List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that in civil cases, a party’s refusal to testify on facts within their personal knowledge can lead to serious evidentiary consequences, while hearing a property dispute involving claims based on the validity of a prior marriage. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another (2025)? 

• The dispute arose between two sets of claimants to ancestral property. The plaintiffs were two individuals claiming inheritance rights through their deceased mother, Bheemakka (also known as Sathyakka). The defendants were Chowdamma (defendant no.1) and her son (defendant no.2), who contested the plaintiffs' claims. 
• The contested assets comprised agricultural lands bearing specific Survey Numbers (39/1B, 149, 41/lP, 37/1, 37/lA, and 29/9) and a residential house (No.38) situated in Devigere and Kallahally villages, Hosadurga Taluk. These properties were ancestral in nature, having descended from one Thimmabovi Vellappa. 
• The fundamental controversy centered on establishing the validity of the first marriage of the deceased Dasabovi (also known as Dasappa).  
• The plaintiffs contended that their mother, Bheemakka, was the lawfully wedded first wife of Dasabovi, thereby entitling them to inheritance rights in the ancestral property. Conversely, defendant no.1 (Chowdamma) asserted that she was the sole legitimate wife of the deceased Dasabovi, thus challenging the plaintiffs' entitlement to any share in the ancestral estate. 
• According to the plaintiffs' case, Dasabovi initially married their mother Bheemakka in accordance with customary practices.  
• The couple resided together at Galirangaiahnahatti, where the plaintiffs were born. Subsequently, Dasabovi entered a relationship with Chowdamma and brought her into the household as a second wife.  
• This development allegedly resulted in the displacement of the first wife and her children, compelling them to relocate to Bheemakka's parental home at Antharagange village. 
• The case presented significant evidentiary complexities due to the absence of formal documentary proof of the alleged first marriage.  
• The plaintiffs relied primarily on oral testimony, particularly that of one Hanumanthappa (PW-2), who claimed personal knowledge of the marriage and family relationships. The defendants contested this evidence and relied on revenue records showing only Chowdamma's name alongside Dasabovi's. 
• The plaintiffs initially filed a suit for partition seeking their half share in the family properties. The trial court dismissed their suit, finding insufficient proof of the alleged marriage between Dasabovi and their mother. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit in their favour. The defendants then approached the Supreme Court challenging this reversal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that when facts lie exclusively within a party's personal knowledge, failure to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences. In civil proceedings, refusal to testify on such matters constitutes deliberate evasion from judicial scrutiny.  
• The Court found defendant no.1's absence from the witness box was not procedural lapse but calculated withdrawal. Despite being physically present during other witnesses' examination, her failure to depose attracted adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.  
•  The Court dismissed the arthritis defence, noting defendant no.1 attended court multiple times during trial proceedings. Her capability to attend court negated claims of medical inability to testify.  
•  The Court accepted PW-2's testimony as credible, being rooted in personal knowledge and long-standing familiarity. His evidence withstood cross-examination and was corroborated by the genealogical chart.  
• The Court concluded plaintiffs successfully established their case through measured testimony. Defendants, bereft of probative material, relied solely on denials. When measured against preponderance of probabilities, scales tilted in plaintiffs' favour.  
•  The Court reiterated that where a party fails to appear in witness box to state their case on oath, presumption arises that their case is incorrect. A court cannot offer refuge to studied silence where duty to disclose exists.  

What is Failure to Enter Witness Box ? 

• Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.  
• This provision is now covered under 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Illustration (g) specifically states: "That evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it." 
• When a party possesses exclusive personal knowledge of material facts and deliberately abstains from entering the witness box, courts draw adverse inference under Section 114(g). The presumption operates that evidence withheld would be unfavourable to the party withholding it. 
• Judicial Precedent - Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (1999): The Supreme Court established that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box to state their case on oath and does not offer themselves for cross-examination by the opposing side, a presumption arises that the case set up by them is not correct. 
• The failure to testify shifts the evidentiary burden adversely. While the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove their case, once established prima facie, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut. Non-appearance in witness box when possessing exclusive knowledge constitutes failure to discharge this onus. 
• Order XXVI, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure provides for recording evidence through commission in cases of age, sickness or other infirmity. Failure to invoke such provisions when claiming incapacity strengthens adverse inference. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab (2025) disposed of a criminal appeal, by making interim anticipatory bail protection absolute.  

• The Court established a significant precedent by observing that mere non-discovery of incriminating material is not an indicator of non-cooperation on the part of the accused, while laying down specific conditions for investigation cooperation and witness protection. 

What was the Background of Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab (2025) Case? 

• The appeal arose from an order dated 3rd April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh rejecting the appellant's anticipatory bail prayer. 
• The case was connected to FIR No. 06 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran. 
• The appellant's case was that nothing incriminating was recovered from him and he had been falsely implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused Rashpal Singh who had suffered recovery. 
• The appellant had previously been similarly implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, wherein he was granted anticipatory bail protection. 
• The Supreme Court had granted interim protection on 23rd June 2025, preventing arrest subject to joining investigation when called upon by the Investigating Officer. 
• The State filed a Counter Affidavit admitting that the appellant's implication was based on confessional statement made by co-accused Rashpal Singh. 
• The State alleged non-cooperation in investigation as the appellant stated during questioning that he had thrown his mobile phone in the river. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that it was not disputed that the appellant did join investigation when called upon to do so. 
• The bench made a significant judicial observation stating that "merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-cooperation on the part of accused". 
• This observation establishes an important precedent regarding the interpretation of non-cooperation in criminal investigations. 
• The State had alleged non-cooperation during questioning when the appellant stated that he had thrown his mobile phone in the river. 
• However, the Court observed that in the Counter Affidavit, it was not stated that any effort was made to trace the appellant's mobile number and collect call detail records. 
• The Court considered the pattern of similar accusations, noting that earlier also the appellant was similarly made an accused based on co-accused statements and was accorded similar protection. 
• The Court deemed it appropriate to make the interim order absolute with specific conditions, effectively disposing of the appeal.  

Court’s Directions: 

The Court disposed of the appeal by making the interim anticipatory bail order absolute subject to two specific conditions: 

• Condition 1: The appellant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency. 
• Condition 2: He shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned along with an undertaking that he shall not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. 

What is Anticipatory Bail? 

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides for anticipatory bail, allowing a person who fears arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or Court of Session for pre-arrest bail. 
• This provision replaced Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when the BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• Under Section 482(2), courts may impose conditions including mandatory availability for police interrogation, prohibition against influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving India without court permission. 
• The concept of anticipatory bail evolved from the 41st Law Commission Report, which recognized the need to protect individuals from false implication and disgracement through detention. 
• While Section 482 of BNSS retains the essential framework for anticipatory bail, it omits the factors that courts were previously required to consider under Section 438 of CrPC. 
• Clauses (1A) and (1B) of the former Section 438, which contained special provisions regarding sexual offences, have been omitted in the BNSS framework. 
• Clauses (2), (3), and (4) from the original provision in CrPC have been retained substantially in the same form in Section 482 of BNSS. 
• Under Section 482(3), if a person granted anticipatory bail is arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate decides to issue a warrant, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh challenging an FIR filed under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023 (BNS) for his video criticizing the Assam government's land allotments and alleged communal politics.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Abhisar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Abhisar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, Abhisar Sharma, is a journalist and YouTuber who has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India seeking relief against a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Assam Police under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
• The present controversy arose after the petitioner's publication of a video content wherein he voiced criticism against what he termed as the Assam government's 'communal politics' and raised questions regarding the allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private commercial entity. 
• In the impugned video, the petitioner referred to proceedings before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, wherein the state government of Assam was questioned regarding the allocation of 3000 bighas of land to a private cement manufacturing company, namely Mahabal Cements, for the stated purpose of mining operations in the Dima Hasao region. 
•  In the context of the aforementioned land allotment matter, the petitioner alleged that the Assam government has allocated 9000 bighas of land to the Adani Group. 
• The petitioner accused the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, of prioritizing the interests of the Adani Group and engaging in communal politics. 
• The petitioner has been charged under Section 152 (endangering sovereignty of the nation), Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration and security) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
• The complaint was filed by one Alok Baruah, who alleged that the petitioner's statements and remarks had the effect of provoking communal sentiments and creating feelings of distrust against state authorities. 
• The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity (vires) of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is stated to have replaced the erstwhile sedition law contained in the Indian Penal Code. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Hon'ble Supreme Court is presently seized of challenges to Section 152 of the BNS in various matters, indicating the judicial scrutiny being accorded to this provision. 
• The Court has recently granted interim protection from arrest to journalists from The Wire news portal, namely Founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan and Consulting Editor Karan Thapar, in a separate FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 BNS. 
• The matter involves fundamental questions regarding the balance between freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the state's power to maintain public order and national security. 
• The case presents issues of territorial jurisdiction, given that the FIR has been registered in Assam while the petitioner may be based elsewhere, raising questions about the propriety of invoking criminal jurisdiction. 
• The charges invoked relate to serious offences against the state, including endangering national sovereignty and promoting enmity between groups, which carry significant penal consequences and require careful judicial examination. 
• The matter is scheduled for hearing on August 28 before a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Justice MM Sundresh and Hon'ble Justice N Kotiswar Singh. 
• The case involves examination of the scope and application of newly enacted provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly in the context of media criticism of government policies and actions. 
• The Supreme Court's approach to similar cases involving media personnel demonstrates judicial consideration of the rights of journalists and freedom of press in relation to criminal law provisions. 
• The constitutional challenge to Section 152 BNS raises questions about the validity and scope of the provision as a replacement for the erstwhile sedition law 

What is Section 152 of BNS? 

• Section 152 BNS criminalizes acts that purposely or knowingly endanger sovereignty, unity and integrity of India through any means of communication or expression. 
• The provision covers exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encouraging separatist feelings. 
• The punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life or up to seven years, with mandatory fine. 
• The section includes modern communication methods like electronic communication and use of financial means. 
• Legitimate criticism of government measures aimed at lawful alteration is protected under the Explanation. 

Key Differences Between Section 124A IPC and Section 152 BNS 

• Section 124A IPC focused on "sedition" and disaffection towards government, while Section 152 BNS targets specific acts endangering national sovereignty and integrity. 
• BNS requires "purposely or knowingly" committing the act, introducing stricter mental element compared to IPC's broader application. 
• IPC prescribed maximum three years imprisonment (optional fine), while BNS prescribes up to seven years with mandatory fine. 
• BNS explicitly includes electronic communication and financial means, addressing modern methods not covered in IPC. 
• BNS provides narrower protection for criticism compared to IPC's broader safeguards for legitimate government criticism.