List of Current Affairs

Source: Patna High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court, in the case of Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025), held that the brother of a deceased woman qualifies as a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 2(1)(y) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) , and is entitled to participate in criminal proceedings, including an appeal filed by the convict against his conviction for the murder of the deceased. 

What was the Background of Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025) Case? 

• The deceased, a married woman, suffered a gunshot injury and subsequently died. Her husband initially lodged a complaint, pursuant to which Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 657 of 2023 was registered under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 
• Following the death of the victim, Section 302 IPC was added to the case. During investigation, police found that the husband himself had allegedly shot his wife. A charge sheet was accordingly filed against him. 
• The husband was subsequently convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 08 August 2025. 
• During the pendency of the appeal filed by the convict-husband before the Patna High Court, the brother of the deceased filed an intervention application seeking to be impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the criminal appeal. 
• The appellant-husband opposed the application, contending that the brother of the deceased could not be treated as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of CrPC. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court reproduced the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which reads — "victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression 'victim' includes his or her guardian or legal heir." 
• The Court clarified that while the brother of the deceased cannot be treated as her "guardian" — since in the case of a married woman, the husband is ordinarily regarded as the guardian — the brother nevertheless qualifies as her "legal heir" within the meaning of Section 2(wa). 
• Referring to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs succession to the property of a female Hindu, the Court held that the brother falls within the category of legal heirs under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. 
• The Court held: "A married lady has right over the property of his father and the brother of a female Hindu comes within the category of legal heir according to Clause (d) of sub-section 1 of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In such view of the matter, the brother of a deceased married lady is a legal heir of the deceased victim for the purpose of contesting a criminal case/appeal, and as such, he is considered to be a victim, in our opinion." 
• The Court accordingly allowed the intervention application and directed that the brother of the deceased be impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the criminal appeal. 

What are the Legal Provision in Relation to Victim? 

Definition of Victim:  

• Under Section 2(wa) of CrPC, a victim is defined as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged, and the expression victim includes his or her guardian or legal heir. 
• The term "victim" was defined in the CrPC for the first time by the CrPC Amendment Act, 2008. 
• When BNSS replaced CrPC, the definition was carried forward under Section 2(1)(y) of BNSS with a subtle but significant change in language — the words "for which the accused person has been charged and the expression victim" were replaced by "of the accused person", making the definition read as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person, and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim. 

Victim Rights under BNSS, 2023: 

• Can engage a personal advocate to assist prosecution (Section 18(8) BNSS), though the advocate's role is limited to written arguments post-evidence, unless court permits more. 
• Entitled to a free copy of the FIR immediately upon registration (Section 173 BNSS). 
• Statement of victims of sexual and certain other offences must be recorded by a woman police officer. 
• Statements of disabled victims must be recorded at their residence or a place of their choice, with an interpreter or special educator present. 
• Can report information electronically, which must be formally recorded within three days of signing. 
• If police refuse to register information, the victim can escalate to the Superintendent of Police or directly approach a Magistrate. 
• Must be notified if police file a closure/final report in the case. 
• Court may permit the victim's advocate to conduct prosecution (Section 339 BNSS). 
• Can appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation (Section 413 BNSS). 
• Court may order the accused to pay compensation to the victim at the time of sentencing (Section 395 BNSS); any such amount is accounted for in subsequent civil suits. 
• Victim's travel and attendance expenses for trial/inquiry proceedings can be ordered to be reimbursed (Section 350 BNSS). 
• Trials for specific sexual offences must be conducted in-camera by a woman judge or magistrate to protect the victim's identity (Section 366 BNSS). 

Victim Rights under BSA, 2023: 

• Courts have the power to prohibit indecent, scandalous, or harassing questions directed at victims and witnesses (Sections 154–155 BSA). 

Victim Rights under the Constitution: 

• Article 21 guarantees the right to fair investigation and fair trial to victims equally as to the accused — affirmed in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009). 
• Articles 14, 21, and 39-A collectively ensure free and fair access to justice for victims — held in Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj (2010) by the Madras High Court. 
• The right to fair trial is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental and human right, and any procedure obstructing it violates Article 14. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Chaudhary and Others (2026) held that the liability to pay penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for delayed compensation payment is a personal liability of the employer and cannot be imposed upon the insurer. 

What was the Background of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Chaudhary and Others (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from the death of a commercial driver who collapsed while driving his employer's vehicle. 
• The legal heirs of the deceased driver approached the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation. 
• The Commissioner awarded compensation of ₹7.36 lakh along with 12% interest and also issued a show-cause notice to the employer for delay in making the payment. 
• As the employer failed to respond to the show-cause notice, a penalty of 35% was imposed on the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. 
• The employer's vehicle was insured with the Appellant — New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 
• While the insurer accepted liability for the compensation amount and interest, it contested its liability to pay the penalty. 
• The Delhi High Court, however, directed the insurer to pay not just compensation and interest but also the penalty imposed for the employer's delay, prompting New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar, held that the insurer cannot be held liable for the personal fault or negligence of the employer. 
• The Court relied on the precedent laid down in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, wherein it was established that the burden of penalty imposed under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 must be borne by the employer alone and cannot be passed on to the insurance company. 
• The Court observed that "when the statute itself has obligated the employer to make the payment within one month, such obligation cannot be countenanced as sub-servient to any contractual obligation or bypassing the statutory obligation, as the same would tantamount to disregard of the legislative intent envisaged under the said provision." 
• The Court further noted that when the Act imposes a statutory liability on the employer for delayed payment, that liability cannot be transferred to the insurer merely on account of a contractual insurance arrangement. 
• The Supreme Court set aside that part of the Delhi High Court's order which had fastened the penalty liability upon the Appellant-insurer, and directed the employer (Respondent No. 4) to pay the penalty amount within eight weeks from the date of the order. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in favour of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 

What is the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923? 

About: 

• The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) is a social security legislation designed to provide compensation to employees and their dependents in case of accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. 
• The Act was enacted to provide financial protection to workers and their families in case of work-related injuries, disabilities, or death. 
• The Act defines 'dependent' to include certain relatives of the deceased employee who were wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the worker at the time of death. 

Section 4A — Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default: 

Basic Rule (Sub-section 1): 

• Compensation must be paid as soon as it falls due — no delay is permissible. 

Disputed Liability (Sub-section 2): 

• If the employer disputes the full claim, he must still make a provisional payment for the portion he accepts. 
• This provisional payment goes to the Commissioner or directly to the employee. 
• Making provisional payment does not bar the employee from claiming the remaining amount. 

Default & Consequences (Sub-section 3): 

• If the employer fails to pay within one month from the due date, the Commissioner shall:  
• (a) Interest — Direct the employer to pay 12% simple interest per annum (or a higher rate up to the maximum lending rate of any scheduled bank, as notified by the Central Government) on the arrears. 
• (b) Penalty — If no justification exists for the delay, direct the employer to pay an additional penalty up to 50% of the arrears amount. 
• The employer must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause before any penalty order is passed. 

Beneficiary of Interest & Penalty (Sub-section 3A): 

• Both the interest and penalty amounts are payable to the employee or their dependant, not to the state. 

Key Takeaway: 

• Default triggers a two-tier consequence — mandatory interest + discretionary penalty — and the burden of both falls on the employer personally, not on any insurer.