List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the respondent could be granted bail even though he had not served half of his sentence. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v Lakhwinder Singh (2025). 

What was the Background of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh Case?   

• The case involves an appeal by the Narcotic Control Bureau against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent Lakhwinder Singh. 
• The respondent was originally convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 
• In 2021, the respondent filed an appeal against his conviction before the High Court. At that time, he had served approximately 4.5 years of his 10-year sentence. 
• The High Court, noting that the appeal was unlikely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, granted relief in the form of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent. 
• The Narcotic Control Bureau challenged this High Court order before the Supreme Court, arguing that under established precedent (Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case), a person convicted under NDPS Act should not be granted bail unless they have served at least half of their sentence. 
• The case primarily concerns the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and its application to bail applications during the pendency of appeals against conviction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Addressed the precedent set in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case, clarifying that:  
    • The earlier judgment was a one-time measure for undertrial prisoners. 
    • It doesn't limit the court's power to grant regular bail even if the served period is less than specified. 
    • The judgment cannot be interpreted to mean courts are powerless to grant bail. 
  • Made key observations regarding fixed-term sentences:  
    • A rigid approach would result in accused persons serving entire sentences before appeals are heard. 
    • This would violate rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
    • It would effectively defeat the right of appeal. 
  • Regarding Section 37 of NDPS Act:  
    • Acknowledged that appellate courts are bound by constraints of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 
    • However, held that if an accused has:  
      • Served a substantial part of the sentence 
      • Appeal is unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence 
      • Then the appellate court can grant bail 
    • Denying bail in such situations solely based on Section 37 would violate Article 21 rights 
  • On the specific case:  
    • Noted the respondent had served substantial part of 10-year sentence 
    • Appeal was unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence 
    • Found no reason to interfere with High Court's order 
    • Maintained provision for bail cancellation if liberty is misused 
• The Supreme Court held that the respondent could be granted bail even though he had not served half of his sentence. 

What is Section 37 of the NDPS Act? 

Section 37 deals with offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. 

• Cognizability of Offences: 
  • Every offence punishable under the NDPS Act is cognizable, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant and start an investigation. 
• Non-Bailable Offences: 
  • Offences under specific sections (such as sections 19, 24, and 27A) or offences involving commercial quantity are considered non-bailable. 
  • No person accused of such offences shall be released on bail or their own bond unless certain conditions are met. 
• Conditions for Granting Bail: 
  • The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. 
  • If the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail. 
• Additional Limitations on Bail: 
  • The limitations specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) are additional to any limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law regarding granting of bail.

What were the Directives Laid Down in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors (1994)? 

• Following are the directives observed in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors (1994): 
  • For Offences with 5 Years or Less Imprisonment: 
    • Undertrial to be released on bail if jail time served equals half the prescribed punishment. 
    • Bail amount: 50% of maximum fine with two sureties. 
    • If no maximum fine prescribed, bail at Special Judge's discretion. 
  • For Offences Exceeding 5 Years: 
    • Same conditions as above. 
    • Minimum bail amount set at Rs. 50,000 with two sureties. 
  • For Offences with Minimum 10 Years and Rs. 1 Lakh Fine: 
    • Eligible for bail after serving 5 years. 
    • Bail amount: Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties. 
  • Exclusion: 
    • No bail eligibility for offenses under Sections 31 and 31-A of NDPS Act. 
• In the current case, the Supreme Court emphasized that this precedent shouldn't be interpreted as a rigid rule restricting courts' bail-granting powers, especially in appeal cases where significant delays might result in completion of sentence before appeal hearing. 
• This interpretation represents a significant evolution in jurisprudence regarding bail rights under NDPS Act, balancing procedural requirements with constitutional rights and practical considerations of judicial delays. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the Court should not make an order for detention of a person unless it is satisfied that the person has had an opportunity of obeying the decree yet has willfully disobeyed it.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr v. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr v. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. Case?   

