List of Current Affairs

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) modified bail conditions imposed on the wife of former Jharkhand MLA Kamlesh Kumar Singh, permitting her to travel abroad for treatment of advanced liver disease while balancing trial requirements. 

What was the Background of Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner was an accused in a disproportionate assets case related to allegations against her husband, former Jharkhand MLA and Minister Kamlesh Kumar Singh. 
• She had been granted regular bail on 13 May 2014 in B.A. No. 3581 of 2014, with conditions requiring deposit of her passport and restricting foreign travel. 
• The petitioner, aged about 58 years, was suffering from a serious and life-threatening liver disease. 
• A liver biopsy conducted at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, on 25 June 2025 revealed Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B, an advanced stage of chronic liver disease. 
• The medical reports confirmed that substage-4B cirrhosis is a medically recognised pre-cancerous stage. 
• The petitioner's close relatives were residing in the USA and UK, and she wished to travel to either country for better treatment. 
• The petitioner had been cooperating with the trial since 2014 and had not violated any bail condition. 
• Her passport had been deposited in 2014 pursuant to the bail order. 
• Out of more than 100 witnesses in the case, only 46 had been examined so far, indicating slow progress in the trial. 
• The CBI opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was accused in a disproportionate assets case and the travel restriction had been imposed by a coordinate Bench while granting bail. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court took note of medical reports from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, a reputed institution, confirming the petitioner's serious medical condition. 
• The medical reports established that the petitioner was suffering from cirrhosis with probable underlying autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cholangitis overlap, and Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B. 
• The Court recorded that there was no allegation that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the trial or had attempted to influence any witness. 
• The Court placed reliance on Supreme Court decisions in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India regarding the fundamental nature of the right to travel abroad. 
• The Court observed that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right and forms part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court held that considering the petitioner's advanced stage 4B cirrhosis and the fundamental right to travel abroad as established by the Supreme Court, the bail order dated 13.05.2014 could be modified. 
• The Court directed release of the petitioner's passport in her favour. 
• The Court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to file an undertaking before the concerned court for each proposed foreign visit, specifying the period of travel and date of return to India. 
• The petitioner was directed to inform the court upon her return from each trip. 
• The Court clarified that the passport shall be released subject to the condition that the petitioner shall seek prior permission of the concerned court for every instance of travel abroad. 

What is Right to Travel Abroad?  

• About:  
  • The right to travel abroad is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India.  
  • However, it has been interpreted as a part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Relevant Provisions: 
  • Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. 
  • Article 19(1)(d): This article guarantees freedom of movement, which is interpreted to include the right to travel within the country. 
  • Article 19(1)(a): This article guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which can be interpreted to include the right to travel abroad for educational, cultural, or professional purposes. 
• Case Laws: 
  • Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi (1967):  
    • The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the government cannot refuse to issue or impound a passport without a valid procedure established by law.  
    • The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the government to restore the petitioners' passports and passport facilities. 
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):  
    • In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad.  
    • The court also ruled that any procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of their personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. (2025) held that quasi-judicial authorities are not empowered to exercise review jurisdiction unless statutorily empowered to do so. The Court overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision and held that the Revenue Officer's review order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 

What was the Background of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• The dispute arose under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (WBEA Act). 
• A Revenue Officer had earlier passed an order determining vesting of land in the State. 
• Years later, the same authority purported to review and reopen its earlier decision in favour of Respondent-Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. 
• The review was undertaken pursuant to an executive direction issued by the State Government. 
• The executive direction cited economic considerations and proposed industrial use of the land. 
• The fresh order dated 07.05.2008 vested the disputed land in favour of the respondent. 
• This vesting was done when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government. 
• This prompted the State to challenge the legality of the review exercise. 

Central Issue: 

• The central issue before the Court was whether a Revenue Officer, exercising quasi-judicial functions, could review its own earlier order in the absence of an express statutory power. 
• Particularly, whether such review could be undertaken when it was triggered by an executive instruction. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Review Power Not Inherent: 

• The judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by statute either expressly or by necessary implication. 
• The Court held: "…we hold that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the fresh order dated 07.05.2008 was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The WBEA Act, 1953, does not confer any power of substantive review upon the Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication." 

No Statutory Provision for Review: 

• The Court noted that no provision under the WBEA Act empowers the Revenue Officer to exercise review jurisdiction. 
• Moreover, the proviso to Section 57B(3) explicitly states that the Revenue Officer shall not re-open any matter which has already been enquired into, investigated, determined or decided by the State Government or any authority under any of the provisions of this Act. 

High Court's Error: 

• The Court held that the High Court incorrectly proceeded on the premise that the Government Order issued under Section 57A of the WBEA Act, 1953, having been approved by the Minister-in-Charge, constituted sufficient authority to confer review jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officer. 
• The Court stated: "This approach conflated executive direction with statutory conferment of substantive power and treated review as a mere procedural incident of Civil Court powers." 
• The High Court also overlooked the limits on vesting the judicial function of review power in executive authorities. 

Impermissible Vesting: 

• The Court held that the vesting of the disputed land in favour of the respondent was impermissible, particularly when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government. 

Appeal Allowed: 

• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

What is a Quasi-Judicial Body? 

About: 

Quasi-judicial bodies are non-judicial entities with the authority to interpret the law, such as arbitration panels or tribunal boards, which have been given powers and procedures similar to those of a court of law or judge. 

• These bodies serve as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, bridging the gap between the executive and judicial functions of the State. 
• For example, the Election Commission of India is a Quasi-Judicial Body but does not have its core functions as a Court of Law. 

Features of Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

The following features characterize quasi-judicial bodies in India: 

• Dispute Resolution: Quasi-judicial bodies have the authority to arbitrate cases and impose penalties. Parties can seek justice from these bodies, thereby avoiding the complexities of the formal judicial system. 
• Limited Adjudicating Powers: Their jurisdiction is typically confined to specific areas of expertise, such as financial markets, employment laws, public standards, or regulatory matters. For instance, the Company Law Appellate Tribunal addresses issues related to corporate governance and functioning. 
• Predetermined Rules: The decisions and awards of quasi-judicial bodies are often guided by established rules and based on existing legal frameworks. 
• Punishing Authority: These bodies possess the power to impose penalties for violations within their jurisdiction. For example, Consumer Courts in India adjudicate consumer disputes and penalize companies engaged in illegal practices. 
• Judicial Review: The rulings of quasi-judicial bodies can be appealed in a court of law, with the judiciary's decision being paramount. 
• Expert Leadership: Unlike the judiciary, which is presided over by judges, quasi-judicial bodies are typically led by experts in relevant fields such as finance, economics, and law. 

Powers of Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

Quasi-judicial bodies exercise the following powers: 

• Conduct Hearings: They can hold hearings to gather evidence and hear testimony from witnesses. 
• Factual Determination: Quasi-judicial authorities can make relevant factual determinations based on the evidence presented at a hearing. 
• Applying the Law: They can apply the law to the facts they have determined and make decisions regarding the legal rights, duties, or privileges of the parties involved. 
• Issue Orders or Decisions: They can issue orders or decisions that have legal force, such as requiring a party to pay damages or comply with certain conditions. 
• Enforcing Decisions: They can take steps to enforce their decisions, such as by imposing fines or other penalties for non-compliance. 

Major Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India: 

The following are some of the major quasi-judicial bodies operating in India: 

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 
• Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) 
• Central Information Commission (CIC) 
• Lok Adalat 
• Finance Commission 
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
• National Green Tribunal 
• Railway Claims Tribunal 

Key Differences Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

The following table illustrates the key differences between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies: