List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026), set aside a murder conviction on the ground that testimony recorded in an earlier trial against a co-accused cannot be used against an absconding accused in his subsequent trial, unless an order under Section 299 CrPC/Section 335 BNSS was passed establishing the two jurisdictional facts — that the accused was absconding, and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. 

What was the Background of Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026) Case? 

• Two accused were charged with murder in 1999. The appellant allegedly sat on the victim's chest and strangulated him, while the co-accused exhorted and threatened passersby. 
• The appellant absconded at that stage, while the co-accused stood trial and was acquitted. 
• The appellant was arrested in 2017, more than 18 years after the incident. 
• By the time trial against the appellant commenced, the key eyewitness (PW-1) had died. 
• The Trial Court and the High Court relied on PW-1's testimony as recorded in the earlier trial against the co-accused, and convicted the appellant on that basis. 
• No order under Section 299 CrPC had been passed during the 1999 trial recording a finding that the appellant was absconding and could not be arrested. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the requirement of a formal order under Section 299 CrPC: The Court held that the flight of the accused and the impossibility of his immediate apprehension must be urged before, and proved to the satisfaction of, the trial court. Only where an order is passed recording proof of both jurisdictional facts can the testimony of a witness recorded at that stage later be relied upon once that witness cannot be produced. 
• On the absence of such an order in the present case: The Court found that no order under Section 299 CrPC was passed in 1999 at either the committal stage or the commencement of trial, establishing that the appellant was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of his arrest. 
• On the effect of this omission: Since no such order existed in the earlier trial against the co-accused, the Court held that the prosecution's case against the appellant failed, and set aside his conviction, acquitting him of the charges. 
• On the conflicting view in Kader Khan: The Court noted a contrary view taken shortly before by a co-ordinate Bench (Justice Sanjay Karol) in State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan, (2026). In Kader Khan, it was held that Section 299 CrPC contains no statutory requirement of a formal order recording that the two jurisdictional facts stood satisfied before the witness deposed; what matters is whether those facts were in fact established on the date of deposition. Kader Khan also clarified that Section 299 is ordinarily invoked only once a witness is unavailable — dead, incapable of deposing, untraceable, or unable to be produced without unreasonable delay or expense — since a living, available witness can simply be examined afresh in the subsequent trial. 

What is Section 335 BNSS? 

Section 335 BNSS – Record of Evidence in Absence of Accused: 

• Sub-section (1): If it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try, or commit for trial, such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions. 
• Any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, provided the deponent is dead, or incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be found, or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense, or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable. 
• Sub-section (2): If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the first class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence. 
• Any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, provided the deponent is dead, or incapable of giving evidence, or beyond the limits of India. 

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

Justice M Dhandapani of the Madras High Court, in The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another (2026), held that details regarding the pay scale/salary of judges are not exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, since such salary is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India and is thus a matter of public record. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The applicant, Akbar Ahamed, filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-person) Rules, 2019. 
• The information sought included the name and designation of members of the Party-in-person Committee, their legal experience, achievements, qualifications, expertise, conduct details, pay scale/salary details, and the functions, responsibilities, and powers of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. 
• The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court denied the information, and the appellate authority upheld this denial. 
• The applicant filed a second appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, which directed the High Court to furnish the information sought. 
• The Registrar General of the Madras High Court challenged this order of the State Information Commission before the High Court itself. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the registry's contention: The registry argued that the information pertained to internal administration and was exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, relying on Registrar General, High Court of Madras v K Elango (upheld by the Supreme Court), which had exempted vigilance enquiry details and personal information unconnected with the discharge of duties. 
• On salary details of judges: The Court held that since judges receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of India, and such payment is made from public funds, a citizen cannot be precluded from knowing the salary/pay scale details, and there is no embargo under Section 8 of the RTI Act on furnishing this information. 
• On the Party-in-person Committee details: The Court found that the constitution of the Committee and its composition was an administrative act and not classified information, and that disclosure would not jeopardise the administrative functioning of the High Court. 
• On confidentiality and sensitivity: The Court noted there was no element of confidentiality or sensitivity in the information sought, since the functioning of such committees had already been addressed through various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 
• On the final direction: The Court rejected the plea of the High Court registry, disposed of the petition, and directed the registry to furnish the information within two weeks. 

What is Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005? 

Section 8, RTI Act, 2005 – Exemption from Disclosure of Information: 

Section 8(1) – Categories Exempted from Disclosure 

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there is no obligation to give any citizen the following information: 

• (a) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State, or lead to incitement of an offence. 
• (b) Information expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal, or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. 
• (c) Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature. 
• (d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure. 
• (e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure. 
• (f) Information received in confidence from a foreign Government. 
• (g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. 
• (h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. 
• (i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.  
  • Proviso 1: Decisions of the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision is taken and the matter is complete or over. 
  • Proviso 2: Matters coming under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed. 
• (j) Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the CPIO/SPIO/appellate authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure.  
  • Proviso: Information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. 

Section 8(2) – Overriding Public Interest 

• Notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any exemption permissible under sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. 

Section 8(3) – Twenty-Year Rule 

• Subject to clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), information relating to any occurrence, event, or matter which took place twenty years before the date of the request under Section 6 shall be provided to any person requesting it. 
• Where a question arises as to the date from which the twenty-year period is to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals under the Act.