• The original plaintiffs filed Title Suit seeking confirmation of possession or recovery of possession based on title, along with a permanent injunction against disturbance.  
• The suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs in 1976, confirming their title and possession, and permanently restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession. 
• Dissatisfied with the 1976 decree, the appellants (defendants) filed appeal, but the details of its disposal are unclear, with the appellants claiming it was disposed of in 1980. 
• In 2017, after approximately 40 years, the respondents (heirs of the plaintiffs) filed an Execution Case, claiming that the appellants were violating the permanent injunction by disturbing their possession of the suit property. 
• The appellants filed written objections to the execution case in 2018, arguing that the suit was not maintainable, the decree was vague, and they had not violated the decree, as they had been in possession of the property since 1980. They also stated that the decree holders had never had possession of the property. 
• The Executing Court rejected the appellants' written objections and proceeded with final arguments in January 2019. The appellants filed a revision application before the High Court, which stayed the proceedings in March 2019. 
• Despite the stay, the Civil Judge passed an order on 4th September 2019 allowing the execution case ex parte, directing the appellants to be arrested and detained in civil prison for 30 days and their property to be attached. 
• The appellants filed a revision application challenging the order, but the High Court dismissed the revision application in September 2019, affirming the lower court's decision and rejecting the appellants' claims. 
• Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the appellants are now challenging the order in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court first of all discussed the provisions related to arrest enumerated under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( CPC) . 
• With regard to limitation period for execution of the decree the Court held that the proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act,1963 (LA) makes it clear that for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction there shall be no period of limitation. 
• As per Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC where a judgment debtor disobeys a decree of injunction he can be dealt with under this rule by imprisonment or by attachment of property or by both. 
• However, the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor willfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him. Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order. 
• Hence, what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the subrule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude: 
  • That the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him. 
  • That person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has willfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for. 
• The Court also discussed in this case as to what would constitute a jurisdictional error. 
• The Court finally held that the executing Court should have been considerate and should have at least given one opportunity to the appellants before ordering their arrest. 
• Thus, it was held by the Court that the order passed by the High Court is hence unsustainable in law. 

What are the Provisions Related to Arrest under CPC? 

• Proviso to Section 51 of CPC: 
  • Where a decree is for the payment of money, execution by imprisonment shall not be ordered unless: 
    • Opportunity to Show Cause – The judgment-debtor must be given a chance to explain why he should not be imprisoned. 
    • Court's Satisfaction – The Court must record reasons in writing and be satisfied that: 
      • The judgment-debtor, to obstruct or delay execution, is likely to abscond or leave the Court's jurisdiction. 
      • After the suit was filed, the judgment-debtor dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed property, or acted in bad faith concerning his property. 
      • The judgment-debtor has had the means to pay the decree amount (or a substantial part) since the decree date but refuses or neglects to pay. 
      • The decree amount was one for which the judgment-debtor was bound to account in a fiduciary capacity.
• Section 58 of CPC: 
  • A person detained in civil prison for non-payment of a decree shall be detained: 
    • For a maximum of three months if the amount exceeds ₹5,000. 
    • For a maximum of six weeks if the amount is between ₹2,000 and ₹5,000. 
  • No detention shall be ordered if the decree amount is ₹2,000 or less. 
  • Release from detention does not discharge the debt. 
  • The judgment-debtor cannot be re-arrested under the same decree.
• Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC: 
  • This provision provides for execution of decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. 
  • Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 states that where a decree is for specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction, and the judgment-debtor willfully disobeys such decree, it may be executed by attachment of property of the judgment-debtor or by his detention, or by both. 
  • Sub-rule (2) declares that where in a decree for specific performance or for injunction, the judgment-debtor is a corporation, it may be enforced by attachment of the property of the corporation, or with the leave of the court by detention of the directors or other principal officers or by both, attachment and detention. 
  • Sub-rule (3) provides for sale of attached property and payment of the sale-proceeds to the decree-holder where the attachment remains in force for six months and the judgment debtor fails to obey the decree. 
  • Sub-rule (4) deals with cases where the judgment-debtor obeys the decree, or the decree-holder commits default. 
  • Sub-rule (5) empowers the executing court to take appropriate action for enforcing the decree at the cost of the judgment-debtor who willfully disobeys such decree.
• Order XXI Rule 11 A of CPC: 
  • Order XXI Rule 11A of CPC provides that: 
    • Where an application is made for the arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shall state, or be accompanied by an affidavit stating, the grounds on which arrest is applied for.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan has held that disability certificates issued by a Medical Board must be accepted as expert evidence unless a reassessment is ordered. It set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, which reduced a 100% disability certificate to 50% without reevaluation. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. (2025). 
• The Court held that tribunals cannot substitute their own judgment over expert opinions. These ruling impacts compensation claims for disability assessments. 

What was the Background of Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. Case? 

