List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News?

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the Bombay High Court, in ABC v. State of Maharashtra (2026), directed the Maharashtra Government to give wide circulation to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (2022), which settled that unmarried women are entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy between 20–24 weeks arising out of consensual relationships.  

• The Court reminded all authorities that they are duty-bound under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to act in aid of the Supreme Court's decision and called upon the Public Health Department to ensure its scrupulous implementation.

What was the Background of ABC v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by an unmarried woman seeking permission to abort her 22-week pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship. 
• She also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. 
• Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003, which lists categories of women eligible for termination between 20–24 weeks, did not expressly include unmarried women or those in live-in relationships. 
• The petitioner argued that the exclusion violated her right to live with dignity and free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• She contended that being compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy risked physical pain and severe mental trauma, including the trauma of giving birth to a child unwanted by society. 
• During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner obtained permission from the Court and had the foetus aborted. 
• The Supreme Court, on September 29, 2022, delivered a three-judge bench decision in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, settling the very issue raised in the petition. 
• The Supreme Court held that excluding unmarried women who conceive in a live-in relationship from the MTP Rules is unconstitutional, and ruled that such women are entitled to seek termination of pregnancy between 20–24 weeks. 
• Following the Supreme Court's pronouncement, the constitutional challenge raised in the petitioner's case became academic. 
• The petitioner's counsel, however, pressed for wide circulation of the SC ruling so that no similarly situated woman is forced to approach courts for relief she is already legally entitled to.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench noted that the Supreme Court had already delivered an authoritative three-judge bench verdict on the exact question raised in the petition, rendering the constitutional challenge moot. 
• The Court observed that by virtue of Article 144 of the Constitution of India, every civil and judicial authority in the territory of India is duty-bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court. 
• It emphasised that all functionaries involved in the implementation of the MTP Act, 1971 and its Rules are bound by the apex court's pronouncement and are required to follow it without exception. 
• The bench directed the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra to give wide circulation of the apex court's decision to all implementing functionaries. 
• The Court's direction was specifically aimed at ensuring that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, is compelled to knock the doors of courts for relief she is already legally entitled to. 
• The bench noted that Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003 has received a "purposive interpretation" by the Supreme Court, extending its ambit to include unmarried women and those in live-in relationships. 
• Calling for scrupulous implementation, the Court reminded authorities that the issue is conclusively settled and no woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy for want of awareness or administrative failure. 
• The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

What is Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP)?

• The MTP Act came into force on 1st of April 1972.  
• The MTP Act of 1971 and its Rules of 2003 prohibit unmarried women who are between 20 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant to abort with the help of registered medical practitioners.   
• 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. 
• In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.   

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, in the case of Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026), set aside bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court which had made anticipatory bail conditional upon the deposit of dues owed to the complainant. The Court reiterated that bail applications must be decided on merits alone, and that courts cannot pass conditional orders directing deposit of amounts as a prerequisite for bail.

What was the Background of Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by two accused persons — a father and son — who had been denied anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in a cheating case. 
• The complaint alleged that the accused had failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from the complainant. 
• A First Information Report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was denied. 
• The accused then approached the Jharkhand High Court, which passed two orders — dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025 — directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 had been made to the complainant. 
• In both orders, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment was not filed, the anticipatory bail application would be dismissed without further reference. 
• The accused persons sought time before the High Court, following which they challenged both conditional orders before the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court bench noted with disappointment that the High Court had passed these orders in ignorance of the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025), wherein it was held that bail applications must be adjudicated on merits and not on assurance of the accused.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench described the High Court's orders as "unusual orders", passed in ignorance of a clear and binding judgment of the Supreme Court. 
• The Court expressed that it was "very unfortunate" that despite explicit directions, High Courts continue to pass conditional bail orders tying bail to deposit of amounts. 
• The bench reiterated unequivocally that if a case for grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out, the Court should pass an appropriate order granting bail; and if not made out, the Court may decline bail — however, the Court cannot pass a conditional order directing deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion. 
• The Court set aside the impugned orders of the Jharkhand High Court and directed that in the event of arrest of the accused persons, they shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer. 
• The Court further directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the file before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

What Statutory Provisions Regulate Bail in India? 

• The Indian bail system operates under Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory framework creates a bifurcated classification between bailable and non-bailable offenses, establishing distinct procedural pathways for release consideration. 
• Section 479 of BNSS mandates that persons accused of bailable offenses possess an absolute right to bail upon furnishing appropriate security. Police officers in charge of stations and courts lack discretionary authority to deny bail for scheduled bailable offenses, ensuring immediate release upon compliance with statutory conditions. 
• Non-bailable offenses under Section 480 require judicial evaluation based on statutory criteria including offense gravity, evidence strength, and defendant's antecedents. Courts must consider factors prescribed in Section 480(3) including likelihood of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight risk when exercising discretionary authority. 
• Section 482 provides for anticipatory bail, enabling individuals apprehending arrest for non-bailable offenses to seek pre-arrest protection from Sessions Courts or High Courts. This provision incorporates constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention while maintaining investigative authority. 
• The statutory framework mandates automatic bail under Section 187 when investigations exceed prescribed time limits, implementing the "default bail" doctrine to prevent indefinite detention without trial. 

What are the Different Types of Bail? 

• Regular Bail: The court orders the release of a person who is under arrest, from Police custody after paying the amount as bail money. An accused can apply for regular bail under Section 437 and 439 of CrPC (Section 480 and Section 483 of BNSS) 
• Interim Bail: This is a direct order by the court to provide temporary and short-term bail to the accused until his regular or anticipatory bail application is pending before the court. 
• Anticipatory Bail: A person under apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail to the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 438 of CrPC (Section 482 of BNSS).