List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, in Shankar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2026), dismissed an appeal challenging a conviction under the POCSO Act while holding that the trial court had erred in disallowing certain cross-examination questions to be put to the child victim, terming it an "incorrect procedure." 

What was the Background of Shankar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was convicted for wrongfully confining an 11-year-old girl on several occasions and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, under Sections 342, 376(2)(i) and (l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 12,000. 
• The victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded with her speaking only two words in the Maithili dialect, which were translated by her mother. 
• During trial, the defence sought to put certain suggestions to the child victim, including that the incident had not occurred and that she had not raised any alarm or informed anyone.  
• The trial court disallowed these suggestions on the ground that the child, whose mental age was assessed at around five years, was not capable of understanding their nature and import. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Cross-Examination of a Child Witness under POCSO: The Court held that the POCSO Act protects a child from aggressive questioning or character assassination and ensures the child's dignity is maintained during trial, but this does not mean the defence cannot or need not put questions to the child witness. 
• On the Victim's Statement in a Regional Dialect: The Court noted the victim spoke only two words in Maithili during her Section 164 CrPC statement, translated by her mother, and held that the absence of oath administered to the minor victim or the interpreter would not automatically result in rejection of the statement. 
• On Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court held that the minor's testimony had to be read as a whole, along with the gestures recorded by the trial court, and found ample material establishing the accused's overt acts. It further held that non-examination of every witness to the incident cannot result in an adverse inference when the evidence actually adduced is cogent, credible, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
• On the Safeguards under POCSO Not Being a Technical Ground: The Court held that the safeguards under the POCSO Act and the POCSO Rules, 2020 are intended to protect and facilitate the child, and cannot be converted into a technical ground for discarding otherwise reliable substantive evidence in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. 
• On the Trial Court's Erroneous Procedure: Even while upholding the conviction, the Court held that the trial court erred in completely disallowing the defence's proposed questions to the child victim on the ground that she could not understand them. Referring to Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that questions during examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-examination of a child must be communicated to the Special Court, which then puts those questions to the child. It held that this procedure under Section 33(2) ought to have been adopted, and the defence should not have been prevented outright from putting the suggestions to the witness. 

What is Cross-Examination of a Child Witness under the POCSO Act? 

About the Act: 

• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a landmark legislation enacted to safeguard children from sexual abuse and exploitation, addressing their inherent vulnerability and ensuring their safety and well-being. It was enacted in consonance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN General Assembly and acceded to by the Government of India on 11th December 1992. 

Preamble: 

• The Act protects children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography, and provides for the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of such offences and matters connected or incidental thereto. 

Major Dates: 

• Enacted: 19th June 2012 
• Enforced: 14th November 2012 

POCSO Amendment Act, 2019: 

• Came into force on 16th August 2019. 
• Introduced more stringent penalties for offences under the Act. 
• Inserted Clause (da) in Section 2(1), defining "child pornography." 
• Brought penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age within the ambit of Section 4 of the Act.

Cross-Examination of a Child Witness under the POCSO Act: 

Position under Section 33: 

The POCSO Act does not bar the defence from cross-examining a child witness. What it regulates is the manner in which such cross-examination is conducted, so as to protect the child from trauma while preserving the accused's right to a fair trial. 

Key Safeguards Governing Cross-Examination: 

• No Direct Interrogation: Neither the Special Public Prosecutor nor defence counsel puts questions directly to the child. Under Section 33(2), questions to be asked during examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-examination must first be communicated to the Special Court, which then puts those questions to the child in a manner it considers appropriate. 
• Protection, Not Prohibition: Section 33(6) prohibits aggressive questioning or character assassination of the child and requires that the child's dignity be maintained at all times, but this does not amount to a bar on cross-examination itself. 
• Frequent Breaks: The Special Court may permit breaks for the child as needed during the course of the trial. 
• Supportive Presence: A trusted family member, guardian, friend, or relative may be permitted to remain present with the child during testimony. 
• No Repeated Testimony: The child cannot be called to testify repeatedly.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026), set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court and held that tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order eviction to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen, thereby restoring the eviction order passed against the appellant's son and daughter-in-law. 

