List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

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

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

• Sagar Phogat married Priyanka on 26th May 2017 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ramher Vatika, Prahladpur Banger, Delhi. A male child was born from their wedlock on 23rd August 2019. The respondent is presently living separately from the revisionist and has custody of the minor child. 
• On 6th October 2023, Priyanka filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. She alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by Sagar Phogat and his family members. She claimed that Sagar was earning rental income of more than ₹4,00,000 per month and required ₹2,00,000 per month for maintenance. 
• The Family Court directed Sagar to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to Priyanka and the minor child from the date of filing the petition. Sagar challenged this order through a revision petition in the Delhi High Court. 
• Sagar argued that the order was passed without proper appreciation of facts and was based solely on Priyanka's pleadings without affording him fair opportunity to present his case.  
• He claimed to be unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother who suffers from stage-three brain tumor. He contended that the maintenance amount was beyond his financial capacity and that ancestral properties generated limited income shared among family members. 
• The State contended that the Family Court passed a well-reasoned order after considering material on record.  
• The maintenance amount was neither excessive nor arbitrary considering the needs of Priyanka and the minor child and their standard of living. 
• The State argued that Sagar's claims of unemployment were unsubstantiated given his admitted share in ancestral properties generating rental income. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The purpose of granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a dependent spouse is not left in destitution during pendency of proceedings. The provision is a social justice measure designed to prevent financial hardship and starvation of neglected spouse and children. 
• The Court noted that Sagar provided no cogent documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of low income despite denying Priyanka's allegations about his substantial rental earnings. His bare denial cannot be accepted at face value when he failed to file income tax returns or bank statements to corroborate his version. 
• At the interim maintenance stage, detailed trial on actual income is neither warranted nor possible, and prima facie assessment must be made based on pleadings, affidavits, and available material. The Family Court undertook balanced consideration of both parties' circumstances and awarded an amount that does not appear excessive or disproportionate. 
• The minor child is in Priyanka's care and custody, with all daily expenses including food, clothing, education, and healthcare being borne solely by her. Sagar, as the biological father, cannot abdicate his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his minor child regardless of Priyanka's qualifications or earning capacity. 
• An able-bodied person cannot shirk responsibility to maintain wife and children based on unemployment claims. Sagar admitted having share in ancestral properties generating ₹73,000 per month rental income and resides in joint family setup, indicating he is not completely devoid of means. 
• While fair opportunity and natural justice are essential, technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of interim maintenance provision. The maintenance amount of ₹50,000 per month appears proportionate to the parties' standard of living and the minor child's needs, warranting no interference under revisional jurisdiction. 

What are the Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation under Section 144 – BNSS, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 
• Key statutory features include: 
  • Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
  • Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
  • Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
  • Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
  • Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
  • Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
  • Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months. 

Judicial Interpretation by Delhi High Court: 

• In a significant interpretation, the Delhi High Court reiterated that Section 144 is a welfare-oriented and gender-sensitive provision.  
  • The purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure subsistence of a financially dependent spouse and children during ongoing proceedings. 
  • Courts must adopt a prima facie approach to assess entitlement at the interim stage without delving into a full-fledged trial on income. 
  • Procedural or technical delays must not defeat the object of providing immediate relief. 
  • The right to fair hearing and natural justice must be balanced with the overarching aim of social justice. 
  • A husband with sufficient means, even if unemployed or claiming inability to pay, cannot shirk responsibility without credible evidence. 
  • Interim maintenance should be proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and reasonable to meet the needs of the wife and children. 
  • A Family Court’s reasoned award of interim maintenance based on balanced consideration of circumstances will not ordinarily warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that bail under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) can’t be granted unless there is prima facie material indicating a fair chance of acquittal. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2025) Case ? 

• On June 13, 2023, a 14-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by the accused. The victim testified that while she had gone to the field to defecate at 4 PM, the accused approached her from behind with a gun, closed her mouth, and forcibly took her to a nearby house where he committed rape. 
• The victim returned home and informed her family. Her father lodged an FIR, and she underwent a medical examination. The victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC where she maintained her allegations. 
• The accused has 11 criminal cases against him - 5 acquittals and 6 pending cases involving assault, burglary, robbery, and arms violations. 
• The trial court convicted him under Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) of IPC, sentencing him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 50,000 fine. After serving 1 year 3 months, the Rajasthan High Court suspended his sentence and granted bail, prompting the victim's father to appeal to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to examine whether there was anything palpable on record indicating the accused had fair chances of acquittal when considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC. 
• The Court noted that once convicted, the presumption of innocence is erased, and courts must look for something apparent or gross on record to justify suspension of sentence, not minor lacunae in prosecution's case. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ignored relevant factors including the accused's criminal antecedents when suspending the sentence, making the decision unjustified. 
• The Court noted that the High Court's reasoning was flawed - medical evidence stating no conclusive opinion could be given did not negate the victim's testimony, and the prosecution had explained the non-availability of forensic reports. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's conjecture about the victim going outside for toilet despite washrooms being available was untenable reasoning. 
• The Court observed that in serious offences under POCSO Act, courts must consider the nature of accusation, gravity of offence, and desirability of releasing convicted persons on bail, which the High Court failed to do. 

What is Section 430 of BNSS/Section 389 of CrPC? 

