List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain granted bail to a 19-year-old accused of circulating sexually explicit material of a woman and intimidating her on social media, imposing a unique condition that he must not use any social media platforms for three years. The Court balanced the seriousness of the offence with the petitioner’s young age and future prospects while ensuring protection for the victim. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Akash v. State of Rajasthan (2025). 

What was the Background of Akash v. State of Rajasthan (2025) Case? 

• A 23-year-old married woman filed a complaint on 21st February 2025 against Akash, a 19-year-old student, alleging serious cybercrimes and harassment. The complainant stated that the accused had unlawfully edited and published her photographs and videos, creating sexually explicit material without her consent. 
• The victim alleged that Akash had systematically exploited and blackmailed her using this fabricated content. The accused reportedly used multiple mobile phones and created various fake Instagram accounts to carry out these activities. The primary intent behind these actions was to damage the victim's reputation and image in society. 
• The complainant further alleged that the accused had deliberately attempted to create disturbances in her marital relationship by sharing this obscene material. The victim stated that she was intimidated and threatened by the accused through these means. 
• Following the complaint, FIR No. 83/2025 was registered at Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli, under Section 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which also included charges under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act. 
• The accused had initially filed a bail application which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11th August 2025, with liberty to file a fresh application after the victim's statement was recorded. This was the second bail application filed by the accused.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the material on record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner had employed sophisticated methods to commit the alleged offences. The accused had used different mobile phones and created multiple fictitious Instagram accounts specifically to publish sexually explicit material against the victim. 
• The Court observed that the victim, in her statement recorded as PW3 before the trial court, had clearly articulated how the present petitioner had intimidated her through these digital means. The Court emphasised that the victim was a married female and the petitioner accused had allegedly attempted to disturb her marital ties through these notorious acts. 
• The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the offence for which the petitioner was charged was triable by a Magistrate First Class, and the victim's statement had already been recorded. It was noted that the accused had been in custody since 1st May 2025. 
• The Court observed several mitigating factors in favour of the accused. It noted that the petitioner was only 19 years of age and was a student pursuing his second year of studies. Significantly, there were no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, which weighed in his favour. 
• Considering these circumstances and the future prospects of the young petitioner, the Court expressed its inclination to grant bail subject to stringent conditions. The Court emphasised that such conditions were necessary to ensure that the safety and well-being of the victim, including her marital life, would not be jeopardised due to the notorious and whimsical acts of the present petitioner. 
• The Court made it abundantly clear that if the petitioner indulged in any act that could cause harm to the victim or her family members, the bail order would be recalled immediately. 
• The Court concluded that the applicant-accused was no longer required for investigation purposes and had been in custody for a considerable period. Given that further proceedings would take considerable time, and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant-accused, albeit with strict conditions to protect the victim's interests. 

What is Bail? 

About:  

• Bail is the conditional release of an accused person before trial, fundamentally rooted in the presumption of innocence. It serves as a crucial mechanism ensuring that individuals are not unjustly detained while awaiting judicial proceedings. The primary objective is to guarantee that the accused does not abscond from justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses during the pendency of the case. 

Legal Provisions: 

• The legal framework for bail in India is now governed by Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. This comprehensive legislation establishes the procedural guidelines and judicial powers concerning bail matters. 
• The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) established the fundamental principle that "the basic rule is bail, not jail," emphasising that bail is a right and imprisonment is an exception. This landmark judgment reinforced the constitutional philosophy that liberty is the norm and detention is the exception. 

Types and Powers: 

• Bail provisions are categorised based on the nature of offences. Bailable offences guarantee an automatic right to bail under Section 436 of the former CrPC, while non-bailable offences vest discretionary powers in courts and designated police officers as per Section 437. 
• High Courts and Sessions Courts possess special powers under Section 483 of BNSS to grant, modify, or cancel bail. They can direct the release of any accused person in custody, impose specific conditions, or modify existing bail terms. 
• Anticipatory bail, covered under Section 482 of BNSS, allows individuals who reasonably fear arrest for non-bailable offences to seek pre-arrest protection from High Courts or Sessions Courts. 

