List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Pratibha M Singh, Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice Manoj Jain laid down important points regarding victim compensation scheme.                

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Saif Ali @ Sohan v. The State GNCT of Delhi (2025). 

What was the Background of Saif Ali @ Sohan v. State GNCT of Delhi Case?

• The issue in this case pertained to inordinate delay due to following the guidelines laid down in the case of Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi (2021) (which was a 3-judge bench judgment). 
• The current process regarding granting of compensation has caused delays of up to two years in pronouncing sentences due to the mandatory procedure for preparing Victim Impact Reports (VIRs). 
• The above delay has defeated the accused’s right of speedy trial and prevents the timely filing of appeals. 
• It is argued that the guidelines in the case of Karan v. State NCT of Delhi (2021) impose obligations on the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) that are beyond the scope of Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Further, it was also argued that asking the accused to make disclosure of his assets would result in violation of his right against self incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and would also be against Section 315 and Section 316 of CrPC. 
• Thus, the core issue to be determined here is “ Should the guidelines laid down in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi (2021) be modified or revoked entirely to address delays and align with statutory provisions, while safeguarding the rights of all stakeholders in the criminal justice system?”

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that the case of Karan v. GNCT of Delhi (2021) lays down the timelines within which the process of awarding compensation should be completed.  
• However, in reality there has been a lot of delay in following the timelines and the whole process is very time consuming. 
• Thus, there is an inordinate delay in passing of orders of sentence which cannot be passed till the victim compensation scheme under Section 357 CrPC in accordance with the guidelines issued under the case of Karan v. GNCT of Delhi (2021) is determined. 
• In the absence of an order on sentence the judgment cannot be treated as complete and therefore the accused is unable to file an appeal under Section 374 of CrPC. 
• The Court observed that as per Section 357 A of CrPC though the Legal Services Authority step into the process of granting compensation, the Trial Court has the sole prerogative to compute and award victim compensation under cases covered under this section. 
• It was further observed that the directions requiring the DSLSA to conduct a summary inquiry for determination of victim compensation after conviction of the accused would, in our view, amount to clothing the DSLSA with a power which the legislature does not envisage. 
• This delegation would, therefore, be contrary to the very scheme of Section 357, Cr.P.C., which unambiguously vests the Trial Courts with the discretion to determine what would be fair and equitable under the circumstances, for which purpose the Court is required to take into account the peculiar facts of each case. 
• It was further held by the Court that the information regarding the list of his assets and income from the accused cannot be said to be so innocuous so as to not impact the accused at all. 
• The Court therefore laid down the following: 
  • The guidelines set out in Karan v. GNCT of Delhi (2021) would no longer be enforceable. 
  • The Trial Courts should follow a victim centric approach. 
  • the Trial Court may take into account the income and assets of the accused and any other factors as may be deemed appropriate, for which purpose information may be elicited not only from the I.O./prosecuting agency but also from the accused, who will, however, not be asked to make any statement on oath or by way of an affidavit. 
  • However, the Court will not be precluded from taking the assistance of the Legal Services Authority.

What is Victim Compensation Scheme under CrPC and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 357A of CrPC lays down the victim compensation scheme. 
• This provision is provided for under Section 396 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)  
• The salient features of the scheme are as follows: 
  • Preparation of Scheme: 
    • State Governments, in coordination with the Central Government, must create a scheme to provide funds for compensating victims or their dependents who have suffered due to a crime and require rehabilitation. 
  • Court Recommendations: 
    • When a court recommends compensation, the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) or State Legal Service Authority (SLSA) will determine the quantum of compensation. 
  • Inadequate Compensation: 
    • If compensation awarded under Section 357 of the CrPC is deemed inadequate or in cases of acquittal/discharge where the victim needs rehabilitation, the trial court may recommend additional compensation. 
  • Unidentified Offender: 
    • If the offender is not identified but the victim is, and no trial occurs, the victim or their dependents can directly apply to the DLSA or SLSA for compensation. 
  • Time-bound Decision: 
    • Upon receiving recommendations or applications, the DLSA/SLSA must complete an enquiry and award adequate compensation within two months. 
  • Immediate Relief: 
    • To alleviate suffering, the DLSA/SLSA may order: 
      • Free first-aid or medical benefits based on a certificate from a police officer (not below the rank of officer-in-charge) or a Magistrate. 
      • Any other interim relief deemed necessary.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that the police officers are not authorized to issue notices through WhatsApp or other electronic modes for the purpose of appearance of accused/suspect. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of Satender Kumar Antil v CBI Case?  

