List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that mere harassment, without a direct and proximate link, is insufficient to attract liability under Section 306 IPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Mohanbhai Delkar was a seven-time Member of Parliament who committed suicide on 22nd February 2021. He was an independent candidate from a Scheduled Tribe community. 
• The deceased complained of systematic conspiracy by the Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and other officials to defame him and end his political career. Key incidents included not being invited to Liberation Day function (August 2020) and exclusion from a Union Minister's programme (December 2020). 
• The MP approached the Committee of Privileges in Lok Sabha. On 12th February 2021, the Committee assured him of investigation and safety measures. 
• Ten days later, the MP travelled to Mumbai and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note naming specific officials and making additional allegations of extortion and attempts to take over his trust's college. 
• The deceased's son filed FIR on 9th March 2021. The accused sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, which the Bombay High Court allowed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court held that for offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect instigation in close proximity to suicide with clear mens rea to abet the act. 
• Even with continuous harassment allegations, there must be a proximate prior act - "the straw that broke the camel's back" - to establish direct causation of suicide. 
• The real test is whether the accused intended by their action to possibly drive the victim to suicide. The perpetrator's conscious intention matters, not just the victim's subjective feelings. 
• The court found the suicide note suspect as it contained allegations of extortion and conspiracy never mentioned in earlier complaints to the Speaker or Committee of Privileges. 
• The court found no proximate trigger between the Committee's assurance (12th February) and the suicide (22nd February).  
• The incidents from August and December 2020 were too remote to constitute proximate causation. The High Court's quashing order was upheld.

What is Abetment of Suicide?

Legal Definition and Framework: 

• Abetment of suicide is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). 
• The offence involves deliberate acts that facilitate or encourage another person to commit suicide. 

Three Essential Components of Abetment: 

• Direct Instigation: This involves actively encouraging, provoking, or urging a person to commit suicide through words, gestures, or conduct that would incite the victim to take their own life. 
• Conspiracy: This occurs when two or more persons engage in a conspiracy to facilitate suicide, and some act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
• Intentional Aid: This involves providing assistance through any act or illegal omission that helps the person commit suicide, including wilful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. 

Legal Provisions and Penalties: 

Under Section 108 BNS (Section 306 IPC), abetment of suicide carries: 

• Imprisonment of either description for up to 10 years. 
• Additional fine as monetary penalty. 
• The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. 
• Cases are tried in Sessions Courts. 

Special Provisions for Vulnerable Persons: 

Section 107 BNS provides enhanced punishment when the victim is a child, person of unsound mind, delirious person, or intoxicated person. In such cases, the punishment extends to death penalty or life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years with fine. 

Burden of Proof Requirements: 

• Direct Causation: There must be clear evidence linking the accused's actions to the victim's decision to commit suicide. 
• Specific Intent: The accused must have intended their actions to drive the person to suicide, not merely cause general distress. 
• Proximate Connection: Courts require evidence of acts occurring close in time to the suicide that directly compelled the victim to take the extreme step. 
• Active Participation: Mere passive presence or general harassment is insufficient; there must be positive acts of instigation or aid. 

Key Legal Distinctions: 

• What Constitutes Abetment: Active instigation with intent to cause suicide, conspiracy to facilitate suicide, or intentional aid in the commission of suicide. 
• What Does Not Constitute Abetment: General harassment, professional pressure without specific suicidal intent, workplace stress, marital discord without proximate instigation, or emotional distress from ordinary life conflicts. 

Case Laws:

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010): 

• In this case, the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased. The deceased was a driver who left behind a suicide note accusing his employer of driving him to suicide through persistent harassment and insulting behavior. 
• The Supreme Court held that despite the existence of a suicide note directly blaming the accused employer, there was absolutely nothing in either the suicide note or the First Information Report that could even distantly be viewed as constituting an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The court established that mere allegations of continuous harassment and insults, even when documented in a suicide note, are insufficient to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide without specific acts of instigation that directly led to the extreme step. 

Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010): 

• The Supreme Court in this case laid down a crucial principle regarding the requirement of proximate causation in abetment to suicide cases. 
• The court held that "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 
• This judgment established that there must be a clear temporal connection between the accused's actions and the suicide. The court emphasized that harassment allegations alone, without demonstrable positive acts occurring close to the time of suicide that directly compelled the victim to take the extreme step, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment. 
• Both cases reinforced the principle that the prosecution must establish not just harassment, but specific acts of instigation with proximate causation to prove abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. 

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is gender-neutral, its provisions under Sections 4 and 6 apply equally to men and women, and therefore the petition seeking quashment of proceedings stands dismissed. 

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the matter of Smt. Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. Archana Patil v. State Of Karnataka (2025) Case ? 

