List of Current Affairs

Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod, in Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka & Others (2026), dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of two shopkeepers accused of abetting a minor's suicide, holding that their refusal to return the boy's ball and asking him to bring his father did not amount to abetment under Section 305 of the IPC (107 of BNS). 

What was the Background of Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka (2026) Case? 

• On February 1, 2019, a minor boy was playing volleyball outside his house when the ball accidentally fell into the accused's shop, breaking a glass pane. 
• When the boy asked for the ball back, the accused shopkeepers refused, scolded him, and asked him to bring his father to reclaim it; one of the accused allegedly dragged the boy from the shop to his house. 
• Upset by the incident, the boy went inside his residence and died by suicide. 
• The Trial Court acquitted the accused, and the State, along with the deceased's family, appealed against the acquittal before the Karnataka High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Requirement of a Positive Act Under Section 305 IPC: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any positive act by the accused that drove the child to suicide, leaving him with no alternative but to end his life. It noted the absence of any positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence, and the absence of evidence of continuous physical or mental torture. 
• On the Requirement of Vital and Conspicuous Mens Rea: The Court held that the ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be present; they must be vital and conspicuous. Merely refusing to return the ball and directing the boy to bring his father could not, by itself, be treated as abetment to commit suicide. 
• On the Ingredients of Abetment Under Section 107 IPC: The Court reiterated that to establish abetment under Section 305 IPC, the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC — namely, that the accused instigated the act, engaged in a conspiracy to bring it about, or intentionally aided it through an act or illegal omission. 
• On the Evidentiary Gaps in the Prosecution's Case: The Court took note of several factors weakening the prosecution's case: the deceased's mother had admitted that the accused did not abet the suicide and that her signature on the complaint was obtained at the instance of the police; the parents failed to substantiate their allegations; the CCTV footage showed no conversation between the accused and the deceased; and no prosecution witness deposed specifically as to the words allegedly uttered by the accused. 
• On the Standard for Reversing an Acquittal (Reliance on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka): The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which held that an order of acquittal can be reversed into one of conviction only on cogent and convincing evidence, and only if perversity is found in the Trial Court's judgment. 
• On the Absence of Perversity in the Trial Court's Order: Finding no perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning and no proof of proximity between the accused's conduct and the child's death, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. 

What is Section 107 of BNS? 

Section 107, BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) — Abetment of Suicide of a Child or Person of Unsound Mind 

(Earlier Section 305, Indian Penal Code, 1860) 

Summary: 
This provision penalises the abetment of suicide where the victim is a minor (below 18 years), a person with mental illness, a delirious person, or a person in a state of intoxication — categories the law treats as especially vulnerable to inducement. If such a person commits suicide, whoever abets that suicide is punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to ten years, along with a fine. 

Key Points: 

• Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to 10 years, plus fine 
• Cognizable 
• Non-Bailable 
• Triable by: Court of Session 

Note on renumbering: This offence was earlier codified as Section 305 of the IPC, 1860. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it has been renumbered as Section 107, with the substantive offence and punishment remaining the same. 

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh, in Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), held that where the number of dependants applying for compassionate appointment exceeds the posts earmarked for that category, requiring candidates to sit an objective type test is not an unreasonable method of selecting between them. 

What was the Background of Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners were dependants of police personnel who died in service, seeking compassionate appointment. 
• They challenged the note appended to Rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, which restricts compassionate appointments to 5 per cent of the posts filled every year by direct recruitment, as ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. 
• They also challenged a Government Order dated 18 September 2015, which requires candidates in the dependants category to appear in an objective type test where they outnumber the posts earmarked for that category, and permits only one opportunity for recruitment against such a post. 
• Relying on the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioners contended that compassionate appointment is governed by these rules, which place no cap on such appointments, and that subjecting compassionate candidates to a written test defeats the very object of compassion. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Objective Type Test Being a Reasonable Mode of Selection: The Court held that evaluating which among several candidates is more deserving of compassionate appointment is bound to give rise to controversy and dispute. Subjecting such candidates to an objective type test, by contrast, removes any occasion for one candidate to allege that another received a backdoor appointment. 
• On Competition Not Being Wholly Excluded from Compassionate Appointment: The Court held that the element of competition cannot be entirely eliminated even in matters of compassionate appointment where the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies, and that an objective test serves the legitimate purpose of choosing fairly among competing claimants. 
• On the Petitioners' Reliance on Ashish Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.: The Court noted that the Division Bench in Ashish Bahadur Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, while taking suo motu cognizance and directing withdrawal of the note, had itself dismissed the special appeal, and that the direction was issued on the footing that the note did not create a reservation. It further noted that the State Government had not acted on that direction, and held that this did not aid the petitioners' claim to relief. 
• On the Petitioners' Reliance on State of U.P. v. Himanshu Yadav: The Court observed that it had not been shown that the Division Bench in Himanshu Yadav, which held that the 5 per cent restriction applies against vacancies arising each year, had occasion to consider the earlier decision in Ankur Gautam, where the validity of the note had been clearly upheld. 
• On the Binding Effect of Ankur Gautam v. State of U.P.: The Court noted the State's reliance on Ankur Gautam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, where an earlier Division Bench had upheld both the note and the objective test as fair and reasonable, holding that an upper limit on compassionate appointments was necessary to avoid shutting out open market candidates, and that the test served only to select among those already claiming compassion.

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is granted with the object of relieving a family in distress from destitution, giving it immediate succour after the sudden loss of its breadwinner. 
• It is not a condition of service owed automatically to the dependant of an employee who dies in harness, and cannot be claimed without scrutiny or a selection process. 
• Such appointments exist to bail out the deceased employee's family from extreme financial difficulty where employment is the only means to meet the crisis. 
• The claim remains subject to the dependant fulfilling the eligibility requirements laid down under the applicable policy, instructions, or rules. 

Nature of the Right: 

• Compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right, and does not flow from Articles 14 or 16 as a general entitlement to public employment. 
• It is an exception to the general rule that public appointments must be made through open, merit-based recruitment, and must be construed strictly, confined to its object of relieving sudden financial destitution. 

Judicial Position on Limits and Selection Criteria: 

• Caps or quotas restricting compassionate appointments to a fixed percentage of vacancies have been upheld, since an unrestricted number would shut out open market candidates and turn the exception into a parallel mode of recruitment. 
• Where dependant-applicants exceed earmarked posts, requiring them to compete — including through an objective type test — is a reasonable and transparent method of selection, since assessing comparative "need for compassion" is itself prone to dispute. 
• Such a test does not alter the compassionate character of the appointment; it only regulates the choice among those already qualifying as eligible dependants. 

Landmark Judgments: 

• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another (2016): The Allahabad High Court struck down the word "unmarried" qualifying "daughter" in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the UP Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, as violative of Articles 14 and 15. 
• State of U.P. v. Madhavi Mishra and Others (2021): The Allahabad High Court held that a married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 
• Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree (2021): The Supreme Court summarised the governing principles — compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; no aspirant has a right to it; public appointments must otherwise conform to Articles 14 and 16; appointment can be made only on fulfilling the State's policy norms and eligibility criteria; and the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered govern the claim. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022): The Supreme Court held that a married daughter cannot be treated as dependent on her deceased parent, particularly where a significant period had elapsed since the employee's death.