List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma has held that there needs to be a "positive act" that pushes the deceased/victim to the edge for sustaining charges of abetment to Suicide. 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of the Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Case? 

• This case involves an alleged abetment of suicide where the victim was Souma Pal, who was found dead between Garia Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station on 3rd July 2008. 
• The accused parties initially included four members of a family. 
• The deceased Souma Pal and Babu Das were in a love affair for approximately 3-4 years before the incident. 
• The deceased's family was against the relationship and wanted her to focus on her studies. They had requested the accused family to help end the relationship, but the accused allegedly refused to cooperate. 
• On 6th July 2008, a First Information Report was filed by the deceased's uncle (Complainant) alleging abetment of suicide against all four accused persons (appellants) under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The post-mortem report revealed that the death was caused by injuries sustained from jumping in front of a train. 
• Witness statements indicated that: 
  • There were altercations between the deceased and Babu Das a few days before the incident. 
  • Babu Das had allegedly refused to marry the deceased. 
  • Laxmi Das (the Appellant) had allegedly disapproved of the marriage and insulted the deceased 
• A chargesheet was filed against all accused under Sections 306 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC. 
• After the chargesheet, the accused persons filed for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which was rejected by the Trial Court.  
• Subsequently, Laxmi Das, Dilip Das, and Subrata Das filed revision and quashing applications before the Calcutta High Court. 
• The Calcutta High Court made the following observations: 
  • Regarding Dilip Das and Subrata Das (father and brother): The court found no specific allegations against them in the evidence on record and therefore allowed their quashing applications. 
  • Regarding Laxmi Das (mother): The High Court found prima facie materials against her based specifically on the witness statement of Rejina Khatoon.  
    • The critical evidence cited was that when Souma told Babu and his mother that she couldn't survive without Babu, they allegedly told her that "she need not be alive and might die." Based on this statement, the High Court concluded there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against Laxmi Das under Section 306 IPC. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Calcutta High Court the present appeal has been filed by the mother of Babu Das before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court took a markedly different view from both lower courts and made several important observations: 
  • Legal Framework Analysis: 
    • The Court examined Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and established that three essential elements must be present for abetment of suicide: 
      • Direct or indirect instigation. 
      • Close proximity to the commission of suicide. 
      • Clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. 
  • Evidence Assessment: 
    • The Supreme Court found "not an iota of evidence" against Laxmi Das, even when considering all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and witness statements. 
  • Nature of Actions: 
    • The Court determined that Laxmi Das's acts were "too remote and indirect" to constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC.  
    • They noted there was no allegation suggesting the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. 
  • Family Dynamic Analysis: 
    • The Court observed that contrary to allegations, Laxmi Das and her family did not attempt to pressure the deceased to end the relationship.  
    • In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. 
  • Interpretation of Alleged Statements: 
    • The Court held that even if Laxmi Das expressed disapproval towards the marriage, or made remarks about "not being alive," these did not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide.  
    • The Court emphasized that there needs to be a "positive act" that pushes the deceased to the edge for sustaining charges under Section 306 IPC. 
• The Supreme Court's analysis shows a careful examination of what constitutes abetment of suicide, distinguishing between disapproval or casual remarks and actual instigation that creates circumstances leaving no option but suicide.  
  • This interpretation represents a more nuanced understanding of Section 306 IPC than that applied by the lower courts. 

What is Abetment of Suicide?  

• Section 107 of IPC and Section 45 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) define abetment as a deliberate act involving specific actions that lead to suicide.  
• Three essential components establish abetment:   
  • Direct instigation of a person to commit the act.  
  • Engagement in conspiracy with others to facilitate the act.  
  • Intentional aid through action or illegal omission.  
• The prosecution bears the burden to definitively prove that the accused directly instigated or materially aided the deceased in committing suicide.  
• Legal consequences under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) include imprisonment up to 10 years plus financial penalties.  
• Statistical evidence from NCRB reveals a notably low conviction rate of 17.5% in 2022 for abetment cases.  
• The burden of proof requires establishing clear causation between the accused's actions and the victim's decision.  
• In workplace-related cases, courts mandate a higher evidentiary standard due to the professional nature of relationships.  
• Mere harassment or professional pressure without specific intent to cause suicide does not constitute abetment.  
• Courts require concrete evidence of "direct and alarming encouragement" rather than circumstantial connections.  
• The law distinguishes between general misconduct and specific actions intended to drive someone to suicide.  
• Investigations must establish a clear chain of events showing the accused's direct role in the suicide. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues if substantial legal questions or glaring errors are raised.  

