List of Current Affairs

Source: Telangana High Court 

Why in News? 

The Honourable Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court in the case of X v. The State (2025) quashed proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, ruling that caste-based harassment occurring within private domestic settings does not satisfy the statutory requirement of occurring in "public view." 

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

• The case arose from a complaint filed on 04th April 2019 by a de-facto complainant against his wife and her family members following matrimonial disputes. 
• The complainant, belonging to Mala Scheduled Caste, had married the first petitioner from Kapu community on 19th January 2014 in an inter-caste marriage. 
• After their marriage in Hyderabad, the petitioner's family allegedly humiliated the complainant over his caste, using derogatory names and burning his clothes at their home. 
• Due to caste-related tensions, their marital life was disturbed, leading to the couple living separately in a rented luxury apartment. 
• In February 2017, the complainant moved to Mumbai for work but later convinced the petitioner to reunite, though conflicts over lifestyle expenses continued. 
• In July 2018, after celebrating the petitioner's birthday, she suddenly demanded divorce, accompanied by caste-based insults and threats to ruin the complainant and his family. 
• From July 17, 2018, she sent WhatsApp messages insisting on divorce, citing "cultural differences" mostly related to caste issues. 
• The complainant agreed to mutual divorce but requested return of money and joint assets, which the petitioner initially agreed to but later refused. 
• A case was registered under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)and the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 based on these allegations. 
• The divorce was eventually granted in F.C.O.P. No.346 of 2019 under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the nature of allegations did not clearly demonstrate any specific instance where the petitioners abused or humiliated the complainant in the name of his caste, along with the place, time, and manner of such occurrence. 
• The Court found no material to indicate that the alleged incident occurred in a public place or in public view, as required to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA)Amendment Act, 2015. 
• Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another (2020),the Court emphasized that for the offense under the said Act to be attracted, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view. 
• The Court determined that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose that the incident took place in a public place or was witnessed by any independent persons. 
• The alleged acts were found to be part of domestic discord between the parties and appeared to have occurred within the confines of a private residence. 
• The Court ruled that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law as the allegations did not meet the statutory requirement of having been committed in public view.

What is the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance.

What are the Legal Requirements for Offences Under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act? 

• Section 3(1): 
  • General section listing offences. 
  • Applies to persons who are not members of SC/ST. 
  • Covers various forms of discrimination and atrocities. 
• Section 3(1)(r): 
  • Punishes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate. 
  • Must be against a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 
  • Offence must occur in a place within public view. 
• Section 3(1)(s): 
  • Punishes abuse of SC/ST member by caste name. 
  • Must occur in a place within public view. 
  • Requires presence of witnesses. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that government decisions, clarifications, and press releases without legislative or statutory backing do not qualify as a “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), as they are merely administrative instruments and not legally enforceable changes. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others .(2025). 

What was the Background of Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others. (2025) Case ? 

• Nabha Power Limited (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL) were special purpose vehicles created to develop thermal power projects in Punjab through competitive bidding under Power Purchase Agreements with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). 
• During their 2009 bidding process, both companies factored in fiscal benefits from two government policies: the Mega Power Policy offering customs duty concessions, and the Foreign Trade Policy providing deemed export benefits for capital goods procurement. 
• After winning the bids, a government press release in October 2009 reduced the Mega Power Project threshold from 1,000 MW to 500 MW. However, subsequent clarifications by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade in 2011 withdrew the deemed export benefits for such power projects. 
• The companies claimed this post-bid policy reversal constituted a "Change in Law" under their contracts, entitling them to compensation for increased project costs.  
• The State Electricity Commission and Appellate Tribunal rejected their claims, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that press releases are merely administrative announcements without legal force and cannot constitute "Change in Law" under Power Purchase Agreements, as only statutes or notifications published in official gazettes qualify as legal changes. 
• The Court observed that the companies failed to meet essential prerequisites for deemed export benefits, including proving goods were manufactured in India, supplied by contractors, and procured through International Competitive Bidding procedures. 
• The Court found that subsequent government notifications were merely clarificatory rather than introducing new legal provisions, and that legitimate expectations cannot arise from press releases issued by non-parties to contracts. 
• The Court observed that contractual interpretation requires giving words their ordinary meaning and distinguished between general definitions of "law" and specific "Change in Law" requirements under the agreement. 
• The Court noted that the legal definition of "manufacture" requires transformation into new products with distinctive characteristics, concluding that construction activities cannot qualify as manufacturing under trade law. 
• The Court observed the distinction between tariff-based competitive bidding for power procurement and International Competitive Bidding for goods supply, holding these are separate legal requirements. 
• The Court found that parties seeking compensation under "Change in Law" clauses must establish both the occurrence of a qualifying legal change and their entitlement to the underlying benefits being altered. 

What is Press Release? 

• A press release is a statement issued by an individual, institution or organisation for distribution through media channels like newspapers, radio and television. 
• The press release, which is also known as press note or hand-out, provides information about the activities undertaken by the company, institution or organisation. 
• Such information may range from announcements like the appointment of Managing Director; product launches; expansion planned; speeches delivered by ministers and officials; decisions taken by Union or state cabinets. 
• Press releases are merely administrative announcements without legal force and cannot constitute "Change in Law" under Power Purchase Agreements, as only statutes or notifications published in official gazettes qualify as legal changes.   

What is Power Purchase Agreement? 

• About: A long-term contract between energy producers and consumers for electricity sale/purchase, commonly used in renewable energy projects. 
• Purpose: Provides financial security for energy producers by guaranteeing returns on investments while offering buyers predictable energy costs over extended periods (typically 10-20+ years). 
• Key Features: Specifies power price, delivery terms, quality standards, timelines, and penalty clauses, while distributing risks between parties and protecting against market volatility. 
• Types: Physical PPAs (actual energy delivery via grid) and Synthetic/Virtual PPAs (financial arrangements settling price differences without physical delivery). 
• Significance: Essential for independent power projects globally, especially in emerging markets, as they provide the commercial stability needed for large-scale energy infrastructure development.