List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh in the case of State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg & Ors. (2025) deemed it necessary to issue general directions to tackle the issue of dowry deaths in society while reversing an acquittal in a dowry death case where a 20-year-old woman was set on fire by her husband and mother-in-law.

What was the Background of State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• A young girl named Nasrin was married to Ajmal Beg, and over the years, her husband and his family members continuously demanded a coloured television, a motorcycle, and Rs. 15,000 from her and her father. 
• In 2001, the husband and his family members allegedly assaulted the deceased, and before any help could arrive, the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. 
• When the maternal uncle arrived at the scene, he found her body burned and dead. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed following the incident. 
• The Trial Court convicted the husband and his mother under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relative) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 (penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
• Both convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. 
• The two convicts preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which acquitted them of all charges by an order dated October 7, 2003. 
• The High Court disregarded the testimony of the maternal uncle, stating that he was not an eyewitness to the incident, among other findings. 
• Against this order of acquittal, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court lamented that dowry is a social evil with deep roots in society, noting that a young girl barely twenty years old met a heinous death simply because her parents could not satisfy the material demands of her matrimonial family. 
• The Court found that the demand for dowry—a motorcycle, a colour TV, and Rs. 15,000—had been established beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence showing the demand was reiterated just a day prior to the deceased's death. 
• The Court held that the legal requirement of "soon before her death" under Section 304B IPC was met, and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act came into operation, emphasizing that there should be a reasonable nexus between her death and the dowry-related cruelty. 
• The Court found that the High Court erred in disregarding the maternal uncle's testimony and in accepting out of context the mother's statement about the deceased being happy in her matrimonial house. 
• The Court clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act makes no distinction between demands made prior to or after marriage. 
• The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the accused being poor meant they could not have made such demands and observed that the High Court reversed the Trial Court's findings without assigning proper reasons. 
• The husband was sentenced to life imprisonment, while the mother-in-law, aged 94 years, was not incarcerated.

What were the Directions Issued by the Court ? 

The Court acknowledged the oscillation between ineffectiveness of dowry laws and their misuse, recognizing that dowry has deep roots in society and needs concentrated effort from all stakeholders. The Court issued five key directions: 

1. Educational Curriculum Reform:States and the Union Government shouldmodify educational curriculum to reinforce that parties to marriage are equal and not subservient to each other. 
2. Appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers:Ensure Dowry Prohibition Officers are duly appointed in all States with proper resources, and their contact details aredisseminated adequately. 
3. Training for Officials:Police and judicial officers should receive periodic training to appreciate the social and psychological implications of dowry cases and distinguish genuine cases from frivolous ones.
4. Expeditious Disposal:High Courts should take stock of pending cases under Sections 304B and 498A IPC forexpeditious disposal, noting that this case took 24 years to conclude. 
5. Grassroot Awareness Programs:District Administration and District Legal Services Authorities should conduct regular workshops and awareness programs, especially for those outside the education system.
6. The judgment was to be circulated to all High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States, with compliance to be reviewed after four weeks. 

What is the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961? 

About: 

• Indian law, enacted on May 1, 1961, intended to prevent the giving or receiving of a dowry. 
• In this act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. 
• The original text of the ‘Dowry Prohibition Act’ was widely judged to be ineffective in curbing the practice of dowry.  
• Specific forms of violence against women continued to be linked to a failure to meet dowry demands.  In 1984, it was changed to specify that presents given to a bride or a groom at the time of a wedding are allowed.  
• The law required that a list be maintained describing each gift, its value, the identity of the person giving it, and the person’s relation to either party to the marriage.  
• The act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) were further amended to protect female victims of dowry-related violence.  
• Another layer of legal protection was provided in 2005 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 
• The Indian Penal Code,1860 was also modified in 1983 to establish specific crimes of dowry-related cruelty, dowry death, and abetment of suicide. 
• These enactments punished violence against women by their husbands or their relatives when proof of dowry demands, or dowry harassment could be shown. 

