List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan  has held that 'obstruction' under Section 186 of the IPC is not limited to physical force and includes any unlawful act—such as threats, intimidation, or non-cooperation—that hinders a public servant from discharging their lawful duties. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Devendra Kumar v. the State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Devendra Kumar v. the State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr,(2025)  ? 

• On 3rd October 2013, Process Server Ravi Dutt Sharma was assigned to serve court documents at Nand Nagri Police Station - one warrant from Magistrate Sharad Gupta and one summons from Additional District Judge Arvind Kumar to the Station House Officer. He arrived at the station around 12:30 PM to execute these official duties essential for judicial system functioning. 
• At the police station, Constable Sanjay Kumar Sharma received the court processes but improperly signed them using Head Constable Brahmjeet's name instead of his own. When the Process Server objected to this procedural violation, the Constable struck off his signatures and took the documents to the SHO's Reader, who refused to receive them. The Duty Officer also refused to accept the legal documents, forcing the Process Server to approach SHO Inspector Devendra Kumar directly. 
• When the Process Server explained the situation to SHO Devendra Kumar, the officer allegedly kept the court processes but began verbally abusing him with harsh language. The SHO then ordered him to stand with hands raised for approximately 30 minutes as punishment, followed by making him sit on the floor for 3-4 hours. Despite repeated requests to leave for other pending court work, the SHO refused permission, unlawfully detaining him until 4:30 PM when a Head Constable arrived and finally accepted the processes with proper receipt. 
• The Process Server filed a complaint with the District and Sessions Judge of Shahdara, alleging voluntary obstruction in discharge of his public functions. The District Judge assigned it to the Administrative Civil Judge, who lodged a private complaint under Section 195 CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On 28th November 2013, the Magistrate ordered FIR registration against SHO Devendra Kumar under Sections 186 and 341 IPC, directing investigation by an ACP-rank officer. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that 'obstruction' under Section 186 IPC encompasses much broader meaning than mere physical obstruction and includes any act making it difficult for public servants to perform lawful duties. This can include threats, show of force, or any impediment preventing proper discharge of official functions. The Court emphasized that while 'voluntarily' indicates some overt act of obstruction, it doesn't require actual criminal force or violent conduct. 
• The Court made crucial observations that Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC creates an absolute mandatory bar against courts taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172-188 IPC. No court can take cognizance except upon written complaint by the concerned public servant or administrative superior. These provisions are mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates entire prosecution, rendering consequential orders void ab initio. 
• The Court noted the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate committed serious procedural error by directing police investigation under Section 156(3) instead of directly taking cognizance on the written complaint. For Section 186 IPC cases with proper written complaints from judicial authorities, Magistrates should take cognizance and issue process under Section 204 CrPC. 
• Regarding splitting offences, the Court held that if an offence falls within Section 195 CrPC coverage, charges cannot be split to proceed only with uncovered offences. Courts must apply twin test: whether distinct offences were invoked to evade Section 195's bar, and whether facts primarily disclose offences requiring court/public servant complaint. 
• The Court distinguished that Section 195 CrPC doesn't control police investigation power but only bars court cognizance without proper complaint. The bar operates when courts intend taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC, not during investigation. The Court expressed concern about twelve-year litigation duration when proper procedures could have resolved the matter in three months, noting the irony that improper procedural approach undermined rather than upheld court dignity. 

Explain Sections 221 of BNS and 215 BNSS? 

BNS Section 221: Obstructing Public Servant in Discharge of Public Functions 

• Legal Provision: Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes voluntarily obstructing any public servant while they are performing their official duties. Any person who intentionally interferes with or prevents a public servant from carrying out their lawful functions shall be punished with imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both. 
• Application: This provision applies to all public servants including police officers, government officials, inspectors, and court personnel. The obstruction must be voluntary and intentional, and the public servant must be actively engaged in their official duties at the time of interference. 

BNSS Section 215: Prosecution Requirements for Specific Offenses 

• Complaint Authority: Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires that courts cannot take cognizance of offenses under sections 206 to 223 of BNS (excluding section 209) unless a written complaint is filed by the affected public servant, their administrative subordinate or an authorized public servant. 
• Court-Related Offenses: Section 215(1)(b) mandates that offenses occurring in court proceedings under sections 229-233, 236, 237, 242-248, and 267 of BNS can only be prosecuted through written complaints filed by the concerned court or its authorized officer, or by a superior court. 
• Withdrawal Provision: Section 215(2) allows supervisory authorities to order withdrawal of complaints under subsection (1)(a), but not after trial completion. Upon withdrawal order, courts must cease further proceedings on the complaint. 

Historical and Legal Evolution 

• Previous Framework: These provisions evolved from IPC Section 186 (obstructing public servants) and CrPC Section 195 (prosecution requirements for offenses against public servants and public justice). The earlier IPC Section 186 carried similar punishment provisions but with lower fine limits, while CrPC Section 195 established comparable procedural safeguards for initiating prosecutions. 
• Key Improvements: The new framework under BNS and BNSS includes updated fine amounts (increased to ₹2,500), simplified language, and more comprehensive procedural requirements. The withdrawal mechanism has been refined to balance administrative efficiency with judicial integrity. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria has held that  feeding stray dogs in public places is prohibited and must be done only at designated feeding spots to be created by municipal authorities. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of IN RE : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price' | SMW(C) No. 5/2025  (2025). 

What was the Background of IN RE : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price' (2025)? 

