List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the provocation should be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered or hypersensitive person but one of ordinary sense and calmness.              

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vijay @ Vijaykumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2025). 

What was the Background of Vijay @ Vijaykumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police Case?   

• On 5^th November 2007, the appellant and his friends were returning home after watching a movie when they encountered a deceased person who was heavily intoxicated beneath a bridge. 
• During an altercation that ensued, the prosecution alleges that the appellant picked up a cement brick and struck the deceased on the head, causing fatal injuries.  
• Following the assault, the prosecution claims that the appellant set the deceased's body on fire in an attempt to destroy evidence.  
• The Village Administrative Officer (PW1) subsequently filed a First Information Report at the local police station.  
• The postmortem examination confirmed that the cause of death was head injuries. 
• During the legal proceedings, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and presented 24 documentary pieces of evidence.  
• The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, applying Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which relates to grave and sudden provocation. The court sentenced the appellant to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine.  
• The appellant challenged the Trial Court's verdict by appealing to the High Court, but his appeal was unsuccessful.  
• The High Court affirmed the original judgment and conviction. 
• Consequently, the appellant has now approached the Supreme Court with the present appeal, seeking a review of the previous court decisions 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• While determining whether in the present facts there was grave and sudden provocation the Court observed that Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) will be invoked. 
• It was observed that the burden of proof is on the accused as per Section 105 of IEA to prove that a particular act falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC. 
• The Court held that in the present facts if the Trial Court and the High Court wanted to bring case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting murder, they could have invoked Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC i.e. sudden fight. 
• The fact that the deceased uttered bad words and raised his hand on the appellant will alone not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation. 
• However, the attack was not preplanned, and it occurred at a spur of a moment. Also, the appellant had no weapon in his hand, and he picked up a cement stone lying beneath the bridge and hit the deceased. It cannot be said that the appellant took any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
• The Court thus, in these facts held that it is not inclined to disturb the finding of conviction.  

When is Grave and Sudden Provocation? 

• Exception one of Section 300 states that a culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 
• In order to prove that there was grave and sudden provocation under Section 300 Exception 1 the following ingredients have to be proved: 
  • That the provocation was sudden. 
  • That the provocation was grave. 
  • There was loss of self control. 
• The Court observed in this case that the word ‘sudden’ involves two elements: 
  • The provocation must be unexpected. If the accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. 
  • The interval between the provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. 
• In deciding whether a provocation is grave following elements should be taken care of: 
  • A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be considered by the Court. 
  • An objective test has to be applied in order to determine if the provocation is grave. 
  • A good test in this regard is to ask the question: “Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?” 
  • If the answer to the above question is in affirmative the provocation will be grave and if the answer to this question is in negative the provocation will not be grave. 
  • A reasonable man or normal or average man is a legal fiction. 
  • The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors. 
  • An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses 
  • So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation 
  • On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation. 
• The question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether provocation is grave or not. 
  • Thus, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation the Court is generally prepared to assume that homicide was committed while accused was deprived of his power of self-control. 
• Thus, the provocation should be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered or hypersensitive person but one of ordinary sense and calmness.

What are the Important Case Laws on Grave and Sudden Provocation? 

• Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1942): 
  • The Court held that provocation in criminal law is not automatically grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter. 
  • The provocation must be so severe that it temporarily deprives the person of their self-control, leading them to commit an unlawful act resulting in death. 
  • When evaluating provocation, courts must carefully examine multiple factors, including the nature of the act causing death, the time interval between provocation and the fatal act, and the offender's conduct during that interval. 
  • Two critical elements are particularly important in assessing provocation: first, determining whether sufficient time has passed for a reasonable person to regain composure, and second, considering the instrument used in the homicide 
• KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): 
  • In this the Supreme Court held that the test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation under the Exception must be whether a reasonable person belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in a similar situation, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. 
  • The conduct of the accused clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one. 
  • The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the deceased, and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder. 
  • The fatal blow on the person giving a sudden and grave provocation should be immediately when he was provoked but not after the time which was sufficient for him to calm down or to cool down. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India (COI) prohibits negative discrimination. 

• This was held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha and Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha and Ors. Case? 

