List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani in the case of Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Others (2026) held that supplying grounds of arrest on a separate paper is invalid when the same is not referenced in the arrest memo and lacks witness attestation, as required under Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court further directed that the petitioner be set free, as the remand order was passed mechanically.

What was the Background of Shivam Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner and the alleged victim-girl were in a consensual relationship, which was opposed by the victim's family.  
• The victim's family lodged an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the petitioner blackmailed the girl with the threat of releasing intimate videos online. 
• The petitioner was called to the police chowki where he was compelled to sign the arrest memo and was subsequently arrested.  
• His brother was instructed to leave the chowki, and the arrest was communicated to the petitioner's mother only by telephone.  
• The arrest memo did not disclose any grounds for arrest. 
• The Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh, did not advert to the evidence and sent the petitioner to 14-day judicial custody through a mechanical remand order. Accordingly, a writ petition for habeas corpus was filed before the Allahabad High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), observed that no person can be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest, and that such grounds are mandatorily required to be communicated to the arrestee. 
• Upon examining the arrest memo, the Court found that only the sections under which the FIR had been registered were mentioned, but no grounds or reasons for the arrest were provided. The State Counsel produced reasons for arrest on a separate paper, signed only by the petitioner. 
• The Court refused to place reliance on these separately supplied grounds, noting that they did not form part of the arrest memo, that neither column 12 nor column 13 of the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026, nor any other part of the memo, indicated that grounds were being supplied separately, and that the separate paper bore no witness attestation. The Court therefore concluded that the grounds were prepared either concurrently with or after the arrest memo. 

What is an Arrest Memo? 

About:  

• An arrest memo is a formal written document prepared by a police officer at the time of making an arrest, recording the material particulars of the arrest. 
• It serves as an official record of the arrest event and acts as a primary accountability tool to prevent arbitrary or unlawful detention. 
• It is distinct from an FIR (First Information Report) — while an FIR records the commission of an offence, the arrest memo records the fact and circumstances of the arrest itself.

Legal Basis:

• Section 36, BNSS, 2023 (replacing Section 41B, CrPC, 1973) — lays down the statutory obligation of every police officer to prepare an arrest memo at the time of making an arrest. 
• Section 36 of the BNSS outlines the procedure for arrest and the duties of the arresting officer.  
• Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective of enabling that person to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice.  
• Section 47, BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 50, CrPC) — mandates that the arresting officer must forthwith communicate full particulars of the offence to the arrested person. 
• The guidelines on arrest memos from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) were subsequently incorporated into the CrPC, 1973 through the Amendment Act of 2008, which came into effect on 1 November 2010, and are now reflected in the BNSS, 2023.

Mandatory Contents of the Arrest Memo: 

As per Section 36, BNSS, 2023 and the D.K. Basu guidelines, an arrest memo must contain: 

• Name and identification of the arresting officer (must be accurate, visible, and clear). 
• Name and particulars of the person arrested. 
• Date and time of the arrest. 
• Place of arrest. 
• Grounds or reasons for the arrest — i.e., the offence or circumstances for which the arrest is being made. 
• Sections of law under which the arrest is made. 
• Signature/countersignature of the arrested person. 
• Attestation by at least one witness — either a family member of the arrested person or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made.

Witness Attestation Requirement: 

• The arrest memo must be attested by at least one witness — either:  
  • A family member of the person arrested, OR 
  • A respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made. 
• The arrested person must be informed of their right to have a relative or friend named by them informed of the arrest, unless the memorandum is already attested by a family member.  
• If no family member is available, the officer must inform the arrested person of their right to have any friend, relative, or person of their choice notified of the arrest. 
• If the relative or friend is in a different district or city, the concerned police station should be informed by telegraph within 8–12 hours of the arrest and then convey the information to the relative or friend. 

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh (2026), held that release on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 removes the disqualification attached to a conviction for purposes of public employment, even though the conviction itself is not wiped out.

What was the Background of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh (2026) Case? 

• The respondent was convicted under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case filed by his wife. 
• He filed an appeal against his conviction before the Appellate Court. 
• During the pendency of the appeal, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent between the parties. 
• The Appellate Court upheld the conviction but released the respondent on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 
• Subsequently, the Airports Authority of India (AAI) issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Executive (Common Cadre). The respondent applied and was found successful in the selection process. 
• After being selected, the candidate disclosed his past conviction and subsequent release on probation in the attestation form, as required. 
• AAI cancelled his appointment on the ground that he was convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and was therefore ineligible for appointment under Regulation 6(7)(b) of AAI's service regulations. 
• The candidate challenged this cancellation before the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge allowed his petition and directed AAI to appoint him, holding that the disqualification was removed by operation of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 
• Aggrieved by the Single Judge's order, AAI filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that Regulation 6(7)(b) of AAI's service regulations deems a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude to be ineligible for appointment. 
• The Division Bench relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Shankar Dass v. Union of India (1985), wherein it was observed that the word "disqualification" in Section 12 of the 1958 Act is used in the context of statutes that bar a convicted person from certain rights or offices, such as disqualifications for legislative membership under the Representation of the People Act. 
• The Court held that dismissal from an existing job as a penalty does not amount to a disqualification within the meaning of Section 12, but a bar to fresh appointment flowing from a conviction is indeed a disqualification contemplated under the provision. 
• The Division Bench held that the candidate's ineligibility under AAI's regulation stemmed directly from his conviction. Since he was released on probation, Section 12 of the 1958 Act applied, and consequently, the disqualification attaching to his conviction stood removed. 
• The Court further clarified that removal of disqualification does not mean the conviction itself is erased; it only means that the consequential bar to public employment is lifted. 
• The Division Bench additionally noted that the offence arose from a matrimonial dispute that was later amicably settled, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, and the complainant-wife had raised no objection. 
• Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order directing AAI to appoint the candidate to the post of Junior Executive, and dismissed the appeal filed by AAI. 

What is the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? 

Introduction to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

About the Act:  

• An Act to provide for the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. 
• The main aim of this Act is to give an opportunity to offenders to reform themselves rather than turning into hardened criminals.   
• This Act provides for the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition. 
• The Act permits the release of criminals on probation for good behavior if the alleged crime that they have committed is not punished by life imprisonment or death penalty. 
• The Act allows for the release of first-time offenders upon proper admonition for those convicted under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (now BNSS) as well as those who are subject to a 2-year sentence or a fine or both. 

Section 12 of the Act:  

Section 12 – Removal of Disqualification Attaching to Conviction 

• Operates notwithstanding any other law — it overrides conflicting provisions in other statutes. 
• Applies to persons found guilty of an offence and dealt with under Section 3 (release after admonition) or Section 4 (release on probation of good conduct). 
• Such persons shall not suffer any disqualification that ordinarily attaches to a conviction under any law (e.g., bar to public employment, legislative membership, etc.). 
• The conviction itself is not erased — only the consequential disqualifications are removed. 
• Proviso (Exception): The protection under Section 12 does not apply if the person, after being released on probation under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence (i.e., if probation is revoked and the original sentence is imposed).