List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) 

Why in News? 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade, in Nikhil Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra (2026), held that circulating objectionable videos or photographs of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on WhatsApp is an act within 'public view' and can attract the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court dismissed the accused's appeal seeking anticipatory bail. 

What was the Background of Nikhil Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The accused allegedly demanded sexual favours from her. 
• When she refused to maintain a sexual relationship with him, the accused allegedly shot nude videos and photographs of her. He then circulated them, from a different number, on WhatsApp to her husband, sister-in-law and other relatives. 
• An FIR was lodged on 5th November 2025 under the following provisions:  
  • Sections 77 (Voyeurism) and 78 (Stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 
  • Sections 66E (Violation of Privacy) and 67 (Publishing Obscene Material in Electronic Form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and 
  • Sections 3(1)(r) (Intentional Insult in Public View) and 3(1)(w)(ii) (Sexual Words, Acts or Gestures Towards an SC/ST Woman) of the SC/ST Act. 
• The Special Court rejected the accused's anticipatory bail applications twice. He then approached the Bombay High Court by way of a criminal appeal. 
• In March 2026, the same judge had granted interim relief to the accused, observing at that stage that the FIR did not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
• The accused argued that recording or circulating objectionable videos on a social media platform like WhatsApp would not attract the SC/ST Act, since such circulation is not in 'public view'. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Circulation via WhatsApp Being Within Public View: The Court held that circulating objectionable videos and photographs of the victim on social media like WhatsApp from the accused's mobile is an act within the public view. 
• On Prima Facie Ingredients Under the SC/ST Act: On the material placed on record, the Court found that the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out. 
• On Departure From the Earlier Interim View: The Court acknowledged that it had earlier granted interim relief on the view that the SC/ST Act was not attracted. However, after examining the material on record, it found a strong case against the accused and took a different view. 
• On the Conduct of the Accused: The Court noted that the accused had been absconding since the registration of the crime. It held that, in these circumstances, he was not entitled to anticipatory bail. 
• Outcome: The appeal was dismissed and anticipatory bail was denied. 

What is the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

Background & Purpose: 

• The Act was enacted to prevent atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It provides for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of victims. 
• It gives effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) and Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). 

Relevant Provisions Involved in the Case: 

• Section 3(1)(r): Punishes a person who is not a member of an SC/ST and who intentionally insults or intimidates, with intent to humiliate, a member of an SC/ST in any place within public view. 
• Section 3(1)(w): Punishes a person who is not a member of an SC/ST and who:  
  • (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to an SC/ST, without her consent, where the act is of a sexual nature, or 
  • (ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to an SC/ST, knowing that she belongs to such community. 
• Section 3(2)(va): Punishes a person who commits any offence specified in the Schedule to the Act against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of an SC/ST, with the punishment prescribed for that offence along with fine. 

Bar on Anticipatory Bail: 

• Section 18: The provision for anticipatory bail does not apply to a person accused of an offence under the Act. This corresponds to Section 438 of the CrPC, now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 
• Section 18A: Inserted by the 2018 Amendment, it provides that no preliminary enquiry is required before registering an FIR and no prior approval is needed for arrest. It also reiterates the bar on anticipatory bail notwithstanding any judgment or order of a court. 
• In Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld Section 18A. It clarified that courts may still grant anticipatory bail where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the Act. 

Appeal Against Bail Orders: 

• Section 14A: An appeal lies to the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court, including an order granting or refusing bail. 

What is the Concept of 'Public View' Under the SC/ST Act? 

Meaning: 

• 'Public view' means that the act must take place in the presence of, or be capable of being seen or heard by, members of the public. It is wider than a 'public place'. 

Judicial Interpretation: 

• In Swaran Singh v. State (2008), the Supreme Court distinguished between a 'public place' and a 'place within public view'. It held that even a private place can be within public view if members of the public are present and can see or hear the act. 
• In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court held that an insult within the four walls of a building, where no member of the public is present, is not within public view. It also held that the insult must be on account of the victim's caste. 

Application to Digital Platforms: 

• The present ruling extends 'public view' to the digital sphere. Circulating objectionable content on WhatsApp makes it accessible to others, and the act therefore falls within public view. 
• Courts have, however, taken differing views on social media. The Karnataka High Court recently held that a WhatsApp status shared only with contacts is not enough to constitute publication for an offence of promoting enmity under Section 505(2) IPC. Whether online content falls within public view thus depends on the facts and the specific offence involved. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in Geeta Bai & Ors. v. K. Arjun Singh & Ors. (2026), held that a compromise decree obtained in a partition suit without impleading a necessary party is a nullity. The Court ruled that the omitted party is entitled to seek recall of such a decree before the court that passed it. 

