List of Current Affairs

Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while hearing a miscellaneous application in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2026), directed all States to ensure regular functioning of District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) and directed NALSA to ensure that District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) take adequate steps so that cases do not remain pending for want of Financial/Social Status Reports. 

What was the Background of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022), the Supreme Court had directed the creation of a mechanism for the release of eligible undertrial prisoners so that they are not unnecessarily kept in custody. 
• To assist undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for want of money to furnish a bail bond, the Centre launched the "Support to Poor Prisoners" Scheme, aimed at ensuring that no prisoner remains incarcerated solely on account of financial destitution. 
• As part of the Scheme, taken on record by the Court on December 3, 2025, District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) were constituted to examine cases of undertrial prisoners and assess their eligibility for release in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and the revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated December 2, 2025. 
• During the hearing on August 18, 2026, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Amicus Curiae in the matter, brought instances of non-compliance with the Committee's directions and suggestions to the Court's notice, particularly concerning Punjab and Maharashtra. 
• Data placed before the Court by Uttar Pradesh showed that several cases continued to remain pending before DLECs despite meetings having been held. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Non-Compliance with the SOP: 
  The Court noted that meetings of the DLECs were not being held regularly as mandated under the revised SOP dated December 2, 2025, and directed that all DLECs shall meet regularly and take decisions on the cases pending consideration before them, with compliance to be reported to the Amicus before the next date of hearing. 
• On Pendency Despite Meetings Being Held: 
  The Court took note of data furnished by Uttar Pradesh showing that several cases remained pending before DLECs even though meetings had taken place, indicating a gap between the holding of meetings and actual decision-making on individual cases. 
• On Delay Due to Missing Financial/Social Status Reports: 
  The Court observed that in several cases, consideration of undertrial prisoners' release was being delayed on account of non-receipt of Financial/Social Status Reports from the concerned District Legal Services Authorities, and accordingly directed NALSA to ensure that all DLSAs take adequate steps so that cases do not remain pending for want of such reports. 
• On Reporting of Compliance: 
  The Court directed that compliance with its directions be reported before the next date of hearing, fixed for October 6, 2026. 

What is the "Support to Poor Prisoners" Scheme? 

Background & Purpose: 

• The Scheme was launched by the Centre to help undertrial prisoners who are unable to secure release solely because they lack the funds to furnish bail bonds or sureties. 
• It seeks to give effect to the Supreme Court's directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022), which called for a structured mechanism to prevent undertrials from being kept in custody unnecessarily. 

Institutional Mechanism: 

• District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) have been constituted at the district level to examine and decide on cases of undertrial prisoners eligible for release under the Scheme. 
• The revised Standard Operating Procedure dated December 2, 2025 lays down the manner in which DLECs are to function, including the frequency of meetings and the timelines for decision-making. 
• District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are responsible for preparing and submitting Financial/Social Status Reports of undertrial prisoners, which form the basis for DLECs to assess eligibility for release, under the overall supervision of NALSA.

What are Undertrial Prisoners? 

• An undertrial prisoner is a person who has been arrested and is under judicial custody during the pendency of investigation, inquiry, or trial, but has not yet been convicted of the offense alleged against them.  
• Undertrials constitute the largest share of India's prison population, and prolonged incarceration without trial or conviction raises concerns regarding the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

What are the Provisions Related to Undertrial Prisoners in India? 

Section 479 of BNSS: 

• Aims to reduce prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners, with a particular focus on first-time offenders. 
• Relaxed Standard for First-Time Offenders: First-time offenders, i.e., persons without any prior conviction, are entitled to be released on bond after having served one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense. 
• General Rule for Bail: Undertrials accused of non-capital offenses (offenses not punishable with death or life imprisonment) are eligible for bail after serving half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense.  
  • This provision builds upon Section 436A of the CrPC, which similarly permitted release after service of half the maximum sentence. 
• Exceptions: These relaxed provisions do not apply where the accused is involved in multiple offenses or where investigation, inquiry, or trial is pending in more than one case against them. 

Section 436A of CrPC: 

• Eligibility for Bail: An undertrial prisoner who has undergone detention for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the alleged offense is entitled to be released on personal bond, with or without sureties. 
• Exclusion: This provision does not apply to offenses for which death is one of the punishments. 