• Mr. Sidharth Luthra is serving as the Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in this matter and has filed a compliance report dated 20th January 2025. 
• The case involves monitoring the implementation of various court directives issued through multiple orders. 
• All states, Union Territories, and High Courts were previously directed to follow a Model Affidavit filed by the High Court of Meghalaya to ensure compliance with court directions. 
• The case primarily deals with three main issues: 
  • The release of Undertrial Prisoners (UTPs) on personal bond using AADHAAR card verification. 
  • The proper service of notices under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The establishment of an "Institutional Monitoring Mechanism" by High Courts. 
• NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) has been involved in discussions regarding the release of undertrial prisoners on personal bonds. 
• There have been instances where police officers have been serving notices through WhatsApp and other electronic means instead of following prescribed legal procedures. 
• The case references earlier Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) and Delhi High Court judgments in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (2021) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (2018). 
• The matter involves participation from all Indian states and Union Territories, with their respective Advocate Generals and legal representatives appearing before the court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that:   
  • The Court noted that all parties have reported either full or partial compliance with its directions, except for: 
    • State of Mizoram (which filed compliance affidavit after the deadline). 
    • UT of Lakshadweep (which merely refiled its earlier compliance affidavit from 21st  May 2023). 
  • Regarding notice service through WhatsApp: 
    • The Court referred to its earlier decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022). 
    • It observed that notices served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes are not valid under Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35 of BNSS. 
    • The Court specifically noted the issue with a Standing Order dated 26th January 2024, from DGP Haryana that allowed electronic service of notices. 
  • On Institutional Monitoring: 
    • The Court observed the need for regular meetings by High Court Committees to ensure compliance with both past and future directions. 
    • It emphasized the importance of monthly compliance reports from concerned authorities. 
    • The Court noted NALSA's acceptance of the Amicus Curiae's suggestion regarding the release of UTPs on personal bonds after AADHAAR verification. 

What is Section 35 of BNSS? 

 When Police May Arrest Without Warrant 

• Basic Powers of Arrest Without Warrant [Subsection (1)] 
  • Police can arrest someone who commits a cognizable offense in their presence. 
  • Arrests for Offenses with Up to 7 Years Imprisonment. 
    • Requires reasonable complaint, credible information, or suspicion. 
    • Must satisfy specific conditions: 
      • Police officer's reasonable belief. 
      • Necessity of arrest for one of five reasons: 
        • Preventing further offenses. 
        • Proper investigation. 
        • Preserving evidence. 
        • Preventing witness tampering. 
        • Ensuring court appearance. 
  • Arrests for Serious Offenses (More than 7 Years/Death Sentence) 
    • Based on credible information. 
    • Requires reasonable belief of commission. 
  • Special Categories for Arrest 
    • Proclaimed offenders. 
    • Possession of suspected stolen property. 
    • Obstruction of police duty or escape from custody. 
    • Suspected military deserters. 
    • International offenses subject to extradition. 
    • Released convicts violating rules. 
    • Arrests based on other police officers' requisitions. 
• Non-Cognizable Offenses [Subsection (2)] 
  • Requires warrant or magistrate's order. 
  • Subject to provisions of Section 39. 
• Notice Procedure [Subsections (3)-(6)] 
  • Mandatory notice when immediate arrest not required. 
  • Duty to comply with notice. 
  • Protection from arrest upon compliance. 
  • Consequences of non-compliance. 
• Special Protection for Vulnerable Persons [Subsection (7)] 
  • Prior permission required for arrests. 
  • Applies to: 
    • Offenses with less than 3 years imprisonment. 
    • Infirm persons. 
    • Persons above 60 years.

Landmark Judgements 

• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022):  
  • This was a landmark Supreme Court judgment that established important guidelines about arrest procedures and notice service.  
  • The Court made several key observations. This case is particularly significant because it approved and upheld the principles established in the Delhi High Court case mentioned below. 
• Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors. (2021):  
  • This Delhi High Court judgment dealt specifically with the issue of notice service through electronic means.  
  • The court held that serving notices through WhatsApp or other electronic modes is not a valid form of service under Section 41-A of CrPC (now Section 35 of BNSS, 2023).  
  • The court emphasized that such service must follow the procedures outlined in Chapter VI of the CrPC.  
  • The Supreme Court specifically endorsed this interpretation in the Satender Kumar Antil case. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has delivered a split verdict on a Christian man's plea to bury his father in his native village or private land in Chhattisgarh.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors (2025). 
• Justice Nagarathna allowed burial on private land, while Justice Sharma insisted on using the designated burial ground 20-25 km away.  
• Despite their disagreement, the Court directed burial at the designated site, citing public health concerns and the state's duty to provide burial spaces. 

What was the Background of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors? 

