List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti of the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr. (2026), held that the period of limitation under Section 469 CrPC (Section 515 of BNSS) runs from the date on which the identity of the offender first becomes known to the competent authority — not from the date of an initial complaint or the first indication of an offence.  

• The Court set aside the Kerala High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 

What was the Background of State of Kerala v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. (2026) Case? 

• In January 2006, a complaint was received alleging discrepancies in the labelling of a vaccine manufactured by Panacea Biotec Ltd. 
• The Drugs Inspector initiated inquiries across the supply chain to identify all persons involved in the alleged offence. 
• The investigation was completed on April 18, 2006, the date on which the identities of all the accused persons first became known to the Drugs Inspector. 
• A formal complaint was filed before the Magistrate on January 20, 2009, following which cognisance was taken and summons were issued on January 29, 2009. 
• The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on two grounds: (i) that the complaint was barred by limitation, and (ii) that the Magistrate had failed to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to accused persons residing outside its jurisdiction. 
• The State of Kerala challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Amanullah, authoring the judgment, held that the High Court erred in calculating the limitation period from the date of the initial complaint or the first indication of the offence. 
• The Court relied on Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, which provides that the period of limitation begins from the date on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved or to the competent authority. 
• The Court observed that the identities of all accused persons became known to the Drugs Inspector only on April 18, 2006, after completion of investigation into the distribution chain. 
• Since the maximum punishment under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act attracts a three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC, the limitation period would expire only on April 17, 2009. 
• The formal complaint filed on January 20, 2009 was therefore held to be within the limitation period, notwithstanding the inordinate delay between April 18, 2006 and January 20, 2009. 
• The Court cautioned that linking limitation to the date of the initial complaint would defeat the purpose of Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, which specifically accounts for regulatory and economic offences where the offender's identity may emerge only after investigation. 
• On the Section 202 CrPC issue, the Court held that complaints filed by public servants — acting in discharge of official duties — stand on a different footing and must be read with Section 200 CrPC, which exempts public servants from examination on oath at the stage of cognisance. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's order quashing the proceedings was set aside. 

What is Section 515 of BNSS?  

About:  

• This Section deals with the commencement of period of limitation in criminal prosecutions. It was earlier covered under Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The limitation period commences from the date of the offence as the general rule. 
• Where the offence was not known to the aggrieved person or any police officer, the period begins from the first day the offence comes to their knowledge, whichever is earlier between the two. 
• Where the identity of the offender is not known, the period begins from the first day the identity of the offender becomes known to either the aggrieved person or the investigating police officer, whichever is earlier. 
• While computing the limitation period, the day from which the period is to be computed is excluded. 

What is the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?

• Enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs and 
  cosmetics in India.  
• Replaced the earlier Dangerous Drugs Act and aimed to ensure the safety, 
  efficacy, and quality of drugs available to the public. 
• Administered jointly by the Central Government and State Governments. 
• Divided into multiple Chapters dealing with drugs, cosmetics, and Ayurvedic, 
  Siddha, and Unani medicines separately. 
• Supported by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which provide detailed 
  procedural and technical requirements. 
  

Why in News? 

Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the case of Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors. (2026), dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production and custody of his minor daughter.  

• The Court held that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is ordinarily not to be invoked in custody disputes between parents when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the competent Guardian Court. 

What was the Background of Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a custody dispute between the parents of a minor girl, Ms. Yashika, born on 06.07.2017 in District Kangra near Dharamshala. 
• The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25.02.2012 and registered on 13.09.2021. The couple resided at various places including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and later Bangkok, Thailand, where the petitioner-father continues to reside. 
• The mother had travelled to India with the minor child on 10.10.2025. After returning to Bangkok post-Diwali, she was hospitalised from 25.11.2025 to 26.11.2025, during which her brother also travelled to Bangkok. 
• The petitioner alleged that the mother left Bangkok on 13.12.2025 without his knowledge or consent. Upon returning to the residence on 15.12.2025, he found that the child's belongings had been removed. Despite repeated attempts to contact the mother, including a conference call on 29.12.2025 involving family members, he received no cooperation. 
• The petitioner was later informed by the respondent's father that the mother and child had reached Dharamshala. He thereafter filed a habeas corpus petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking production of the child, her immediate custody, and directions to restore her education at her previous school so as to safeguard her academic year. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The matter was initially listed before the Vacation Judge, who directed the petitioner to justify the maintainability of the writ petition. 
• The Bench referred to its earlier ruling in Saurav Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2025), wherein it had held that in disputes between parents, the appropriate remedy lies before the Guardian Court, which is equipped to adjudicate custody matters on the basis of evidence. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner had specifically averred in the petition that the mother and child were residing in Dharamshala. In such circumstances, it could not be contended that the whereabouts of the minor were unknown — a foundational premise for the invocation of habeas corpus. 
• The Court held that once the location of the detenue is known, the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the detenue resides would have the jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus plea, not a court situated elsewhere. 
• It further observed that if the petitioner approaches the competent court having jurisdiction over the child's place of residence, that court would be sensitive to the issue and ensure expeditious consideration of the matter. 
• Taking into account the international dimensions — the child having been relocated from a foreign country, the father residing abroad, and the affidavit having been attested at Pune — the Court expressed confidence that a competent court would take up such a matter with urgency and care. 
• The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the petitioner left at liberty to approach the appropriate Guardian Court at Dharamshala. 

What is Habeas Corpus? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Habeas corpus is a Latin term meaning "you may have the body." 
• It is a legal procedure that acts as a remedial measure for persons who are illegally detained. 
• The basic purpose is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. 
• It is an order issued by the court to present the detenu before the court and check whether the arrest was lawful or not. 
• The writ determines a person's right to freedom and personal liberty. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• The Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue writs. 
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court issues writs for violation of fundamental rights. 
• Under Article 226, High Courts have wider jurisdiction to issue writs for both violation of legal as well as fundamental rights. 
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all authorities within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. 
• High Courts deal with matters when they have control over that authority and the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction. 

Who May Apply: 

• The person confined or detained illegally. 
• Any person who is aware of the benefit of the case. 
• Any person familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case who willingly files an application under Article 32 or 226. 
• As held in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), if a detained person cannot file an application, some other person can file it on his behalf. 

When the Writ is Refused: 

• When the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the detainer. 
• When detention is connected with the order of a competent court. 
• When the person detained is already set free. 
• When confinement has been legitimised by removal of defects. 
• When a competent court dismisses the petition on grounds of merits. 

Nature and Scope: 

• It is a procedural writ, not a substantive writ, as held in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling (1974). 
• The focus is on the legality of detention by examining facts and circumstances, rather than merely producing the body before the court. 
• The writ can be filed not only for wrongful confinement but also for protection from ill-treatment and discrimination by the detaining authority, as held in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980). 
• The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to illegal confinement cases; successive petitions can be filed with fresh grounds. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden lies on the detaining person or authority to satisfy the court that detention was on legal grounds. 
• If the detenu alleges malicious confinement outside the authority's jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the detenu.