List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025) set aside a High Court review order that exceeded the limited scope of review jurisdiction, while addressing a daughter's claim for equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

What was the Background of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from OS No. 192 of 2000 filed by Subramani for partition of ancestral properties into equal shares between him and his father Munusamy Naidu. 
• The original suit was filed without impleading Malleeswari (daughter of Munusamy Naidu), treating it as a partition between male coparceners only. 
• A preliminary decree was passed ex-parte on 25.02.2003, determining shares between father and son without considering the daughter's rights. 
• Post-decree, Munusamy Naidu executed a sale deed on 27.12.2004 in favor of K. Suguna (first respondent) for part of the properties and a settlement deed in favor of Malleeswari for remaining properties. 
• After Munusamy Naidu's death in 2011, Malleeswari was impleaded as his legal heir and successor. 
• In 2018, Malleeswari filed I.A. No. 1199 seeking amendment of the preliminary decree to claim her 1/3rd share as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. 
• She argued that as a daughter of a living coparcener when the 2005 amendment came into force, she was entitled to equal coparcenary rights by birth. 
• Additionally, she claimed her father's 1/3rd share through his Will dated 23.04.2008, bringing her total claim to 2/3rd share. 
• The Trial Court dismissed her application in 2019, but the High Court allowed her Civil Revision Petition in 2022. 
• Subsequently, the High Court allowed a review application in 2024, setting aside its earlier order and remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Review Jurisdiction Limitations:  

• The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is fundamentally different from appellate power and must be strictly confined to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).  
• Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and cannot be allowed to become "an appeal in disguise." 
• The power of review can be exercised for correction of mistakes, but not to substitute a view or reverse findings of fact. 

On Grounds for Review:  

The Court outlined three specific grounds for review: 

• Discovery of new and important matter or evidence not previously available despite due diligence. 
• Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record (patent error, not mere wrong decision). 
• Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above categories. 

On the Impugned Order:  

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's review order exceeded its jurisdiction by: 

• Not identifying any error apparent on the face of the record. 
• Undertaking reappreciation of the case instead of correcting apparent errors. 
• Recording fresh findings extending far beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. 
• Essentially sitting in appeal against its own earlier order. 

On Daughter's Coparcenary Rights:  

While not definitively ruling on the merits, the Court acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to claim coparcenary rights under both Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act), 1989 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. 

What is Review Jurisdiction? 

Overview: 

• Review jurisdiction allows courts to re-examine their own decisions within strictly defined limits.  
• The power stems from Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, recognizing human fallibility while maintaining finality of judicial decisions. 

Three Grounds for Review: 

1. Discovery of New and Important Matter/Evidence:

Courts apply a "triple test" requiring: 

• New matter/evidence must be capable of changing the judgment. 
• Such matter was not within the applicant's knowledge initially. 
• It could not be produced despite due diligence. 

The evidence must be relevant and of such character that it might have altered the original judgment. Mere discovery alone is insufficient. 

2. Mistake or Error Apparent on Face of Record:

This must be a "patent error," not merely a wrong decision. The error must: 

• Be self-evident and manifest on the record. 
• Not require lengthy reasoning or elaborate argument to establish. 
• "Stare in the face" without needing detailed examination. 

Courts have emphasized that errors requiring reappreciation of evidence or complex reasoning do not qualify. The error must be something more than a mere mistake and be discoverable at first glance. 

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason:

• Interpreted using the doctrine of ejusdem generis, this ground must be analogous to the first two specified grounds.  
• The Privy Council established that it means "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule." 

Key Limitations and Principles: 

What Review Cannot Do: 

• Function as an appeal in disguise. 
• Allow substitution of views or correction of erroneous decisions on merits. 
• Permit rehearing or reappreciation of evidence. 
• Allow repetition of old, overruled arguments. 
• Correct failures to argue points during original hearing. 
• Address documents that were part of record but not considered. 

Fundamental Restrictions: 

• Review jurisdiction is narrow and reluctantly exercised. 
• Courts cannot transgress limits and enter appellate domain. 
• Power must be exercised with "extreme care, caution and circumspection". 
• Not every mistake justifies review - only those apparent on the face of record. 
• No definitive test exists; determination is made judicially on case facts. 

