List of Current Affairs

Source: Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Pranjal Das of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr. (2026) set aside a trial court order directing payment of 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 observing that disputed questions requiring proper adjudication through evidence necessitate caution in granting interim relief. 

What was the Background of Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr.(2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's order granting interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.  
• The original complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act relating to dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 20,00,000. 
• The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "drawer's signature differs". 
• The trial court had directed the accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the complainant. 
• The petitioner/accused denied issuance of the cheque and disputed the signature on it. 
• The accused asserted that he did not maintain the account in question from which the cheque was allegedly issued. 
• The accused had lodged a complaint alleging forgery of his signature, leading to registration of a case under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The petitioner's submissions were supported by the testimony of the branch manager. 
• The respondent/complainant projected financial difficulties to support the claim for interim compensation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that "The court has to be satisfied about a prima facie case before granting interim compensation. The court to make such prima facie determination has to see the merits of the case put forth by the complainant and the merits of the defence put forth by the accused." 
• The bench noted that "if the defence of the accused is prima facie found to be plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing interim compensation." 
• The Court emphasized that there are disputed questions which will necessitate proper adjudication through evidence. 
• The Court held that only after proper adjudication through evidence would it be possible to answer the question as to whether the accused petitioner incurred criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. 
• The Court concluded that "in such a situation... it may not be prudent to grant interim compensation at this stage, invoking the powers under section 143-A of NI Act. This is despite the projected financial difficulties of the respondent no. 2/complainant. 
• The Court accordingly set aside the trial court's order directing payment of interim compensation. 

What is Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act? 

Section 143-A - Power to Direct Interim Compensation: 

• When Court May Order: Court trying an offence under Section 138 can order the drawer to pay interim compensation to the complainant. 
• Timing of Order:  
  • In summary trial/summons case: When drawer pleads not guilty. 
  • In other cases: Upon framing of charges. 
• Compensation Limit: Interim compensation shall not exceed 20% of the cheque amount. 
• Payment Timeline:  
  • Must be paid within 60 days of the order. 
  • Court may extend by an additional 30 days on sufficient cause. 
• If Drawer is Acquitted:  
  • Complainant must repay the interim compensation amount. 
  • With interest at bank rate (as per RBI). 
  • Within 60 days (extendable by 30 days on sufficient cause). 
• Recovery Method: Interim compensation can be recovered as if it were a fine under Section 421 of CrPC. 
• Adjustment:  
  • Final fine under Section 138 OR. 
  • Compensation under Section 357 CrPC. 
  • Shall be reduced by the interim compensation amount already paid/recovered. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the case of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. (2026) declared that the right to menstrual health is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and issued comprehensive directions for pan-India implementation of menstrual hygiene measures in schools. 

What was the Background of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed as a public interest litigation seeking free sanitary napkins for all adolescent girls in schools and proper toilet facilities for them. 
• On November 28, 2022, a bench of former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice to the Central Government and all states and Union Territories. 
• On April 10, 2023, the Court directed the central government to frame a National Policy on menstrual hygiene for school-going girls in the country. 
• The bench comprising former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala directed that the policy must ensure low-cost sanitary napkins and safe disposal mechanisms of sanitary napkins in schools. 
• The Court noted that three ministries of the Union dealt with the matter: the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Jal Shakti, and the Ministry of Education (MoE). 
• On November 12, 2024, the bench directed the Union Government through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to formulate an action plan on the implementation of the national policy. 
• Bhati suggested that the Union Ministry shall coordinate with States and UTs for drawing up respective action plans, with special attention to sensitisation and awareness activities for promoting safe menstrual hygiene practices in schools. 
• The judgment was reserved by the Court on December 10, 2024, and delivered on January 30, 2026. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Observations: 

• The Court declared that the right to menstrual health is part of the right to life under Article 21, stating that absence of safe menstrual management measures undermines dignified existence and violates bodily autonomy of menstruating girl children. 
• Justice Pardiwala emphasized that the judgment is meant for classrooms where girls hesitate to ask for help, teachers restrained by lack of resources, and parents unaware of their silence's impact, communicating to every girl child that her body should not be perceived as a burden. 
• The Court noted that poor menstrual hygiene causes reproductive tract infections such as bacterial vaginosis, which may lead to infertility, thereby violating the right to bodily autonomy. 
• The Court directed pan-India implementation of the Union's 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' for Classes 6-12. 

Court Directions: 

Infrastructure and Facilities Directions: 

• All States/UTs must ensure every school (government or private, urban or rural) has functional gender-segregated toilets with water connectivity, designed for privacy and accessibility including for children with disabilities. 
• All school toilets must have functional washing facilities with soap and water available at all times. 
• All schools must provide free oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins (ASTM D-6954 compliant) accessible within toilet premises through vending machines or designated places. 
• All schools must establish menstrual hygiene management corners with spare innerwears, uniforms, disposable pads and necessary materials for menstrual urgency. 

Sanitary Waste Disposal Directions: 

• All schools must have safe, hygienic, environmentally compliant disposal mechanisms for sanitary napkins per Solid Waste Management Rules. 
• Each toilet unit must have covered wastebins for sanitary material with regular cleaning and maintenance. 

What is Article 21 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. 
• Article 21 secures two rights: 
  • Right to life 
  • Right to personal liberty 
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.  
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.  
• This right has been provided against the State only. 

Rights under Article 21:  

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:  
  • Right to privacy  
  • Right to go abroad  
  • Right to shelter  
  • Right against solitary confinement  
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment  
  • Right against handcuffing  
  • Right against custodial death  
  • Right against delayed execution   
  • Protection of cultural heritage  
  • Right to pollution-free water and air  
  • Right of every child to a full development  
  • Right to health and medical aid  
  • Right to education  
  • Protection of under-trials 

Case Laws:  

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society 
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.