List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Rajnish Kumar has held that a Magistrate cannot issue notice under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS) without first recording the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses and quashed the improperly issued notice. 

• The Allahabad High Court  held this in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another (2025) Case? 

• A complaint was filed against Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi by the second respondent before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow. 
• Without recording any statements of the complainant or witnesses under oath, the learned Magistrate issued a notice dated 10th February 2025, to the applicant (accused) calling him to appear before the court. 
• The notice issued to the applicant was defective and incomplete - it was described as a "blank notice" that only mentioned the applicant's name while leaving other relevant particulars unfilled. 
• Aggrieved by this procedural irregularity, Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 before the High Court seeking to quash the impugned notice. 
• The applicant's counsel argued that the notice was issued in violation of Section 223 BNSS, which mandates that before taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses under oath and record their statements. 
• The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, while opposing the prayer, could not contradict the legal position and eventually agreed that the matter could be remitted back to the trial court for proper compliance with the statutory procedure. 
• The core issue before the High Court was whether a Magistrate can issue notice to an accused under Section 223 BNSS without first recording sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses, and whether such a procedural violation warrants quashing of the notice. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which mandates that a Magistrate having jurisdiction, while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, shall examine upon oath the complainant and witnesses present, if any, and reduce the substance of such examination to writing. 
• The Court noted that the first proviso to Section 223 provides that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. 
• The Court observed that Section 226 BNSS empowers the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and witnesses, he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding. 
• The Court clarified the sequential procedure: after filing of a complaint under Section 210 BNSS, the Magistrate must first examine upon oath the complainant and witnesses, reduce such examination to writing, and have it signed by all parties including the Magistrate. 
• The Court emphasized that only after recording statements and considering whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed should the Magistrate issue notice to the accused for hearing before taking cognizance, ensuring the opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality. 
• The Court relied upon coordinate bench decisions from Karnataka High Court in Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil and Kerala High Court in Suby Antony v. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, endorsing that taking cognizance under Section 223 BNSS comes after recording sworn statements. 
• The Court found that notices were issued to the applicant without recording statements of the complainant and witnesses, which violated the prescribed procedure under BNSS, and specifically noted the defective nature of the notice as a blank notice mentioning only the applicant's name. 
• The Court allowed the application, quashed the impugned order dated February 10, 2025, and directed the trial court to record statements of the complainant and witnesses before proceeding in accordance with law, concluding that proper procedure must be followed to avoid harassment of the accused. 

What is Section 223 of BNSS? 

• Basic Requirement: 
  • When a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, the Magistrate must examine the complainant and any witnesses present under oath before taking cognizance of the offence. 
  • The Magistrate must reduce the substance of such examination to writing and ensure it is signed by the complainant, witnesses, and the Magistrate himself. 
• Key Procedural Safeguard - First Proviso: 
  • The first proviso to Section 223(1) mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, which is a significant departure from the previous law under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• Exceptions to Examination Requirement - Second Proviso: 
  • The second proviso to Section 223(1) provides that when a complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses if the complaint is made by a public servant acting in official capacity or by a Court. 
  • Similarly, examination is not required if the Magistrate transfers the case to another Magistrate under Section 212 for inquiry or trial. 
• Transfer of Cases - Third Proviso: 
  • The third proviso to Section 223(1) clarifies that if a Magistrate transfers a case to another Magistrate under Section 212 after examining the complainant and witnesses, the receiving Magistrate need not re-examine them. 
• Special Protection for Public Servants - Sub-section (2): 
  • Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 223 provides additional safeguards for public servants by requiring that before taking cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for offences committed during official duties, the public servant must be given an opportunity to make assertions about the incident. 
  • Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 223 mandates that a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident must be received from the officer superior to such public servant before cognizance can be taken. 

