List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra  held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies only when a prima facie offence is made out, and granted anticipatory bail to journalist Shajan Skaria in a case involving alleged derogatory remarks against MLA P.V. Sreenijin. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2025). 

What was the Background of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2025) ? 

• This criminal appeal arose from proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, involving issues of anticipatory bail and the interpretation of offences under the Act. 
• The matter arose from a news item published and telecast by Shajan Skaria, editor of the Malayalam YouTube channel Marunadan Malayalee. 
• The news segment criticised the alleged maladministration of a Sports Hostel overseen by MLA P.V. Sreenijin in his role as Chairman of the District Sports Council. 
• The complainant alleged that Skaria’s remarks contained derogatory expressions against Sreenijin, attracting provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• The allegations suggested that the statements caused humiliation on account of caste identity, bringing the case within the purview of the special legislation. 
• Based on the complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated, and offences under the SC/ST Act were invoked against Skaria. 
• An apprehension of arrest prompted Skaria to move for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically bars the application of anticipatory bail in offences registered under the statute. 
• The prosecution argued that once an offence is alleged under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the legislative bar. 
• Skaria, on the other hand, contended that the allegations lacked the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the Act. 
• The Kerala High Court, in June 2023, rejected his anticipatory bail plea, holding the bar applicable. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal, Skaria preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. 
• The central issue before the Court was whether anticipatory bail could be granted when the complaint did not prima facie establish the commission of an offence under the SC/ST Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed: "If on a prima facie reading of the materials referred to in the complaint and the complaint itself, the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are not made out, then the bar of Section 18 would not be applicable and it would be open to the courts to consider the plea for the grant pre-arrest bail on its own merits." 
• The Court held: "Section 18 bars the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the accused person can be made as per Section 41 read with Section 60A of CrPC." 
• The Court declared: "The duty to determine prima facie existence of the case is cast upon the courts with a view to ensure that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to the accused. The courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Act, 1989." 
• The Court clarified: "The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community." 
• The Court observed: "Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the 'upper castes' over the 'lower castes/untouchables' that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989." 
• The Court held: "Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe." 
• The Court emphasized: "A penal statute must receive strict construction. A principle of statutory interpretation embodies the policy of the law, which is in turn based on public policy." 
• The Court stated: "We have construed Section 18 of the Act, 1989 keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of statutory construction. We are of the view that taking any other view than the one taken by us would be unreasonable, oppressive and not in tune with the consecrated principles of our Constitution." 

What was Anticipatory Bail under SC/ST Act ? 

• Core Prohibition 
  • Section 18 creates an absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for all offences under the SC/ST Act. The provision states unequivocally that "Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act." 
• Key Legal Statements: 
  • Complete Legislative Bar: Section 18 eliminates judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail in SC/ST Act cases, ensuring accused persons cannot evade arrest. 
  • Constitutional Validity: The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this provision as constitutionally valid and necessary for protecting vulnerable communities. 
  • Enhanced Protection (Section 18A): The 2018 amendment strengthened the bar by explicitly stating that Section 438 CrPC "shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court." 
  • Judicial Interpretation - Shajan Skaria Principle: The Supreme Court introduced a nuanced approach, holding that the Section 18 bar applies only when:  
    • Prima facie materials exist pointing towards commission of an offence 
    • Ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are made out 
    • A valid arrest can be made under Section 41 read with Section 60A CrPC 
  • Exception for Frivolous Cases: If prima facie reading reveals that offence ingredients are not made out, the Section 18 bar becomes inapplicable, allowing courts to consider anticipatory bail on merits. 
  • Legislative Purpose: Section 18 reflects legislative intent to maintain the deterrent effect of the Act and prevent accused persons from avoiding consequences through pre-arrest bail, while recent judicial interpretation ensures protection against misuse through the prima facie test requirement. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti clarified that High Courts must record strong and convincing reasons while framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in second appeals, emphasizing that such power is to be used only in exceptional cases. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph And Others (2025). 

What was the Background of C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others (2025)? 

