List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court decided Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Mukesh Pathak v. State of Rajasthan (2026). The Court granted regular bail to former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi and co-accused Mukesh Pathak in a corruption case concerning alleged irregularities in tenders under the Jal Jeevan Mission, reiterating that the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 must be protected even in cases involving grave allegations. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2026) Case? 

• The case relates to alleged irregularities in tenders worth hundreds of crores of rupees under the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan. 
• The allegations involved large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in the execution of the welfare project. 
• The appellants, Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, were accused in the case and sought regular bail before the Supreme Court. 

Period of custody: 

• Joshi, a senior citizen aged about 72 years, had been in custody since 7 May 2026, for over five months. 
• Pathak had been in continuous custody since 18 February 2026, for nearly eight months. 

Status of the case: 

• Investigation against both appellants was complete and chargesheets had been filed. 
• The case involved 22 accused, 3 chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents running into about 20,000 pages. 
• Charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not commenced. 
• Investigation against some co-accused was still pending, and several accused against whom arrest warrants were issued remained absconding. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the gravity of the allegations: 

• Allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in a public welfare project are grave and warrant serious scrutiny. 
• The State was justified in opposing bail to persons accused of involvement in such extensive criminal activity. 
• However, the gravity of the allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention. 

On Article 21: 

• Prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to turn into punishment without trial, in violation of the undertrial's fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21. 

On the nature of evidence: 

• The prosecution case rested mainly on documentary and electronic evidence, including tender files, official correspondence, bank statements, forensic reports of seized mobile phones and intercepted conversations. 
• All this material was already in the custody of the investigating agency. 
• No further custodial interrogation or recovery was needed, and the risk of tampering with evidence stood substantially removed. 

On the likely duration of trial: 

• Given the number of accused, witnesses and documents, and the fact that charges were yet to be framed, the trial was likely to take considerable time. 

On parity: 

• Both appellants had secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same facts. 
• Several co-accused in the present case had also been granted bail or interim protection. 

Conclusion: 

• Viewed in totality, further pre-trial incarceration was neither warranted nor necessary. 
• Any legitimate apprehension of the prosecution could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 
• The appellants were granted regular bail. 

What is the Right to Speedy Trial and Bail under Article 21? 

About: 

• Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• The Supreme Court has read the right to speedy trial into Article 21, holding that a procedure that does not ensure a reasonably quick trial is not fair, just and reasonable. 

Key principles: 

• Bail is the rule, jail the exception: Laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977). 
• Speedy trial as a fundamental right: Recognised in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which highlighted the plight of undertrials languishing in jail. 
• Detention is not punishment: In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the Court held that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial, and that pre-trial detention should not be used as punishment, even in economic offences. 
• Bail reforms: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court laid down guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests and detention, and stressed the need to decide bail applications promptly. 

Factors considered while granting bail: 

• Nature and gravity of the accusation and the severity of punishment. 
• Nature of the supporting evidence. 
• Reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 
• Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice. 
• Period of custody already undergone and the likely duration of trial. 
• Parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. 

Relevant provisions under the BNSS: 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe of the Supreme Court decided Satinder Pal Singh & Ors. v. Bedi Hospital & Ors. (2026). The Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had quashed the Chandigarh Administration’s decision to cancel Bedi Hospital’s ₹12.58 crore bid for a nursing home site, and directed a fresh e-auction of the site within three months. 

What was the Background of Satinder Pal Singh v. Bedi Hospital (2026) Case? 

• In August 2022, the Chandigarh Administration issued an e-auction notice for residential, commercial and nursing home sites. 
• The dispute concerned two adjacent nursing home sites in Sector 33C, Chandigarh, each measuring 744.44 square yards, with a reserve price of ₹6.91 crore each. 

The auction: 

• In the auction held on 20 October 2022:  
  • The appellants’ bid for Site No. 3 was accepted at ₹18.25 crore. 
  • Bedi Hospital was the highest bidder for Site No. 4 at ₹12.58 crore. 
• Bedi Hospital deposited 25% of the bid amount on 21 October 2022, an Agreement to Sell was executed on 28 October, and the remaining 75% was paid on 16 November 2022. 

Cancellation by the Administration: 

• Before the allotment letter was issued and the conveyance deed executed, the Administration reconsidered the transaction, as the adjacent site of the same size had fetched about ₹6 crore more. 
• On 27 January 2023, it cancelled Bedi Hospital’s bid, stating that the price difference did not reflect market trends. 
• It decided to re-auction Site No. 4, fixing the reserve price at the highest bid received for Site No. 3, and refunded the entire amount deposited by Bedi Hospital. 
• The Agreement to Sell was subsequently cancelled as well. 

Proceedings before the High Court: 

• Bedi Hospital challenged the cancellation, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Administration’s decision. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the power to withdraw from the auction: 

• The Court relied on the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, with which the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice were aligned. 
• These Rules specifically permit the tendering authority to withdraw from the auction before the letter of allotment is issued, for the purpose of revenue maximisation. 
• Since no allotment letter had been issued and no conveyance deed executed, the Administration was entitled to exercise its power to cancel. 

On revisiting auctions of public property: 

• In matters of sale or lease of public property, a public authority is justified in recalling or revisiting the auction if the decision is aimed at maximising the price. 
• This is permissible as long as an enforceable contract has not been entered into. 
• At that stage, a substantially lower price fetched at the auction is a relevant consideration for not finalising the contract in favour of the so-called highest bidder. 
• The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the Administration’s decision. 

On the appropriate relief: 

• In the subsequent auction, Site No. 4 fetched ₹18.30 crore, about ₹6 crore more than Bedi Hospital’s original bid, and the appellants emerged as the highest bidder. 
• Bedi Hospital informed the Court that it was willing to match the appellants’ price. 
• Instead of granting relief to either party, the Court held that the interests of justice and public purpose would be served by a fresh auction. 

Directions: 

• The High Court’s judgment was set aside. 
• The Chandigarh Administration was directed to hold a fresh e-auction of Site No. 4 in Sector 33C under the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007. 
• The entire process must commence and conclude within three months. 

What are the Principles Governing Auction of Public Property? 

Constitutional basis: 

• Article 298 of the Constitution extends the executive power of the Union and the States to carrying on trade or business and to acquiring, holding and disposing of property, and making contracts for any purpose. 
• Article 14 requires that the State act fairly, transparently and without arbitrariness while dealing with public property. 

Key principles: 

• Public trust: Public property is held by the State in trust for the public, and its disposal must aim at securing the best possible price. 
• No vested right of the highest bidder: The highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in their favour until the bid is accepted and a binding contract comes into existence (State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, 1972; Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, 2007). 
• Right to refuse inadequate bids: The authority may refuse to accept even the highest bid if it is inadequate, provided the decision is bona fide and not arbitrary. 
• Limited judicial review: Courts interfere only where the decision is arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the governing rules, and do not substitute their own commercial judgment. 
• Concluded contract as the cut-off: Once an enforceable contract has been concluded, the authority cannot resile from it merely to obtain a higher price.