List of Current Affairs

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sumeet Goel  pulled up Punjab Police for a 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a 2007 criminal case, terming it "inordinate and unjustified." The Court imposed a Rs. 1 lakh cost on the Punjab Government, stressing that such inaction undermines the rule of law and erodes public faith in justice. 

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and Others(2025).

What was the Background of Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and others (2025) Case? 

• Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat filed CRM-M-43052-2025 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which was decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel on 22 September 2025. 
• FIR No. 281 dated 09 August 2007 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The misunderstanding between the rival private parties was resolved in 2007 itself through the intervention of family elders and respectable persons of the locality, and the FIR complainant submitted an affidavit regarding this compromise to the concerned police station. 
• The investigating agency prepared a cancellation report in the year 2007/2009 following the compromise between the parties, acknowledging that the criminal dispute had been amicably settled. 
• Despite the preparation of the cancellation report in 2007/2009, the same was not presented before the competent court for approximately 18 years, causing prolonged legal uncertainty and harassment to the petitioner. 
• The petitioner made various representations to concerned police authorities, including the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, seeking presentation of the cancellation report, but received no positive response or action from the concerned officials. 
• The State of Punjab, through the Director General of Police, acknowledged the lapse and filed a reply stating that key investigating officers had retired more than 4 years prior, legal impediments existed for departmental action against retired officials, and a show cause notice was issued to the then supervising officer. 
• The DGP Punjab issued Circular No. 30 of 2025 dated 15 September 2025 implementing corrective measures to ensure timely submission and follow-up of cancellation reports, proper tracking of case files, and coordination between police stations and courts to prevent similar instances in future. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the authority to initiate and pursue prosecution constitutes an inherent and inalienable element of the sovereign power of the State, emphasising that this power is not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust which must be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency to uphold the foundational principles of the rule of law. 
• Justice Sumeet Goelnoted that whilst the legislature has intentionally abstained from prescribing a mandatory time limit for presentation of final reports, thereby allowing investigating agencies a measure of discretion, such discretion is neither absolute nor unbridled and carries a corresponding imperative for reasoned and diligent exercise grounded in reasonableness and directed towards the ends of justice. 
• The Court invoked Lord Halsbury's established principle that discretion means something to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion, according to law and not humour, being neither arbitrary, vague nor fanciful, but legal and regular, exercised within limits to which an honest man competent to discharge his office ought to confine himself. 
•  The Court held that when prosecutorial discretion translates into unjustifiable and inordinate delay spanning 15 years, it constitutes an antithesis to the rule of law, with non-application of mind or lack of diligence effectively amounting to an abdication of statutory and constitutional duty, converting procedural flexibility into an instrument of arbitrariness. 
• Justice Sumeet Goel characterised the case as an unsoothing illustration of lack of due diligence reflective of an apathetic approach, finding the conduct of concerned police officials to be lackadaisical and stolid, compelling the Court to deprecate the protracted official torpor and discernible unwillingness to discharge solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner. 
• The Court observed that such lethargic conduct can be curbed only if Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such comportment, identifying the imposition of costs as a necessary instrument to weed out unscrupulous conduct and ensure that State officials discharge their duties with requisite diligence. 
• The Court noted that the Director General of Police, Punjab had initiated punitive action against concerned delinquent officials and implemented corrective measures through Circular No. 30 of 2025, whilst emphasising that such circulars must be scrupulously adhered to and implemented in true letter and spirit rather than remaining trifling formalities or mere paper directives. 
• Justice Sumeet Goel concluded that in discharging its sovereign constituent of prosecution, the State and its instrumentalities must act with dispatch and diligence, ensuring that procedural safeguards do not become instruments of delay and injustice, particularly when administrative inaction spans nearly two decades and undermines public faith in the efficacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. 

What is Section 193 of BNSS, 2023? 

