List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti reiterated that for proving sexual assault bodily injuries are not necessary.                        

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal (2025). 

What was the Background of Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal Case?  

• The prosecutrix (daughter of Jawahari Lal, PW-1) was allegedly kidnapped on 18th March 1998 at around 3:00 p.m. 
• The second First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 19.03.1998 at 7:00 p.m., more than 24 hours after the incident. 
• The appellant, Dalip Kumar @ Dalli, was not named in the FIR but later charged under Sections 363, 366-A, 366, 376, read with 149 and 368 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Prosecutrix in her testimony said that: 
  • Marriage talks with the appellant were ongoing but opposed by her father due to caste differences. 
  • She voluntarily went with the appellant and did not raise any alarm during the alleged abduction. 
• Further, Sarita who was the younger sister of the prosecutrix and who witnessed her going with the appellant was not presented as a witness. 
• It is to be noted that the medical evidence produced showed that there were no signs of injury or sexual assault on the prosecutrix. 
• Further, the age of the prosecutrix was estimated to be between 16- 18 years. 
• The Lower Courts gave the following decisions: 
  • The Trial Court acquitted the accused of more serious charges, including sexual assault (Section 376). The appellant and another accused were however convicted under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse). 
  • The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363 and 366-A.   
• Thus, an appeal against the conviction was filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• With regards to bodily injury to prove sexual assault the Court held that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault.  
• Regarding the above, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s Handbook on stereotypes. 
• The Court observed that it is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries, however, victims respond to trauma in varied ways influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. 
• In the present facts it was observed by the Court that the prosecutrix herself testified that she was not forcibly taken away by the appellant. Thus, the ingredients to satisfy the requirements of Section 366A of IPC are not sustained. 
• Further, another important witness Sarita was withheld by the prosecution and the possibility of prosecutrix being of 18 years cannot be completely ruled out. 
• Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 366A and Section 363 of IPC.

Who is Sexual Assault under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

• Chapter V of  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) lays down offences against women and children. 
•  Section 74 of BNS provides for the offence of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. 
• The ingredients of Section 74 of BNS are as follows: 
  • Act Prohibited: 
    • Assault or the use of criminal force against a woman is prohibited if it is done with specific intent or knowledge. 
  • Intent or Knowledge: 
    • The perpetrator must either:  
      • Intend to outrage the woman's modesty, or 
      • Know that their actions are likely to outrage her modesty. 
  • Punishment: 
    • Imprisonment:  
      • Minimum term: 1 year. 
      • Maximum term: 5 years. 
    • Fine:  
      • The offender is also liable to pay a fine. 
  • Objective: 
    • This section aims to protect the dignity, modesty, and personal integrity of women by criminalizing acts that violate their modesty. 
  • Non-compoundable Offense: 
    • The offense under this section cannot be resolved through mutual agreement between the parties and is considered serious in nature. 
  • Gender-Specific Protection: 
    • The law specifically addresses offenses committed against women.

What are the Guidelines Regarding Sexual Assault laid down in the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Stereotypes?

• The Handbook on Gender Stereotypes is released by the Supreme Court of India with the intention of assisting judges and legal practitioners in recognizing, understanding, and combating gender stereotypes present in legal language and judgments. 
• Some of the stereotypes regarding sexual assault mentioned in the handbook are as follows:

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan (2025) has held that the right of an accused to a free and fair trial under Article 21 in seeking call/tower location details under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. 

What was the Background of Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan Case?   