• Supreme Court held this in the matter of Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025). 
  • This ruling states the Court's discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and ensures justice isn't compromised due to procedural technicalities. 

What is the Background of Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation Case? 

• Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI), was charged with fraudulently obtaining settlement of two insurance claims. 
• He allegedly portrayed an insured person as deceased when the person was alive, in collusion with a co-convict. 
• The prosecution presented evidence showing that Das and the insured person had a friendly relationship, and Das had obtained policies from the insured on the pretext of upgrading them. 
• Das was found to have filled six blank cheques totaling Rs. 1,67,583, which corresponded to the insurance claim amount. 
• The trial court convicted Das under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) including Sections 468, 271, 465, and 420 read with Section 120(B). 
• He was also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC). 
• The trial court sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment for most IPC offenses, one year for Section 271 and 465, and three years for offenses under the PC Act. 
• Das appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which affirmed both his conviction and sentence through a judgment dated 27th September 2013. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that when a limited notice is issued, the view taken is typically tentative and should not restrict the court's jurisdiction to address broader issues. 
• The Court observed that justice would be compromised if subsequent benches were prevented from ruling on merits beyond the limited notice's scope. 
• The Court clarified that the jurisdiction to decide all legal points exists and is not diminished by a limited notice issuing order. 
• Regarding the PC Act's applicability, the Court found that Das, as a Development Officer in LICI (established by central statute), was clearly covered under Section 2(c)(iii). 
• The Court distinguished the present case from State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) noting that Das committed offenses while discharging his official duties. 
• On examining the evidence, the Court confirmed that both trial court and High Court were justified in finding Das guilty under both IPC and PC Act. 
• The Court noted that Das had already served 22 months of his 36-month sentence. 
• Considering the case dated back to 2004 and Das had served nearly two-thirds of his sentence, the Court modified the sentence to the period already served. 
• While maintaining the conviction, the Court partially allowed the appeal by relieving Das from serving the remainder of his prison term. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred as per Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 334: Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property. 
  • Section 334(2) Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both 
• Section 273: Disobedience to quarantine rule. 
  • Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 
• Section 336: Forgery. 
  • Section 336 (2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both 
• Section 318: Cheating. 
  • Section 318 (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

• About: 
  • The PC Act is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and connected matters in India. 
• Important Sections: 
  • Section 3: "Power to appoint special Judges" 
    • Allows Central/State Government to appoint special Judges for trying corruption cases. 
  • Section 7: "Offence relating to public servant being bribed" 
    • Deals with public servants obtaining undue advantage to influence public duty. 
    • Punishment: 3-7 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 8: "Offence relating to bribing of a public servant" 
    • Covers giving undue advantage to public servants. 
    • Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment or fine or both. 
  • Section 9: "Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization" 
    • Addresses corruption involving commercial organizations. 
    • Includes provisions for corporate liability. 
  • Section 13: "Criminal misconduct by a public servant" 
    • Defines criminal misconduct by public servants. 
    • Includes misappropriation and illicit enrichment. 
    • Punishment: 4-10 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Section 17: "Persons authorised to investigate" 
    • Specifies minimum rank of police officers authorized to investigate. 
    • Requires approval from specified authorities. 
    • Section 19: "Previous sanction necessary for prosecution". 
    • Makes prior sanction mandatory for prosecuting public servants. 
    • Details authorities competent to grant sanction. 
  • Section 20: "Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage" 
    • Creates legal presumption of corruption when undue advantage is proven. 
  • Section 23: "Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13(1)(a)" 
    • Specifies requirements for framing charges in corruption cases. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that in case of a suit for specific performance the Court retains control over the decree even after the decree is passed.               

