictions in evidence regarding time of admission, consent, and surgery, along with the existence of two different OT notes and undisputed post-mortem findings, raised disputed questions of fact that could only be adjudicated through trial, making the case inappropriate for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. 
• The Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue serves the broader public interest in ensuring medical accountability, sending a clear message that inadequate medical facilities and delayed treatment resulting in patient harm will face legal scrutiny while maintaining the balance between protecting genuine medical professionals and holding negligent practitioners accountable. 

What is Medical Negligence Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 106(1) of BNS criminalises causing death by any rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide, covering both general negligence and specific medical negligence by registered medical practitioners during medical procedures. 
• The provision establishes a two-tier punishment system - general cases of negligent death carry imprisonment up to five years with fine, while registered medical practitioners performing medical procedures face reduced imprisonment up to two years with fine, recognising the complex nature of medical practice. 
• The law specifically defines "registered medical practitioner" as one who possesses medical qualifications recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and whose name is entered in the National Medical Register or State Medical Register, ensuring only qualified professionals receive the benefit of reduced punishment. 
• The reduced punishment for medical practitioners applies only when the negligent act occurs "while performing medical procedure", meaning the negligence must be directly connected to the execution of medical treatment, diagnosis, or surgical intervention rather than administrative or non-medical activities. 
• The provision maintains that the negligent act must cause death and not amount to culpable homicide, establishing a clear distinction between ordinary negligence (Section 106) and more serious forms of homicide that involve criminal intent or knowledge of likelihood of death. 
• The differential punishment reflects legislative recognition that medical practice involves inherent risks and complex decision-making, requiring a balanced approach that holds medical professionals accountable while not deterring them from performing necessary medical procedures due to fear of excessive criminal liability. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?  

Recently, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan held that "the doctrine of merger would not apply to the situation where the impugned judgment/order was obtained by fraud" while allowing a civil appeal against a High Court order that had been earlier affirmed by the Supreme Court. 

• The Supreme Court held in the matter of Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• One party obtained a High Court order in 2021 in his favor by suppressing material facts that directly bore the merits of the case. 
• The High Court's decision was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in 2022 without knowledge of the fraud committed. 
• The appellant, who was not arrayed as a party in the original proceedings, sought to challenge the Supreme Court's 2022 order. 
• The appellant argued that the Supreme Court's order was vitiated by fraud due to the material suppression by Reddy before the High Court. 
• The central legal question was whether the appellant could file a regular civil appeal against the High Court's order or was required to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's order. 
• Reddy contended that due to the doctrine of merger, the High Court order had merged with the Supreme Court's order, making any appeal against the High Court order non-maintainable. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the argument that the doctrine of merger would bar the appeal. 
• Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the bench, observed that since the High Court's decision was "tainted by fraud and not rendered on merits", its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court did not result in a true merger. 
• The Court emphasized that the High Court's order remained open to challenge through a regular civil appeal despite the Supreme Court's earlier affirmation. 
• The Supreme Court noted that "fraud unravels everything" and that no party should suffer due to fraud committed by another litigant in judicial proceedings. 
• The Court applied the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (no party should suffer due to the court's mistake or fraud by another litigant). 
• The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court's 2021 order and its own 2022 decision in Reddy Veerana, restoring the case for fresh adjudication. 

Five Exceptions to Doctrine of Merger: 

Exception 1: Rare or Special Circumstances 

• When a party's right of appeal should not be foreclosed because of very rare or special circumstances projected before the court. 

Exception 2: Seminal Public Importance 

• When the appeal raises an issue of seminal public importance that was not available to be raised by the appellant in the earlier round of litigation, and such issue requires resolution in the greater public interest. 

Exception 3: Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit 

• When refusal to interfere would result in offending the principle that no party should suffer due to the court's mistake or fraud by another litigant. 

Exception 4: Fraud on Court 

• When the earlier appellate decision is vitiated because of fraud having been practiced on the court by a party in whose favor the ruling was made. 

Exception 5: Public Interest Jeopardy 

• When public interest would be put to extreme jeopardy by reason of irretrievable consequences if warranted interference were declined solely based on the doctrine of merger. 

Key Legal Principles Established: 

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings, regardless of the level at which it occurs. 
• Suppression of material facts that directly bear upon the merits constitutes fraud on the court. 
• When a lower court's decision is obtained by fraud, its affirmation by a higher court does not result in true merger. 
• In fraud cases, aggrieved parties can file regular appeals against the fraudulently obtained order rather than being limited to review petitions. 

What is the Doctrine of Merger? 

About: 

• The Doctrine of Merger is a well-established principle in Indian jurisprudence whereby when a superior court affirms the decision of a subordinate court, the subordinate court's order merges with the superior court's order. 
• Once merger occurs, the lower court's order loses its independent existence and only the superior court's order remains enforceable. 
• The doctrine ensures finality to litigation and prevents parties from challenging the same order in multiple forums. 
• Generally, after merger, parties cannot file appeals against the lower court's order but must seek review or other appropriate remedies against the superior court's order. 

Rationale Behind the Doctrine:  

• To maintain judicial hierarchy  
• To prevent conflicting decisions on the same matter  
• To ensure finality in litigation  
• To promote judicial economy by avoiding multiple proceedings 

What are the Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Merger? 