• Narendra Kumar Soni (Petitioner) is accused in an anti-corruption case, where trap proceedings were allegedly conducted on 10th March 2023.  
• The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated in the case and that no actual trap proceedings took place during the stated time. 
• Two witnesses, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena, were shown to be present during the trap proceedings. 
• The petitioner contends that according to CCTV footage, only three people were present at the scene: the petitioner himself, the complainant's brother, and one unknown person. 
• The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC requesting preservation of mobile tower locations for: 
  • The complainant 
  • The Investigating Officer 
  • The two witnesses (Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena) 
  • Other members of the trap party 
• The Trial Court (Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota) partially allowed the application-  
  • Granted preservation of mobile locations for the complainant and Investigating Officer. 
  • Denied the request for preserving mobile locations of Sonu Meena, Jitender Meena, and other trap party members. 
• The petitioner challenged this partial rejection through a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, specifically seeking tower locations for Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Rajasthan High Court Observed that: 
  • On Right to Fair Trial:  
    • Principles of natural justice are integral to fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian  Constitution (COI). 
    • Denial of best available evidence or effective hearing would amount to denial of fair trial. 
  • On Privacy v. Justice:  
    • While call detail preservation may violate police officials' privacy rights, the accused's right to fair trial under Article 21 of the COI takes precedence. 
    • Some privacy breaches can be justified if it helps discover truth and render justice. 
  • On Electronic Evidence:  
    • Electronic records are admissible in criminal trials under Sections 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
    • Denial of electronic records that could help the accused's defense may lead to miscarriage of justice. 
  • On Section 91 CrPC:  
    • The section's purpose is to ensure no crucial evidence remains undiscovered. 
    • It helps facilitate fair case resolution by making relevant evidence available to the court. 
    • It helps prevent destruction or loss of crucial documents. 
    • The accused must prove necessity and relevance of such evidence before it's ordered. 
  • On Tower Location Data:  
    • Preserving call details and tower locations is necessary as this evidence could be lost forever. 
    • The court recognized the accused's right to invoke Section 91 CrPC. to obtain documents supporting their defense. 

What is the Right to Fair Trial? 

• About: 
  • Fair trials uphold justice and ensure societal integrity. Without them, wrongful convictions occur, eroding trust in the justice system. Governments must uphold law and order while respecting civil liberties.
• Legal Provisions: 

• Landmark Cases: 
  • Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1973): 
    • The court noted that determining bias's impact on judgment is not crucial; what matters is if a litigant could reasonably fear that a judicial bias influenced the final decision. 
  • Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2006) 
    • The Supreme Court emphasizes fair treatment for both accused and victims, highlighting the intrinsic right to fairness in criminal trials. 
  • Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v. State of M.P. Ors. (2008) 
    • Courts wield authority under relevant legal provisions to ensure fair trial, intervening when due process is compromised. 

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ruling clarified that orders neither setting aside nor refusing to set aside an arbitral award are not appealable under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that appeals in arbitration cases are limited to those expressly permitted under Sections 37 and 50 of the Act. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr. (2025). 
•  It also held that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not provide an independent right to appeal, reinforcing the restrictive approach to arbitration appeals. 

What was the Background of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr. (2025)? 

• The case arises from FAO(OS) (COMM) 1/2025, where the appellant challenged an Order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Single Judge in O.M.P.(COMM) 7/2024. 
• The original case titled "Synergies Casting Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr." was before the Single Judge. 
• The Single Judge had directed the appellant to deposit the principal awarded amount with the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks. 
• Upon such deposit, the execution of the Impugned Award was to remain stayed until the pendency of the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act). 
• The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 29 days, for which condonation was sought and granted. 
• The appellant contended that while the appeal may not be maintainable under Section 37 of the A&C Act, it would be maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 
• The appellant also relied on Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, to support the maintainability of the appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Furest Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, which established that the A&C Act is a self-contained Code carrying negative import against appeals not mentioned therein. 
• The Court cited Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, which reaffirmed that no appeal is maintainable in arbitration matters except those expressly provided under Section 37 or 50 of the A&C Act. 
• The Court states BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., which established that the A&C Act being a Special Act prevails over the Commercial Courts Act, being a General Act. 
• The Court noted that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 merely provides forums for appeals and does not confer any independent right of appeal. 
• The Court observed that even if an order is generally appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, it must fall within Section 37 of the A&C Act to be appealable. 
• The Court found that the Impugned Order neither set aside nor refused to set aside the arbitral award in challenge before the Single Judge. 
• The Court concluded that the Order did not fall within Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act and was therefore not appealable. 
• Based on these observations, the Court held the appeal to be not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly. 

