List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh, in Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2026), allowed a criminal revision and held that a material witness can be summoned under Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS) at any stage of trial, prior to pronouncement of judgment, even where that witness's examination-in-chief has not yet taken place. The Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting such an application and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 

What was the Background of Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a criminal trial in which the victim, a mentally challenged woman, had earlier given statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC with the assistance of two experts. 
• In her Section 164 CrPC statement, recorded with the experts' assistance, the victim for the first time alleged that rape had been committed upon her, though the FIR contained only an allegation of outraging her modesty. 
• The petitioner sought summoning of PW-1 (the victim's mother) and the two experts who had assisted in recording the victim's statements, by way of an application under Section 311 CrPC. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, rejected the application, reasoning that since the examination-in-chief of the proposed witnesses had not yet been conducted, they could not be permitted to be cross-examined at that stage. 
• The State also opposed the application on the ground that it had been filed nearly three years after PW-1's statement was recorded, calling it belated. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the trial court's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the trial court's reasoning: The Court held that the trial court's finding was erroneous and groundless, since a witness can be summoned at any stage prior to pronouncement of judgment if the trial court concludes that such examination is necessary for just adjudication. 
• On the scope of Section 311 CrPC: The Court clarified that the provision empowers the trial court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, to summon any person as a witness if their evidence appears essential to a just decision, and that there is no bar to summoning a witness merely because examination-in-chief has not yet occurred. 
• On delay: The Court rejected the argument that the application was barred by delay, holding that the interest of the accused cannot be jeopardised on an unfounded presumption of delay, and that the age or pendency of a case cannot by itself be decisive when a request is made to examine a material witness. 
• On relevance of the evidence: The Court found that the statements of the two experts constituted relevant evidence, particularly since the allegation of rape had surfaced for the first time in the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement, recorded with their assistance. 
• On the prosecution's conduct: The Court noted that the prosecution itself had failed to produce the two experts as witnesses, despite their direct involvement in recording the victim's statement. 
• Precedents relied upon: The Court relied on Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2019) and Natasha Singh v. CBI (State) (2013) to reiterate that the power under Section 311 CrPC exists to enable courts to discover the truth and render a just decision, and that delay alone cannot defeat an application for summoning a material witness. 
• Relief granted: The Court set aside the trial court's order and remitted the Section 311 application for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

What is Section 348 of BNSS? 

Section 348 BNSS — Power to Summon Material Witness or Examine Person Present: 

• Section 348 of the BNSS empowers a court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, to summon any person as a witness, examine any person present though not summoned, or recall and re-examine a witness already examined. 
• The provision has two limbs: a discretionary limb, under which the court may summon, examine, or recall a witness at any stage, and a mandatory limb, under which the court shall do so where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. 
• Its applicability is broad — it extends to any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the BNSS, not just trials. 
• The power can be exercised at any stage, though courts require sufficient judicial reason for invoking it, rather than treating "any stage" as an unrestricted licence. 
• It covers any person — a witness not yet examined, one already examined, or someone merely present before the court without having been formally summoned. 
• Its underlying purpose is to prevent failure of justice by ensuring material evidence isn't lost to procedural gaps. 

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, in Parvaiz Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K and Others (2026), dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father seeking production of his major daughter, holding that once a Coordinate Bench had already recorded her statement and accepted her voluntary choice to live with her partner, a fresh Habeas Corpus plea for the same purpose is not maintainable in the absence of new material showing coercion or illegal detention. 

What was the Background of Parvaiz Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K and Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, father of the corpus (a major woman), filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking a direction to the authorities to trace and produce his daughter so that her statement could be recorded in a free atmosphere. 
• The petitioner alleged that his daughter had earlier contracted a valid Nikah under Muslim Personal Law, and that this marriage continued to subsist. 
• According to the petitioner, the corpus left home on the pretext of collecting educational documents from Chandigarh and subsequently stopped communicating with her family. 
• During police enquiry, it emerged that respondent No. 5 had allegedly married the corpus after her religious conversion. 
• Earlier, the corpus and respondent No. 5 had jointly filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 1040/2026) before a Coordinate Bench of the High Court seeking police protection. 
• In that petition, they had pleaded that both were majors, had married at an Arya Samaj Temple after the corpus voluntarily converted, and were facing harassment from her family. 
• The Coordinate Bench had recorded their statements, examined documents including school certificates, Aadhaar cards, and the marriage certificate, and granted them protection, while expressly declining to give any opinion on the validity of the marriage and leaving that issue open for the family to agitate before the competent civil court. 
• The petitioner, dissatisfied with this outcome, filed a fresh Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court seeking independent judicial ascertainment of his daughter's wishes. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On maintainability of a fresh Habeas Corpus plea: The Court held that asking the corpus to make another statement would indirectly amount to reviewing the earlier proceedings in WP(C) No. 1040/2026, which is not permissible in law. 
• On absence of fresh material: The Court found that no material had been placed on record to suggest that the corpus's earlier statement before the Coordinate Bench was made under coercion or undue influence. 
• On the scope of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued only where the material indicates illegal detention or confinement against a person's wishes; since the corpus was found to be residing voluntarily with respondent No. 5, the jurisdictional requirements for issuing the writ were absent. 
• On validity of the marriage: The Court observed that the validity of the marriage is a separate question from the corpus's right to reside with a person of her choice, and that an informed choice by a major woman to live with her partner does not amount to any offence regardless of the marriage's legal status. 
• On the appropriate remedy: The Court held that if the petitioner wished to challenge the legality of the marriage, his remedy lay before the competent civil court, a liberty already preserved by the Coordinate Bench's earlier order. 
• On relief granted: Finding no jurisdictional basis and no fresh material warranting reconsideration, the Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition. 

What is the Writ of 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.