• State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1967)  
  • This case established that when a decree is appealed, and the appellate court modifies it in any manner, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court.  
• Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974)  
  • The Supreme Court held that even if an appeal is dismissed without a speaking order, the doctrine of merger still applies. 

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held that cruelty, neglect, or abandonment of aged parents by their children constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950(COI) and the moral and legal duty of children to ensure their care and well-being. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Ram Dular Gupta v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Ram Dular Gupta v. State of U.P. And 2 Others, Case ? 

• The petitioner, Ram Dular Gupta, a 75-year-old senior citizen, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents for release of compensation amount quantified at Rs. 21,17,758/- through payment notice dated 16th January, 2025. 
• The compensation pertained to the acquisition of the petitioner's land and superstructure by the competent authorities under land acquisition proceedings. 
• Despite the compensation being duly assessed and payment notice being issued, the disbursal remained pending due to a dispute raised by the petitioner's two sons, namely Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Gupta. 
• The sons claimed co-ownership rights in the superstructure and argued that they had contributed to its construction, thereby seeking entitlement to a portion of the compensation amount. 
• The petitioner contended that the entire superstructure was constructed using his own resources and financial contributions, with no monetary input from his sons. 
• The petitioner alleged that upon announcement of the compensation, his sons subjected him to severe mental and physical abuse, causing him grievous injuries. 
• The petitioner was compelled to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against his sons due to the atrocities and aggressive conduct perpetrated upon him. 
• Both sons were residing outside the family residence, being settled in Surat and Mumbai respectively for their livelihood purposes. 
• The matter involved an inter se dispute between the father and his sons regarding the rightful recipient of the compensation amount. 
• The sons subsequently moved an impleadment application through their counsel seeking to be made parties to the proceedings. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court expressed deep anguish at the sheer apathy and misconduct displayed by the children towards their elderly father, observing that there exists no greater societal failure than when a civilised society turns away from the silent suffering of its elders. 
• The Court observed that parents dedicate the most vital years of their lives for their children's welfare, and to repay them in the winter of their lives with cruelty, neglect, or abandonment constitutes not merely a moral disgrace but also a legal violation. 
• The Court firmly asserted that it is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation incumbent upon children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents, who seek not charity but security, empathy, and companionship. 
• The Court categorically held that neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the COI, which guarantees the fundamental right to life with dignity. 
• The Bench declared that a home which has turned hostile for an ageing parent ceases to be a sanctuary and transforms into a site of injustice, and courts must not permit such silent suffering to continue under the garb of 'family privacy'. 
• The Court held that when filial duty collapses, courts must rise as the last bastion of compassion to protect vulnerable elders, ensuring they live not merely in sustenance but with complete dignity. 
• The Court warned that should the sons cause any future interference, stringent orders would be passed without hesitation, while noting the sons' unconditional apology and assurance of reformed conduct. 

What is Article 21 of COI ? 

About 

• Article 21 of COI guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, including both citizens and foreigners alike, without any discrimination. 
• Article 21 provides two distinct rights:  
  • The right to life and  
  • The right to personal liberty,  
  • both of which are protected against state action. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described Article 21 as the 'heart of fundamental rights', its paramount importance in the constitutional framework. 
• The state, for the purposes of Article 21, includes not just the government but also government departments, local bodies, legislatures, and other state agencies. 
• The right to life under Article 21 encompasses not merely the right to survive but also the right to live a complete life with dignity and meaning. 
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21, making it one of the most fundamental and wide-reaching rights in the Constitution. 

Violations of Article 21 of COI 

• Arbitrary Deprivation of Life constitutes a violation when the state engages in acts that result in arbitrary or extrajudicial killing of a person without due process. 
• Violation of Personal Liberty occurs through illegal detention, wrongful imprisonment, or arrest without following the due process of law. 
• Denial of Fair Trial violates Article 21 when someone is denied legal representation or when there are undue delays or biases in judicial proceedings. 
• Torture and Inhuman Treatment by law enforcement agencies violate the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21. 
• Breach of Right to Privacy, as recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), through surveillance or unauthorised use of personal data constitutes violation. 
• Denial of Right to Livelihood through arbitrary eviction, wrongful termination of employment, or destruction of livelihood means can constitute grounds for violation. 
• Violation of Right to Shelter occurs when people are denied access to basic housing or are forcefully evicted without proper rehabilitation. 
• Denial of Right to Health through inadequate healthcare facilities, denial of emergency medical services, or negligence in providing essential medicines violates Article 21. 
• Environmental violations occur when pollution, deforestation, and other environmental hazards impact health and life, constituting a breach of the right to clean the environment. 
• Denial of Right to Education, especially for children under the Right to Education Act, can be challenged as a violation of Article 21. 
• Violation of Right to Die with Dignity occurs when individuals are denied the right to passive euthanasia as recognised by the Supreme Court in cases like Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011). 

Case Laws 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court initially held that Article 21 embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American 'due process', giving it a narrow interpretation where 'procedure established by law' meant any law validly enacted. 
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case overturned the Gopalan judgement and revolutionized the interpretation of Article 21 by establishing that personal liberty has wide scope including many rights embodied under Article 19. 
  • The Maneka Gandhi case established that any procedure under law for deprivation of life or liberty must not be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary, thereby introducing the concept of substantive due process. 
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right forming part of Article 21, establishing that any breach of individual privacy through surveillance or unauthorised data use violates this right. 
• Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): The Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia under the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, allowing withdrawal of life support in certain circumstances.