List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar v. State (2025) upheld the conviction and seven years sentence of a man for committing aggravated sexual assault upon a minor girl aged 3 years and 11 months under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.  

What was the Background of Dharmendra Kumar v. State (2025) Case? 

• The convict was a tenant in the house of the victim's family. 
• The victim's mother gave a statement that the convict had flashed his private part and made the minor touch it. 
• The victim was a minor girl aged 3 years and 11 months at the time of the incident. 
• The convict was convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 354, 354A and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Section 354 IPC deals with outraging modesty of a woman. 
• Section 354A IPC deals with sexual harassment. 
• Section 354B IPC deals with assaulting or using criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe. 
• The convict was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 
• The convict challenged his conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court sustained the conviction and sentence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 
• Justice Krishna observed that the testimony of the victim reflected that before recording her statement, questions were addressed to her to ensure that she was comfortable and was competent to give a statement. 
• The Court rejected the contention that the competency of the child was not assessed before recording of her statement. 
• The Court held that the delay in registration of FIR was sufficiently explained and cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. 
• The Court emphasized that making a small child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault. 
• The Court held that the offence under Section 10 POCSO Act was duly established. 
• However, the Court set aside the conviction for the offences under Section 354 (outraging modesty), 354A (sexual harassment) and 354B (assaulting or using criminal force on a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

What is the POCSO Act, 2012? 

About: 

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development. 
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.  
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.  
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents. 
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO amendment bill, 2019.  
• Section 4 of this Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault.  
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years. 

Section 10 of the POCSO Act: 

• Section 10 - Punishment for Aggravated Sexual Assault - Five to seven years imprisonment plus fine for aggravated sexual assault offences. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria in Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) & other multiple special leave petitions related to the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case held that Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 encompasses forms of violence that threaten national sovereignty and security, even where such acts destabilize civic life without immediate physical violence. 

What was the Background of the Delhi Riots UAPA Cases? 

• The cases arose from allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots, with seven accused persons seeking bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 
• The accused included Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. 
• The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to commit terrorist acts as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA. 
• The alleged conspiracy involved planning to disrupt essential supplies and services through "chakka jams" (roadblocks) across vital parts of Delhi. 
• The accused were charged under various provisions including Section 15 (terrorist act) and Section 18 (conspiracy to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA. 
• The lower courts had denied bail to all the accused persons in the case. 
• The matter reached the Supreme Court through special leave petitions challenging the denial of bail. 
• The central question before the Court was the interpretation of "terrorist act" under Section 15 and whether the alleged conduct of the accused constituted such acts. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that Section 15 of UAPA is not restricted to conventional forms of violence involving bombs, explosives, firearms or other traditional weapons. 
• The statutory provision consciously employs the expression "by any other means of whatever nature", indicating Parliament's intent to cover unconventional methods of terrorism. 
• The Court reasoned that the statutory emphasis is not solely on the instrumentality employed, but on the design, intent, and effect of the act. 
• The consequences contemplated under Section 15 include disrupting supplies or services essential to the life of the community, which need not be accompanied by immediate physical violence. 
• Regarding the distinction between Sections 15 and 18, the Court explained that Section 15 defines terrorist acts while Section 18 extends liability to those who contribute through planning, coordination, or mobilization. 
• The Court noted that the statutory scheme contemplates terrorist acts involving multiple actors performing different roles towards a common unlawful objective. 
• The Court found prima facie evidence that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were architects of the alleged conspiracy and denied them bail. 
• The Court concluded that the alleged calls to hold "chakka jams" to cut essential supplies constituted conspiracy to commit terrorist acts through "other means". 
• The Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, reasoning that their roles were merely facilitative in nature. 

What is  the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967? 

About:  

• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, dealing with terrorist activities, and related matters.  
• Originally, "unlawful activities" referred to actions supporting secession or questioning India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
• The Act empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute cases nationwide. 

Key Amendments: 

The UAPA underwent multiple amendments expanding its scope: 

• 2004 Amendment: Added "terrorist act" to the list of offences beyond unlawful activities related to secession. 
• 2008 Amendment: Expanded provisions related to terrorist financing. 
• 2012 Amendment: Addressed cyber-terrorism and property seizure mechanisms. 
• 2019 Amendment: Empowered the government to designate individuals as terrorists (previously only organizations could be designated). 

Major Provisions: 

• Government Powers: The central government has complete authority to declare any activity unlawful by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette. 
• Investigation Timeline: The investigating agency can file a chargesheet within a maximum of 180 days after arrests, with extensions possible after intimating the court. 
• Extraterritorial Application: Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged, applicable even if the crime is committed outside India. 
• Penalties: The Act provides for death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments. 
• Bail Restrictions: Section 43D(5) creates stringent bail conditions, requiring courts to believe that accusations are prima facie not true before granting bail—reversing the usual presumption in favor of bail. 

Section 15 of the UAPA Act: 

• Section 15 of the UAPA defines "terrorist act" as acts committed with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, including economic security, or sovereignty of India. 
• The provision covers acts intended to strike terror in the people or any section of the people. 
• The section is not limited to any particular method or instrumentality of violence. 

Related Judgments on UAPA and Bail: 

• Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011): The Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless they resort to violence, incite violence, or create disorder. However, in 2023, the Court reversed this position, ruling that membership alone can be considered an offense even without overt violence. 
• People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004): The Court held that if human rights are violated in combating terrorism, it will be self-defeating. The judgment emphasized that a former police officer is not suitable for appointment to the National Human Rights Commission. 
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): The Court affirmed that protests against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate, provided they remain peaceful and non-violent. 
• Hussain and Anr. v. Union of India (2017): The Court emphasized expediting bail applications, reiterating that bail should be the standard and imprisonment the exception. 
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019): The Supreme Court held that courts should not delve deeply into evidence but rather trust the state's case as presented when deciding UAPA bail applications—a precedent heavily relied upon in denying bail to Khalid and others.