What is the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? 

About:

• The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a specialized legislation enacted to address the growing complexity of commercial disputes in India, which came into effect on 23rd October 2015, as Act No. 4 of 2016, establishing a dedicated framework for resolving commercial disputes efficiently. 
• The Act establishes Commercial Courts at the district level with specialized jurisdiction over commercial matters, ensuring accessibility to litigants while maintaining expertise in commercial dispute resolution through specially trained judges who have experience in handling complex commercial matters. 
• It provides a comprehensive definition of "commercial disputes" encompassing various commercial transactions, contracts, and agreements, thereby creating clarity and certainty regarding which matters fall under its jurisdiction and can be adjudicated by Commercial Courts. 
• The legislation mandates strict timelines for different stages of litigation and expeditious disposal of cases, aiming to minimize delays that are typically associated with commercial litigation in regular courts. 
• A distinctive feature of the Act is its creation of a specialized judicial infrastructure with judges having expertise in commercial matters, enabling informed and quick decision-making while fostering confidence among commercial litigants in the dispute resolution process. 
• The Act represents a significant reform in India's commercial dispute resolution mechanism, addressing the specific needs of the business community by providing a streamlined, efficient, and specialized forum for resolving commercial disputes. 

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: 

• Any aggrieved person can appeal against a judgment/order of a Commercial Court (below District Judge level) to the Commercial Appellate Court within 60 days from the date of judgment/order. 
• For judgments/orders from Commercial Courts at District Judge level or Commercial Division of High Court, appeals lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within 60 days. 
• The proviso specifically allows appeals from orders passed by Commercial Division/Commercial Court that are:  
  • Enumerated under Order XLIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended). 
  • Listed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• No appeal shall lie from any order/decree of Commercial Division or Commercial Court except as provided under this Act, notwithstanding:  
  • Any other law in force. 
  • Letters Patent of a High Court. 
• The Section establishes a two-tier appellate structure based on the level of the Commercial Court:  
  • Lower courts to Commercial Appellate Court. 
  • District Judge/High Court Division to Commercial Appellate Division. 
• The time limit of 60 days is uniform for both levels of appeal, calculated from the date of judgment or order. 
• The section creates a comprehensive and exclusive appellate mechanism for commercial matters, overriding other general appellate provisions. 
• The section specifically incorporates certain enumerated orders under CPC and Arbitration Act within its appellate jurisdiction while excluding all others. 

What is Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ? 

• The Section provides that recourse against an arbitral award can only be made through an application for setting aside the award under subsections (2) and (3). 
• The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award by the Court are divided into two categories:  
  • Where the party making application furnishes proof. 
  • Where the Court itself finds certain issues. 
• Under Section 34(2)(a), a party must furnish proof of:  
  • Party's incapacity 
  • Invalid arbitration agreement 
  • Improper notice of arbitrator appointment or proceedings 
  • Award dealing with disputes beyond arbitration scope 
  • Improper composition of tribunal or procedure 
• Under Section 34(2)(b), the Court may set aside the award if:  
  • The dispute subject matter is not arbitrable under law. 
  • The award conflicts with public policy of India. 
• An award is deemed to conflict with public policy of India only if:  
  • It was induced by fraud or corruption. 
  • It contravenes fundamental policy of Indian law. 
  • It conflicts with basic notions of morality or justice. 
  • For non-international commercial arbitrations, an additional ground exists - the award can be set aside if vitiated by patent illegality appearing on face of award. 
• Time limit for filing application:  
  • Within 3 months of receiving the award. 
  • Additional 30 days possible with sufficient cause. 
  • Prior notice to other party mandatory. 
• The application must be disposed of expeditiously, within one year from the date of service of notice to the other party. 
• The Court may adjourn proceedings to allow the tribunal to resume proceedings or take action to eliminate grounds for setting aside the award.