Cases Referred  

• Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another (2024): 
  • The court established the legal principle that notices cannot be issued to accused persons without first recording sworn statements of complainants and witnesses under Section 223 BNSS. 
• Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil (2024): 
  • The Karnataka High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 223 BNSS, holding that taking cognizance comes only after recording sworn statements, and notice to the accused should be issued at that juncture as mandated by the proviso.  
  • The Court established that the opportunity of being heard should not be an empty formality and must include the complaint, sworn statement, and witness statements. 
• Suby Antony S/o Late P.D. Antony v. Judicial First-Class Magistrate (2025): 
  • The Kerala High Court decision followed the Karnataka High Court's interpretation and reiterated that under Section 223 BNSS, the accused must be afforded an opportunity to be heard only after the Magistrate has examined the complainant and witnesses under oath. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih observed that bail conditions not traceable to statutory provisions can generate further litigation while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition requiring the accused husband to resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2025) Case? 

• The appellant-husband Anil Kumar was booked under multiple provisions including Section 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• He was also charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The case involved domestic violence allegations where the spouses had seemingly drifted apart and resided separately for some time. 
• The appellant filed an anticipatory bail application before the Jharkhand High Court seeking pre-arrest bail. 
• The High Court agreed to grant pre-arrest bail but imposed an unconventional condition that the appellant shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honor. 
• Aggrieved by this condition, which could have given rise to further litigation, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih observed that the High Court committed an error in imposing a condition not traceable to Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Supreme Court noted that "The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation." 
• The Court emphasized that "the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition which is not traceable to Section 438(2), CrPC." 
• The Supreme Court highlighted the practical difficulties such conditions create, observing that "an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that such condition has not been complied with, if filed later, is bound to meet opposition from the appellant and could place the High Court in further difficulty." 
• The Court noted that "The High Court could find itself disabled to decide a disputed question of fact, in an application for pre-arrest bail." 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail case was restored to the High Court's case file for fresh consideration. 

What is Section 438 of CrPC? 

About: 

• Section 438 of CrPC provides for "Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest", commonly known as anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail. 
• The provision allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of arrest when he has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. 
• The section empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct that in the event of such an arrest, the person shall be released on bail. 
• Section 438(1) requires courts to examine: crime seriousness, past criminal record, flight risk, whether complaint is fake to harass. Section 438(1A) & (1B) mandate 7-day notice to Government lawyer and Police chief, Government lawyer gets hearing chance, accused must attend final hearing if necessary.  
• Section 438(3) ensures if arrested later and ready for bail, must be released, magistrate issues bailable warrant only.  
• Section 438(4) prohibits anticipatory bail for gang rape, rape of children under 12, gang rape of minors. 

Section 438(2) - Conditions for Anticipatory Bail: 

• Section 438(2) empowers the court to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail as it may think fit, including: 
  • Condition (i): That the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 
  • Condition (ii): That the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 
  • Condition (iii): That the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 
  • Any other condition which the Court may think fit to impose in the interests of justice. 
• The conditions must be reasonable and traceable to statutory provisions and should not create further complications or litigation. 
• Courts cannot impose arbitrary or unconventional conditions that go beyond the scope of criminal law and enter into civil or matrimonial disputes. 

Replacement under BNSS 2023: 

• Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has replaced Section 438 of CrPC 1973, providing similar provisions for anticipatory bail. 
• The new provision maintains the same framework for conditions that can be imposed while granting pre-arrest bail. 
• Section 482(2) of BNSS provides similar conditions as the earlier CrPC provision, emphasizing that conditions must be reasonable and within statutory bounds. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that denying daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities equal rights in ancestral property is unjustified and urged the Central Government to amend Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 to ensure gender equality among tribals. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Manni Devi v. Rama Devi & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Manni Devi v. Rama Devi & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Manni Devi was the sole child of her father Panchu, having no brothers. Her father executed a gift deed dated 12th March 2018 in favour of respondent No. 2 regarding ancestral land. 
• The petitioner challenged the validity of the gift deed by filing a civil suit before the Additional District Judge No. 11, Jaipur Metro-I.  
• The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit on technical grounds, arguing that without a prior declaration of khatedari rights, the civil suit for cancellation of the gift deed was not maintainable. 
• The civil court allowed the respondent's application vide order dated 27th March 2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek declaration of her khatedari rights from the competent Revenue Court. 
• Following the civil court's direction, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of her rights in the ancestral property before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Chaksu. 
• During the pendency of the suit, the respondents submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.  
• They relied on Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, contending that the provisions of the Act do not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. 
• The SDO rejected the respondent's application vide order dated 24th July 2023, allowing the petitioner's suit to proceed. 
• Aggrieved by the SDO's order, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 
• The Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition vide order dated 09th June 2025, holding that since the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Meena community) and had no brothers, she possessed no right of succession in the ancestral property. Consequently, the Board allowed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the petitioner's plaint. 
• The central controversy pertained to whether daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribe communities are entitled to equal inheritance rights in their father's ancestral property, particularly in light of the exclusionary provision under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 operates as a "barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father's property" and creates unjustified discrimination against daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities. 
• The Court noted that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe communities are entitled to equal share in their father's property, denying the same right to daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities violates Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on caste. 
• The Court extensively relied on recent Supreme Court decisions in Kamla Neti (Dead) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2023), Tirth Kumar v. Dadu Ram (2024), and Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025), which held that denying female heirs rights in property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination. 
• The Court observed that "Female Tribal is entitled to parity with Male Tribal in the matters of intestate succession" and that denying equal rights to tribal daughters "even after more than seven decades of independence, is manifestly unjustified." 
• The Court observed that Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution guarantee fundamental rights of equality, personal liberty, and non-discrimination, which are being infringed by the current legal framework. 
• The Court noted the global rise in women empowerment movements and emphasized that the 21st century discourse on gender equality has transcended from "mere rhetoric to a dynamic movement" with constitutional backing. 
• The Court observed that while Section 2(2) was enacted with certain intentions, its application in denying succession rights to tribal women contradicts the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination. 
• The Court held that it is "right and high time" for the Union Government to revisit Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and consider amendments to safeguard and promote the rights of female members of the Scheduled Tribe community. 

What is Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Article 366(25) of the Indian Constitution? 

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 completely excludes all members of Scheduled Tribes from the application of the entire Act, creating a blanket prohibition on inheritance rights. 
• Article 366(25) of the Indian Constitution provides the official definition of "Scheduled Tribes" as specific tribes, tribal communities, or groups within such communities that are formally recognized under Article 342. 
• The Hindu Succession Act provision clearly states that the Act shall not apply to any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined under Article 366(25) of the Constitution, directly linking both provisions. 
• Only the Central Government has the exclusive power to make the Hindu Succession Act applicable to Scheduled Tribe members through an official notification in the Official Gazette. 
• Tribal status under Article 366(25) is not automatic but requires formal constitutional recognition through the official procedure established under Article 342, which empowers the President to notify Scheduled Tribes. 
• Without specific government notification, the Hindu Succession Act remains entirely inapplicable to all tribal communities, preventing them from claiming inheritance rights available to non-tribal citizens. 
• The exclusion under Section 2(2) applies to all tribal members regardless of whether they follow Hindu customs or have adopted Hindu practices in their daily lives. 
• Article 366(25) ensures comprehensive coverage by including entire tribes, tribal communities, and specific parts or groups within larger tribal communities to prevent exclusion due to internal divisions. 
• This constitutional framework creates a complete legal barrier that denies tribal women equal inheritance rights, as only communities formally notified under Article 342 are subject to this exclusionary provision. 
• The integration of Section 2(2) with Article 366(25) establishes that the exclusion from inheritance rights applies specifically to all communities officially recognised as Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution, operating as an absolute prohibition until the Central Government exercises its discretionary power to include them.