• Jyostnamayee Mishra (appellant) was employed as a peon in the State of Odisha government since 1978. 
• In 1999, she submitted her first representation seeking appointment to the post of Tracer.  
• Appellant had undergone a 3-month Tracer Training Course at the Institute of Survey and Mining Technology in 1997. 
• She repeatedly filed representations and applications to various government departments seeking promotion or appointment as a Tracer. 
• In some instances, other employees (Jhina Rani Mansingh and Lalatendu Rath) were promoted from peon to Tracer positions. 
• Appellant filed multiple legal applications before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. 
• The Tribunal in various orders directed the state to consider her case for promotion. 
• The state initially rejected her representation citing recruitment ban and procedural issues. 
• The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition challenging the Orissa High Court's order. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • Systemic Procedural Irregularities: 
    • Identified fundamental flaws in recruitment documentation. 
    • Highlighted state authorities' casual approach to litigation. 
    • Noted repeated failures in producing correct statutory documents. 
  • Legal Interpretation: 
    • Conclusively established that Tracer posts must be 100% filled through direct recruitment. 
    • Rejected petitioner's discrimination claim. 
    • Emphasized that illegal past practices cannot be perpetuated. 
  • Broader Institutional Critique: 
    • Criticized the repeated documentary and procedural mismanagement. 
    • Highlighted the need for responsible legal drafting. 
    • Pointed out the unnecessary litigation generated by administrative inefficiency. 
• Based on the above observations the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 

What is Article 14?  

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons.  
• The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution.  
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as its primary objective.  
• It is a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality.  
• It also establishes a system of non-discrimination based on grounds mentioned in Article 15 of the Constitution of India.  

What are Exceptions of Article 14?   

The above rule of equality is not absolute, and there are several exceptions to it. For instance, foreign Diplomats   

• Constitutional validity can extend to laws applicable to a single individual or entity, if special circumstances warrant such classification.  
• There's a presumption of constitutionality for enacted laws. The burden of proving unconstitutionality lies with the challenger.  
• This presumption may be rebutted if a law arbitrarily singles out an individual or class without rational differentiation.  
• Courts presume legislative understanding of societal needs and experience-based problem-solving through laws.  
• To uphold constitutionality, courts may consider common knowledge, reports, historical context, and conceivable factual scenarios.  
• Legislatures may address varying degrees of harm, focusing on the most pressing issues.  
• While good faith is presumed, courts won't automatically assume unknown reasons justify discriminatory legislation.  
• Classification can be based on various factors like geography, occupation, or objectives.  
• Perfect scientific or mathematical equality isn't required; similarity of treatment suffices.  
• Article 14's equal protection applies to both substantive and procedural law. 

What is Reasonable Classification Under Article 14 of the COI?   

What are Grounds for Reasonable Classification? 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Amit Bansal has held that Sporadic use of a trademark cannot be assumed as a ground to assume goodwill or reputation. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr v. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr v. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr. Case?   

