List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ananda Chandra Behera recently ruled that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not apply to execution proceedings under Order XXI, as it is a self-contained and independent code, allowing decree-holders to file fresh execution applications despite technical defects. 

• The Orissa High Court held this in the matter of Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025).

What was the Background of Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The petitioner, Santosh Patra, was the original decree-holder (DHR) in Money Suit No.76 of 1987, which had resulted in a judgment and decree in his favour. 
• Pursuant to the said decree, the petitioner instituted Execution Case No.04 of 1991 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, seeking to execute the decree passed in Money Suit No.76 of 1987. 
• The execution petition filed by the petitioner sought recovery of certain amounts and properties from the judgment-debtors (JDRs), including movable properties in the form of two government vehicles and immovable properties as mentioned in the schedule attached to the execution application. 
• The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, vide order dated 27.09.2024, dropped the Execution Case No.04 of 1991 on technical grounds. 
• The execution petition was rejected on the ground that it was not executable due to several deficiencies, namely: the decree-holder had failed to indicate the exact amount of money to be realised from the judgment-debtors; no valuation of the two government vehicles was provided; and no valuation of the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule was furnished. 
• Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.09.2024, the petitioner filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Orissa High Court challenging the order dropping the execution case. 
• The petitioner contended that the execution case ought not to have been dropped without affording him an opportunity to rectify the technical defects and supply the requisite particulars as required under law. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that it is a fundamental principle of civil law that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to execution proceedings under the CPC. 
• The Court noted that Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which contains 106 Rules in total for execution of decrees and orders, constitutes a self-contained and independent Order. 
• By virtue of Order XXI being a self-contained code, the Court observed that the principles of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to execution proceedings. 
• The Court observed that in cases where an order is passed to drop execution proceedings on the ground of any technicality, the judgment-debtor is not precluded under law from filing a fresh application for execution by providing correct particulars to make the execution petition executable. 
• The Court held that a decree-holder (DHR) shall not be debarred from obtaining the fruits of a decree merely on account of technical defects in the application for execution, such as non-furnishing of particulars of movable and immovable properties. 
• The Court observed that as per law, an opportunity is required to be given to the decree-holder by the court to supply the required particulars in the application for execution in order to remove the defects therein. 
• The Court found that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur had passed the impugned order dropping Execution Case No.04 of 1991 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to supply the required particulars of the properties indicated in the execution application. 
• The Court observed that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to comply with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 11, Sub-clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Appendix (E) No.6, which mandate the furnishing of specific particulars for execution. 
• The Court held that in the absence of affording such an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 could not be sustained under law. 
• The Court concluded that there was no justification under law to disallow the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

What is Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

• Order XXI is titled "Execution of Decrees and Orders" and is a comprehensive code governing the execution of court decrees and orders. 
• Order XXI contains 106 Rules in total, making it a self-contained and independent order within the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• The Order provides for various modes of paying money under a decree, including payment inside and outside the court. 
• It prescribes the jurisdiction of courts executing decrees, including provisions for transferring execution to courts of other jurisdictions and Courts of Small Causes. 
• The Order details the procedure for filing applications for execution, including oral and written applications, and specifies requirements for applications seeking arrest, attachment of movable property, and attachment of immovable property. 
• It provides for the issuance of process for execution and circumstances under which courts may stay execution of decrees. 
• Order XXI specifies different modes of execution depending upon the nature of the decree, including decrees for payment of money, delivery of specific movable or immovable property, specific performance, restitution of conjugal rights, injunctions, and execution of documents. 
• The Order contains detailed provisions regarding attachment of various types of property, including movable property, agricultural produce, debts, shares, salary and allowances, partnership property, negotiable instruments, and immovable property. 
• It provides for adjudication of claims and objections to attachment of property by third parties. 
• Order XXI contains comprehensive provisions relating to sale of attached property, both movable and immovable, including proclamation requirements, conduct of sales, rights of purchasers, and setting aside of sales on various grounds. 
• The Order provides for delivery of possession of property to decree-holders or purchasers and remedies in cases of resistance, obstruction, or dispossession. 
• It includes provisions for procedural matters such as adjournment or stoppage of sales, restrictions on bidding by certain persons, and treatment of orders passed under certain rules as decrees. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice L. Victoria Gowri of the Madras High Court in the case of Navanitha v. The State of Tamil Nadu and A. Arun Kumar (2025) addresses the critical issue of moral policing and its direct link to the suicide of a woman, while strengthening bail conditions to deter such conduct.  

