List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled that a victim’s legal heirs can continue prosecuting an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) if the victim dies during its pendency, ensuring the right to appeal is not rendered redundant. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Khem Singh (D) Through LRS v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (2025). 

What was the Background of Khem Singh (D) Through LRS v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (2025) Case ? 

• A heated exchange occurred between two rival groups with longstanding enmity in Haridwar district on 8th December 1992. The following day, 9th December 1992, at approximately 8:00 AM, a violent armed attack took place involving firearms, sharp weapons, and bricks. 
• Complainant Tara Chand, his brother Virendra Singh, and son Khem Singh were attacked by multiple accused persons. Virendra Singh suffered fatal injuries and died during the assault. Both Tara Chand and his son Khem Singh sustained serious injuries but survived the attack. 
• The prosecution alleged distinct roles for three main accused persons. Accused No. 2 Ashok fired upon Virendra Singh using a gun. Accused No. 3 Pramod fired upon Khem Singh using a gun. Accused No. 4 Anil alias Neelu fired upon Smt. Mithilesh, wife of Khem Singh. 
• Case Crime No. 547/92 was registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar on 9th December, 1992, based on Tara Chand's complaint. The three respondents-accused were charged under multiple IPC sections including 148, 452, 302, 307, 149, and 326. 
• Sessions Trial No. 133/1993 was conducted before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar.  
• The Sessions Court delivered judgment on 2-4 th August 2004, convicting all three accused and sentencing them to life imprisonment along with additional rigorous imprisonment terms and fines. 
• The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeals before High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court allowed all appeals through common judgment dated September 12, 2012, and acquitted all three respondents-accused, completely overturning the Sessions Court conviction. 
• Injured victim Khem Singh filed Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court challenging the High Court's acquittal order. Leave was granted on 6th July, 2017, converting petitions into Criminal Appeals.  
• During pendency, Khem Singh died, and his son Raj Kumar applied for substitution as legal heir to continue prosecuting the appeals. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Victim's Right to Appeal: 
  • The Supreme Court observed that the 2009 amendments to CrPC, particularly the proviso to Section 372 and definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa), granted victims an independent statutory right to appeal against acquittals, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation. This right operates independently without requiring special leave from High Court unlike complainants under Section 378(4) CrPC. 
• Interpretation of Appeal Rights: 
  • The Court held that "right to prefer an appeal" includes not just filing but also "right to prosecute an appeal." Restricting it to mere filing would render the provision meaningless and defeat parliamentary intent of strengthening victims' rights in criminal justice. 
• Legal Heir's Continuation Rights: 
  • The Court ruled that when a victim-appellant dies during appeal pendency, their legal heir can continue prosecuting the appeal. This flows from the inclusive definition of "victim" which expressly includes legal heirs. The abatement provisions under Section 394 CrPC apply primarily to appeals by accused persons, not victim appeals. 
• Critique of High Court Judgment: 
  • The Court critically observed that the High Court's judgment was "cryptic" and lacked reasoned analysis. While judgments need not be lengthy, they must reflect proper judicial application to crucial evidence and provide adequate reasoning. Appellate courts must independently evaluate evidence and assess whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Remand Order 
  • The Court set aside the High Court judgment solely for inadequate reasoning without commenting on merits, remanding for fresh consideration with directions for expeditious disposal given the case dates to 1992. 
• Court establishes that victims' appeal rights under CrPC amendments are substantive rights that can be inherited and prosecuted by legal heirs, ensuring meaningful access to justice even after the original victim's death during proceedings. 