• The Supreme Court took suo moto (on its own) cognizance of a news report titled "City hounded by strays and kids pay price" published in The Times of India on July 28, 2025.  
  • The case initially began before a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, who passed directions on August 11, 2025, regarding stray dogs in the Delhi National Capital Region. 
• The matter was subsequently transferred to a three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria after lawyers mentioned before the Chief Justice that the August 11, 2025 directions conflicted with previous Supreme Court orders.  
  • Animal lovers and NGOs challenged the August 11 order, arguing that there were insufficient shelter facilities to house all stray dogs and that mass removal could lead to culling of animals. 
• The Solicitor General presented alarming statistics showing that approximately 3.7 million dog bite cases occur annually in India (about 10,000 daily), with 20,000 rabies-related deaths each year according to WHO data.  
  • The case highlighted the tension between public safety concerns and animal welfare rights, with municipal authorities being criticized for their failure to implement existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules effectively. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Previous Order: 11th August 2025 
  • The three-judge bench observed that the order required modification to adopt a more "holistic approach" to the stray dog problem. The court recognized that local municipal authorities had failed in their statutory duties over the years, stating that "the government has done nothing, the local bodies have done nothing." 
  • The court acknowledged the need to balance public safety with animal welfare and observed that unregulated feeding of stray dogs in public places was causing difficulties for common citizens and leading to untoward incidents. 
• Final Order: 22nd August 2025 
  • The Supreme Court stayed the August 11 directions that prohibited the release of stray dogs and passed comprehensive new directions with pan-India application.  
    • The court ordered that stray dogs picked up by municipal authorities must be sterilized, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same area from where they were captured, except for dogs infected with rabies, suspected of rabies infection, or displaying aggressive behavior. 
  • The court completely prohibited feeding of stray dogs on streets and public places, directing municipal authorities to create dedicated feeding spaces in each ward with proper notice boards. Violators of this feeding prohibition will face legal action under the relevant legal framework. 
  • Municipal authorities were ordered to create dedicated helplines for reporting violations and ensure no obstruction is caused to officials implementing these directions.  
    • The court imposed financial obligations on parties involved, requiring individual dog lovers to deposit Rs 25,000 and NGOs to deposit Rs 2 lakhs with the court registry, failing which they cannot participate further in the proceedings. 

What are the Directions Issued on Stray Dog Case ? 

• Municipal authorities must continue creating dog shelters and pounds as per August 11 order. 
• Stray dogs to be sterilized, vaccinated and released back to same area (except rabid/aggressive dogs). 
• Dedicated feeding spaces to be created in each ward with notice boards - street feeding completely prohibited. 
• Helplines to be established for reporting violations. 
• No obstruction allowed - violators face prosecution for obstructing public duty. 
• Individual dog lovers to deposit Rs 25,000 and NGOs Rs 2 lakhs to continue participation. 
• Adoption procedures established with responsibility to prevent return to streets. 
• Municipal authorities to file compliance affidavits with resource details.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved ? 

Article 21 as Human Right to Life and Health in Stray Dog. 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity, health, and safety.  
  • In the stray dog context, Article 21 protects citizens' right to move freely in public spaces without fear of attacks, ensuring a safe environment particularly for vulnerable groups like children and elderly persons. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that "infants and young children, at any cost, should not fall prey to rabies" and children should "move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs."  
  • This reinforces that Article 21 mandates State action to eliminate threats posed by uncontrolled stray dog populations. 
• Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to create conditions conducive to human life and dignity. Municipal authorities' failure to implement effective Animal Birth Control programs and manage stray populations constitutes a violation of this constitutional duty.  
• The balance between human rights and animal welfare demonstrates that while animals deserve protection from cruelty, human life and safety also remain paramount under the constitution. 

What are Laws Related to Animal Rights? 

• Constitution of India,1950 
  • According to the Indian Constitution, it is everyone’s responsibility to care for and preserve the country’s natural resources, such as its forests, lakes, rivers, and animals. 
  • However, many of these provisions come in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Duties – which cannot be enforced unless there is statutory backing. 
  • Article 48 A states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. 
  • Article 51A(g) states it to be a duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.” 
  • Further, the State and Concurrent List have been assigned the following items about animal rights. 
  • The States are given the authority to “preserve, maintain and improve stock and prevent animal diseases and enforce veterinary training and practice,” according to State List Item 14. 
  • The Concurrent List contains legislation that both the Centre and the States may pass 
    • “Prevention of animal cruelty,” which is mentioned in item 17. 
    • “Protection of wild animals and birds” which is mentioned as item 17B. 
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): 
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the official criminal code of India which covers all substantive aspects of criminal law. 
  • Section 325 of the BNS provides for punishment of all acts of cruelty such as killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless of animals. 
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960: 
  • This central law prohibits cruelty to animals, including stray dogs. 
  • It mandates that the only permissible method for managing stray dog populations is through humane sterilization programs. 
  • The objective of the Act is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. 
  • The Act defines "animal" as any living creature other than a human being. 
• Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2001 and 2023: 
  • The 2001 ABC Rules were notified under the PCA Act to provide guidelines for stray dog population management. 
  • In 2023, updated ABC Rules were introduced, further strengthening the mandate for sterilization over killing of stray dogs. 
• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: 
  • The act aims to safeguard all plants and animal species in the country to ensure environmental and ecological security. 
  • The Act prohibits the hunting of endangered animals while providing for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos. 
• Conflict with State/Municipal Laws: 
  • Some state and local authorities had enacted laws or policies allowing the "culling" (killing) of stray dogs, in conflict with the central PCA Act. 
  • This led to legal battles in various high courts with conflicting judgments.