List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court in the case of X v. State & Anr. (2026) held that a married woman undergoing abortion due to marital discord affecting her mental health does not commit an offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if the procedure is conducted in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).  

What was the Background of X v. State & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• A woman underwent an abortion at 14 weeks of pregnancy due to marital discord that was affecting her mental health. 
• She was subsequently summoned under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for undergoing the abortion. 
• The woman challenged the summoning order before the Delhi High Court. 
• The attending doctor had noted in the OPD Card that in view of existing judgments, abortion could not be denied and therefore proceeded with the procedure. 
• The woman had already experienced stress in her marriage and had decided to separate from her husband at the time of the abortion. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the right to exercise reproductive choice is recognized and protected under the MTP Act when a woman's mental or physical health is at stake, and abortion is a decision that the woman alone should make. 
• Justice Krishna emphasized that control over reproduction is a basic right of all women, including rights to legal and safe abortion, birth control, quality reproductive healthcare, and informed reproductive choice. 
• The Court recognized that mental trauma from marital discord can cause severe mental health issues and held that "mental health" should not be interpreted narrowly as merely a physiological or neurological condition. 
• It held that marital discord need not mean parties have separated or commenced litigation—the stress and feeling of discord itself creates a situation likely to impact mental health, making a woman competent to seek abortion. 
• The Court observed that in a misogynistic world, a woman facing marital discord during pregnancy suffers compounded trauma as she is often left to shoulder responsibility alone, bringing insurmountable difficulties and grave mental trauma. 
• The Court stated that an unborn foetus cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the rights of a living woman, and forcing a woman to continue unwanted pregnancy violates her bodily integrity and aggravates mental trauma. 
• The Court noted that Rule 3B of MTP Rules 2021 extends to all women who undergo a change of material circumstances, not just those in limited enumerated situations, and that barriers continue to prevent full access to safe abortions. 
• The Court quashed the summoning under Section 312 IPC, holding that when the Supreme Court has recognized a woman's autonomy to seek abortion in situations of marital discord impacting mental health, and considering MTP Act provisions, no offence was committed. 

What is the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971? 

• The MTP Act came into force on 1st of April 1972.  
• The MTP Act allowed pregnancy termination by a medical practitioner in two stages: 
  • A single doctor's opinion was necessary for abortions up to 12 weeks after conception. 
  • For pregnancies between 12 to 20 weeks old, the opinion of two doctors was required to determine if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health or if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously “handicapped” before agreeing to terminate the woman’s pregnancy. 
• This Act was updated more comprehensively in 2020, and the revised law became effective in September 2021 with the following amendments.  
  • Increase in the maximum gestational age at which a woman may obtain a medical abortion from 20 weeks under the MTP Act of 1971 to 24 weeks. 
  • A single qualified medical professional’s opinion might be used to access the MTP up to 20 weeks into the pregnancy and from 20 weeks up to 24 weeks, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners would be required. 
  • After seeking the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks of gestational age under the conditions given below: 
    • If the woman is either a survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest; 
    • If she is a minor; 
    • If there is a change in her marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (due to widowhood or divorce); 
    • If she suffers from major physical disabilities or she is mentally ill; 
    • Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of fetal malformation incompatible with life or the possibility of a seriously handicapped child being born; 
    • If the woman is situated in a humanitarian setting or disaster or stuck in the emergency as declared by the Government. 
  • Abortion is performed based on fetal abnormalities in cases where pregnancy has progressed over 24 weeks. 
    • A four-member Medical Board, established in each state under the MTP Act, must grant permission for this type of abortion.

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal in the case of Shadab v. State of U.P. (2025) granted bail to the applicant while highlighting serious concerns about police non-compliance with mandatory videography requirements under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) during search and seizure operations. 

What was the Background of Shadab v. State of U.P. (2025) Case? 

• The bail application was filed seeking release of the applicant in Case Crime No. 185 of 2024 under Sections 305(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. 
• The applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). 
• Subsequently, based on information, the applicant along with four other co-accused persons were arrested. 
• From their joint possession, 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered. 
• There was no private witness present during the recovery, nor was any videography conducted of the alleged recovery. 
• The applicant's counsel argued that videography of recovery is compulsory as per Section 105 BNSS, and its absence creates doubt over the entire prosecution story. 
• Two co-accused persons, Shoeb and Owais, had already been released on bail by coordinate benches of the Allahabad High Court. 
• The applicant contended he was on similar footing as the co-accused who had been granted bail on grounds of parity. 
• The charge sheet had been filed in the case, eliminating the need for custodial interrogation. 
• The applicant had been in jail since April 16, 2025. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court considered the facts, overcrowded jails, and heavy pendency of criminal cases before granting bail to the applicant with conditions including cooperation in trial, no inducement to witnesses, and no criminal activity. 
• The Court observed that police failed to conduct mandatory videography of the recovery of 40 motorcycles or prepare a list of seized items, as required under Section 105 of BNSS. This non-compliance showed negligence and arbitrariness, creating doubt over the prosecution story. 
• The Court noted encountering numerous cases where police failed to conduct audio-video recording even when independent witnesses were unavailable, giving undue benefit to criminals during bail and trial proceedings. 
• The Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to issue detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) mandating audio-video recording of search, seizure and possession of property through E-Sakshya portal or other electronic means including mobile phones. 
• Failure to comply with Section 105 BNSS read with Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 may attract disciplinary proceedings against concerned police officers. 
• The Court emphasized this would serve dual purposes: preventing false implication of innocent persons and preparing foolproof evidence against genuine criminals for bail applications and trial. 

What is Section 105 of BNSS? 

About Section 105 BNSS: 

• Applies to search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under the relevant chapter or Section 185 BNSS. 
• Covers the entire process of search and seizure operations. 

What Must Be Recorded: 

• The complete process of conducting search of a place. 
• Taking possession of any property, article or thing. 
• Preparation of the list of all things seized during search and seizure. 
• Signing of such list by witnesses. 

Mode of Recording: 

• Must be recorded through any audio-video electronic means. 
• Mobile phone is the preferred device for recording. 

Submission Requirement: 

• The police officer shall forward the recording without delay. 
• Recording must be sent to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. 

Purpose: 

• Prevents false recovery and fabrication of evidence by police officials. 
• Creates reliable legal material for fair trial proceedings.