What is Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 413 of BNSS replaces Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintaining the same legal framework and principles. The provision has been carried forward from the old criminal procedure code to the new Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita with identical language and intent. 
• General Prohibition on Appeals: 
  • The section establishes that no appeal lies from criminal court judgments or orders except as specifically provided by BNSS or other laws. This creates a restrictive gateway preventing unauthorized appeals while maintaining judicial hierarchy. 
• Victim's Independent Appeal Right: 
  • The proviso grants victims autonomous right to appeal against three scenarios: 
  • Complete acquittal of accused persons 
  • Conviction for lesser offences than originally charged 
  • Imposition of inadequate compensation 
• Appellate Jurisdiction: 
  • Victim appeals lie to courts that ordinarily hear appeals against conviction orders, maintaining established appellate hierarchy. This prevents forum shopping while ensuring appropriate judicial review of victim grievances. 
  • The section reflects evolution from State-centric prosecution to victim-participatory model, recognizing victims as primary stakeholders deserving independent appellate rights beyond mere witness status. 
• Procedural Framework: 
  • The provision maintains procedural integrity by channeling victim appeals through established appellate courts rather than creating special mechanisms. This ensures judicial expertise while expanding access to justice. 
  • Section 413 aligns with constitutional principles of access to justice and equal protection, acknowledging that victims have legitimate interests in criminal proceedings requiring appellate protection mechanisms. 
  • While the State retains separate appellate powers under other provisions, victims' rights under Section 413 operate independently. Victims need not await State action and can directly challenge unsatisfactory judicial outcomes. 
  • The section enables victims to seek appellate review when trial courts fail to adequately address their suffering through acquittals, reduced charges, or insufficient compensation, ensuring meaningful participation in criminal justice process. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar ruled that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) if inconsistent with pleadings, setting aside  Karnataka High Court order that admitted such evidence without examining pleadings.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By LRS. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025). 

What was the Background of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By LRS. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025) Case? 

• In February 1995, the respondent-defendant entered into an agreement to sell his house property in Bangalore to the appellant-plaintiffs for ₹10,67,000. The plaintiffs paid ₹5,00,000 in two instalments as advance, with the agreement stipulating completion within one and a half years.  
• A crucial aspect of the plaintiffs' case was their assertion that they had disposed of their valuable immovable properties at Benson Town to arrange funds for purchasing the suit property, which they required for their bona fide occupation. 
• When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite legal notices in April and July 1996, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance. The defendant denied the agreement's existence, contending that he had merely borrowed ₹1,00,000 from the plaintiffs for business expansion and that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Significantly, in paragraph 11 of his written statement, the defendant stated that it was "not within his knowledge" whether the plaintiffs had sold their Benson Town properties. 
• The Trial Court, after examining evidence from both parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in February 2000, finding that the agreement was proved and the plaintiffs had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their obligations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that both the appeal and the application for additional evidence be reconsidered in accordance with established legal principles.  
  • The Court clarified that appellate courts must mandatorily examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence, ensuring procedural fairness and legal consistency. 
• The Supreme Court, through Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, identified a critical procedural issue: whether appellate courts must examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• During the appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional documentary evidence including property records, claiming he discovered that the plaintiffs had never actually sold their Benson Town properties.  
• The High Court allowed this evidence and reversed the Trial Court's decree based substantially on these new documents. 
• The Supreme Court observed a fundamental flaw in the High Court's approach. The defendant had originally pleaded only "no knowledge" regarding the property sales but was now attempting to affirmatively prove that no sales had occurred. This constituted raising a new defence at the appellate stage, unsupported by his original pleadings. 
• The Court established a crucial legal principle: "before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence." 
• The Supreme Court ruled that permitting additional evidence without proper pleading support would render the exercise meaningless, as such evidence cannot be legally considered if it contradicts or goes beyond the party's pleaded case. 

What is Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC? 

