List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

Recently, Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta have held under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) at least one attesting witness to a Will must be examined to prove it, and this mandatory requirement cannot be waived even if no legal heirs are contesting the Will. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr. (2025) Case?

• The dispute arose between two brothers over a property located at No. 563, Ambedkar Basti near Balmiki Gate, Delhi. The property originally belonged to their father, Shri Kundan Lal.  
• The plaintiff-respondent (Suresh Chand) claimed ownership of the entire property through several documents allegedly executed by his father on 16th May 1996, including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, receipt of consideration for Rs. 1,40,000, and a registered Will. 
• The plaintiff alleged that his brother, the defendant-appellant (Ramesh Chand), was initially residing in the property as a licensee but became a trespasser after the purported sale.  
• The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant had wrongfully sold half the property to a third party (defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2). 
• The defendant-appellant countered these claims by asserting that the property was orally transferred to him by their father in July 1973, and he had been in continuous possession since then. He challenged the validity of all documents relied upon by the plaintiff and sought a declaration that these documents were null and void.  
• The defendant also pointed out inconsistencies in the plaintiff's position, noting that in an earlier suit (OS No. 294/1996), the plaintiff had admitted that their father was the owner of the property, yet later claimed to have purchased it from him on a date prior to that admission. 
• The defendant contended that he had been in uninterrupted possession of the property from 1973 to 1997, and during this entire period, their father neither filed any ejectment proceedings nor served any eviction notice. The father passed away on 10th April 1997.  
• The Additional District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, which was challenged before the Delhi High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erroneously held that the requirement of examining attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Evidence Act applies only in cases of disputes between legal heirs, which was contrary to established law. 
• The Court emphasised that Section 68 of the Evidence Act makes it mandatory to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses of a Will, regardless of the nature of the dispute or the identity of the parties involved. 
• The Court noted that the registered Will propounded by the plaintiff was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, particularly because the alleged testator had four children but chose to bequeath the entire property to only one child without any explanation or evidence of estrangement with the other three children. 
• The Court observed that mere registration of a Will does not grant validity to the document, and the formalities required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be strictly complied with. 
• The Court found that an Agreement to Sell does not create any interest or charge on the property and cannot confer valid title, as it is merely a contract creating a right to obtain a registered sale deed to complete the transaction. 
• The Court observed that a General Power of Attorney is merely an instrument of agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to act on his behalf and does not constitute a transfer of immovable property or confer any title. 
• The Court noted that the plaintiff could not claim benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 regarding part performance as he was not in possession of the property, which was evidenced by his own suit seeking possession. 
• The Court observed that in the absence of a validly proved Will, the property would devolve upon the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased father according to succession law, rather than being awarded to any single claimant based on unproven documents. 

What is section 67 of BSA?

About: 

• Section 67 of BSA mandates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution. 
• Previously this section was covered under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.  
• The provision applies only when there is an attesting witness who is alive, subject to the process of the Court, and capable of giving evidence. 
• The section provides an exception for registered documents other than Wills - such documents do not require calling an attesting witness for proof of execution under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 
• However, this exception does not apply if the execution of the registered document by the person who purports to have executed it is specifically denied. 
• The proviso clearly excludes Wills from the relaxation given to other registered documents, meaning Wills must always have at least one attesting witness examined regardless of registration. 
• For Wills, the mandatory requirement of examining at least one attesting witness cannot be waived even if the Will is registered, as registration alone does not substitute for proper attestation proof. 
• The section establishes that attestation requirements serve as a safeguard for document authenticity and cannot be bypassed through mere registration formalities for testamentary documents. 
• The distinction between Wills and other documents in the proviso reflects the law's recognition that testamentary dispositions require stricter proof standards due to their posthumous nature and potential for disputes. 

Case Laws: 

• In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others.(1959) the Supreme Court established that proof of Wills must satisfy the requirements of Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, and Section 68 specifically mandates that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove execution of documents required by law to be attested. 
• The Court in Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another (2023) observed that for proving execution of a Will, at least one attesting witness who is alive, subject to court process, and capable of giving evidence must be examined, and this requirement cannot be dispensed with regardless of circumstances. 
• In Mathai Samuel and Others v. Eapen Eapen (2012), the Court noted that a Will has three essential characteristics - it must be a legal declaration of testator's intention regarding property, it must relate to property disposition after death, and it remains ambulatory and revocable during the testator's lifetime, requiring strict proof standards including proper attestation. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi were informed by the NIA that consultations with States are underway for setting up dedicated NIA Courts to ensure speedy trials under UAPA and MCOCA, with a decision likely soon. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(CRL) No. 4276/2025 (2025). 

