List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, in Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (2026), directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses, and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points. 

What was the Background of Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose out of a bail application in which the accused was facing dowry death charges. 
• At an earlier hearing, the Court had directed the State to produce audio/video recordings of the statements of the first informant and his wife recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 
• The Court had also sought instructions regarding the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law and the integration of the MedLEapr digital platform with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS). 
• The Investigating Officer, along with the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, was directed to remain present before the Court. 
• Pursuant to these directions, it was found that the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law had not been obtained during investigation; once procured, they did not reveal any call from the deceased or her in-laws, and the allegation of a call regarding dowry harassment a day before the incident could not be established. 
• It was also apprised that MedLEapr is not integrated with CCTNS, though the post-mortem report can be accessed through CCTNS upon request to the Health Department. 
• On examining the recordings, the Bench found that the police officer recording the statement had, instead of recording the version of the incident as narrated by the first informant and his wife, put leading questions of an inculpatory nature. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the impropriety of leading inculpatory questions: The Court termed the practice of suggesting inculpatory material to witnesses as "absolutely incorrect," holding that the purpose of criminal justice administration is not merely to punish the guilty but also to protect the innocent, and that police should not suggest material to a witness against the accused. 
• On the manner of recording statements: The Court held that statements under Section 180 BNSS should be written in the language and version stated by the witness, with departure permitted only for seeking certain clarifications. 
• On the direction issued: The Court directed the DGP, Lucknow, to issue necessary directions to all police officers that, while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they should not suggest inculpatory questions, and should simply record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points. 
• On the merits of the bail application: The Court noted that the deceased had died after consuming a poisonous substance, that the FIR was lodged only after receipt of the viscera report nearly three months later, that there was no explanation for this delay, that discrepancies existed between the statements of the first informant and his wife, and that there was no evidence corroborating the allegation of a call made by the deceased to her sister-in-law a day before the incident. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court granted bail to the applicant. 
• On the pending technical issue: Observing that questions relating to data transfer between MedLEapr, CCTNS, and CIS required further examination, the Court kept the matter pending for that limited purpose and requested the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, and the Additional Director General (Technical), U.P. Police, to appear through video conferencing on the next date to assist in resolving the technical issues. 

What is Section 180 of BNSS? 

Section 180 BNSS – Examination of Witnesses by Police: 

Sub-section (1) – Power to Examine 

• Any police officer investigating a case, or any police officer of a rank prescribed by the State Government acting on the requisition of the investigating officer, may orally examine any person believed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 

Sub-section (2) – Duty to Answer Truthfully 

• The person being examined is bound to truthfully answer all case-related questions put to him. 
• Exception: he need not answer questions whose answers would tend to expose him to a criminal charge, penalty, or forfeiture (protection against self-incrimination). 

Sub-section (3) – Recording of Statements 

• The police officer may reduce the statement into writing, and where he does so, must maintain a separate and true record for each person examined. 
• First Proviso: The statement may also be recorded through audio-video electronic means. 
• Second Proviso: Where the alleged offence is under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, or 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (offences against women, primarily sexual offences), the statement of the woman victim must be recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (2026), held that a subsequent impleadment application filed under a CPC provision different from the one invoked earlier is barred by res judicata if the earlier application was already decided on merits, regardless of whether that earlier decision was based on a mistaken appreciation of facts. 

What was the Background of Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing an impleadment application filed by the respondents under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, bringing them on record in a pending second appeal. 
• This came after an earlier application filed by the same respondents seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC had already been rejected on merits. 
• The High Court took the view that since the earlier rejection rested on an erroneous appreciation of facts, the subsequent application under a different provision would not be hit by res judicata. 
• The core question before the Supreme Court was whether res judicata applies to bar a subsequent application where the earlier decision, though rendered on merits, was based on a mistaken view of facts. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the applicability of res judicata despite factual error: The Court held that once an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been decided on merits, the findings would bind the parties even if that decision was founded on an erroneous appreciation of facts. 
• On the proper remedy for an erroneous order: The Court observed that if the respondents believed the earlier rejection was factually incorrect, the appropriate course was to pursue legal remedies against that order, rather than filing a fresh application under a different provision seeking the same relief. 
• On the nature of the subsequent application: The Court characterised the subsequent Order XXII Rule 10 CPC application as an impermissible re-agitation of an issue already settled between the parties, merely routed through a different statutory provision. 
• On the final outcome: The Court set aside the High Court's order and held that the respondents' impleadment application was barred by res judicata. 

What is Res Judicata? 

Meaning:  

"Res" means subject matter, "judicata" means adjudged — together, a matter already decided. Codified under Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 

Core Principle: 

• Once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can reopen it in subsequent litigation. 
• Prevents multiplicity of proceedings and protects parties from being vexed twice over the same cause. 

Underlying Maxims: 

• Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. 
• Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – it is in the State's interest that litigation must end. 
• Res judicata pro veritate occipitur – a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. 

Essential Elements: 

• Matter in issue must be directly and substantially the same as in the former suit. 
• Same parties (or parties claiming under them). 
• Same title in both suits. 
• Former court must have had competent jurisdiction to try the subsequent matter. 
• Matter must have been heard and finally decided. 

Scope: 

• Applies not just to civil suits but also execution proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, administrative orders, and interim orders. 
• Section 11 is not exhaustive of the doctrine. 

Explanation I – "Former Suit": 

• A suit decided earlier is a "former suit," regardless of when it was filed. 
• What matters is the date of decision, not the date of institution. 

Explanation IV – Constructive Res Judicata: 

• Bars not only issues actually decided but also issues that could and should have been raised in the earlier suit but weren't. 
• Rooted in the same public policy rationale as res judicata itself. 

Explanation VI – Representative Suits: 

• Where litigation is bona fide brought for a common private/public right, the decision binds all persons interested in that right. 
• Conditions: right claimed in common for self and unnamed others; litigation conducted bona fide on behalf of all interested parties; if filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC, its requirements must be strictly complied with. 

Exceptions: 

• Writ of Habeas Corpus. 
• Judgment obtained by fraud or collusion. 
• Substantial new evidence not discoverable earlier with due diligence. 
• Original court lacked proper jurisdiction.