List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that in case the informant died a natural death the contents of FIR are not admissible in evidence. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. Case?   

• The deceased, Dev Kanya, was married to Respondent No.1, Vishwanath, for approximately 1.5 years before the incident. 
• The appellant, Dev Kanya’s mother, alleged that her daughter committed suicide due to incessant harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and the husband's first wife. 
• The father of the deceased filed a First Information Report (FIR), leading to an investigation by the police. 
• Statements of various witnesses were recorded, and an inquest panchnama of the deceased’s body was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. 
• The deceased's body was sent for post-mortem, and the report confirmed drowning as the cause of death. 
• The appellant maintained that her daughter had jumped into a well to end her life. 
• Clothes and other articles were collected and sent for forensic examination. 
• After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all four accused persons. 
• The case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Trial Court framed charges, and all accused persons pleaded not guilty. 
• During the trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and presented documentary evidence, including sale deeds, mutation entries, complaints, panchanamas, post-mortem reports, and forensic reports. 
• After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found all four accused guilty and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000. 
• Dissatisfied with the judgment, the accused persons appealed to the High Court. 
• The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and acquitted all four accused persons. 
• The State did not challenge the High Court’s acquittal. 
• The appellant, Dev Kanya’s mother, has now filed an appeal before this Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It is to be noted that in the present facts the FIR was filed by the father of the deceased. However, the father had passed away before the commencement of the trial. 
• The Court held that there is no cogent evidence to prove that there was abetment of commission of suicide. 
• It was observed by the Court that mere harassment and cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetment. 
• The Court held that even by taking help of Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) it would be difficult in the present facts to say that there was abetment of suicide. 
• The Court thereafter discussed the law relating to admissibility of contents of FIR. 
• In the present case the Trial Court permitted the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of FIR and read into evidence as per Section 67 of IEA. 
• The Court held that it was incorrect on the part of the Trial Court and the High Court that in the absence of the first informant, the police officer can prove the contents of FIR as per Section 67 of IEA. 
• Thus, the appeal in the present facts was dismissed.

What is FIR under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?

• The information given under Section 154 of the CrPC is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in the Code.  
• This is provided for under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The new features introduced in BNSS with respect to FIR are as follows:  
  • Zero FIR: BNSS provides that the information relating to commission of cognizable offence is to be registered irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.  
  • FIR can be registered in electronic form: Section 173 (1) provides that the information can be given in electronic form as well. In this case the FIR shall be taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it.  
  • Provision for Preliminary Investigation: in case the cognizable offence is such which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of offence:  
    • Proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or  
    • Proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

What is the Evidentiary Value of FIR as Laid Down in this Case?

• The purpose of FIR was laid down by the Court as follows: 
  • The basic purpose of filing a First Information Report is to set the criminal law into motion. 
  • A FIR is the initial step in a criminal case recorded by the police and contains the basic knowledge of the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission, who was the victim, etc. 
  • FIR’s can be registered by a victim, a witness or someone else with the knowledge of the crime. 
• The FIR by itself is not a substantial piece of evidence and the statement made therein cannot be considered as evidence unless it falls within the purview of Section 32 of IEA. 
• The relative importance of FIR is far more than any other statement recorded by the police officer during investigation. 
• It is the foremost important information that the police gets about the commission of an offence and which can be used to corroborate the story put-forward by the first informant under Section 157 of IEA or to contradict his version by facts under Section 145 of IEA. 
• In case the FIR is filed by the accused himself. The FIR lodged cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in the basic structure of our Constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself 
• However, FIR can be used as substantive evidence when the informant dies.  
  • A prerequisite condition must be fulfilled before the F.I.R. is taken as a substantive piece of evidence i.e. the death of the informant must have nexus with the F.I.R. filed or somehow having some link with any evidence regarding the F.I.R. 
• Where the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. the informant died natural death the contents of FIR would not be admissible in evidence. 
  • In such a case the contents of FIR cannot be proved by the Investigating Officer (IO). 
  • All that is permissible here is that the IO can in his deposition identify the signature of the first informant and that of his own on the First Information Report and he can depose about the factum of the F.I.R. being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station. 

Source: The Hindu   

Why in News? 

An FIR was registered by Assam Police against five people, including a popular podcaster and comedian, over allegedly obscene remarks made during the show 'India's Got Latent.' The Mumbai Police also initiated an inquiry into the matter, while multiple legal complaints were filed in different jurisdictions.  