Distinguished from Appellate Powers: 

• Unlike appellate courts that can correct all manner of errors, review courts have limited jurisdiction.
• Appellate powers enable comprehensive examination of law and fact, while review only corrects apparent errors within statutory confines.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) set aside the Bombay High Court's order and clarified the jurisdictional framework for quashing FIRs, charge-sheets, and cognizance orders under different legal provisions.

What was the Background of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The FIR was registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur, on September 12, 2024, bearing C.R. No.648 of 2024. 
• During the pendency of the writ petition, police completed investigation and filed a charge-sheet before the trial court on May 14, 2025. 
• The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition on July 1, 2025, holding it had become infructuous after the filing of the charge-sheet, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024). 
• The High Court reserved the remedy of filing a discharge application before the trial court in favor of the petitioner. 
• The petitioner approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition challenging the Bombay High Court's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Key Observations: 

• The Supreme Court noted a "distinct factual dissimilarity" between the present case and Neeta Singh, emphasizing that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court "misread Neeta Singh (supra), inadvertently omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity as indicated above and consequently, misapplied the ratio of such decision." 
• The Court observed that in Neeta Singh, the writ petition was filed only under Article 226 of the Constitution, and cognizance had already been taken by the criminal court, making the petition infructuous. 
• However, in the present case, the petition invoked both Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS, and it was unclear whether cognizance had been taken by the magistrate. 
• The Court emphasized that "since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked and the relief claimed could have been suitably moulded subject, of course, to the requisite satisfaction of the court that an order of quashing is warranted on facts and in the circumstances." 
• The Court held that the Bombay High Court's approach resulted in "a failure of justice." 

Key Legal Principles: 

Pre-Cognizance Stage: 

• FIRs and charge-sheets can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution before cognizance is taken by the magistrate. 
• The High Court has clear jurisdiction to examine such petitions at this stage. 

Post-Cognizance Stage: 

• Once cognizance is taken, Article 226 jurisdiction becomes unavailable for challenging judicial orders. 
• However, Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the old CrPC) remains available. 
• Under Section 528 BNSS, courts can quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the cognizance order itself. 
• This requires proper pleadings and a strong case for quashing. 

Jurisdictional Framework: 

• Courts must examine which jurisdictions have been invoked in the petition before dismissing it as infructuous. 
• Section 528 BNSS provides broader remedial powers than Article 226 alone. 
• Proper pleadings are essential to challenge cognizance orders effectively. 

Court's Direction: 

• The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 
• The writ petition was ordered to be revived for being considered afresh by the roster bench of the Bombay High Court in accordance with law. 
• The special leave petition was disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the respondents. 
• Connected applications were closed. 

What is Article 226 of the COI? 

About: 

• Article 226 is located in Part V of the Constitution and grants High Courts the power to issue writs. 

Key Provisions: 

Article 226(1): Every High Court can issue writs and orders (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari) to any person or government for enforcing fundamental rights and other purposes. 

Article 226(2): High Courts can issue writs to persons/authorities: 

• Within their territorial jurisdiction, OR 
• Outside their jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within their territory. 

Article 226(3): When a High Court passes interim orders (injunction, stay, etc.), the affected party can apply for vacation of such order, which must be disposed of within two weeks. 

Article 226(4): This power does not diminish the Supreme Court's authority under Article 32(2). 

Key Characteristics: 

• Can be issued against any person, authority, or government. 
• It's a constitutional right (not fundamental right). 
• Cannot be suspended even during emergency. 
• Mandatory for fundamental rights enforcement. 
• Discretionary for other purposes. 
• Enforces both fundamental rights and other legal rights. 

In essence: Article 226 empowers High Courts as guardians of constitutional rights with broad writ jurisdiction, complementing the Supreme Court's role under Article 32. 

What is Section 528 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 preserves the inherent powers of High Courts. 

Key Provisions: 

The BNSS does not limit or affect the High Court's inherent powers to: 

• Make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the BNSS. 
• Prevent abuse of process of any court. 
• Secure the ends of justice in other circumstances. 

Essential Features: 

• Saving clause - protects existing High Court powers. 
• Inherent jurisdiction remains intact despite new criminal procedure code. 
• Broad remedial powers for justice delivery. 
• Anti-abuse mechanism to prevent misuse of court processes. 
• Flexible application - covers situations not specifically provided for in the BNSS.