• The case involves a Christian man from Chhattisgarh seeking to bury his father, who was a pastor since 1986-87 and passed away on 7th January, 2025, in their native village Chhindwada. 
• The family has been living in village Chhindwada for generations and belongs to the Mahra community, with the deceased being a third-generation Christian and member of the New Apostolic Church. 
• When the appellant tried to bury his father in the village burial ground or their private agricultural land, the villagers objected and threatened the family with dire consequences. 
• The village Chhindwada has a total population of 6,450, with 6,000 tribal people, 350 Hindu Mahras, and 100 Christian residents. 
• Previously, the appellant's grandfather (2007), aunt (2015), and two distant relatives (2013) who were Christians had been buried in the same village graveyard area that was reportedly designated for Christians. 
• After facing opposition, the appellant was forced to keep his father's body in the mortuary of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur, and sought help from various authorities including the local police and SDO. 
• The Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat issued a certificate stating that no official Christian graveyard exists within their jurisdiction, though the appellant contests this claiming there was an orally sanctioned area. 
• The State suggested that the body could be buried in village Karkapal, which is 20-25 kilometers away from Chhindwada, where there is a designated Christian burial ground of approximately 2.15 acres serving multiple villages. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Justice Satish Chandra Sharma: 
  • The fundamental right to conduct last rites cannot extend to claim an unqualified right to choose the specific "place" of burial, as it would stretch constitutional limits beyond their intended scope. 
  • Rights protected under Article 21 are subject to "procedure established by law" which must be just, fair and reasonable, while Article 25's right to religious practice is subject to "public order" and state regulation. 
  • The Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules mandate that graves must be established only in designated areas identified by the Gram Panchayat, serving both public health concerns and systematic burial procedures. 
  • The State has a duty to provide identified places for last rites to all religious communities within reasonable limits, but this does not extend to allowing burials in private lands when designated burial grounds exist nearby. 
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna:  
  • The appellant should be permitted to conduct funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada, with the caveat that no legal advantage should be taken from this permission. 
  • The State and local authorities must provide adequate security and protection to the appellant's family to carry out the funeral rites. 
  • The State must demarcate exclusive sites as graveyards for burial of Christians throughout the State within two months to avoid similar controversies in the future. 
• Due to the split verdict, by consensus, the final direction allowed burial only at village Karkapal with state support and protection, considering the body had been in the mortuary since 7th January, 2025. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Constitutional Provisions: 
  • Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty. 
  • Article 25: Freedom of Religion  
    • Article 25(1): Right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. 
    • Article 25(2): State's power to regulate religious practices. 
  • Article 142: Supreme Court's power to do complete justice. 

How Does Article 21 Of the Indian Constitution Ensure the Right to Dignity and Fair Treatment of Deceased Bodies? 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to extend beyond death to include dignified treatment of deceased bodies. 
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in Article 21 includes dead persons in a limited sense, ensuring their right to dignity and fair treatment. 
• The right includes proper disposal of bodies through burial or cremation according to religious customs and traditions. 
• The State has an obligation to ensure dignified treatment of dead bodies and prevent their misuse or disrespect. 
• The right to decent burial is considered a fundamental right, with burial procedures to be conducted according to religious rules. 
• Protection extends to preventing unauthorized exhumation, mutilation, or disrespect to corpses. 
• Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) specifically prohibits irreverence to dead bodies and trespassing in burial grounds. 
• The right includes protection against illegal organ trading and unauthorized use of bodies for medical education. 
• During crises like COVID-19, the courts have upheld that the right to dignified burial remains unchanged despite emergency circumstances. 
• The right is interconnected with Article 25, protecting religious and cultural practices related to burial rites. 

What are Landmark Cases? 

• Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995) 
  • Established that right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead bodies. 
  • Mandated respectful treatment of corpses according to tradition and culture. 
  • Required state intervention to prevent misuse of dead bodies for illegal purposes. 
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) 
  • Expanded the scope of Right to Life to include human dignity. 
  • Established that right goes beyond mere animal existence. 
  • Set foundation for broader interpretation of Article 21. 
• Common Cause v. Union of India,(2018)  
  • Extended right to live with human dignity beyond death. 
  • Established proper death procedures as a constitutional right. 
  • States dignity in death-related matters. 
• Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2002) 
  • Reinforced right to proper burial according to religious customs. 
  • Emphasized preservation of dignity in death. 
  • Established state responsibility in ensuring proper burial rights. 
• Pradeep Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra, (2002)  
  • Addressed COVID-19 burial rights. 
  • Affirmed right to decent burial during crisis. 
  • Established that pandemic doesn't diminish burial rights. 
• Vineet Ruia v. Principal Secretary, MOHFW, West Bengal,(2020)  
  • Confirmed Article 21 applies to both living persons and dead bodies. 
  • Connected burial rights to fundamental rights under Article 25. 
  • Provides cultural and traditional aspects of burial rights. 
• Vikash Chandra Guddu Baba v. UOI & Ors (2008) 
  • Established state responsibility for unclaimed bodies. 
  • Mandated religious conformity in last rites when religion is known. 
  • Set guidelines for handling unidentified deceased persons.