• Core Parties: 
  • Plaintiffs: Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. and its Singapore subsidiary (international investment advisors). 
  • Defendants: Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP and its managing partner. 
• The plaintiffs were incorporated in 2006 in the Cayman Islands and Singapore. 
• They have been using the name 'BROAD PEAK' in their trade names since their incorporation. 
• The plaintiffs registered trademark rights for 'BROAD PEAK' in various international jurisdictions, with earliest registrations in Singapore and UK dating back to 2007. 
  • The plaintiffs are investment advisors managing pan-Asia-focused investment funds. 
  • They have been conducting investment advisory services in India since 2008. 
  • The plaintiffs primarily invest in equities and credit instruments for global institutional investors. 
• In February 2017, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants had established an asset management company called 'Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP.' 
• The plaintiffs immediately sent a legal notice to the defendants, asserting their prior rights to the 'BROAD PEAK' trademark. 
• The defendants did not respond to this initial notice. 
• In July 2020, the plaintiffs learned the defendants were continuing to use the 'BROAD PEAK' name. 
• The defendants had filed trademark registration applications in March 2017. 
• Despite the plaintiffs' objections, the defendants were granted trademark registration. 
• The plaintiffs sent multiple cease-and-desist notices to the defendants. 
• A separate settlement was reached with Mr. Shiv Krishnan (connected to the defendants) in December 2020. 
• The defendants maintained they were unaware of the plaintiffs' prior use and had conducted searches before adopting the name. 
• The plaintiffs claim prior use and reputation of the 'BROAD PEAK' trademark. 
• The defendants argue they adopted the name independently and have been using it in good faith since 2016. 
• Both parties now hold registered trademarks for 'BROAD PEAK' in the same class of services. 
• The legal battle centers on whether the defendants' use of the 'BROAD PEAK' trademark constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, given the similarities in name and the investment advisory sector. 
• The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Delhi High Court made the following observations: 
  • Registration Status: 
    • Both plaintiffs and defendants hold registered trademarks for 'BROAD PEAK.' 
    • The defendants' trademark was granted after the plaintiffs' application. 
    • The plaintiffs' initial trademark application was filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. 
  • Plaintiffs' Evidence of Prior Use: 
    • The court carefully examined the documents submitted by the plaintiffs to establish their prior use in India and analyzed: 
      • Acknowledged limited transactions involving the plaintiffs. 
      • Determined that these documents showed sporadic use, not substantial reputation. 
      • Concluded that international reputation doesn't automatically translate to Indian market recognition.  
  • Key Considerations: 
    • Both parties serve sophisticated corporate clients. 
    • Different specific business segments within investment sectors. 
    • Highly qualified financial professionals unlikely to be easily confused. 
    • Clients would make informed, careful decisions. 
  • Legal Principles Applied: 
    • Territoriality principle (goodwill must be established in India). 
    • Honest concurrent use doctrine. 
    • Deceptive similarity test considering client sophistication. 
    • The Delhi High Court had a view that settlement with Mr. Shiv Krishnan's US entity does not automatically bind the defendants, and that the defendant has separate legal entities with distinct operations. 
  • Critical Observations: 
    • The court found no prima facie case of trademark infringement. 
    • Insufficient proof of goodwill in Indian market. 
    • No clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation. 
    • Unlikely confusion among target clients. 
  • Burden of Proof: 
    • Plaintiffs must establish substantial reputation in India. 
    • International reputation alone is insufficient. 
    • Detailed evidence required to prove market confusion. 
  • Conclusion: 
    • The High Court essentially found that while the plaintiffs have an international presence, they failed to demonstrate: 
      • Substantial market reputation in India. 
      • Likelihood of consumer confusion. 
      • Intentional trademark misappropriation by the defendants. 
• The Supreme Court dismissed the interim injunction application, allowing both parties to continue using their 'BROAD PEAK' trademark, with a full trial recommended to thoroughly examine the claims. 

What is a Trademark Infringement? 

• About: 
  • A trademark serves as a unique identifier for goods and services, representing the brand and its reputation. 
  • Infringement of trademarks not only undermines the value of intellectual property but also poses a threat to businesses by allowing unauthorized parties to benefit from the goodwill associated with a brand. 
• Legal Framework: 
  • India has a comprehensive legal framework to protect trademarks, primarily governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999 (TMA). 
  • The act defines a trademark as a mark capable of being represented graphically and distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. 
  • Trademarks can include names, logos, symbols, and even shapes. 
• Infringement under the Act: 
  • Direct or registered trademark infringement is mentioned under Section 29 of the TMA. 
    • It outlines the various acts that constitute infringement, including using a trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered mark in the course of trade. 

What is ‘Passing off’? 

• Passing off is a legal concept primarily related to trademark law, not copyright law. 
• It involves the unauthorized use of a trademark or a trade name in a way that misleads consumers into believing that the goods or services offered by one party are those of another party. 
• To establish a passing off claim, the following elements typically need to be proven: 
  • The plaintiff has goodwill or reputation associated with their goods or services. 
  • The defendant has engaged in some form of misrepresentation (intentional or unintentional) that creates confusion among consumers. 
  • The misrepresentation has caused or is likely to cause damage to the plaintiff's goodwill or reputation.

Landmark Cases 

• S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016): 
  • In this case the "Triple Test" for Passing Off Actions were cited: 
    • Plaintiff's Goodwill. 
    • Misrepresentation by Defendant. 
    • Damage to Plaintiff's Goodwill. 
• Satyam Infoway v. Siffynet Solutions (2004) 
  • This case expanded understanding of trademark protection in digital era as: 
    • Sales volume. 
    • Advertising extent. 
    • Proof of public misrepresentation. 
• Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries (2018) 
  • This case established that international reputation doesn't automatically translate to local market recognition. 
  • Requires substantial evidence of 
    • Local sales.  
    • Local advertising.  
    • Local market awareness. 
• Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) 
  • In this case it was held that trademark similarity must be assessed from perspective of: 
    • Consumer's education. 
    • Consumer's intelligence.  
    • Degree of care while purchasing. 
• Khoday Distilleries v. Scotch Whiskey Association (2008) 
  • In this case the key points were highlighted based on market segmentation: 
    • In specialized markets, consumers are more discerning. 
    • Sophisticated consumers less likely to be confused by similar trademarks. 
    • Brand choice involves careful consideration, not impulse.