List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court decided Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026). The Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), may be considered at the stage of cognizance, though they cannot be relied on at trial. The Court set aside the Patna High Court's order quashing the Magistrate's cognizance order and restored it. 

What was the Background of Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was the father of the deceased, who had died by drowning. 
• He alleged that Respondent No. 2 had played an active role in the death. 
• There was strong circumstantial evidence, and witnesses had seen the accused running away from the spot. 
• An FIR was lodged, but after investigation the police filed a final report stating that no case was made out (closure report). 
• The appellant filed a protest petition against the closure report, which was renumbered as a complaint case. 
• The Magistrate refused to take cognizance. The appellant challenged this in revision before the Sessions Court. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge examined the Section 161 statements, took a prima facie view that there was material for trial, and directed the Magistrate to consider the final report afresh. 
• On remand, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Patna High Court quashed the cognizance order, relying on the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the use of Section 161 CrPC statements: 

• Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be relied on at the trial. 
• However, they can be considered at the time of cognizance, since they are part of the material produced by the police before the court along with the final report. 

On cognizance despite a closure report: 

• It is settled law that a court is entitled to take cognizance even when the police have filed a closure report. 
• The High Court ignored this settled position. 

On the High Court's approach: 

• The revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge was detailed. It specifically dealt with the Section 161 statements and took a prima facie view that there was material to proceed to trial. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge had also noted the decisions on taking cognizance despite a closure report. 
• The High Court casually brushed aside these findings, despite the very compelling circumstances on record. 

On the effect of the findings on trial: 

• The Court found no reason to interfere with the cognizance taken on the facts and circumstances of the case. 
• It clarified that the views of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Magistrate and the Supreme Court while taking or affirming cognizance shall not in any manner govern or regulate the trial. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order and restored the Magistrate's cognizance order. Respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before the Magistrate, who shall carry out the committal proceedings in accordance with law.

What is Section 180 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation. 
• It corresponds to Section 161 of the CrPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 180(1): A police officer making an investigation may orally examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 
• Section 180(2): Such person is bound to answer truly all questions relating to the case, except questions whose answers would tend to expose him to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture. 
• Section 180(3): The police officer may reduce the statement into writing, and may also record it by audio-video electronic means. The statement of a woman against whom certain sexual offences are alleged to have been committed shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. 

Restriction on Use of Statements (Section 181 BNSS): 

• Section 181 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 162 CrPC) provides that a statement made to a police officer during investigation shall not be signed by the person making it. 
• Such a statement cannot be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial, except to contradict the witness in the manner provided under Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). 
• This is why Section 161 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence at trial, though the court may look at them, as part of the police report, while deciding whether to take cognizance. 

Options Before the Magistrate on Receiving a Closure Report: 

• On receiving a final report under Section 193 BNSS (Section 173 CrPC) stating that no offence is made out, the Magistrate may:  
• Accept the report and drop the proceedings; or 
• Disagree with the report, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or 
• Direct further investigation. 
• Before accepting a closure report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and hear him, as held in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985). 
• The informant may also file a protest petition, which the Magistrate may treat as a complaint and proceed accordingly. 

Source: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court decided Bashir Ahmed v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2026). The Court held that habeas corpus is meant to secure release from illegal detention, and cannot be used to compel an adult to live with another person against her will. It dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition seeking recovery of his adult daughter, who had voluntarily left home and married a person of her choice. 

What was the Background of Bashir Ahmed v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking directions to the authorities to trace and recover his 20-year-old daughter. He also sought a dedicated team to investigate her disappearance within a fixed time. 
• He submitted that:  
  • His daughter went missing on 11th July 2026, after leaving home to appear in her Higher Secondary School Part-I annual examination. 
  • He lodged a missing report at the police station on 12th July 2026, but no effective steps were taken to find her. 
  • He apprehended that she may have been abducted or unlawfully detained. 
• During the proceedings, the daughter sought to be impleaded as a respondent and filed her reply. She stated that:  
  • She had voluntarily left her parental home to marry a person of her choice, without any force or undue influence. 
  • She was a major, did not wish to live with her parents, and did not want her custody to be handed over to her father. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the personal interaction with the daughter: 

• The Court directed the daughter to appear before it and interacted with her personally. 
• She stated that she was over 19 years old and was living independently at Kishtwar with her husband, Mohd. Abdullah, whom she had married of her own free will. 
• She also told the Court that she and her husband had earlier filed a separate writ petition seeking protection from harassment, in which directions had been issued in their favour. 
• Her statement was then recorded on oath by the Registrar Judicial. She reiterated that she had married voluntarily, wished to continue living with her husband, and did not want to return to her parents. 

On the right of an adult to choose: 

• Once an adult makes a voluntary and unequivocal choice to live with her husband, that decision is entitled to legal recognition. 
• A major person cannot be compelled to live with or accompany a particular person, even if that person is her parent. 

On the scope of habeas corpus: 

• Habeas corpus jurisdiction is meant to secure the release of a person from illegal or unlawful detention. 
• It cannot be invoked to compel an adult to reside with another person against her wishes. 

On the facts of the case: 

• The material on record did not show that the daughter was under any unlawful detention. 
• The circumstances showed that she had voluntarily left her parental home to live with her husband. 
• Since this was not a case of illegal detention, the essential basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was absent. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court dismissed the petition and clarified that the daughter, being an adult, was free to live with the person of her choice.

What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Habeas corpus is a Latin term meaning "you may have the body". 
• It is a remedy for persons who are illegally detained, and its basic purpose is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. 
• Through this writ, the court orders that the detained person be produced before it, so that it can examine whether the detention is lawful. 
• The writ protects a person's right to freedom and personal liberty. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• The Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue writs, including habeas corpus. 
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
• Under Article 226, the High Courts have wider jurisdiction, and can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other legal rights. 
• The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction extends throughout the territory of India. 
• A High Court can issue a writ to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction, or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territory. 

Who May Apply: 

• The person who is illegally confined or detained. 
• Any other person on behalf of the detained person, such as a relative or friend, who knows the facts and circumstances of the case. 
• In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Supreme Court recognised that where a detained person cannot approach the court himself, another person can do so on his behalf. 

When the Writ is Refused: 

• When the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the detaining person or authority. 
• When the detention is under the order of a competent court. 
• When the detained person has already been released. 
• When the defects in the detention have been removed and the confinement has become lawful. 
• When a competent court has already dismissed the petition on merits. 
• When, as in this case, there is no detention at all, and an adult is living with a person of her own free will. 

Nature and Scope: 

• In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974), the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus is a procedural writ, not a substantive one. Its focus is the legality of the detention, and the physical production of the detained person is not essential. 
• In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Court held that the writ can be used not only against wrongful confinement but also to protect prisoners from ill-treatment and discrimination by the detaining authority. 
• The doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to habeas corpus petitions, so successive petitions can be filed on fresh grounds. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden lies on the detaining person or authority to satisfy the court that the detention is lawful. 
• Where the detenu alleges that the detention was malicious or beyond the authority's powers, the detenu must establish those allegations.