List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam C. Chandak in the case of Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) declared the petitioner's arrest illegal and granted him bail, emphasizing that arrests must comply with constitutional safeguards and cannot be based on generic, template-driven reasons.

What was the Background of Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• FIR No. 293/2025 was registered on 29th September 2025 at Cyber Police Station, West Region, Mumbai, based on a complaint by Prakash Gopichand Gaba, a SEBI-registered Research Analyst. 
• The complaint alleged that since June 2025, fake videos (deepfakes) of the complainant providing investment advice were circulating on social media, defrauding investors. 
• The FIR invoked Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 
• The petitioner, Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik, was employed as Senior Vice President (Business Development) at Valueleaf Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., a digital technology company in Bengaluru. 
• On 9th October 2025, police visited the company's Bengaluru office and arrested three employees in connection with the FIR. 
• On 15th October 2025 at around 7:00-7:30 PM, officers from Cyber Police Station visited the petitioner's residence without prior notice as required under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 
• The petitioner cooperated fully, provided responses, and willingly handed over his mobile phone and laptop, but no seizure panchanama was drawn. 
• The petitioner was escorted to Cyber Police Station and his arrest was shown at 00:01 AM on 16th October 2025. 
• Grounds of arrest under Section 47 BNSS and intimation under Section 48 BNSS were provided, but the petitioner alleged they were vague and non-compliant. 
• On 16th October 2025, the petitioner was produced before the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, with a checklist containing reasons for arrest and a request for 5 days police custody. 
• The magistrate granted 4 days police custody till 20th October 2025 without examining the legality of the arrest. 
• On 20th October 2025, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody at Taloja Central Jail. 
• The petitioner's bail application was rejected on 31st October 2025, after which he filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution protect against arbitrary arrest, and Section 35 of BNSS mandates specific, written reasons for arrests in cases punishable up to 7 years. 
• The Court stated: "Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever". 
• Police must record factual, accused-specific reasons for arrest—not mechanical reproductions of statutory language. The Court emphasized: "Arrest is an individualized act" requiring distinct justification for each accused. 
• In this case, the reasons were generic template statements identical for all four accused, demonstrating non-application of mind and rendering the arrest illegal. 
• The magistrate has a constitutional duty to verify arrest legality before authorizing detention, not mechanically accept police submissions. The magistrate must record their own satisfaction in the remand order. 
• For offences punishable up to 7 years, police should first issue notice under Section 35(3), and arrest only upon non-compliance. No notice was issued to the petitioner despite his willingness to cooperate.

What is the Legal Framework for Arrest? 

Constitutional Provisions: 

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: 

• No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right ensures that any deprivation of liberty must follow due process. 

Article 22 – Protection Against Arrest and Detention: 

• Every arrested person must be informed of grounds for arrest and has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner. 
• Every arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (excluding journey time). 

Statutory Provisions under BNSS 2023: 

Section 35 – When Police May Arrest Without Warrant: 

• Section 35 of the BNSS 2023 is a provision that empowers police officers to arrest any person without obtaining a warrant from a Magistrate in specific circumstances involving cognizable offences. 

Immediate Arrest Situations: 

• When a person commits a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer. 
• When credible information is received that a person has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years, with or without fine, or with death sentence. 
• When a person has been proclaimed as an offender under BNSS or by State Government order. 
• When stolen property is found in someone's possession and they are reasonably suspected of committing an offence related to it. 
• When a person obstructs a police officer in execution of duty or has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody. 
• When a person is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the Armed Forces. 
• When a person is involved in an act committed outside India which would be punishable as an offence if committed in India. 
• When a released convict breaches rules made under Section 394(5). 
• When a requisition for arrest is received from another police officer. 

Conditional Arrest for Offences Up to Seven Years:  

• For cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years or extending up to seven years, arrest is permitted only if specific conditions are satisfied: 
  • The police officer has reason to believe the person committed the offence based on reasonable complaint, credible information, or reasonable suspicion. 
  • The police officer is satisfied that arrest is necessary for preventing further offences, proper investigation, preventing evidence tampering, preventing inducement or threats to witnesses, or ensuring court appearance. 
  • The police officer must record reasons in writing while making the arrest. 

Section 35(3) – Notice Procedure: 

• In cases where arrest is not required under Section 35(1), the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person to appear. 
• The person must comply with the notice terms. 
• Arrest can be made only upon non-compliance or if reasons are recorded showing arrest is necessary. 