• The incident occurred on 23rd March 2014, when the claimant-appellant was returning to his village Rajpur Badha from Cheel Ki Bawdi on his motorcycle (No. RJ 02 SC 4860). 
• A Maruti Omni vehicle (No. RJ 02 UA 1663) coming from the opposite direction was allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road, resulting in a collision. 
• The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries, particularly to his head and right leg.  
• An FIR (No. 81/14) was registered at Police Station Tehla regarding the offence. 
• The victim was initially taken to Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and subsequently transferred to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Though he survived the accident, he remains in a comatose state. 
• The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar heard the matter as Claim No. 575/2014, focusing on three primary issues:  
  • The rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle. 
  • The claimant's entitlement to compensation and its quantum. 
  • The insurance company's liability. 
• The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 16,29,465/-, which upon appeal was enhanced by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench to Rs. 19,39,418/-. 
• A Medical Board assessed the claimant's condition and issued a certificate stating 100% permanent disability, noting that:  
  • The patient has no speech and impaired intellectual functions. 
  • He cannot stand or walk. 
  • He requires catheterization. 
  • He is completely dependent on others for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). 
  • He experiences frequent falls and infections. 
• Both the MACT and High Court questioned the Medical Board's assessment and reduced the disability percentage to 50%, primarily due to the absence of testimony from a neurosurgeon or treating doctor. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in questioning the competence of the Medical Board to assess permanent disability without ordering a reassessment. 
• The Court observed that if the Tribunal had doubts about the medical certificate's reliability, it should have directed a re-assessment rather than substituting its own judgment regarding disability determination. 
• The Court noted that since no reassessment was ordered, the Medical Board's opinion, being expert evidence, must be treated as conclusive. 
• Regarding the disability assessment, the Court observed that the medical report clearly established that:  
  • The claimant-appellant had no speech or intellectual functions. 
  • He was unable to stand or walk. 
  • He required catheterization. 
  • He was entirely dependent on others for daily activities. 
• The Court found the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards mental and physical agony, pain, and loss of amenities to be insufficient given the circumstances. 
• On attendant charges, following the computation principle from Kajal's case, the Court calculated it as Rs. 7,80,000/- (Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 13). 
• The Court split the compensation under 'Physical and Mental Agony' (Rs. 2,00,000/-) from the general head and added Rs. 6,00,000/- under 'Pain and Suffering'. 
• Considering the age, nature of disability, and other relevant factors, the Court determined that the finding of 100% disability was justified. 
• The Court relied on recent precedents including K.S Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi for determining compensation under various heads. 
• The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,70,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition, significantly increasing it from the High Court's award of Rs. 19,39,418/-. 
• The Court ruled that in cases where expert medical evidence is available through a Medical Board, courts should not substitute their own assessment without proper justification or reassessment. 

What are Important Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court's Ruling on Disability Certification and Compensation? 

• Legal Principles Established: 
  • A Medical Board's disability certificate constitutes expert evidence and should be accepted as such by courts. 
  • If a tribunal doubts a medical certificate, it must order reassessment rather than substitute its own judgment. 
  • Courts cannot independently determine disability percentages without expert medical evidence. 
• Compensation Calculation Principles: 
  • Future income loss must be calculated based on the certified disability percentage. 
  • Future prospects must be added at 25% for claimants below 50 years of age. 
  • Attendant charges should be computed following the formula established in Kajal's case. 
  • Physical and mental agony must be assessed separately from pain and suffering. 
  • Interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim petition is applicable. 
• Motor Vehicle Act Principles: 
  • Assessment of rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle. 
  • Determination of compensation quantum. 
  • Establishing insurance company liability. 
  • Consideration of permanent disability in compensation calculation. 
• Evidence Law Principles: 
  • Expert evidence (Medical Board certificate) takes precedence over non-expert judicial assessment. 
  • The burden of disproving the claimant's case lies with the respondents. 
  • Medical evidence must be properly proved through competent witnesses. 

What are the Guidelines and Regulations for Issuing a Disability Certificate in India? 

• Disability Certificate: 
  • It serves as official proof of a person's disability status. 
  • It is an important tool for availing benefits, facilities, and rights from Central and State Governments. 
  • The certificate enables access to entitlements under various enabling legislations. 
  • It is regulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• Competent Authority to Issue Certificate: 
  • A Medical Board duly constituted by the Central or State Government is the competent authority. 
  • The Medical Board must have at least three members. 
  • One member must be a specialist in the relevant disability field:  
    • For mental retardation: Psychiatrist/Pediatrician/Clinical Psychologist. 
    • For visual disability: Ophthalmologist. 
    • For speech/hearing disability: ENT Specialist. 
    • For locomotor disability: Physical Medicine/Rehabilitation/Orthopedics specialist. 
  • The Director General of Health Services is the final authority for resolving any disputes.
• Conditions for Obtaining Certificate: 
  • The applicant must be an Indian citizen. 
  • Medical reports explaining the type of disability must be provided. 
  • The minimum degree of disability must be 40% to be eligible. 
  • Required documents include:  
    • ID copy of the person with disability. 
    • Two photographs showing the disability. 
    • All available medical and psychological reports.
• Permanent/Temporary Certificate: 
  • Temporary certificates:  
    • Valid for five years. 
    • Issued for temporary disabilities. 
    • Medical Board must specify if condition is:  
      • Progressive/non-progressive. 
      • Likely to improve/not likely to improve. 
      • Whether reassessment is recommended. 
  • Permanent certificates:  
    • Issued for permanent disabilities. 
      1. Validity is marked as 'Permanent.' 
      2. Given when there are no chances of variation in disability degree. 
      3. No refusal of certificate without giving applicant opportunity to be heard. 
• The Medical Board may review its decision upon representation by the applicant, considering all facts and circumstances.