• About: 
  • Section 430 of BNSS empowers appellate courts to suspend the execution of sentences and release convicted persons on bail while their appeals are pending. 
  • The appellate court may suspend the sentence and release the convict on bail or personal bond for reasons to be recorded in writing. 
  • For convicts sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of ten years or more, the court must provide opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause in writing against such release. 
  • The Public Prosecutor has the right to file an application for cancellation of bail even after it is granted. 
  • High Courts can exercise this power in cases of appeals to subordinate courts. 
  • For sentences up to three years or bailable offences, the convicting court itself may grant bail pending appeal unless special reasons exist for refusal. 
  • The time spent on bail is excluded from the total sentence period if the convict is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment. 
• To Suspend Sentence, High Court Should Assess If Convict Has Fair Chance of Acquittal: 
  • Courts must examine whether there is anything palpable on record indicating the accused has a fair chance of overturning the conviction. 
  • The assessment should focus on apparent or gross defects in the prosecution case that are visible on the face of the record. 
  • Courts should not reappreciate evidence or search for minor lacunae in the prosecution case at the suspension stage. 
  • The evaluation must be prima facie in nature, determining if the conviction may not be sustainable based on obvious flaws. 
  • Once conviction occurs, the presumption of innocence is erased, making the standard for bail more stringent than pre-conviction bail. 
  • Courts must consider the nature of accusation, gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, and criminal antecedents of the convict. 
  • The assessment should determine if the convict ultimately stands fair chances of acquittal, justifying release pending lengthy appeal proceedings. 
  • In serious offences like those under POCSO Act, courts must be particularly cautious about releasing convicted persons on bail. 
  • The reasoning for suspension must meet the legal parameters and cannot be based on conjectural grounds or superficial analysis of evidence. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria in the case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) condemned the continuation of manual rickshaw pulling even after 78 years of Independence, declaring it inhuman and ordering its immediate abolition while hearing issues about a pilot e-rickshaw project in Matheran, Maharashtra. 

What was the Background of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose as an interlocutory application in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case, an omnibus forest protection matter representing the longest-standing continuing mandamus in environmental litigation. 
• In May 2022, the Court permitted Maharashtra to implement eco-friendly e-rickshaws in Matheran Eco-sensitive Zone on an experimental basis to replace hand-pulled rickshaws. 
• Applications were subsequently filed by horsemen associations (ghodawala sangathans) seeking modification of e-rickshaw permissions, raising two main issues: permitting e-rickshaws in Matheran and laying paver blocks on roads. 
• In February 2023, the Court stayed concrete paver block laying until the Monitoring Committee submitted a report, while permitting continuation of the e-rickshaw pilot project. 
• By January 2024, the Court clarified that e-rickshaws would be exclusively for present handcart pullers to compensate for employment loss, later restricting the number to 20 in April. 
• Automobiles are banned in Matheran due to ecological concerns, with only fire trucks and ambulances permitted during emergencies. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench took a serious view of manual rickshaw pulling continuing after 78 years of Independence, noting it violates individuals' right to dignity and forces people into inhuman methods due to livelihood compulsions. 
• The Court referenced the Azad Rickhaw Pullers Union Case (1980), expressing disappointment that 45 years after that judgment, the practice of humans pulling other humans persists in Matheran. 
• The bench questioned whether this practice aligns with constitutional promises of social and economic equality and justice, concluding unfortunately in the negative. 
• The Court relied on People of India for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), where non-payment of minimum wages was held to constitute forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• The Court emphasized that continuing such practices after 75 years of the Constitution would betray the promise of social and economic justice that Indians made to themselves. 
• The bench directed Maharashtra to rehabilitate hand-rickshaw pullers and adopt the e-rickshaw policy from Kevadia, Gujarat, clarifying that non-availability of funds cannot excuse non-implementation. 
• The Court issued comprehensive directions including phased elimination within 6 months, establishment of a hire-based e-rickshaw scheme, identification of genuine pullers through a monitoring committee, and allocation of remaining e-rickshaws to tribal women and others for livelihood support. 

What is Manual Rickshaw Pulling? 

About: 

• Manual rickshaw pulling involves human beings physically pulling carts or carriages containing passengers or goods, representing one of the most physically demanding forms of transport labor. 
• This practice has historical roots in colonial India and continued post-Independence despite technological alternatives becoming available. 
• The work involves significant physical strain, often performed by economically disadvantaged individuals with limited alternative livelihood options. 
• Manual rickshaw pulling is particularly prevalent in hill stations and areas where motorized vehicles are restricted due to environmental concerns. 

Constitutional Framework: 

• Article 23 of the Indian Constitution prohibits traffic in human beings, forced labour, and other similar forms of exploitation, making such practices punishable by law. 
• The right to dignity forms part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), encompassing protection from inhuman and degrading treatment. 
• The constitutional promise of social and economic justice under the Preamble requires elimination of exploitative labor practices. 

Transition to E-Rickshaws: 

• E-rickshaws represent an eco-friendly, dignified alternative that preserves employment while eliminating physical exploitation. 
• Technology provides sustainable livelihood options without compromising human dignity or causing environmental harm. 
• Implementation requires government support through purchase and hires schemes, ensuring affordable access for traditional rickshaw pullers. 
• The transition addresses both human rights concerns and environmental sustainability in ecologically sensitive areas like hill stations. 

What is Article 23 of the COI? 

This Article deals with the prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. It states that- 

(1) Traffic in human beings and beggars and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. 

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. 

• The right is available to citizens of India as well as to non-citizens. 
• It protects individuals against the State as well as private citizens. 
• This article imposes a positive obligation on the State to abolish immoral practices of exploitation like human trafficking and other forms of forced labour. 
• This article expressly prohibits the following practices: 
  • Beggar 
  • Traffic in Human Beings 
  • Forced Labour