• It further highlighted that women, especially in rural areas, are often the worst victims of moral policing and such moral policing infringes their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 

What was the Background of Navanitha v. The State of Tamil Nadu and A. Arun Kumar (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from Crime No.439 of 2024 registered at Chinnamanur Police Station. 
• The case was initially registered under Section 194(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (relating to suspicious death) following the death of the petitioner's daughter by suicide. 
• During investigation, it was revealed that the accused, A. Arun Kumar, locked the door of the deceased's house from outside while she was inside conversing with another man, when her husband was away for work in Kerala. 
• This incident triggered rumours of an illicit relationship between the deceased and the man she was with, which spread throughout the village. 
• The rumours brought dishonour and disgrace upon the deceased in the eyes of villagers due to the perceived breach of social norms. 
• Unable to bear the social humiliation and ostracization, the deceased committed suicide. 
• The police arrested both A. Arun Kumar and Ramkumar in connection with the case. 
• A. Arun Kumar was remanded to judicial custody but was enlarged on bail within eight days. 
• Aggrieved by the early grant of bail, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.542 of 2025 seeking cancellation of bail. 
• The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail cancellation petition on the ground that no compelling case was made out. 
• The present revision was filed challenging that order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench expressed serious concern about moral policing as a dangerous and regressive practice with no legal sanction, emphasizing that women in rural societies are the worst victims of such vigilante acts. 
• The Court held that moral policing violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects dignity and personal liberty, and contributes to social ostracisation and tragic consequences. 
• The bench emphasized that India's international obligations under CEDAW and ICCPR, read with Article 21, mandate safeguarding women from vigilante actions that tarnish their dignity and compromise fundamental rights. 
• The Court balanced the rights of the accused under Article 21 with the societal interest in preventing moral policing. 
• The Court declined to cancel the bail but strengthened the bail conditions as a deterrent against moral policing. 
• The Criminal Revision Petition was disposed of with modification in bail conditions. 

What is Moral Policing? 

• Moral policing refers to the practice of self-appointed individuals or groups enforcing their perception of morality and social norms on others. 
• It typically involves vigilante actions where individuals take it upon themselves to monitor, control, or punish conduct they deem immoral or socially inappropriate. 
• Moral policing often targets women, particularly in rural and traditional communities, restricting their personal freedoms and autonomy. 
• Such actions lack any legal sanction and are driven by subjective interpretations of social morality. 
• Moral policing frequently results in social ostracization, harassment, and psychological trauma for victims. 
• In severe cases, as evidenced in this judgment, moral policing has driven victims to tragic consequences including suicide. 
• In rural communities, moral policing has led to honour killings, forced marriages, suicides, and other forms of violence against women. 

What is Article 21 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. 
• Article 21 secures two rights: 
  • Right to life 
  • Right to personal liberty 
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.  
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.  
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:  
  • Right to privacy  
  • Right to go abroad  
  • Right to shelter  
  • Right against solitary confinement  
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment  
  • Right against handcuffing  
  • Right against custodial death  
  • Right against delayed execution  
  • Doctors’ assistance   
  • Right against public hanging  
  • Protection of cultural heritage  
  • Right to pollution-free water and air  
  • Right of every child to a full development  
  • Right to health and medical aid  
  • Right to education  
  • Protection of under-trials 

Case Laws:  

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society 
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world. 

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a plea seeking reconstruction of Ujjain’s Takiya Masjid, holding that the right to practice religion under Article 25 isn’t tied to a specific place. Citing a 1978 Allahabad HC ruling, the Court said acquisition of land with a mosque doesn’t violate religious freedom. 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Mohammed Taiyab v. State of MP  (2025). 