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Balbir Singh & Anr v. Baldev Singh (D) Through LR’s and Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Balbir Singh & Anr v. Baldev Singh (D) Through LR’s and Ors. Case?  

• The case involves a dispute over a decree for specific performance of a contract. 
• The trial court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days and the defendants to execute the sale deeds. 
• The defendants filed appeals, and the appellate court set aside the trial court's decree. However, the High Court restored the trial court's decree in second appeals. 
• The defendants then filed SLPs, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the High Court's judgment. 
• During the pendency of the SLPs, the plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration, and eventually, the sale deeds were executed. 
• The defendants later sought to rescind the contract, but their application was rejected. The possession of the suit lands was handed over to the plaintiffs, and the execution petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The issue that the Court considered in the present facts was: 
  • Whether the defendants/ judgment debtors could have prayed for rescission of contract on the ground that the plaintiffs/ decree holders had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time period of 20 days as prescribed in the original decree? 
• Answering the issue, the Court held that when time for payment of money is extended, it does not mean a modification of the decree. 
• Further, the Court held that the trial court has power to extend the time, and the expression “such further period as the court may allow” would mean the court which had passed the decree, or, where the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) , is filed.  
• The Court further held that the very fact that Section 28 of SRA itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree, the same would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the Trial Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance.  
• The Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance. 
• The High Court, while allowing the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff had not issued any specific direction as regards the deposit of the balance sale consideration within a particular period of time. 
• Thus, it was concluded that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant herein to say that since the trial court had directed that the balance sale consideration shall be deposited within 20 days, the same direction would be applicable even after the judgment of the High Court in second appeal.

What is Rescission under Section 28 of SRA? 

• Section 28 of SRA provides for rescission in certain circumstances of the contract for sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed. 
• Application for rescission under Section 28 (1) can be made: 
  • If a decree for specific performance of a sale/lease contract has been made, and the purchaser or lessee fails to pay the amount ordered within the specified time (or any extension allowed by the court), the vendor or lessor can apply in the same suit to rescind the contract. 
  • In the above scenario the Court may rescind the contract either partially (for the defaulting party) or entirely, based on what justice requires. 
• Section 28 (2) lays down the consequences of rescission. It says that if the contract is rescinded the Court can make the following orders: 
  • Restores Possession: Orders the purchaser or lessee to return possession of the property to the vendor or lessor if possession was taken under the contract. 
  • Compensation: May require the purchaser or lessee to pay the vendor or lessor any rents and profits accrued during possession, and if just, refund earnest money or deposits paid. 
• Section 28 (3) lays down the relief that the purchaser can ask for. If the purchaser or lessee pays the required amount within the specified time, they may apply for further relief, which can include: 
  • Proper conveyance or lease execution. 
  • Delivery of possession or partition of the property. 
• Section 28 (4) further provides that no separate suit can be filed for reliefs under this section. All such applications must be made in the original suit.  
• Section 28 (5) provides that the Court has the discretion to decide who bears the costs of proceedings under this section.

What are the Landmark Cases on Section 28 of SRA? 

• Chanda (dead) through Lrs. v. Rattni and Anr. (2007): 
  • The decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree.  
  • The power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it. 
  • Although the power to annul the decree exists yet Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree.  
  • The court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed.
• Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh (2009): 
  • Section 28 gives power to the court either to extend the time for compliance with the decree or grant an order of rescission of the agreement. 
  • The decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the decree. 
  • Sub-section (1) of Section 28 makes it clear that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. 
• Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara (1994): 
  • This Court observed that when the decree specifies the time for performance of the conditions of the decree, on its failure to deposit the money, Section 28(1) itself gives power to the court to extend the time on such terms as the court may allow to pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay. 
  • When the court which passed the decree and the executing court is the same, application under Section 28 can be filed in the executing court. 
  • However, where a decree is transferred for execution to a transferee executing court then certainly the transferee court is not the original court and the executing court is not the “same court” within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act.