Directions by the Judiciary: 

• Supreme Court's PIL on Prison Conditions (2013): 
  In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Supreme Court highlighted systemic issues including overcrowding, delayed trials, and prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners, and directed State Governments to ensure timely identification and release of eligible undertrials under Section 436A of the CrPC. 
• Retrospective Application of Section 479 of BNSS: 
  The Supreme Court held that the relaxed bail provisions under Section 479 of the BNSS would apply retrospectively to cases filed prior to its enactment. 
• Speedy Trial as a Facet of Article 21: 
  The Court has emphasised that speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and that any unjustified delay in trial could itself constitute a ground for grant of bail. 

Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Valmiki Menezes, in Savio Jose Xavier Viegas v. Dr. Mariano Godinho (2026), held that delayed registration of a birth beyond one year of its occurrence can be ordered only by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and struck down/read down Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 to the extent it permitted an Executive Magistrate to exercise this jurisdiction. 

What was the Background of Savio Jose Xavier Viegas v. Dr. Mariano Godinho (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 13, 2023, passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji, cancelling his birth registration dated November 22, 1999. 
• The petitioner contended that the Registrar had acted in excess of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act and had failed to consider the documents produced by him. 
• The petitioner claimed to have been born on June 11, 1975, and his birth had come to be registered only in 1999, when he was already 24 years old, allegedly pursuant to an order dated September 11, 1999 of the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, functioning as an Executive Magistrate. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Statutory Scheme for Delayed Registration: 
  The Court held that a combined reading of Section 13(3) and Section 30 of the Act, along with Rule 10 of the 1970 Rules or Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules, shows that entry of a birth after one year of its occurrence must be ordered by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and none else, while the Registrar retains power to act where an entry has been fraudulently or improperly made. 
•  
• On the Validity of the 1999 Registration: 
  The Court found that the petitioner's 1999 registration, made when he was already 24 years old, could not have been validly made in the absence of an order of a Magistrate of the First Class, and that his birth could not have been registered in 1999 without such an order.
• On the Inadequacy of an Executive Magistrate's Authority: 
  The Court rejected the contention that an order of the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, an Executive Magistrate, could satisfy Section 13(3), holding that a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class alone possesses the adjudicatory tools that the provision contemplates, and that the legislative intent was to confer jurisdiction exclusively on a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
• On the Validity of Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules: 
  The Court held that the inclusion of an Executive Magistrate in Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 needed to be struck down/read down to the extent it allowed an Executive Magistrate to verify delayed registration of births and deaths, confining such jurisdiction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class of the concerned jurisdiction under Section 13(3). 
• The Court accordingly found no case for interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. 

What is Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969? 

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969: 

• The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) is a Parliament of India enactment that came into force on May 31, 1969.  
• It provides a uniform, nationwide framework for the registration of births and deaths, enabling comparability of vital statistics across states. It replaced the earlier Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. 

Key Amendments: 

• Delegated Legislation Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1985 (4 of 1985) — amended provisions relating to delegated/subordinate legislation under the Act. 
• Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023 (20 of 2023) — introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 26, 2023; passed by the Lok Sabha on August 1, 2023, and by the Rajya Sabha on August 7, 2023. This amendment:  
  • Mandates the Registrar General of India to maintain a national database of registered births and deaths. 
  • Obligates Chief Registrars (appointed by States) and Registrars (appointed for local jurisdictions) to share registered birth and death data with the national database.

Section 13 — Registration of Births and Deaths After Prescribed Time Limit: 

Section 13 lays down a graded mechanism for registering births and deaths that were not recorded within the ordinary time limit, based on how much delay has occurred: 

• Section 13(1): Where a birth or death has not been registered within the prescribed period (ordinarily 21 days), it may still be registered within one year of its occurrence, on:  
  • Payment of the prescribed fee, and 
  • Production of a written declaration in the prescribed form, along with a certificate from the notified authority (as prescribed by the State Government). 
• Section 13(3): A birth or death that has not been registered within one year of its occurrence can be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate, and after due verification in the prescribed manner and payment of the prescribed fee.