List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Masibul Hassan v. State of West Bengal & Others (2026), dismissed a writ petition challenging a fresh e-auction notice issued by the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad for the settlement of the Balia Shyampur Ferry Ghat.  

• The Court held that no concluded contract had come into existence as the successful bidder failed to comply with a mandatory tender condition requiring submission of a bank guarantee. The Court further clarified that extension of time to comply with conditions cannot be construed as a waiver by the authority.

What was the Background of Masibul Hassan v. State of West Bengal & Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner challenged an e-auction notice dated January 6, 2026, contending that he had already secured a three-year settlement of the ferry ghat from December 19, 2024 to December 18, 2027 pursuant to an earlier auction process conducted on October 3, 2024. 
• The petitioner had emerged as the highest bidder by quoting Rs. 26.74 lakh for the first year. 
• Through a Letter of Acceptance dated November 18, 2024, the Zilla Parishad accepted his bid subject to certain conditions, including deposit of the first year's lease rent, execution of a formal agreement, and submission of a bank guarantee of Rs. 32.36 lakh corresponding to the third year's lease rent. 
• While the petitioner deposited the first year's rent, he failed to furnish the bank guarantee and repeatedly sought extensions of time. 
• The authority eventually curtailed the tenure to one year, which expired on December 18, 2025, following which a temporary extension was granted to maintain ferry services until January 31, 2026. 
• Thereafter, the impugned fresh auction notice was issued, prompting the petitioner to approach the Calcutta High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee was a mandatory financial safeguard embedded in the tender conditions, and since the petitioner failed to comply even within the extended timeline, the alleged three-year contract never crystallised. 
• The Court noted that acceptance of a tender must be "absolute and unqualified" under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and where acceptance is conditional, the contract remains incomplete until the stipulated conditions are fulfilled. 
• Justice Chanda rejected the petitioner's argument that the Zilla Parishad had waived the bank guarantee requirement by granting extensions, holding that waiver by a public authority must be clear and intentional, and mere extension of time cannot amount to relinquishment of a contractual safeguard meant to protect public revenue. 
• The Court further observed that the petitioner's conduct in repeatedly seeking extensions itself demonstrated that he recognised the subsisting obligation to submit the bank guarantee. 
• Emphasising the limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that decisions in contractual matters involving government bodies are ordinarily not interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of statutory provisions. 
• Finding no such illegality in the decision of the Zilla Parishad, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the fresh auction process, and vacated the interim order earlier granted in the matter.

What is a Tender under the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 

About: 

• In the legal context, a "tender" refers to an offer to perform a contractual obligation. 
• A typical procurement tender is a formal invitation by an employer for vendors to submit competitive bids to execute specified work under defined terms. 
• According to the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA), a tender is typically considered an invitation to treat, rather than a legal offer. 
• Participating in a tender process and submission of a bid constitutes an "offer" in the legal sense. 
• Once the tender or offer is accepted, a contract is formed, subject to the fulfilment of certain formalities.

Tender of Performance: 

• Section 38 of the ICA deals with the performance of tender, i.e., when and how a party can legally offer to perform their promise. 
• This is distinct from "tender" in the procurement sense and refers specifically to a party's offer to discharge their contractual obligation.

Essentials of a Valid Tender of Performance: 

• Unconditional Offer: The tender must be made without any conditions. For example, a supplier cannot offer to deliver goods only if the buyer pays extra freight, as that renders the tender invalid. 
• Proper Time and Place: The offer to perform must be made at the time and place agreed in the contract. If no time is specified, it must be made within a reasonable time. 
• Proper Person: The tender must be made to the promisee or a person authorised to receive it. Offering performance to an unauthorised third party makes it legally ineffective. 
• Full Performance: The performance must be complete and in accordance with the terms of the contract. Partial or defective performance does not constitute a valid tender. For example, delivering only part of the contracted goods is not a valid tender. 
• Ability and Willingness to Perform: The promisor must be ready and willing to perform the entire obligation, and their conduct must demonstrate a real intent to fulfil the obligation.

Legal Implications of a Valid Tender of Performance: 

• If the promisor makes a valid tender and the promisee refuses to accept it, the promisor is discharged from liability for non-performance. 
• In contracts involving payment, such as goods sold, refusal to accept a valid tender may bar a claim for breach against the promisor. 
• Under Section 38 of the ICA, if a promisor has made a valid tender of performance and the promisee refuses to accept it, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance and retains their legal rights, such as the right to payment or the right to avoid liability.

Illustrative Example: 

• 'A' contracts to deliver goods to 'B' on a fixed day. 'A' arrives at B's premises with the goods on that day and offers delivery, but 'B' refuses without a valid reason. 
• In such a case, 'A' is not liable for breach of contract, as a valid tender of performance was duly made and wrongfully refused by the promisee.