Section 47 – Person Arrested to be Informed: 

• Every police officer arresting any person without warrant must forthwith communicate full particulars of the offence and grounds for arrest. 
• For bailable offences, the arrested person must be informed of their right to bail. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in the case of Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna and Ors. (2025) once an employee gets married, the nomination made in favour of a parent would cease to exist, and the General Provident Fund amount will be equally distributed between the deceased employee's wife and parents under Rule 33 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules, 1960.

What was the Background of Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case involved a Defence Accounts Department employee who nominated his mother (Respondent No.1) in 2000 for GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS), and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). 
• The deceased, Bolla Mohan, joined the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India on February 29, 2000. 
• Upon joining service, he nominated his mother (respondent) as the recipient of his General Provident Fund, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, and Death cum Retirement Gratuity. 
• The nomination form specified that the nomination would become ineffective or invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family. 
• On June 20, 2003, the deceased married the appellant. 
• After marrying the appellant in 2003, he updated nominations only for CGEGIS and DCRG in favor of his wife, but not for GPF. 
• The deceased died in service on July 4, 2021. 
• Following his death in 2021, the wife received all other service benefits totaling Rs. 60 lakhs including leave encashment, CGEIS, DCRG, and medical reimbursement, but was denied GPF, as authorities relied on the old nomination favoring the mother. 
• When the appellant applied for the GPF amount on September 9, 2021, the Defence Accounts Department refused release citing the mother's nomination on record. 
• The Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai held that the GPF nomination automatically became invalid upon the deceased employee's marriage and directed equal distribution of the fund between the wife and the mother. 
• The Bombay High Court reversed the CAT order, holding that the nomination continued unless the employee formally cancelled it, which prompted the appellant-wife to move to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noted that the nomination form clearly stated it would become invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family through marriage or otherwise, making it invalid by its own terms in 2003. 
• The bench stated that "the nomination in favour of the respondent no.1 (deceased's mother) would become invalid upon him (deceased employee) acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise)." 
• The Court reiterated the settled legal position that a nomination does not confer a superior claim over the General Provident Fund, holding that respondent no.1 (the deceased's mother) could not claim priority over the appellant (the deceased's wife). 
• The Court emphasized that upon the deceased acquiring a family, the earlier nomination in favor of his mother stood terminated, triggering Rule 33 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules, 1960, which mandates equal distribution of the GPF among eligible family members. 
• The Court emphasized that Rule 33 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules mandates that when no valid nomination subsists, the amount becomes payable to all family members in equal shares. 
• The Court cited the established legal principle that nomination merely indicates the hand authorized to receive the amount and does not confer beneficial interest, as held in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi (1984) and Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2024). 
• The Court clarified that respondent authorities are not obligated to ask subscribers to alter nominations and it remains the subscriber's duty to make such changes. 
• Accordingly, the bench held that "the GPF of the deceased shall be distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1." 
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld the CAT order directing equal distribution of the GPF amount between the appellant wife and the mother, guaranteeing equal rights to the wife and parents in the GPF amount upon marriage of the employee. 

What is the General Provident Fund? 

About: 

• The General Provident Fund is a retirement benefit scheme for government employees in India governed by the GPF (Central Service) Rules, 1960. 
• Government employees contribute a portion of their salary to the GPF during their service, which accumulates with interest over time. 
• Upon retirement, resignation, or death, the accumulated amount along with interest becomes payable to the subscriber or their legal representatives. 

Nomination Under GPF Rules: 

• Rule 5 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules allows subscribers to nominate one or more persons to receive the GPF amount in case of their death. 
• A subscriber can specify conditions under which the nomination becomes invalid, such as upon acquiring a family through marriage. 
• Rule 5(5)(b) provides that nomination shall become invalid upon occurrence of a contingency specified by the subscriber. 
• Rule 5(6) requires the subscriber to send written notice canceling the nomination and submit a fresh nomination when any event makes the previous nomination invalid. 

Distribution on Death of Subscriber: 

• Rule 33 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules governs the procedure upon death of a subscriber. 
• When a valid nomination in favor of family members subsists, the GPF amount becomes payable to the nominee in the specified proportion. 
• If no nomination in favor of family members subsists, the entire amount becomes payable to all family members in equal shares, notwithstanding any nomination in favor of non-family members.