What was the Background of Geeta Bai & Ors. v. K. Arjun Singh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The property owner died intestate, leaving behind four children, including a daughter, Late Smt. Ballo Bai. 
• The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased daughter, claimed a 1/4th share in the property of their maternal grandfather under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They contended that the property devolved equally among his four children. 
• A suit for partition of the coparcenary property was instituted, and litigation went through rounds before the trial court. 
• The Telangana High Court eventually passed a compromise decree based on a compromise between the brothers/legal heirs (as plaintiffs) and the defendants. 
• However, Late Smt. Ballo Bai and her legal heirs were never impleaded as parties at any stage of the litigation. 
• The appellants filed recall applications against the compromise decree. The High Court declined them, holding that their remedy lay in filing a separate suit or an appeal before a higher court after seeking leave. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, contending that they were necessary parties to the suit and that the High Court had ignored their rights. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Compromise Decree Being a Nullity: The Court held that the compromise decree, obtained by the plaintiffs and defendants without impleading the deceased daughter or her legal heirs despite her being a necessary party, was a nullity in the eyes of law. 
• On the Appellants Not Being Strangers to the Lis: The Court observed that the deceased daughter and her legal heirs could by no stretch of imagination be treated as strangers to the suit. Their rights in the coparcenary property were directly affected by the outcome of the partition proceedings. 
• On the Inapplicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: The Court held that the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A, which prohibits a fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was unlawful, would not operate against a compromise decree passed in disregard of the law. 
• On the Right to Seek Recall: The Court held that the omitted necessary party was entitled to challenge the compromise and seek recall of a decree obtained behind their back before the court that passed it. The statutory bar could not be used to disentitle them. 
• On the Error of the High Court: The Court found the High Court's approach of declining the recall applications and relegating the appellants to a separate suit or appeal to be erroneous. 
• Outcome: The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court to reconsider the recall applications afresh in light of the Supreme Court's observations. 

What is a Necessary Party? 

Meaning: 

• A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Their presence is a sine qua non to the proper constitution of the suit. 
• It includes parties whose rights are directly affected by the proceedings and whose presence is essential for the court to pass an effective decree. 

Two Tests for Determining a Necessary Party: 

• There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings. 
• It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such party. 
• These tests were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005). 

Statutory Framework under the CPC: 

• Order I Rule 9: A suit shall not be defeated merely by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. However, the proviso clarifies that this rule does not apply to the non-joinder of a necessary party. 
• Order I Rule 10(2): The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, add any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions involved in the suit. 

Necessary Party vs Proper Party: 

• A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all. 
• A proper party is one whose presence is not indispensable but enables the court to adjudicate the matter more effectively and completely. 
• The distinction was explained in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. (2010). 

Consequences of Non-Joinder of a Necessary Party: 

• Any order passed without hearing the affected party is void. 
• Such orders can be ignored by the affected party as non-binding. 
• The proceedings may fail altogether in the absence of a necessary party. 

What is a Compromise Decree? 

Meaning: 

• A compromise decree is a decree passed by a court on the basis of a lawful agreement or compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit. It settles the dispute wholly or partly. 
• It is essentially a contract between the parties with the seal of the court superadded to it. 

Statutory Framework under the CPC: 

• Order XXIII Rule 3: Where the court is satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or partly by a lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by the parties, it shall record the compromise and pass a decree accordingly. 
• Order XXIII Rule 3A: No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which it is based was not lawful. 
• Section 96(3): No appeal lies from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties. 
• Order XLIII Rule 1A(2): In an appeal against a decree passed after recording a compromise, a party may contest that the compromise should or should not have been recorded. 

Remedy Against a Compromise Decree: 

• A party to the compromise who disputes its validity must ordinarily approach the same court that recorded the compromise. A separate suit is not maintainable, as held in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh (2006). 
• The court recording a compromise must be satisfied that the agreement is lawful before passing a decree, as emphasised in Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (1993). 
• As clarified in the present case, a necessary party who was never impleaded is not a stranger to the lis. Such a party can seek recall of the compromise decree before the court that passed it, since the decree is a nullity and the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A does not shield it.