• Report of police officer on completion of investigation: 
  • Sub-section (1): Investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay Sub-section (3)(i): Officer shall forward report to Magistrate as soon as investigation completed. 
• Delay in Filing Cancellation Report: 
  • Section 193(1) BNSS, 2023 mandates investigation completion "without unnecessary delay" creating statutory duty for timely report submission. 
  • Section 193(3)(i) BNSS, 2023 requires "as soon as investigation completed" forwarding to Magistrate, prohibiting administrative delays. 
  • 15-year delay in filing cancellation report violates Section 193 BNSS, 2023's core mandate of expeditious case disposal. 
  • Such protracted delay nullifies Section 193 BNSS, 2023's legislative intent of preventing indefinite case pendency. 
  • Non-filing for 15 years despite report preparation breaches Section 193 BNSS, 2023's constitutional duty framework. 
  • Administrative inaction converts Section 193 BNSS, 2023's procedural safeguards into instruments of legal harassment. 
  • Judicial intervention enforces Section 193 BNSS, 2023 compliance highlighting systemic police administration failures. 
  • Cost imposition reflects judicial determination to prevent future Section 193 BNSS, 2023 timeline violations.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice KV Viswanathan  in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka (2025) acquitted three accused persons convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), highlighting crucial principles governing circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).  

What was the Background of Nagamma v. State of Karnataka (2025) Case? 

The case involved a brutal murder arising from an alleged loan dispute between two policemen. 

Facts of the Case: 

• A1 (policeman) allegedly took a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased (also a policeman). 
• The deceased persistently demanded repayment of the loan. 
• A2 (wife of A1) allegedly called the deceased to her home on the pretext of repaying the debt on 10.03.2006. 
• Around 2 AM on 11.03.2006, the victim was allegedly made immobile by throwing chili powder and hacked to death with choppers. 
• A2 went to the police station after sunrise and confessed to the crime. 
• The prosecution alleged that A3 and A4 (brother and brother-in-law of A1) assisted in the murder. 

Trial Court Proceedings: 

• Prosecution examined 24 witnesses and marked 33 documents and 16 material objects. 
• A1 was acquitted due to perfect alibi (night duty at another police station). 
• A2 to A4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
• High Court affirmed the conviction in appeal. 

What were the Court's  Observations? 

On Circumstantial Evidence: 

• The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain of circumstances with cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link leading only to the guilt of the accused. 
• Key Principles: 
  • Must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. 
  • Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • The chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken. 

On Extra-Judicial Confessions: 

Critical Finding:  

• All alleged extra-judicial confessions were made within the police station and were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 

Court's Reasoning: 

• Confessions to police officers (PW-15, PW-17) barred under Section 25. 
• Confessions made in police custody without magistrate's presence barred under Section 26. 
• Location within police station made all confessions suspect. 

On Section 27 Recovery: 

• The Court noted that recovery under Section 27 includes not only the physical object but also the place and knowledge of concealment, which must be clearly established. 

Final Decision: 

Acquittal Ordered: The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted all accused, holding: 

1. Motive not established - Key witnesses unreliable and contradictory. 
2. Presence of dead body at accused's house doubtful - Witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements. 
3. Extra-judicial confessions inadmissible - All made within police station premises. 
4. Section 27 recovery unreliable - Simultaneous disclosures, hostile witnesses, no forensic link. 
5. Circumstantial evidence incomplete - Failed to form unbreakable chain pointing only to guilt.

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

About:  

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved.  
• It states that provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 
• Section 27 operates as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, creating a specific exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers while in custody are inadmissible as evidence. 
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.  

Provision in BSA: 

• In Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) this Section is included as provision to Section 23.  

Purpose:  

• The section serves a dual purpose:  
  • It protects against police misconduct by requiring factual confirmation of confessions while also ensuring that valuable evidence is not excluded merely because it was obtained through information provided by an accused in custody. 

Case Laws:  

• In State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005), the Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.  
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA. 