Bail Conditions: 

• Courts typically impose several conditions while granting bail. The accused must furnish a personal bond with sureties to ensure appearance during trial proceedings. Standard conditions include prohibitions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or contacting victims. Courts may also impose specific restrictions relevant to the case circumstances, such as surrendering passports or periodic reporting to police stations. 
• Default or mandatory bail provisions under Section 187 of BNSS ensure that accused persons are granted bail if investigations exceed prescribed time limits, making judicial intervention automatic rather than discretionary. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi ruled that merely touching the private parts of a minor without penetration does not amount to rape under IPC Section 375/376AB or penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Instead, it constitutes aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) POCSO and outraging modesty under IPC Section 354. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from allegations against Laxman Jangde involving a minor girl below twelve years of age. The appellant was initially charged and convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Trial Court imposed a sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional one year rigorous imprisonment in default of fine payment. 
• The specific allegations, as recorded in the First Information Report, the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and her trial deposition, were consistent throughout. The victim alleged that the appellant had touched her private parts while simultaneously placing his hand on his own sexual organs. Notably, there was no allegation of any penetrative act beyond this touching. 
• The case proceeded through the judicial hierarchy, with the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upholding the Trial Court's conviction through its judgment dated 28.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2022. However, following Section 42 of the POCSO Act which provides for alternate punishment, the High Court maintained sentencing only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. At the time of the Supreme Court appeal, the appellant had already served five and a half years in prison. 
• The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10377 of 2025, where the appellant's senior counsel argued that the alleged conduct did not constitute offences under the sections for which he was convicted. The defence contended that the allegations would at most constitute offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, rather than the more serious charges of rape and penetrative sexual assault. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made several significant observations regarding the legal interpretation and proper application of criminal law provisions in cases involving minors. 
•  The Court observed that the allegations failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of either Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act. Through careful analysis of the statutory provisions, the Court noted that both rape under the IPC and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act specifically require penetration as a fundamental element. The Court reproduced the complete text of Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that rape involves penetration of penis, insertion of objects or body parts, manipulation causing penetration, or oral contact with specific body parts. 
•  The Court observed that the presumption of penetrative sexual assault adopted by both the Trial Court and High Court lacked evidentiary support. The medical report did not indicate penetration, nor did the victim's statements recorded on three separate occasions support such a conclusion. The mother's testimony also corroborated only the touching allegation without any reference to penetrative acts. The Court noted the consistency across all statements - the FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial deposition - which uniformly alleged only touching of private parts. 
• The Court observed that the appellant's conduct, as established through evidence, appropriately fell under different statutory provisions. The touching of private parts of a child constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. When the victim is below twelve years of age, such conduct amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act. Additionally, such behaviour constitutes an offence under Section 354 of the IPC, which addresses assault or criminal force against women with intent to outrage modesty. 
•  The Court observed that criminal convictions must be based on precise legal definitions rather than presumptions. The distinction between sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault is crucial in determining appropriate charges and sentences. The Court emphasized that while the conduct was certainly criminal and deserving of punishment, it must be classified under the correct legal provisions to ensure justice and proportionate sentencing. 
• The Court observed that the modified conviction warranted revised sentencing. The appropriate punishment for offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act would be five years and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. The Court retained the fine amount as compensation for the victim, reflecting restorative justice principles while ensuring the punishment matched the actual offence committed. 

Which key Provisions of the POCSO Act Distinguish Penetrative from Non-Penetrative Sexual Offences? 

• Section 3 - Penetrative Sexual Assault Requires actual penetration of penis into child's vagina, mouth, urethra or anus, or insertion of objects/body parts, or manipulation causing penetration. 
• Section 6 - Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Minimum twenty years rigorous imprisonment, extending to life imprisonment or death penalty, plus fine for victim rehabilitation. 
• Section 7 - Sexual Assault Covers touching vagina, penis, anus or breast of child with sexual intent, or any physical contact without penetration. 
• Section 9(m) - Aggravated Sexual Assault Sexual assault on child below twelve years constitutes aggravated sexual assault due to victim's tender age. 
• Section 10 - Punishment for Aggravated Sexual Assault Five to seven years imprisonment plus fine for aggravated sexual assault offences. 
• Section 42 - Alternate Punishment Prevents double punishment when same act constitutes offences under both IPC and POCSO Act. 

What are the Key Distinctions Highlighted in the Case? 