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Aaradhya Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2026), held that any misleading material posted on Facebook or other social media platforms that is found to be false, malicious, and intended at damaging the reputation or invading the privacy of an individual constitutes a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). The Court directed the parent company of Facebook to block or take down the post and photographs of the minor petitioner.

What was the Background of Aaradhya Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by a minor girl residing with her mother at her maternal home following her father's death. 
• The petitioner alleged that her grandparents had posted a misleading Facebook post falsely claiming she was missing and announcing a reward of Rs. 1 lakh for anyone who traced her. 
• The post led to various unknown and unwanted individuals visiting her home, causing disturbance and threatening her personal safety and liberty. 
• The petition was filed seeking adequate protection from such unknown persons and removal of the misleading content. 
• The respondents denied the allegations, submitting that the grandmother had already passed away and that the grandfather, a 70-year-old man, had neither uploaded any such post nor offered any reward. 
• The respondents further contended that the petition was filed solely to harass the respondents.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that posting misleading material on social media, electronic, or print media amounts to a violation of personal rights, dignity, and reputation of an individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court emphasized that social media regulation is essential to balance freedom of expression with the dignity and rights of vulnerable groups, and that a combination of robust legal frameworks, technological solutions, digital literacy, and ethical practices can ensure accountability and foster a safe online ecosystem. 
• The Court referred to Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which mandates intermediaries such as Facebook and X to publish rules prohibiting users from posting patently false or misleading information, impersonation, defamatory content, content invading privacy, gender harassment, and similar material. 
• The Court noted that no such adequate rules had been framed or enforced by Facebook, which had allowed the misleading information about the petitioner to remain on the platform, causing hindrance to her personal liberty. 
• Since the posting of the material remained disputed by the respondents, the Court directed Facebook's parent company to take appropriate action to block or remove the post and photographs of the minor petitioner. 
• The petition was accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be sent to the registered office of the parent company of Facebook.

What is Article 21 of the COI? 

About:  

• Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right provided under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950 and provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike, and is also considered the "Heart of Fundamental Rights." 
• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), the Supreme Court through Justice P. Bhagwati held that Article 21 "embodies constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society."

Essential Elements of Article 21: 

• Right to Life: Article 21 guarantees every person the right to life and it encompasses not only the right to existence but also the right to lead a meaningful and dignified life. 
• Personal Liberty: It ensures protection of personal liberty and simultaneously safeguards individuals against arbitrary or unlawful detention, arrest, or imprisonment, guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary state action. 
• Procedure Established by Law: It allows for the deprivation of life or personal liberty, but only according to a procedure established by law. This means that any restriction on these rights must be in accordance with laws that are fair, just, and reasonable.

Jurisprudential evolution of Article 21:

The jurisprudential development of Article 21 started from the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950) and gained momentum with the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). 

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950): 

• In this case, the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was in question. 
• A bench of 6 judges held that the word 'due' is not used in Article 21; instead the words used are 'procedure established by law', and hence the Court will follow the procedure established by law only. 
• The Court by majority held that a law cannot be held to be unconstitutional merely on the grounds that it lacked the basic principles of natural justice or was not following the due procedure of law. 
• It was also held that Article 19 and Article 21 were mutually exclusive and were not complementary to each other. 
• The minority opinion of Justice Fazl Ali was futuristic and was way ahead of time. 

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970): 

• This case is also known as the Bank Nationalisation Case. 
• In this case the Court overruled the 'mutual exclusivity' theory laid down in the A.K. Gopalan case. 
• The Court struck down the 'Object Test' and laid down the 'Effect Test', meaning that rather than looking at the object of a particular legislation, its effect must be looked into. 
• Thus, if the legislature, even at a remote stage, violated the fundamental rights of the citizens, then it was liable to be struck down. 

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 

• The Supreme Court held that impounding anyone's passport without giving reasons was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 
• The Court held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not mutually exclusive but instead they support, strengthen, and go hand in hand with each other. 
• The Court interpreted the words "procedure established by law" as "due process." 
• The scope of personal liberty was greatly expanded and held to include all rights related to personal liberty, which could only be restricted by a procedure that was "fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary." 
• The Court further held that the law must also be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby including substantive due process within the ambit of Article 21.

Rights Covered Under Article 21: 

• Right to privacy 
• Right to go abroad 
• Right to shelter 
• Right against solitary confinement 
• Right to social justice and economic empowerment 
• Right against handcuffing 
• Right against custodial death 
• Right against delayed execution 
• Right against public hanging 
• Protection of cultural heritage 
• Right to pollution-free water and air 
• Right of every child to full development 
• Right to health and medical aid 
• Right to education 
• Protection of under-trials