List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. (2025) dismissed an appeal, holding that mere pendency of writ proceedings does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special statutes. 

What was the Background of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant's property was subjected to auction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of dues. 
• Instead of availing the specific statutory remedy provided under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the appellant approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition. 
• The High Court, in the writ proceedings, had granted an interim order staying the 'confirmation of the sale'. 
• An auction was conducted on 29.07.2005. 
• The appellant argued that filing a separate application under the Act was unnecessary because the High Court had already granted interim protection in the writ proceedings. 
• The appellant failed to file an objection to the auction sale within the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, noting the failure to exhaust the statutory remedy. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that "the appellant's failure to avail herself of the specific statutory mechanism cannot be excused merely because parallel proceedings were pending before the High Court." 
• The Court drew a critical distinction between staying the confirmation of sale and staying the conduct of the auction itself. 
• The Court noted that while the High Court had issued an interim order "staying confirmation of the sale," there was no order staying the conduct of the auction itself. 
• The Court observed that "the auction held on 29.07.2005 was not in violation of any subsisting judicial restraint," emphasizing that the authorities acted within their rights by proceeding with the auction. 
• The Court held that the appellant's belief that the entire process was frozen was based on a "misconceived" interpretation of the court's limited order. 
• The Court emphasized that "the stay on confirmation (of sale) does not suspend the statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 
• Referencing Rajasthan Housing Board & Others v. Krishna Kumari, (2005), the Court emphasized that interim protection cannot be used to frustrate statutory procedures for recovery. 
• The Court pointed out that the interim stay on sale confirmation didn't preclude the appellant from availing the statutory remedy under the Act. 
• The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's writ petition. 
• The Court held that mere pendency of a writ petition does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special laws. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

What is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies? 

• The doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a principle in administrative and constitutional law that requires litigants to pursue all available statutory or alternative remedies before approaching courts through extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• This doctrine ensures that specialized tribunals and statutory mechanisms created for specific purposes are given primacy before constitutional courts intervene. 
• The principle prevents the misuse of writ jurisdiction and maintains the efficiency of the judicial system by ensuring that matters are first addressed by bodies specifically designed to handle them. 
• Courts generally decline to entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors are involved.

What is Article 226 of the COI?  

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
  • Located within its jurisdiction or 
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arise either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Kusum Sahu (2025) set aside the High Court's order releasing an accused through habeas corpus jurisdiction, emphasizing that such jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent rejection of bail applications. 

What was the Background of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Kusum Sahu (2025) Case? 

• Jibrakhan Lal Sahu was accused in FIR No.157 of 2021 for offences under Sections 420 (cheating) and 409 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• He was arrested on December 12, 2023, and chargesheet was filed on February 9, 2024. 
• Between January and May 2024, the accused filed four bail applications before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which were all dismissed. 
• After rejection of all bail applications, his daughter Kusum Sahu filed a habeas corpus petition claiming her father was in unlawful detention. 
• The High Court, vide order dated October 3, 2024, allowed the writ petition and directed his release on a personal bond of ₹5,000. 
• The High Court acknowledged that bail rejection orders could be challenged before a higher court but proceeded to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, citing the parties' inability to afford Supreme Court appeal and their mental agony. 
• The State challenged this before the Supreme Court, which stayed the order on July 18, 2025, noting the jurisdiction exercise "shocks our conscience." 
• The accused surrendered on October 25, 2025. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the process followed by the High Court was "totally unknown to law" and the manner in which the case was dealt with "shocks the conscience of this Court." 
• The Court emphasized that custody of an accused in a criminal case cannot be held unlawful when bail applications have been properly dismissed. 
• The bench noted the High Court improperly examined the case on merits as if hearing a bail appeal, rather than determining unlawfulness of detention. 
• The Court warned against following such precedent as it would "scuttle the due process of law," stating it was necessary "to nip the evil in the bud." 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, clarifying that future bail applications may be considered on their own merits by the concerned court. 

What is Habeas Corpus? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Habeas corpus is a Latin term meaning "you may have the body." 
• It is a legal procedure that acts as a remedial measure for persons who are illegally detained. 
• The basic purpose is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. 
• It is an order issued by the court to present the detenu before the court and check whether the arrest was lawful or not. 
• The writ determines a person's right to freedom and personal liberty. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• The Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 have power to issue writs. 
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court issues writs for violation of fundamental rights. 
• Under Article 226, High Courts have wider jurisdiction to issue writs for both violation of legal as well as fundamental rights. 
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all authorities within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. 
• High Courts deal with matters when they have control over that authority, and the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction. 

Who May Apply: 

• The person confined or detained illegally. 
• Any person who is aware of the benefit of the case. 
• Any person familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case who willingly files an application under Article 32 or 226. 
• As held in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), if a detained person cannot file an application, some other person can file it on his behalf. 

When the Writ is Refused: 

• When the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the detainer. 
• When detention is connected with the order of a competent court. 
• When the person detained is already set free. 
• When confinement has been legitimized by removal of defects. 
• When a competent court dismisses the petition on grounds of merits. 

Nature and Scope: 

• It is a procedural writ, not a substantive writ, as held in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling (1974). 
• The focus is on the legality of detention by examining facts and circumstances, rather than merely producing the body before court. 
• The writ can be filed not only for wrongful confinement but also for protection from ill-treatment and discrimination by detaining authority, as held in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980). 
• The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to illegal confinement cases; successive petitions can be filed with fresh grounds. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden lies on the detaining person or authority to satisfy the court that detention was on legal grounds. 
• If the detenu alleges malicious confinement outside the authority's jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the detenu.