• General Prohibition: 
  • The parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court as a matter of right. 
• Exceptional Circumstances for Admission: 
  • Additional evidence may be allowed by the Appellate Court under the following specific circumstances:  
    • Clause (a): Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted during the trial proceedings. 
    • Clause (aa): Where the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. 
    • Clause (b): Where the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. 
• Discretionary Power: 
  • The provision vests discretionary power in the Appellate Court to allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined, upon being satisfied that any of the prescribed conditions under clauses (a), (aa), or (b) are fulfilled. 
• Mandatory Recording Requirement: 
  • Sub-rule (2) mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission, ensuring judicial accountability and transparency in the exercise of this discretionary power. 
• Legislative Intent: 
  • The provision strikes a balance between finality of trial court proceedings and the appellate court's duty to ensure justice, whilst preventing parties from withholding evidence during trial to present it strategically during appeal. 
  • The rule ensures that appellate proceedings do not become a substitute for proper trial conduct and that parties exercise due diligence in presenting their case at the appropriate stage. 
• Procedural Safeguard: 
  • The requirement of establishing due diligence under clause (aa) prevents abuse of the provision and ensures that only genuinely unavailable evidence is permitted at the appellate stage. 
  • The "substantial cause" criterion under clause (b) provides flexibility to appellate courts to admit evidence necessary for the proper adjudication of disputes whilst maintaining judicial discretion within defined parameters. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in the case of X v. Y dismissed an appeal challenging the annulment of marriage, reaffirming that concealment of material facts like prior marriage and income misrepresentation constitutes fraud under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).  It renders a subsequent marriage voidable under Section 12 of the HMA.  

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

• The marriage between the parties was arranged through the matrimonial portal where the appellant (husband) had created a profile. 
• In the matrimonial profile, the appellant represented himself as "Never Married" and stated his annual income as "USD 200K and above". 
• The respondent (wife) had specifically mentioned in her profile that she was searching for a match who was "never married". 
• Based on this profile, the respondent responded to the appellant's advertisement and the parties got married. 
• The respondent later discovered that the appellant had been previously married and had a child from that marriage. 
• It was also found that the appellant's actual income was much lower than what was represented in the profile - his actual gross salary in 2014 was between 120k-130k USD. 
• The respondent filed a complaint in the C.A.W. Cell, Prashant Vihar, Delhi on 27th January 2016, which led to the registration of FIR No. 0401/2016 dated 12th May 2016. 
• The respondent subsequently filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 21st August 2017. 
• The Family Court, Rohini (North) District Courts allowed the petition and annulled the marriage vide judgment dated 19th January 2024. 
• The husband appealed this decision, which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Distinction Between "Never Married" and "Unmarried": 

• The Court made a crucial distinction between these terms, stating that "Never married" conveys a lifelong status, free from any prior marital tie, whereas "unmarried" could ambiguously include those who are divorced or widowed. 
• The expression "Never Married" is a declaration that a person has never undergone a marriage and is substantially different from the term "unmarried". 
• The Court rejected the appellant's attempt to interpret "never married" as merely meaning "not married at that point in time" when he married the respondent. 

Material Facts and Circumstances: 

• The Court emphasized that pre-marital status of a party is a material fact which the other party must know before imparting consent for marriage. 
• The Court clarified that the term "fraud" in Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not speak of fraud in any general way and that not every misrepresentation or concealment would be fraudulent. 
• The fraud must be material as to the nature of ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent. 
• The Court held that falsity about monthly income and property status is fraud within the meaning of Section 12 of HMA. 
• The Court rejected the appellant's defense that the profile was created by his parents, stating that the appellant cannot seek to contend that he was unaware of the contents of the profile. 
• The Court observed that online matrimonial portals have "Divorced" as an option for marital status, and there was no correction made to the profile at any time before marriage. 

What is Section 12 of HMA? 

About:  

• Section 12 of HMA envisages provision for voidable marriage as: 
  • A voidable marriage is a valid marriage until it is avoided and it can only be done if one of the parties to the marriage files a petition for the same.  
  • However, in case, any of the parties do not file a petition for the annulment of the marriage, it will remain valid. 

Grounds:  

• Clause (ii) of Section 5 of HMA if not complied with makes a marriage voidable. 
  • As per Section 5 - (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party —  

(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind;  

(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or  

(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 

• Section12 further mentions following grounds on which marriage can be declare as voidable: 
  • If the marriage has not been consummated because of impotency of the respondent. 
  • If either of the parties to the marriage is incapable of giving consent or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 
  • If the consent of the petitioner or the consent of the guardian of the petitioner has been obtained by force or fraud. 
  • If the respondent was pregnant before the marriage by some other person than the petitioner. 

Effect:

• The parties have the status of a husband and a wife and their children are considered to be legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of HMA. All the other rights and obligations of the spouses remain intact.