List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan in the matter of Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026) set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had restricted anticipatory bail protection only till the filing of the police chargesheet and later rejected a fresh anticipatory bail plea after the chargesheet was filed. 

• The Supreme Court held that such mechanical restriction is contrary to settled law.

What was the Background of Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• An FIR was registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police for offences under Sections 80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The appellant, brother-in-law of the deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail. 
• The High Court initially granted anticipatory bail but limited it “till the filing of the police chargesheet.” 
• After filing of the chargesheet, the protection lapsed and the second anticipatory bail application was rejected. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court termed the High Court’s earlier order as “very unusual.” 
• It observed that once discretion is exercised in favour of the accused after considering the allegations and role attributed, there is no justification to restrict protection only till filing of the chargesheet. 
• Either anticipatory bail may be granted or declined. However, once granted, it ordinarily continues without a fixed time limit. 
• The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. 
• The Court emphasized, “Risk management can be taken care of by way of imposing conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering, not by imposing time limits.” 
• If circumstances change, modification or cancellation may be sought under the BNSS, 2023. However, expiry clauses inserted at inception are unsustainable. 

What if Graver Offences Are Added Later? 

The Court clarified the legal position where new cognizable and non-bailable offences are added after grant of bail: 

• The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. If refused, arrest may follow. 
• The investigating agency can seek orders under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest and custody of the accused. 
• Courts may direct arrest and custody after cancellation of bail. 
• Even without formally cancelling earlier bail, courts may order custody upon addition of graver offences if justified.

What is Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNNS) provides the statutory framework for anticipatory bail in the Indian criminal justice system. 
• This provision empowers the High Court and Court of Sessions to grant pre-arrest bail to individuals who apprehend arrest for alleged commission of non-bailable offences. 
• Section 482 establishes the legal mechanism through which a person may seek judicial protection from potential arrest, maintaining personal liberty while ensuring cooperation with investigation. 
• The provision stipulates that any person with reasonable belief regarding possible arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail before the High Court or Court of Session. 
• Upon application, the Court is vested with discretionary power to direct release on bail in the event of arrest of the applicant. 
• The Court is empowered to impose specific conditions while granting anticipatory bail to balance individual liberty with investigative requirements. 
• Mandatory conditions include requiring the applicant to make themselves available for police interrogation as and when required. 
• The applicant is prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to witness or persons acquainted with case facts. 
• An anticipatory bail grantee is restricted from leaving India without prior court permission. 
• The Court may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary under Section 480(3) of the BNS. 
• Upon grant of anticipatory bail, if the person is subsequently arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail upon readiness to provide bail. 
• If a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence determines that a warrant should be issued against the person, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction. 
• The provision specifically excludes its applicability in cases involving accusations under Section 65 (punishment for rape in certain cases) and Section 70(2) (gang rape on a woman under 18 years of age) of the BNS. 
• Section 482 represents the legislative continuation of the provision formerly contained in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Elis Jane Quinlan & Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth (2026) dismissed a writ petition filed by foreign decree holders challenging an order of the District Judge that had framed issues and permitted leading of evidence in execution proceedings under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 

• The Court clarified that framing of issues is not mandatory in execution of foreign decrees from reciprocating territories.

What was the Background of Elis Jane Quinlan & Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth (2026) Case? 

• The decree was passed by the Fujairah Civil Court, UAE. 
• The UAE had been notified as a reciprocating territory under Section 44A CPC. 
• The decree holders initiated execution proceedings in India. 
• The judgment debtor filed an application seeking framing of issues and permission to lead evidence. 
• The executing court framed multiple issues relating to: 
  • Fraud 
  • Violation of principles of natural justice 
  • Suppression of material facts 
  • Limitation 
  • Maintainability 
• Aggrieved, the decree holders approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Distinction Between Reciprocating and Non-Reciprocating Territories: 

The Court examined the scheme of Sections 13, 14 and 44A CPC and reiterated the fundamental distinction: 

• Reciprocating Territory – The foreign decree is executable as if it were a domestic decree, subject only to limited exceptions under Section 13 CPC. 
• Non-Reciprocating Territory – A fresh suit must be filed on the basis of the foreign judgment, leading to a full trial. 