• This case involves a family property dispute arising from a joint will be executed by an elderly couple, CR Pius and Philomina Pius, who owned property in Elamkulam village, Ernakulam District, Kerala. 
• CR Pius and Philomina Pius were the absolute owners of approximately 11 cents of land across two survey numbers. The couple had eight children: CP Joseph, CP Francis (the appellant), CP Raphael, CP George, CP Sebastian, three daughters (including Maria who was deceased), and others including Desty Thomas and Clara Jacob. 
• On 15th December 1999, Philomina Pius executed a registered settlement deed transferring 4 cents of land to their son CP Sebastian, retaining 3.235 cents for herself. This settlement was reportedly made to facilitate Sebastian's housing needs. 
• On 27th January 2003, CR Pius and Philomina Pius executed a registered joint will. The will contained several key provisions: 
  • All daughters had been given their shares through marriage settlements 
  • CP Sebastian had already received 4 cents through the 1999 settlement deed 
  • The remaining properties would be bequeathed to CP Francis (the appellant) 
  • CP Francis was obligated to pay specific monetary amounts to his siblings within five years of both parents' deaths (ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 per sibling) 
  • If these payments were not made, the siblings could create a charge on the properties 
•  The will was attested by two witnesses: Ponsy (wife of CP Francis, the beneficiary) and Antony (husband of one of the defendants). This attestation arrangement would later become central to the legal proceedings. 
• CR Pius died on 24th November 2004, and Philomina Pius died on 27th November 2008. Following their deaths, CP Francis took possession of the properties as per the will. 
• Five of the siblings (respondents 1-5) filed a suit in 2009 seeking partition of the properties into eight equal shares, challenging the validity of the will. They alleged that: 
  • Their father suffered from various ailments including cerebral palsy and Parkinson's disease, rendering him mentally incapable 
  • The will was executed through fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence 
  • Their parents died intestate, entitling all children to equal shares 
  • The will was forged by CP Francis and the attesting witnesses 
• The case proceeded through three levels of courts with the primary issues being whether the will was valid and genuine, and whether the properties were partible among all heirs. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that High Courts have discretionary power under Section 100(5) CPC to frame additional substantial questions of law in second appeals, but this exceptional power requires strong reasons that must be specifically recorded. 
• When framing additional questions, courts must ensure the question is grounded in pleadings and lower court findings, is fundamental to the case, builds upon already formulated substantial questions, constitutes genuine legal issues rather than mere pleas, and includes recorded reasons. 
• Respondents must receive proper opportunity to contest newly framed questions. Parties must be notified and allowed to present arguments. Framing questions during judgment delivery without hearing parties is improper procedure. 
• Introducing Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act at second appeal stage created an entirely new case rather than raising new legal arguments. This required meeting different legal tests based on witness identity rather than testator capacity issues originally pleaded. 
• The Court emphasised proper cross-examination principles from Browne v. Dunn, noting that failure to put contrary positions to witnesses regarding attesting witness relationships constituted significant procedural deficiency. 
• Courts must uphold validly executed and proved wills, respecting testators' wishes rather than opening contrary succession arrangements. Both lower courts had made concurrent findings regarding the will's validity. 
• The Court directed appellant to compensate beneficiaries within three months, increasing amounts from ₹50,000-₹1,00,000 to ₹5,00,000-₹10,00,000 per beneficiary, with 6% annual interest and property charge provisions for default. 
• Article 136 jurisdiction requires extraordinary care, being exercised only in exceptional cases with special circumstances demanding intervention for justice considerations. 

What is Second Appeal? 

• Second appeal is the final appellate remedy available under Section 100 of CPC when a party remains dissatisfied with the first appellate court's decision. It can only be filed before the High Court and is strictly limited to substantial questions of law. 
• Unlike first appeals that examine both factual and legal issues, second appeals are confined to legal questions of substantial importance since the 1976 amendment. The appeal must involve questions that directly affect parties' rights, have general public importance, or concern unsettled legal principles. 
• Second appeals form the third tier of India's judicial hierarchy after trial courts and first appellate courts. They serve as a filtering mechanism, preventing frivolous litigation while ensuring High Courts address only significant legal issues rather than re-examining factual determinations. 
• The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact from lower courts unless there is legal perversity or misapplication of law. This restriction maintains judicial efficiency while allowing development of jurisprudence on important legal questions. 
• The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved, and the High Court must formulate this question when admitting the appeal. The hearing is then limited to the formulated question, though courts may frame additional substantial questions with recorded reasons. 
• Second appeals thus represent the final opportunity for legal challenge while preserving the integrity of the three-tier judicial system and ensuring judicial resources focus on matters of genuine legal significance. 

What is Section 100 of CPC ? 

• Section 100 restricts second appeals to High Courts to substantial questions of law only. Appeals from subordinate appellate courts are permitted only when significant legal issues are involved, not factual disputes. 
• The 1977 amendment eliminated appeals on questions of fact, creating a filtering mechanism. Appellants must precisely state the substantial question in their memorandum, and High Courts must formulate this question when admitting the appeal. 
• Appeals are heard solely on the formulated question. The proviso allows High Courts to frame additional substantial questions with recorded reasons, but this power is discretionary and exceptional. 
• High Courts cannot reexamine evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless there is legal perversity. This maintains judicial efficiency while preserving legal review for matters of genuine significance. 
• The provision balances access to justice with preventing frivolous litigation, ensuring only legally important matters reach High Courts while maintaining finality of factual determinations made by lower courts.