List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) allowed an IAS officer's appeal and set aside the Patna High Court's decision, holding that the sanction order was vitiated for being passed without proper application of mind and the supplementary chargesheet was filed after an inordinate delay. 

What was the Background of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was lodged in Saharsa, Bihar in 2005 against the appellant who was serving as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority during 2002-2005. 
• The allegations were that the appellant had issued arms licenses to fictitious and physically unfit persons without proper police verification. 
• The initial investigation conducted in 2006 cleared the appellant, terming the allegations against him as "false." 
• In 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted further investigation into the matter. 
• After a gap of 11 years, in 2020, the investigating agency filed a supplementary chargesheet naming the officer as an accused. 
• Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was granted in 2022. 
• The appellant challenged the proceedings before the Patna High Court, which refused to quash the FIR on the grounds of vitiated sanction order. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that a sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) to prosecute a public servant cannot rest on vague or mechanical assertions and must reflect a clear application of mind by the competent authority. 
• The bench observed that "Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion." 
• The Court noted that the avowed object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that the threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over the heads of officials in discharge of their public duty. 
• The judgment stated that if sanction is based on vague statements such as "on perusal of the documents and evidences mentioned in Case Diary available", this protection would be obliterated. 
• The Court observed that while the sanction order touched upon the essence of Section 197 CrPC and the fact that the appellant is a public servant who would be covered thereby, "The substance of why a sanction is required was however entirely missed by the sanctioning authority." 
• The bench declared the sanction order as "bad in law and must be set aside" and consequently quashed all consequential actions including the order taking cognizance. 
• The Court condemned the "unreasonably long period" of 11 years taken for further investigation, stating that the appellant had "the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years." 
• Reaffirming that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the investigation stage, the Court held that "investigations cannot continue endlessly." 
• The bench concluded that the accused "cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation," and held that the delay itself was a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. 
• The Court set aside the Patna High Court's decision and allowed the appeal. 

What is Section 218 of BNSS? 

Section 218 - Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants 

Scope of Protection: 

• Applies to Judges, Magistrates, and public servants not removable from office without government sanction. 
• Protection covers offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. 
• Courts cannot take cognizance of such offences without previous sanction. 

Sanction Requirements: 

• Central Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of the Union. 
• State Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of a State. 
• During President's Rule (Article 356), Central Government sanction required even for State employees, 

Time Limit for Sanction Decision: 

• Government must decide on sanction request within 120 days from receipt. 
• If no decision is taken within 120 days, sanction is deemed to have been accorded automatically. 

Exceptions - No Sanction Required: 

• For offences under specific sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 197, 198, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 141, or 351. 
• Exception also provided under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 

Armed Forces Protection: 

• No cognizance without Central Government's previous sanction for Armed Forces members. 
• State Government can extend this protection to forces maintaining public order through notification. 
• During President's Rule, Central Government sanction required for state forces as well. 

Prosecution Control: 

• Central/State Government may determine who will conduct prosecution. 
• Government may specify the manner of prosecution and specific offences to be prosecuted. 
• Government may designate the court where trial will be held. 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale in the case of The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) held that the obligation of children to look after and maintain their parents is an unconditional statutory duty under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and is not dependent on whether the child is in possession of, or will inherit, the parent's property. 

What was the Background of The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petition was filed by the Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society and its hospital, which had been caring for a 76-year-old woman, Mrs. Mohini Puri. 
• Mrs. Puri was admitted on 24 August 2025 in a severely malnourished and unstable condition due to an acute stroke. 
• The hospital continued to treat her despite unpaid dues of approximately ₹16,00,000. 
• Her son (Respondent No. 3) refused both to pay the outstanding medical bills and to take her home following treatment. 
• The son levelled allegations of medical negligence against the hospital. 
• The son continued to avoid taking responsibility for his mother's care, even refusing to give an undertaking to care for her when proposed by the Court. 