Penalties: 

• Giving and taking dowry:  
  • According to Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ,if any person after the commencement of the act gives or takes, abets the giving or taking of dowry shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term not less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of dowry, whichever is more. 
• Demanding dowry:  
  • According to Section 4 of the act if any person directly or indirectly demands dowry from the parents, relatives or guardians of the bride or the bridegroom shall be punished with an imprisonment of not less than six months and which shall extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 
• Ban on Advertisement: 
  • According to Section 4-A, the advertisement in any newspaper, journal or through any other medium or a share in the property, business, money, etc. by any person in consideration for marriage shall be punished with an imprisonment which shall not be less than six months and which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to fifteen thousand rupees. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in the case of Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (2025) ruled that once an auction sale is confirmed and the aggrieved party has not sought to set it aside, a separate suit challenging the order confirming the sale is expressly barred under Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

What was the Background of Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a 1970 mortgage by Duli Chand in favor of New Bank of India (Respondent No. 6) for a tractor loan. 
• Upon default by the mortgagor, the bank obtained an ex parte decree in 1984. 
• During the pendency of the suit and after the decree, two purchasers (Respondents 1 & 2) bought parcels of the mortgaged land from one of the judgment debtors in 1985. 
• In execution proceedings, the entire mortgaged property was auctioned in 1988, with the appellants (sons of a judgment debtor) declared as the highest bidders for ₹35,000. 
• The auction sale was confirmed in August 1988, and possession was delivered to the appellants in June 1989. 
• Subsequently, in July 1989, the respondents filed a separate civil suit seeking a declaration that the auction sale concerning their purchased portion was void, alleging irregularities and fraud in the auction process. 
• The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them owners and granting joint possession. 
• The defendant-Appellants moved to the Supreme Court challenging these concurrent rulings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court set aside the concurrent rulings of the lower courts and held that the separate suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 was not maintainable. 
• The Court observed that since the respondents claimed to be aggrieved by the auction sale, the separate suit would not be maintainable as per the express bar under Order XXI Rule 92(3) CPC, as the auction sale had been confirmed under Rule 92(1) and no application was made under Rules 89 or 90. 
• The separate suit was also barred under Section 47 of CPC, which mandates that all execution-related questions be determined by the executing court alone, and not by a separate suit. 
• The Court held that the respondents should have filed an application under Section 47 CPC instead of a separate suit. 
• The Court explained that although Rule 92(3) bars separate suits, parties may still file applications under Section 47 CPC on limited grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the sale. 
• The Court clarified that Section 47 cannot be used to bypass limitation periods under Rules 89, 90, or 91. If an application under Section 47 is actually based on grounds falling under these Rules, the executing court must treat it accordingly, and it will fail if the limitation period under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has expired. 
• Only when a party challenges the auction sale on the ground that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and a nullity can a Section 47 application be maintained after confirmation of sale. 
• The Court emphasized that to maintain a separate suit, one must overcome both the bar under Rule 92(3) and demonstrate that Section 47's bar does not apply. Parties to the original decree or their representatives must use Section 47 applications, not separate suits. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

About Order XXI of CPC: 

About: 

• Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the execution of decrees and orders. 
• It contains detailed provisions regarding the auction sale of property in execution proceedings. 
• The Order provides a comprehensive framework for conducting auction sales, confirming or setting aside such sales, and the rights of various parties involved. 

Rule 92 - Confirmation of Sale: 

• Rule 92(1) provides that the court shall confirm the sale after satisfying itself about the proper proclamation and procedure. 
• Rule 92(2) allows the court to set aside the sale on specific grounds such as material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, or if the property was sold for an amount substantially below the market value. 
• Rule 92(3) bars any person against whom an order under Rule 92 is made from instituting a separate suit regarding the order. 
• This provision creates a statutory bar against filing separate suits challenging confirmed auction sales. 

Section 47 of CPC: 

• The Court executing a decree has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions arising between parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. 
• Such questions must be decided by the executing Court itself and cannot be the subject of a separate suit. 
• The executing Court has the authority to determine whether any person is or is not a representative of a party for the purposes of this section. 
• A plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are both considered parties to the suit under this section. 
• A purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree is deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. 
• All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to the purchaser or their representative are considered questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.