What was the Background of Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, Ravi Kant Gupta, is the owner of a self-acquired residential house situated in Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. 
• The appellant's 81-year-old mother was allegedly forced to leave the residential premises and was made to reside in an old-age facility. 
• The appellant approached the District Magistrate on 05.06.2022, seeking eviction of his son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 
• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 15.11.2022, found that the property was the appellant's self-acquired property and recorded that the son had not permitted the grandmother to stay in the house and had created a nuisance. The SDM accordingly ordered eviction of the son. 
• The District Magistrate, vide order dated 09.08.2023, upheld the SDM's order and directed the son and his wife to hand over possession of the premises to the appellant. 
• The son and his wife challenged both orders before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The Allahabad High Court, relying on an earlier decision, held that the Act did not empower the authorities to pass an order of eviction, and accordingly quashed the orders of the SDM and the District Magistrate. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the High Court's Error: The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court erred in interfering with the tribunal's eviction order, as it is settled law that tribunals under the Act are empowered to order eviction for the welfare and protection of a senior citizen. 
• On the Statutory Scheme: The Court noted that under Section 7 of the Act, tribunals are constituted with power under Section 8 to conduct an inquiry following a summary procedure, exercising powers of a Civil Court. Section 27 of the Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Court observed that where a statute confers jurisdiction, it impliedly grants the power to do all such acts, or employ such means, as are essentially necessary to give effect to that jurisdiction. 
• On Constitutional Underpinning: The Court held that the dignity, respect, and security afforded to the elderly reflects the measure of a civilised society, and that senior citizens are repositories of wisdom and experience rather than mere dependents. It observed that Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, along with Article 41, envisage a social order protecting the vulnerable and enabling every individual to live with dignity throughout life. The Act was held to be a statutory expression of this constitutional mandate, intended to ensure that advancing age does not become synonymous with neglect, insecurity, or indignity, and to provide a speedy remedy for senior citizens. 
• On Precedent: Reference was made to S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021), where a three-Judge Bench, while dealing with claims arising under the Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, held that a tribunal may order eviction where necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parent, and that such eviction would be an incident of enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. This view was held to have been reiterated in Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) and Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others. (2025).  
• On Relief Granted: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court, and affirmed the tribunal's order evicting the appellant's son and his wife. 

What is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

Legal Framework: 

• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens in India. 
• The Act defines a "senior citizen" as any person who is a citizen of India and has attained the age of 60 years or above. 
• The Act seeks to ensure that parents and senior citizens are not left destitute or neglected, by casting a statutory obligation of maintenance on children and relatives, while also providing a speedy, tribunal-based mechanism for enforcement rather than requiring recourse to ordinary civil litigation. 

Key Provisions: 

• Maintenance Obligation (Sections 4–18) – Children are placed under a legal obligation to maintain their parents, so as to enable them to lead a normal life. Relatives who are in possession of, or would inherit, the property of a childless senior citizen are similarly obligated to maintain such senior citizen. 
• Establishment of Tribunals (Section 7) – State Governments are required to establish Maintenance Tribunals for each Sub-Division, empowered to adjudicate and decide claims for maintenance filed by or on behalf of senior citizens and parents. 
• Summary Procedure (Section 8) – The Tribunal follows a summary procedure for inquiry and exercises the powers of a Civil Court, including summoning witnesses and production of documents. 
• Transfer of Property (Section 23) – Where a senior citizen has transferred property by gift or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence and may be declared void at the option of the transferor. 
• Old Age Homes (Section 19) – State Governments are required to establish, or facilitate the establishment of, at least one old age home in every district, for indigent senior citizens. 
• Medical Support (Section 20) – Casts a duty on State Governments to ensure provision of medical care for senior citizens, including beds in existing hospitals, separate queues, and specialised treatment for age-related ailments. 
• Protection of Life and Property (Sections 21–23) – Provides measures for publicity and awareness of the Act's provisions, and safeguards senior citizens against abandonment and dispossession of property. 
• Bar on Civil Courts (Section 27) – Expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter for which a Tribunal is empowered under the Act, reinforcing the Act's scheme as a self-contained code for enforcement of maintenance rights.