• The controversy gained further attention when Maharashtra CM commented on freedom of speech limitations, and the accused later apologized for the inappropriate remarks. 

What was the Background of FIR Against YouTubers? 

• A podcaster/content creator and several others are facing legal action over inappropriate remarks made during a talent show program.  
• Multiple legal complaints have been filed: 
  • A criminal complaint in Bandra Magistrate Court. 
  • A complaint to the Mumbai Police Commissioner. 
  • A complaint to the Maharashtra Women's Commission. 
• The Mumbai Police has initiated an inquiry but hasn't filed an FIR yet. A police team visited the location where the show was recorded. 
• Key officials have responded: 
  • The Maharashtra CM commented on limitations to freedom of speech. 
  • A former NCW Chief and Rajya Sabha MP condemned the incident. 
  • The Shiv Sena spokesperson issued a warning about such behavior. 
• An FIR has been registered by Assam Police against five people, including content creators and a comedian, regarding comments that were criticized as obscene. 
• The case was filed with the Guwahati Crime Branch under sections of: 
  • The IT Act,2000 
  • The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 
  • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provisions pertaining to insulting a woman's modesty and "obscene acts". 
• Additional legal actions include: 
  • Lawyers seeking stricter content moderation on social media platforms 
  • A request to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for investigation 
  • Calls for guidelines regarding public figures' associations with content creators. 
• The accused party has since apologized for the remarks, stating "I shouldn't have said what I said... My comment wasn't just inappropriate. It wasn't even funny. Comedy is not my forte." 

What Legal Actions have been Initiated and under Which Laws? 

• FIR filed with Guwahati Crime Branch under: 
  • Sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) 
  • Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 
  • BNS sections related to "insulting a woman's modesty and obscene acts" 
• Criminal complaint filed at Bandra Magistrate Court under: 
  • Section 296 of BNS: Obscene acts and songs 
  • Section 352 of BNS: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace 
  • Section 353 of BNS: Statements conducing to public mischief 
  • Section 225 of BNS: Threat of injury to induce a person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant 
  • Section 67 of the IT Act 
• The complaints seek action under multiple legal frameworks: 
  • Criminal law (BNS) 
  • Information Technology laws 
  • Women protection laws 
• The complaints have been filed across multiple jurisdictions and authorities: 
  • Assam Police (Guwahati Crime Branch) 
  • Mumbai Police 
  • Bandra Magistrate Court 
  • Maharashtra Women's Commission 
  • Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it? 

• Section 296 of BNS, which deals with obscene acts and songs: 
  • Performing any obscene act in a public place that causes annoyance to others can result in punishment of up to three months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to one thousand rupees. 
  • Singing, reciting, or uttering obscene songs, ballads, or words in or near any public place can lead to the same penalties - up to three months in jail and/or a fine up to one thousand rupees.
• Section 352 of BNS provides intentional insults that could provoke a breach of peace: 
  • The law states that if someone deliberately insults another person in any manner, knowing that such provocation is likely to cause them to either disturb public peace or commit another offence, they can be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with a fine, or both. 
  • This section essentially criminalizes deliberate provocative insults that could reasonably be expected to incite unlawful behavior or disturb public order. 
• Section 353 of the BNS deals with statements that cause public mischief. 
  • Sub-section (1) prohibits making/publishing/circulating statements (including electronic) that: 
    • Could cause military personnel to mutiny or fail their duty. 
    • May create public fear leading to offences against the State. 
    • Could incite any community to commit offences against another Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine. 
  • Sub-section (2) focuses on false information that: 
    • Creates or promotes enmity between different groups. 
    • Spreads hatred based on religion, race, language, caste, etc. 
    • Causes ill will between communities Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine. 
  • Sub-section (3) addresses offences in religious places: 
    • If committed in places of worship. 
    • During religious ceremonies/assemblies Enhanced Punishment: Up to 5 years imprisonment plus fine. 
  • Exception Clause: 
    • No offence if the person had reasonable grounds to believe the information was true. 
    • Must have acted in good faith. 
    • Must not have intended to cause mischief.
• Section 225 of BNS 
  • It provides threats made to prevent someone from seeking legal protection. The law states that if someone threatens injury to any person to stop them from applying for legal protection from a public servant who is empowered to provide such protection, they can be punished with imprisonment up to one year, or with a fine, or both. 
  • This section essentially criminalizes intimidation aimed at preventing someone from seeking help or protection from authorized public servants.
• Section 67 of IT Act 
  • It deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. For first-time offenders, the punishment includes imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to five lakh rupees. For subsequent convictions, the penalties increase to imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees. 
  • The section specifically targets electronic content that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or could corrupt/deprave those likely to access it. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, Justice K. Babu held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. Such power must be exercised sparingly and in cases of apparent error or grave injustice. 