What was the Background of Mohammed Taiyab v. State of MP (2025) Case? 

• The appellants, Mohammed Taiyab and others, are local residents of Ujjain who regularly offered namaz at Takiya Masjid situated at Survey Numbers 2324-2329 of Revenue Circle-3, Tehsil Ujjain. 
• The Masjid was established approximately 200 years ago and was declared as Waqf property through Official Gazette Notification dated 13th December, 1985. 
• The State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings to expand the parking space of Mahakal Lok Parishar in Ujjain. 
• The State passed an award, distributed compensation to persons claimed to be encroachers, and demolished the Masjid on 11th January, 2025. 
• The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1515 of 2025 seeking directions for reconstruction of the Masjid and initiation of enquiry against responsible government officials. 
• The State contended that the land acquisition was conducted following due process of law and that all properties had vested with the State Government. 
• The State further contended that multiple writ petitions filed by affected persons challenging the acquisition had been dismissed by the Court. 
• The Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board had filed a civil suit under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 before the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal claiming title and right to receive compensation. 
• The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 4th September, 2025 on the grounds that acquisition proceedings had attained finality. 
• The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 2782 of 2025 challenging the Single Judge's order before the Division Bench. 
• The appellants relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee case, arguing that as devotees they possessed the right to seek reconstruction. 
• The appellants contended that the State's actions violated their religious rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 
• The appellants emphasized that once property is declared as Waqf property, it remains Waqf property in perpetuity and was therefore wrongfully acquired. 
• The State relied upon the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Mohammad Ali Khan case, contending that the appellants lacked locus standi to file the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the Masjid and land had been acquired following due process of law, with compensation distributed to numerous persons in possession. 
• The Court noted that although the appellants were challenging the acquisition proceedings, they were not seeking quashment of the same in the relief clause. 
• The Court held that without seeking relief for quashment of the acquisition proceedings and award, the relief of restoration and consequential construction cannot be granted. 
• The Court expressed full agreement with the Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohammad Ali Khan case regarding the right to practise religion. 
• The Court held that the profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed under Article 25 is a personal right which has no nexus with any particular place or territory. 
• The Court observed that a person may offer prayers at any mosque, in his house, or elsewhere, and is not confined to any particular place. 
• The Court held that acquisition of land on which a mosque exists cannot be deemed to deprive an individual of his right to freely practise religion. 
• The Court observed that Article 25 is subject to Article 31, and the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 cannot take away the State's right to lawfully acquire property. 
• The Court held that the right to practise religion encompasses freedom to practise it anywhere and not its practice in any particular place. 
• The Court concluded that the appellants had no locus standi to seek reconstruction of the Masjid. 
• The Court found no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 
• The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal with no order as to costs. 

What is the Scope and Significance of the Freedom of Conscience and Religion Guaranteed Under Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 

• Part III of the Constitution of India contains Fundamental Rights, and the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 is subject to other provisions contained in Part III. 
• Article 25 - Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion 
• Clause (1) - General Right: 
  • Article 25(1) guarantees all persons the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. 
  • The freedom under Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) ensures equal entitlement to all persons irrespective of their religious affiliation. 
• Clause (2) - State's Power to Regulate: 
  • Article 25(2) empowers the State to make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice. 
  • Article 25(2) permits the State to enact laws for social welfare and reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
  • Nothing in Article 25 affects the operation of any existing law or prevents the State from making regulatory laws. 
• Explanations: 
  • Explanation I provides that wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. 
  • Explanation II provides that references to Hindus and Hindu religious institutions shall include persons professing Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion and their respective religious institutions. 
• Interpretative Principles: 
  • The freedom to profess religion means the right to declare one's religious beliefs and faith openly and freely. 
  • The freedom to practice religion encompasses the right to act according to one's religious beliefs and perform religious rituals. 
  • The freedom to propagate religion includes the right to communicate and spread one's religious beliefs to others. 
  • Article 25 confers individual rights upon persons as distinguished from collective or institutional rights under Article 26. 
  • The freedom under Article 25 is a personal right which has no necessary nexus with any particular place or territory where it is exercised.