What was the Background of Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(CRL) No. 4276/2025 Case ? 

• The present matter arose from concerns regarding the expeditious trial of cases under special legislation, particularly the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). The petitioner, who has been in custody for over six years with only one phone call evidence against him, approached the court seeking relief. 
• The case highlighted systemic issues in the criminal justice system where trials under special acts face prolonged delays. The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, emphasized the disproportionate nature of prolonged custody in relation to the evidence available against the accused. 
• The National Investigation Agency (NIA) informed the Supreme Court about ongoing consultations with state governments regarding the establishment of dedicated NIA Courts. The agency indicated that a positive decision on this matter may be reached in the near future. 
• The constitutional and administrative challenges include the division of powers between the Centre and states, as the authority to constitute dedicated NIA Courts lies with state governments. This has created a jurisdictional complexity requiring coordination between multiple stakeholders. 
• Financial implications have emerged as a significant consideration, with proposals for budgetary allocation including Rs. 1 crore as non-recurring expenses and Rs. 60 lakhs per annum as recurring expenditure, while states would bear the cost of land and building infrastructure. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized the critical importance of timebound completion of trials, particularly in cases involving serious offences under special legislation. 
• Justice Kant observed that establishing dedicated courts with timebound trials for heinous offences would send a positive message to society and serve as a deterrent to hardened criminals. The court noted that prolonged trials allow accused persons to exploit systemic delays, sometimes extending cases for decades while courts are compelled to grant bail due to procedural requirements. 
• The court expressed concern about the potential for accused persons to "hijack the entire system" through deliberate delays in trial proceedings, undermining the efficacy of the criminal justice system. 
• Regarding the administrative framework, Justice Kant directed the NIA to commit to making necessary budgetary allocations for the proposed dedicated courts, while indicating that coordination with High Courts and state governments could be addressed subsequently. 
• The bench acknowledged the constitutional complexities involved, recognizing that while the Centre can provide financial support, the actual constitution of dedicated courts remains within state jurisdiction. 
• The court demonstrated judicial restraint by choosing not to dismiss the case and scheduling it for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day, indicating the matter's substantive importance and the need for detailed consideration on merits. 
• The observations reflect the court's concern for balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective prosecution of serious offences under special legislation, while addressing systemic delays that compromise the administration of justice. 

What is Speedy Trial ? 

• A speedy trial refers to the constitutional and legal right of an accused person to have their criminal case heard and decided within a reasonable timeframe without unnecessary delays. 
• Speedy trial is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The concept ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done promptly. 
• The right to speedy trial serves dual purposes - protecting the accused from prolonged uncertainty and incarceration while ensuring that victims and society receive timely justice. 
• Speedy trial mechanisms include setting strict timelines for completion of investigations, filing of chargesheets, commencement of trial proceedings, and final disposal of cases. 
• The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that speedy trial is an essential component of reasonable, fair and just procedure under Article 21, and unreasonable delay in trial violates this fundamental right. 
• Speedy trial prevents the accused from remaining under the cloud of suspicion for extended periods and reduces the burden on the criminal justice system by ensuring efficient case disposal. 

Why are Timebound Trials in Heinous Cases Necessary? 

• Timebound trials in heinous cases are essential to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensure swift delivery of justice to victims and their families. 
• Heinous offences, including terrorism, organized crime, and serious violent crimes, require expedited judicial processes due to their grave nature and impact on society at large. 
• The establishment of specific timelines for completion of trials in heinous cases prevents the accused from exploiting procedural delays to avoid conviction and punishment. 
• Timebound mechanisms in heinous cases serve as an effective deterrent, sending a clear message to potential offenders that serious crimes will be prosecuted swiftly and decisively. 
• The absence of timebound trials in heinous cases often results in prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners, leading to overcrowding in jails and violation of their fundamental rights. 
• Courts are frequently compelled to grant bail in heinous cases solely due to inordinate delays in trial completion, potentially compromising public safety and witness security. 
• Timebound trials ensure that evidence remains fresh, witnesses remain available, and the prosecution can present its case effectively without deterioration due to passage of time. 
• The implementation of timebound trials in heinous cases requires adequate infrastructure, dedicated courts, sufficient judicial officers, and proper case management systems. 
• Society's faith in the rule of law depends significantly on the criminal justice system's ability to deliver timely justice, particularly in cases involving serious offences against public order and safety. 