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sandeep Sharma has held that ruled that a retired government employee’s second wife cannot be denied pension benefits, despite the marriage being technically invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Shriramabai v. Captain Record Officer, emphasizing long cohabitation as a presumption of valid marriage. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Mahesh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2025).

What was the Background of Mahesh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2025) Case ? 

• Mahesh Ram was appointed as Carpenter/Foreman on regular basis with the government department in 1973. 
• He married Ms. Kamlesh Devi, daughter of Mr. Ghoundlu Ram, in 1994. 
• No child was born from their marriage, leading Ms. Kamlesh Devi and her parents to insist that he marry again. 
• During the subsistence of his first marriage, he solemnised a second marriage with Ms. Jawala Devi, who was the younger sister of his first wife, according to Hindu rites and customs. 
• The petitioner retired in 2003 and began drawing pension under PPO No.62182/HP. 
• Ms. Kamlesh Devi's name was recorded as nominee in his pension records. 
• His first wife Ms. Kamlesh Devi died on 20th April 2020. 
• He filed a representation on 31st January 2021 requesting change of nominee from Ms. Kamlesh Devi to Ms. Jawala Devi. 
• He made another representation/reminder on 29th April 2021 for the same purpose. 
• The department rejected his request stating that the second wife was not eligible for family pension. 
• The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the rejection order and direct authorities to enter his second wife's name in pension records. 
• The department argued that the second marriage was illegal under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• They relied on Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which bars second wives from pension benefits if married during subsistence of first marriage.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court acknowledged that under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner's marriage with Ms. Jawala Devi during subsistence of his first marriage could be considered illegal, but noted the peculiar facts and circumstances warranted different consideration. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Shiramabai v. Captain Record Officer (2023), observing that continuous cohabitation for a long period creates presumption of valid marriage and places heavy burden on those seeking to disprove the legal relationship. 
• The Court found that since there was no dispute about the marriage between petitioner and Ms. Jawala Devi, and they had cohabited since 1994, the objection regarding second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage should be overruled. 
• The Court observed that all legal representatives of the petitioner had become major with no objection to the nominee change, and recognised Ms. Jawala Devi as the legally wedded wife, determining no prejudice would be caused to either party. 
• The Court noted there was no one else except the petitioner who would claim family pension in the event of his demise, making this an exceptional circumstance. 
• The Court cited supportive precedents including Kusum Lata v. State of H.P. (2024) and Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager (2022), where similar relief was granted to second wives in comparable circumstances. 
• The Court concluded that despite rules prohibiting second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage, the peculiar circumstances of long cohabitation, absence of competing claimants, and family consent justified allowing the petition. 
• The Court directed entry of Ms. Jawala Devi's name in service records replacing Ms. Kamlesh Devi and ordered authorities to complete the process expeditiously within two months while quashing the rejection order. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred?

• Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
  • A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled: 
  • (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage 
  • (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent due to unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, or fits of insanity 
  • (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years 
  • (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship 
  • (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other 
• Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972: 
  • Where a Government servant contracts another marriage during the lifetime of his or her spouse, the pension and gratuity earned by such Government servant shall be forfeited 
  • However, the authorities may, by order, restore the whole or part of the pension and gratuity so forfeited 
  • No family pension shall be payable to a wife or husband whose marriage with the Government servant was contracted during the lifetime of a previous wife or husband 
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: 
  • (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it 
  • (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself 

Cases Referred  

• Shiramabai and Others v. The Captain Record Officer and Another (2023) - The Supreme Court established that continuous cohabitation for a long spell creates a presumption in favour of valid marriage, though this presumption is rebuttable with heavy burden on those seeking to disprove the relationship. 
• Kusum Lata v. State of H.P. and Others (2024) - A coordinate bench of the same High Court granted family pension to a second wife who had married during subsistence of the employee's first marriage, where no other successor claimed pension rights. 
• Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager and Others, Special Leave Petition (2022) - The Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to direct payment of family pension to a second wife who had married during subsistence of first marriage, recognising her spousal status due to long cohabitation.