List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan in the case of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (2025) set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision denying bail to the appellant, who was added as an accused during the middle of the trial under Section 319 CrPC (358 of BNSS).  

• The Court laid down a rule for granting bail to a person added as an additional accused in the middle of the trial, stating that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement. 

What was the Background of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a murder FIR in which nine persons were named as accused. 
• The police filed chargesheet against only three accused and closed the case against the remaining six persons. 
• During the trial, prosecution witnesses named all nine accused persons in their testimonies. 
• In 2022, an application was filed under Section 319 CrPC to summon the six accused against whom the case had been closed. 
• The trial court partially allowed the application and summoned three of the dropped accused, including the appellant. 
• The appellant was arrested on a non-bailable warrant and remained in custody. 
• The Jharkhand High Court rejected the appellant's bail plea. 
• The other two newly summoned accused were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. 
• Two appeals were filed before the Supreme Court - one by the appellant against rejection of bail, and another by the State against grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC and is arrested, the relevant consideration while deciding bail should be the presence of strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of complicity. 
• The bench emphasized that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement. 
• The Court laid down a structured three-tier approach for considering bail in cases involving accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC: 
  • The evidence must disclose more than a mere prima facie case, which is ordinarily sufficient for framing charges. 
  • At the same time, it need not meet the higher threshold of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would necessarily lead to conviction. 
  • There must be strong and cogent evidence indicating the accused's complicity, justifying continued custody. 
  • The Court stated that the test is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. 
• The Court directed that factors like the nature of the offence, the quality of the evidence against the new accused, and the likelihood of the person absconding or tampering with evidence should be weighed. 
• The bench observed that the higher threshold required to deny bail to a Section 319 accused was not met in the present case. 
• The Court applied the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused were already out on bail, which weighed in favor of the appellant. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail. 
• The State's appeal against grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused was dismissed. 

What is Section 319 of CrPC (358 of BNSS)?  

• This provision provides for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence. 
• This is contained in Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that- 
  • Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 
  • Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then— 
    • The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; 
    • Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 
• Essential Elements of Section 319: 
• There is any enquiry or trial of an offence. 
• It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused has committed any offence for which, the person to be tried together with the accused. 

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya in the case of Dr. Soma Mandal Debnath v. Sri Tanmoy Debnath (2025) held that a husband maligning his wife at her workplace, questioning her chastity and abusing her before colleagues amounts to mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 

What was the Background of Dr. Soma Mandal Debnath v. Sri Tanmoy Debnath (2025) Case? 

• The appeal was filed by a woman doctor challenging a Family Court judgment which had dismissed her suit for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• The wife, a medical professional working at a hospital in Kurseong, alleged systematic harassment and humiliation by her husband. 
• The husband repeatedly visited her workplace and abused her in front of her colleagues. 
• The husband spread rumours about her chastity and character at her professional workplace. 
• The husband threatened her with dire consequences. 
• The wife had specifically pleaded that these acts of public humiliation at her workplace caused severe mental cruelty. 
• The wife sought permission from the Family Court to examine her colleagues through video conferencing to prove her allegations. 
• The Family Court rejected her request for video conferencing evidence in a one-line order, citing lack of infrastructure. 
• The Trial Judge disbelieved the wife's version on the ground that she could not produce supporting witnesses. 
• The Family Court dismissed the wife's suit for divorce, finding that she had not adequately proved cruelty. 
• The husband's written statement contained only bald and evasive denials of the serious allegations without any meaningful explanation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench observed that "The learned Trial Judge having himself refused to permit oral evidence through video conferencing on the flimsy ground of lack of infrastructure, could not have drawn adverse inference against the appellant-wife on the self-same ground of not having adduced evidence." 
• The Court held that such an approach resulted in grave prejudice to the wife and amounted to denial of a fair opportunity to prove cruelty. 
• The Court applied the doctrine of non-traverse, noting that the husband's written statement contained only evasive denials without meaningful explanation. 
• The bench observed "Thus, the denial of the specific and categorical allegations… are, at the most, evasive. Hence, the allegations are established in any event by the doctrine of non-traverse." 
• The Court emphasized that public humiliation, character assassination, and professional defamation inflicted by a spouse strike at the core of an individual's dignity and mental peace and cannot be brushed aside as trivial marital discord. 
• The bench held that "The allegations of the wife regarding the consistent attempts of the husband to malign her in her workplace… constitute mental cruelty of the gravest form." 
• The Court emphasized that humiliating a spouse in a professional setting has a far deeper psychological impact, noting that professional dignity forms an intrinsic part of a person's identity. 
• After examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the wife had successfully proved both cruelty and desertion. 
• The Court set aside the Family Court's judgment and granted a decree of divorce to the wife. 
• The Court also granted visitation rights to the husband with respect to the minor son, laying down a detailed schedule to safeguard the child's welfare. 

What is Cruelty? 

About: 

• Cruelty is recognized as a ground for divorce under various matrimonial laws in India, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or other matrimonial legislation. 
• Generally, cruelty is any behavior which causes harm to a spouse, whether physical or mental, intentional or unintentional. 
• The concept of cruelty has evolved through judicial interpretation to include various forms of abuse, humiliation, and degradation. 

Judicial Precedents on Cruelty: 

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988): 

• The Supreme Court held that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition. 
• The Court recognized that cruelty must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007): 

• The Supreme Court held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses—not just women, but men as well—can be grounds for applying for divorce on the basis of cruelty. 
• The judgment recognized gender-neutral application of cruelty provisions. 

Types of Cruelty: 

According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are two types of cruelty: 

• Physical Cruelty: Violent conduct causing physical pain to the spouse. 
• Mental Cruelty: When a spouse is inflicted with any kind of mental stress or has to constantly go through mental agony. It refers to conduct that causes mental pain, suffering, or injury to the extent that it makes it impossible for the parties to live together. 

Cruelty as Ground for Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 

• Prior to the 1976 amendment in the HMA, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. 
• By the 1976 Amendment, cruelty was made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA. 
• The provision allows either spouse to seek divorce if subjected to cruelty by the other spouse. 

Cruelty as Ground for Divorce under Special Marriage Act, 1954: 

• Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, cruelty is recognized as a ground for divorce under Section 27(1)(d). 
• The law does not define mental cruelty exhaustively, allowing courts to determine it based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Mental cruelty must be of such a nature that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved party to live with the other spouse.