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice B.P. Routray in the case of Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan and Others (2025) dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order that refused DNA testing in a partition suit, upholding the principle that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and must balance privacy rights with the need for truth. 

What was the Background of Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan and Others (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a partition suit (C.S. No. 3 of 2018) filed in the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court, Kuchinda. 
• Opposite Party No. 1 (Bhabanishankar Budulal) filed a suit seeking partition of joint family property. 
• Petitioner (Golapi Majhi) was defendant no. 1 in the partition suit and disputed the parentage of defendant no. 3. 
• The petitioner filed a written statement with counter claim alleging that defendant no. 3 had no share in the suit property as he was not the son of Thutha Budula@Kisan. 
• On March 23, 2024, the petitioner filed an application seeking DNA test to determine the parentage of defendant no. 3. 
• The trial court rejected the prayer for DNA test on December 2, 2024. 
• The petitioner challenged this order through CMP No. 758 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
• P.W.2 (wife of deceased Thutha Budula) had testified and admitted defendant no. 3 as her son through Thutha Budula. 
• Defendant no. 3 was 58 years old at the time of the proceedings. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Key Observations: 

• The Court emphasized that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and must balance privacy rights with the need for truth, requiring a "strong prima facie case" and "eminent need." 
• The Court noted that maternal testimony holds significant evidentiary value, stating that directing DNA test despite the mother's admission would be "an insult to her motherhood." 
• The Court observed that in partition suits, social recognition as a family member matters more than blood relation, and that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy. 
• Given defendant no. 3's age of 58 years, the Court agreed that DNA testing would not bring fruitful results at this stage. 

Legal Principles Established: 

DNA Test Guidelines: 

• DNA tests should not be directed routinely or as a matter of course. 
• Courts must balance privacy rights against the duty to reach truth. 
• Strong prima facie case required before ordering DNA tests. 
• "Eminent need" test must be satisfied. 

Evidentiary Hierarchy: 

• Maternal testimony holds significant weight in paternity determination. 
• Section 112 Evidence Act creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy. 
• Social recognition as family member relevant in partition disputes. 

Privacy Protection: 

• Right to privacy includes freedom from forcible medical examination. 
• Courts must exercise discretion after balancing interests of all parties.

What is DNA Testing?

About:  

• DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) testing is a scientific method that analyzes genetic material to determine biological relationships, particularly paternity and maternity. 
• DNA testing involves comparing genetic markers between individuals to establish biological connections with over 99% accuracy in paternity cases.
• The test can be conducted using various samples including blood, saliva, hair follicles, or cheek swabs. 

Types of DNA Tests: 

• Paternity Testing: Determines biological father of a child 
• Maternity Testing: Establishes biological mother (rare cases) 
• Kinship Testing: Determines relationships between relatives 
• Identity Testing: Used in criminal investigations and mass disasters 

What are the Legal Provisions Governing DNA Testing in India? 

Constitutional Framework: 

• Article 21: Right to privacy includes protection from forced medical examination. 
• Article 14: Ensures equal treatment while balancing rights of all parties. 

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• Section 112: Creates irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy for children born during wedlock. 
• Section 45: Allows expert opinion on DNA test results as scientific evidence. 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 

• Section 53: Allows medical examination of accused with consent. 
• Section 53A: Permits collection of DNA samples in sexual offence cases. 

DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Act, 2019: 

• Establishes DNA Regulatory Board for oversight. 
• Mandates accreditation of DNA testing laboratories. 
• Provides framework for quality control and standards. 
• Includes provisions for data protection and privacy. 

Key Judicial Guidelines:  

• Courts follow the "eminent need" test established in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary (2010), requiring strong prima facie case before ordering DNA tests and careful consideration of privacy rights versus truth-finding needs.