• Penetrative vs Non-Penetrative Acts: The fundamental distinction between penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 and sexual assault under Section 7 lies in the presence or absence of penetration. Section 3 requires actual penetration, while Section 7 covers touching and physical contact without penetration. 
• Age-Based Aggravation: Section 9(m) specifically makes sexual assault on a child below twelve years an aggravated offence, recognizing the enhanced vulnerability of very young children and prescribing more severe punishment. 
• Punishment Hierarchy: The punishment structure reflects the gravity of offences - penetrative sexual assault carries twenty years to life imprisonment, while aggravated sexual assault (non-penetrative) carries five to seven years imprisonment. 
• Evidence Requirements: Each provision requires specific types of evidence to establish the offence. Penetrative sexual assault typically requires medical evidence of penetration, while sexual assault can be established through testimony regarding inappropriate touching without penetration. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court in Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr. (2025) allowed the institution of a civil suit seeking damages for the tort of Alienation of Affection, marking the first judicial recognition of this Anglo-American common law concept as a maintainable civil action in India. 

What was the Background of Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The plaintiff Shelly Mahajan married defendant no.2 on March 18, 2012, and the couple was blessed with twin children in 2018. 
• The plaintiff joined the family business as Lab Director in 2019, while defendant no.2 continued to be actively engaged in both the family enterprise and his independent venture. 
• In 2021, defendant no.1 (Bhanushree Bahl) joined the said venture as an Analyst, allegedly aware of the subsisting marriage between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. 
• Defendant no.1 allegedly developed a close and personal relationship with defendant no.2, frequently visiting the marital home, accompanying him on work trips, and gradually becoming his exclusive travel companion. 
• The matters escalated in March 2023, when the plaintiff allegedly overheard intimate remarks exchanged between the defendants and later discovered letters on defendant no.2's laptop, confirming the extramarital relationship. 
• Upon confrontation, defendant no.1 allegedly categorically refused to end the relationship, and defendant no.2 thereafter began openly appearing with defendant no.1 at social gatherings, allegedly humiliating the plaintiff at public functions. 
• Defendant no.2 filed for divorce, service of which was affected on the plaintiff on April 4, 2025. 
• The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings seeking damages for the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA). 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that Indian legislation does not expressly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection, which is fundamentally derived from Anglo-American Common Law and belongs to the category of "heart-balm" torts. 
• Justice Kaurav observed that the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) had recognized that "Alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, is an intentional tort i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intent to alienate one spouse from the other." 
• The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) had affirmed that this concept, constitutes an intentional tort in principle, noting that marriage and family are social institutions of vital importance. 
• The Court clarified that no reported civil case had been brought seeking enforcement of damages for the tort of AoA, as the concept remained judicially acknowledged but not formally adopted. 
• The Court rejected the defendants' contention that the suit was barred under Section 9 CPC read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, holding that such a claim is quintessentially within the purview of ordinary Civil Courts. 
• Justice Kaurav emphasized that while personal autonomy must be protected, actions carry effects and consequences that may extend beyond the individual actor to those closely connected with them, including spouses and children. 
• The Court directed issuance of summons to the defendants, allowing the first civil suit for Alienation of Affection to proceed in India. 

What is Alienation of Affection? 

About: 

• Alienation of Affection is a tort derived from Anglo-American Common Law that belongs to the category of "heart-balm" torts. 
• A heart-balm action is a civil claim whereby a party seeks monetary compensation for the termination or disruption of a romantic or marital relationship. 
• Heart-balm actions historically included seduction, criminal conversation, alienation of affection, and breach of promise to marry. 
• Among these, criminal conversation and alienation of affection were treated as marital torts, initially available only to husbands but later extended to spouses irrespective of gender. 
• As of 2016, the tort survives in only a handful of U.S. jurisdictions (notably Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah). 

Elements of Alienation of Affection: 

• The plaintiff must establish intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant directed at alienating the marital relationship. 
• There must be clear causation linking that conduct to a legally cognizable injury to the plaintiff. 
• The loss claimed must be susceptible of rational assessment for damages. 
• Mere association or acquaintance with a spouse is insufficient - there must be clear evidence of active and wrongful interference. 
• Passive involvement, where the married person independently develops affection for another without any act attributable to the third party, is not actionable. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized strict evidentiary standards requiring acts that are intentional and calculated to entice one spouse away from the other. 

Legal Status in India: 

• At present, Indian legislation does not expressly recognize AoA. The recognition remains judge-made, derived from common law principles. 
• In contrast, several U.S. states have codified or retained AoA as a cause of action, while others have abolished it as outdated. India now stands at a crossroads — whether to formally recognize such torts or leave them to judicial discretion.