• The Kerala High Court has held in the case of T.M.Leela and Another v. P.K.Vasu and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of the T.M.Leela and Another v. P.K.Vasu and Another Case? 

• In this case, the plaintiffs filed for specific performance of a contract against the defendants regarding immovable property. 
• The defendants in the original suit were: 
  • T.M. Leela (72 years), wife of Chandran. 
  • Sangeetha (47 years), daughter of Chandran, residing in Pune and represented by T.M. Leela through power of attorney. 
• The plaintiffs in the original suit were: 
  • P.K. Vasu, son of Karuppandi. 
  • Viswanathamannadiar (82 years), son of Chinnatharakan. 
• The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where parties reached a settlement on 17^th July 2018. The settlement terms included: 
  • Defendants to execute property documents within one month of the award. 
  • Defendants to hand over prior documents, tax receipts, possession certificates, and encumbrance certificates within three weeks. 
  • Defendants to execute the document within seven days of delivering prior documents upon receiving balance sale consideration. 
  • If defendants defaulted, plaintiffs could deposit sale consideration in court and apply for document registration through court. 
• Subsequently: 
  • On 24^th September 2018, plaintiffs filed under Section 151 Cde of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to deposit balance sale consideration. 
  • On 24^th September 2020, defendants filed under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) to rescind the contract and set aside the decree. 
• Key disputed facts between parties: 
  • Plaintiffs claim defendants didn't hand over documents as agreed and only provided 'the schedule' on 20th September 2018. 
  • Defendants claim they handed over all documents to plaintiffs' document writer (Smt. Sindhu) on 18th August 2018. 
  • Defendants argue property value increased substantially after the decree. 
  • Defendants contend plaintiffs weren't ready with balance payment. 
• The Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad, passed a common order which was challenged in this Original Petition before the High Court of Kerala. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Kerela High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Documentation Requirements: 
    • Noted that prior documents were supposed to be given to plaintiffs within three weeks from 17th July 2018. 
    • Found that defendants admitted providing the thandaper number (necessary for registration) only on 20th September 2018. 
    • Observed that defendants failed to prove they delivered documents as agreed. 
  • On Evidence: 
    • Highlighted that defendants didn't produce any evidence to prove document delivery to either plaintiffs or Smt. Sindhu. 
    • Applied Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), presuming that unproduced evidence would have been unfavorable to defendants. 
    • Noted the significance of defendants giving up Smt. Sindhu as a witness, who could have provided best evidence. 
  • On Timeline of Events: 
    • Observed that thandaper number was issued only on 30th August 2018. 
    • Noted plaintiffs filed for deposit permission on 24th September 2018 (38 days after the time limit). 
    • Found this delay justified due to defendants' prior delays in document delivery. 
  • On Contract Performance: 
    • Determined defendants failed to perform their first obligation (document delivery). 
    • Found plaintiffs weren't required to seek time extension since defendants hadn't fulfilled their primary obligations. 
    • Concluded defendants failed to establish valid grounds for contract rescission. 
  • On Jurisdiction: 
    • Clarified that Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) powers are limited to cases of:  
      • Grave dereliction of duty 
      • Flagrant violation of law 
      • Cases requiring intervention to prevent grave injustice 
    • Emphasizing these powers cannot be used as appellate or revisional authority. 
• The Kerela High Court ultimately upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the common order, as the defendants failed to prove they fulfilled their obligations under the contract and didn't establish grounds for rescission. 

What is Article 227 of the COI? 

• This Article is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. 
• It states that- 
  • Clause (1) states that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 
  • Clause (2) states that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may— 
    • Call for returns from such courts. 
    • Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts. 
    • Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. 
  • Clause (3) states that the High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein. 
  • Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed, or tables settled under clause (2), or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. 
  • Clause (4) states that nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.