• The Court noted inaction by the police officer involved and the Senior Citizen Tribunal in addressing the abandonment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that abandonment or neglect of an elderly and medically fragile parent strikes at the heart of constitutional and statutory guarantees ensuring dignity, health and a meaningful life for senior citizens. 
• The Court held that the son's conduct demonstrated a prima facie case of complete neglect and abandonment. 
• Referring to Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the Bench held that the duty of a child to maintain and look after the parent is "unconditional and arises by birth," unlike the duty of a relative, which is linked to possession or inheritance of property. 
• The Court emphasized: "The obligation and duty of a child/children to look after their parents or a senior citizen, is not conditional on being in possession of property of the parent or senior. This obligation is cast on the child by birth and is unconditional. Apart from being a moral and pious duty, it is also a statutory duty imposed by the law." 
• The Court criticized the inaction of the police officer and the Senior Citizen Tribunal, noting that their failure to take steps under the Act defeats its very purpose and object. 
• The Court observed that the son ought not be permitted to use or enjoy the properties, despite breaching the obligatory duty to maintain and care for his mother. 
• The Court noted that the Maintenance Tribunal may consider protective orders to safeguard the mother's properties during the period she is under State care. 

Directions Issued by the Court: 

The High Court issued detailed directions for Mrs. Puri's immediate medical care: 

• Shifting her to Bhabha Hospital under medical supervision. 
• Directing the State to bear the cost of treatment if the son fails to comply. 
• Requiring the Maintenance Tribunal to take necessary steps under the Senior Citizens Act. 
• Prohibiting the son from dealing with her properties without leave of the Court. 
• Directing the son to disclose all her movable and immovable assets. 
• The petition was allowed in these terms. 

What is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

About: 

• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens in India. The Act defines a "senior citizen" as any person who is a citizen of India and has attained the age of 60 years or above. 

Key Provisions: 

• Maintenance Obligation (Sections 4-18): Children have a legal obligation to maintain their parents, and relatives have an obligation to maintain childless senior citizens. 
• Establishment of Tribunals (Section 7): State governments must establish Maintenance Tribunals to adjudicate maintenance claims. 
• Old Age Homes (Section 19): State governments are required to establish old age homes in each district. 
• Medical Support (Section 20): Provisions for medical care for senior citizens. 
• Protection of Life and Property (Sections 21-23): Measures to protect senior citizens' lives and property. 

Section 22: Authorities for Implementation: 

• Section 22 deals with the authorities responsible for implementing the Act's provisions: 
• Powers to District Magistrate:  
  • The State Government may confer powers and duties on District Magistrates to ensure proper implementation of the Act. 
  • District Magistrates can delegate these powers to subordinate officers within specified local limits. 
• Comprehensive Action Plan:  
  • State Governments are required to prescribe a comprehensive action plan specifically for protecting the life and property of senior citizens. 
  • This section essentially creates the administrative framework for enforcement of the Act, placing responsibility on District Magistrates as the primary implementation authorities at the district level. 

Section 23: Protection of Property Rights 

• Section 23 is particularly significant as it provides safeguards against property transfers that may leave senior citizens vulnerable: 
• Void Transfers (Section 23(1)):  
• If a senior citizen transfers property (by gift or otherwise) with the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs 
  • And if the transferee fails to provide these amenities and needs 
  • Then the property transfer can be declared void by the Tribunal 
  • Such transfers are deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence 
• Right to Maintenance from Estate (Section 23(2)):  
  • If a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance from an estate 
  • And if that estate is transferred to another person 
  • The right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee if:  
  • The transferee had notice of this right, OR 
  • The transfer was gratuitous (without consideration) 
  • The right cannot be enforced against a transferee who paid consideration and had no notice of the right 
• Third-Party Action (Section 23(3)):  
  • If a senior citizen is incapable of enforcing these rights 
  • Authorized organizations can take action on behalf of the senior citizen 
  • Section 23 essentially provides a mechanism to invalidate property transfers where the senior citizen is left without care after transferring property and protects their right to maintenance despite property transfers.