List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah, in Narayan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026), allowed a petition challenging the rejection of parole and directed the release of the convict subject to certain conditions. 

• The Court held that the mere fact that a convict and a victim reside in the same village and in close proximity cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground to deny the benefit of parole. Such denial, based on generalised apprehension without tangible material indicating a real and imminent threat, was found to be founded on conjecture and contrary to the reformative philosophy underlying the jurisprudence of parole.

What was the Background of Narayan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a convict, submitted an application for parole which was rejected by the authorities. 
• The ground for rejection was that the victim and the convict resided in the same village and in close proximity to each other, and that his release posed a threat to the safety and security of the victim and her family. 
• Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the said order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that apprehension of threat arising merely from the convict and victim residing in the same village cannot justify denial of parole in absolute terms. Unless tangible material exists to demonstrate a real and imminent threat, such generalised apprehension amounts to conjecture. 
• It further observed that directing a convict to reside at some unknown place during parole is wholly impractical and renders the grant of parole illusory. The Court emphasised that family reconnection generates introspection and responsibility in the convict, serving as a powerful incentive for self-correction consistent with the reformative objective of parole. 
• The petition was accordingly allowed, with the release directed subject to stringent conditions designed to safeguard the victim while preserving the reformative purpose of parole.

What is Parole? 

About: 

• Parole is the conditional and temporary release of a prisoner before completion of his sentence, generally under the supervision of a parole officer. 
• Conditions typically include regular check-ins, maintaining employment or attending educational programmes, and refraining from criminal activity. 
• It is granted on factors such as good behaviour, nature of the crime, and potential for rehabilitation. 
• It allows gradual reintegration into society while still under supervision. 
• Violation of parole conditions results in the individual being returned to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence. 

Objective: 

• Facilitating the maintenance of familial ties and addressing family-related matters. 
• Mitigating the adverse effects of prolonged incarceration on the prisoner's well-being. 
• Fostering self-confidence in the prisoner. 
• Cultivating positive outlooks and encouraging active engagement with life. 

Types of Parole: 

• Custody Parole: Granted in emergency situations for up to 14 days on grounds such as death or marriage of a family member. Available to all convicted persons except foreigners and those on death row. 
• Regular Parole: Available to offenders who have served at least one year, for a maximum of one month, on grounds such as marriage, accident, death, illness, or delivery of a child in the family. 

Legal Provisions: 

• Parole is governed by rules framed under the Prison Act, 1894 and the Prisoners Act, 1900, with individual states formulating their own guidelines. 
• In Maharashtra, the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 provide the governing framework. 
• In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court clarified that parole does not amount to suspension of sentence under Section 432 CrPC.

What are the Differences between Bail and Parole?

• In Indian law, parole and bail are distinct legal concepts with different purposes and implications: 

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court, in Union of India & Ors. v. Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia (2026), allowed a Civil Revision Application filed by the Union of India and set aside the order of the City Civil Court, which had refused to dismiss a suit that had been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time. 

• The Court held that a civil court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent, and that it is the duty of the court to terminate such dead litigation rather than allow it to linger on the docket.

What was the Background of Union of India v. Maheshkumar  Gordhandas  Garodia  (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff had instituted a suit challenging termination orders dated 2 November 2004 relating to leasehold salt lands.  
• During the pendency of the suit, the lease tenure expired on 14 October 2016, thereby extinguishing the very subject matter of the dispute. 
• Following the expiry of the lease, the defendants filed a notice of motion before the City Civil Court seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the cause of action had come to an end and the suit had become infructuous.  
• The City Civil Court rejected this notice of motion, prompting the Union of India to prefer a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 151 CPC: The Court examined the contours of the court's inherent jurisdiction and held that Section 151 CPC is available to be exercised in situations not specifically covered by any other provision of the Code. It is precisely in such lacunae that the court's inherent powers operate to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 
• On the Distinction from Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The Court drew a clear distinction between the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and the dismissal of a suit as infructuous. Order VII Rule 11 applies only where the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action at the time of its institution, and has no application where a valid cause of action, subsisting at the time of filing, subsequently ceases to exist due to changed circumstances. The power to dismiss such suits must, therefore, be traced exclusively to the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 151. 
• On Interlocutory Orders: The Court firmly rejected the proposition that the continuance of an interim injunction or other interlocutory order could furnish a ground for keeping an otherwise dead suit alive. The prospect of an interim order coming to an end upon dismissal of the suit cannot, by itself, be a reason to perpetuate infructuous litigation. 
• On Speculative Future Claims: The Court also declined to accept the argument that the suit ought to be kept alive in anticipation of a proposed amendment seeking renewal of the lease. No such amendment had been applied for at the relevant point in time, and a suit cannot be sustained on the basis of contingent or speculative future claims.

What is Section 151 of CPC? 

About: 

• Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the inherent powers of the Court.  
• It entails the provision regarding the power of the court to overcome difficulties arising out of procedural rules.  
• This power is to be exercised by the court when no explicit provision is provided under the Code.

The Provision: 

Section 151 CPC states the saving of inherent powers of Court: 

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

Applicability of Section 151 CPC: 

• The court must use its inherent power to provide equity, justice and good conscience. 
• When no alternate remedy is available, the court may invoke the power inherent under Section 151 CPC. 
• The section does not confer any substantive right upon the parties but merely aids in overcoming procedural disparities that arise during the course of justice.

Nature of Inherent Powers: 

• Inherent powers under Section 151 are residuary in character — they are neither conferred nor curtailed by the Code itself, but inhere in the court by virtue of its very existence as a court of justice. 
• These powers are supplementary to the specific provisions of the Code and cannot be used to override or circumvent any express statutory provision. 
• They operate exclusively in the gaps and interstices of the Code, addressing situations that the framers did not specifically contemplate.