• The complainant (Respondent No.2) was residing in a villa community in Bengaluru with her husband and two children, including her son (the victim), who was about 13 years old in 2020. 
• Their neighbour, the petitioner, an established artist, lived in the same community and often interacted with children by offering art lessons. The victim also started visiting her house frequently. 
• In mid-2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the family shifted to Dubai. While there, the boy displayed psychological and behavioural changes over a period of four years. 
• When confronted by his mother, he disclosed incidents of alleged sexual abuse by the petitioner, stating that she had called him to her house repeatedly between February and June 2020, engaged in inappropriate acts, compelled him to perform sexual intercourse, and threatened him not to disclose it. 
• On returning to India in 2024, the complainant lodged a police complaint alleging sexual assault. FIR was registered under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 
• The police investigated, recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC, and filed a charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the trial court. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings, contending that offences under Sections 4 and 6 POCSO cannot be alleged against a woman 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that POCSO Act, is a gender-neutral statute, intended to safeguard all children, irrespective of sex, from sexual offences. 
• It was held that the use of the word “person” in Section 3 of the Act is deliberate, and therefore the provisions are not confined to acts by a male upon a female but extend to any person committing an offence upon a child, whether male or female. 
• The Court clarified that though the provision employs the pronoun “he”, by virtue of Section 2(2) of the POCSO Act read with Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, the term “he” includes both genders, and thus, a woman can be an accused for an offence under Sections 4 and 6. 
• It was further observed that Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act are drafted broadly to include not only direct penetration by a male but also situations where a child is induced, coerced, or compelled to perform penetrative sexual acts. In such circumstances, the gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant. 
• The Court rejected the contention that only a man can commit penetrative sexual assault, holding that the decisive factor is the commission of the act upon a child, and not the gender of the offender. 
• The Court held that the legislative intent behind the Act, strengthened by the 2019 amendment, is to provide equal protection to boys and girls below 18 years of age, and to punish any person committing a sexual offence upon a child. 
• It was held that allegations in the complaint and the statement of the victim, if accepted on their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as defined under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 
• The Court further observed that the delay in lodging the complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash proceedings, as psychological trauma and fear often result in late disclosure of such offences. 
• It was concluded that the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act can validly be alleged against a woman, and that the matter requires adjudication in trial rather than termination at the threshold. 

How is the POCSO Act Gender Neutral? 

• The POCSO Act was enacted to protect all children, i.e., any person below 18 years of age, from sexual offences, regardless of whether the child is male or female. 
• The Act employs the term “a person” in defining offences, which is inclusive of both men and women. 
• Though certain provisions use the pronoun “he”, Section 2(2) of POCSO, read with Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, clarifies that “he” includes both male and female. 
• Judicial interpretation, including by the Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court, has affirmed that the Act applies equally to men and women, thereby making the POCSO Act gender neutral. 
• The legislative intent, strengthened by the 2019 amendment, is to ensure that all children, irrespective of gender, are equally protected from sexual offences and that any person, irrespective of gender, may be held liable for committing such offences. 

What is Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act ? 

Section 4 – Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• Section 4 provides that whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Where the penetrative sexual assault is committed on a child below sixteen years of age, the punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the offender, along with fine. 
• The fine imposed is required to be just, reasonable, and paid to the victim to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation. 

Section 6 – Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• Section 6 prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, i.e., when the offence under Section 3 is committed in aggravated circumstances defined under Section 5. 
• The punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the offender, and the offender shall also be liable to fine or with death penalty in extreme cases. 
• The fine under Section 6 is also directed to be just, reasonable, and paid to the victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

The Madras High Court  in the case of Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Ors. (2025) ruled that Resolution Professionals appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(IBC) are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's view and directing the IBBI to consider sanction for prosecution. 

What was the Background of Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner Anil Kumar Ojha was the former Managing Director of M/s. S.L.O. Industries Limited. 
• In 2019, NCLT appointed an Interim Resolution Professional under the IBC, and the company later went into liquidation in 2022. 
• The liquidator discovered massive inventory discrepancies - Rs. 840 crores of closing stock was unaccounted for, with NCLT confirming a difference of Rs. 625.25 crores. 
• CBI registered a case but the final report was pending due to uncertainty over whether Resolution Professionals are public servants requiring prosecution sanction. 
• IBBI withheld sanction pending Supreme Court's decision on conflicting High Court judgments on this issue. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Conflicting High Court Views: 

• Delhi High Court (2023): Resolution Professionals are not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• Jharkhand High Court (2025): Resolution Professionals are public servants. 
• Both judgments are pending before the Supreme Court. 

Court's Key Reasoning: 

The Court analyzed Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, focusing on: 

• Sub-section (v): "any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice" 
• Sub-section (vi): "any person to whom any matter has been referred for report by a court of justice" 
• Sub-section (viii): "any person authorized to perform any public duty" 

Disagreement with Delhi High Court: 

• The Madras HC rejected Delhi HC's narrow interpretation that limited the definition to persons with property-selling powers. 
• The Court held that "any duty in connection with the administration of justice" should have broad meaning. 

Supreme Court Authority: 

Relied on Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (2024) which detailed Resolution Professionals' comprehensive duties including asset management, creditor coordination, and reporting to NCLT. 

Final Conclusion: 

Resolution Professionals qualify as public servants under all three sub-sections because they: 

• Are authorized by NCLT to perform justice-related duties. 
• Submit reports sought by NCLT for decision-making. 
• Perform public duties affecting society at large. 

Court's Direction: 

• IBBI must consider CBI's sanction request within 4 weeks, and CBI must file final report within 4 weeks thereafter. 

Who are Resolution Professionals? 

About: 

• Resolution Professionals are licensed professionals appointed by NCLT to manage corporate insolvency resolution process. 
• They are enrolled with IBBI and must meet specific qualifications and experience requirements. 

Key Duties under IBC: 

• As Interim Resolution Professional: Collect company information, verify creditor claims, constitute Committee of Creditors, take control of assets and operations. 
• During Resolution Process: Invite resolution plans, present to creditors, implement approved plans, maintain process transparency. 

Powers and Significance: 

• Resolution Professionals have significant powers including taking control of company management and making decisions affecting multiple stakeholders. 
• While they work under Committee of Creditors' supervision, they exercise independent judgment in many critical areas.