Thus, proceedings under Section 44A are not equivalent to instituting a suit on a foreign judgment.

Nature of Inquiry Under Section 44A: 

The Court clarified that: 

• The inquiry under Section 44A(3) read with Section 13 CPC is ordinarily summary in nature. 
• The burden to establish that the decree falls within any exception under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 CPC lies on the judgment debtor. 
• The existence of exceptions must ordinarily be gathered from: 
  • Pleadings 
  • The foreign judgment 
  • Proceedings before the foreign court 

Final Directions: 

• The Writ Petition was dismissed. 
• The District Judge was directed to render findings on the issues framed expeditiously, preferably within three months.

What is Section 13 of CPC? 

• Section 13 of CPC states that a foreign Judgement shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except— 
  • (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; 
  • (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; 
  • (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; 
  • (d) where the proceedings in which the Judgement was obtained are opposed to natural justice; 
  • (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; 
  • (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. 
• This section provides that a foreign Judgement may operate as res judicata except in the aforementioned six clauses. 
• (a) Foreign Judgement Not by a Competent Court 
  • A Judgement of a foreign court to be conclusive between the parties must be a Judgement pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. 
  • A competent court implies a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 
  • The court of a foreign country has jurisdiction in the following cases: 
    • Where at the time of the commencement of the action the defendant was resident or present in such country, so as to have the benefit and be under the protection of laws. 
    • Where the defendant is at the time of the Judgement in action, subject or citizen of such country. 
    • Where the party objecting to the jurisdiction of the courts of such country has by his own conduct, submitted to such jurisdiction by 
      • Appearing as plaintiff in the action or counterclaiming, or 
      • Voluntarily appearing as defendant in such action, or 
      • Having expressly or impliedly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. 
  • In the case of Bharat Nidhi Limited v. Megh Raj Mahajan (1964), it was held that a foreign Judgement has to be passed only by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction to operate as res judicata in the Indian courts. 
• (b) Foreign Judgement Not on Merits 
  • In order to be conclusive, the foreign Judgement must be on the merits i.e., which involves the application of the mind of the court to the truth or falsity of the case. 
  • The Actual test for deciding whether the Judgement has been given on merits or not is to see whether it was merely passed as a matter of course, or by way of penalty of any conduct of the defendant or is based upon a consideration of the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's claim. 
• (c) Foreign Judgement Against Indian or International Law 
  • A Judgement based upon an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize law of India where such law is applicable is not conclusive. 
  • The mistake must be apparent on the face of the proceeding. 
• (d) Foreign Judgement Opposed to Natural Justice 
  • The Judgement must observe the minimum requirements of natural justice, that is it must give reasonable notice to the parties to the dispute and afford each party adequate opportunity of presenting his case. 
  • It may be noted that the mere fact that the foreign court did not follow the procedure of Indian courts will not invalidate a foreign Judgement on the ground of proceedings being opposed to natural justice. 
  • In the case of Sankaran v. Lakshmi (1974), the Supreme Court held that the expression natural justice relates to the irregularities in procedure rather than to the merits of the case. 
• (e) Foreign Judgement Obtained by Fraud 
  • It is a well settled principle of Private International Law that if foreign Judgements are obtained by fraud, it will not operate as res judicata. 
    • Fraud in any case, bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts. 
    • The fraud may be either fraud on the party invalidating a foreign Judgement in whose favor the Judgement is given or fraud on the court pronouncing the Judgement. 
  • In the case of Satya v. Teja Singh (1975), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had misled the foreign court as to its having jurisdiction over the matter, although it could not have had the jurisdiction, the Judgement and decree was obtained by fraud and hence inconclusive. 
• (f) Foreign Judgement founded on Breach of Indian Law 
  • Section 13(f) does not require that the procedure of the foreign court should be identical with or similar to the procedure of the courts in India. 
• However, when a foreign Judgement is founded on a breach of any law in force in India, it would not be enforced in India.