List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has set aside a man’s conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC), citing procedural lapses in the trial court’s handling of prosecution witness contradictions.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025). 
• Statements must be properly introduced through the investigating officer, not merely reproduced in brackets. This judgment clarifies the correct procedure for proving prior witness statements in cross-examination. 

What was the Background of Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Case? 

• The case involves an appellant named Vinod Kumar who was convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. 
• The conviction was initially rendered by the Sessions Court (Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi) and subsequently confirmed by the High Court of Delhi. 
• The case pertains to the death of one Dharminder, who was the appellant's neighbor. 
• On 12th July 1995, around noon, the appellant allegedly took the deceased with him, stating they would return soon. 
• The deceased's body was discovered on 14th July, 1995, in a bathroom on a building's terrace, with a rope tied to the neck and hands bound behind the back. 
• The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily focusing on:  
  • Last seen together theory 
  • Evasive replies given by the appellant 
  • Proximity of time between last seen and death 
  • Appellant's absconding behavior 
  • Recovery of bloodstained clothes 
  • Unexplained injuries on appellant's person 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted significant deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence, particularly regarding the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-1 (father) and PW-3 (mother). 
• The Court identified multiple material omissions in PW-3's testimony that amounted to contradictions under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish two crucial circumstances beyond reasonable doubt:  
  • The "last seen together" theory 
  • The appellant's alleged evasive replies 
• The Court observed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and conclusively establish guilt. 
• The Court identified a procedural irregularity in the trial court's handling of witness contradictions under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The Court established that prior statements used for contradictions must be properly proved through the investigating officer before being incorporated into witness depositions. 
• The Court stipulated that trial judges should mark contradicted portions with identifiers (AA, BB, etc.) and ensure proper proof before including them in depositions. 
• The Court observed the absence of any established motive for the commission of the offence, which was particularly significant given the circumstantial nature of the evidence. 

What is Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS )? 

• Section 180 of BNSS deals with police examination of witnesses during investigation and consists of three subsections with additional provisos. 
• Under subsection (1): 
  • Any investigating police officer or authorized police officer (of rank prescribed by State Government) can orally examine persons believed to have knowledge of the case. 
• Under subsection (2), the examined person must:  
  • Answer all questions truthfully related to the case. 
  • Not be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them or expose them to penalty/forfeiture. 
• Under subsection (3), the police officer:  
  • May record written statements during examination. 
  • Must maintain separate and true records for each person's statement. 
  • Can record statements through audio-video electronic means. 
• Special provisions are made for recording statements of women victims:  
  • Applies to offences under Sections 64-71, 74-79, and 124 of BNS. 
  • Statements must be recorded by either: a. A woman police officer, or b. Any woman officers. 
• The section aims to:  
  • Facilitate proper investigation. 
  • Protect witness rights against self-incrimination. 
  • Ensure proper documentation of witness statements. 
  • Provide gender-sensitive handling of women victims' cases. 

What is Section 181 of BNSS? 

• General Prohibition:  
  • Statements made to police during investigation must not be signed by the person making them. 
  • Such statements cannot be used at any inquiry or trial except as specifically provided. 
• Usage in Court Proceedings:  
  • When a prosecution witness is called whose statement was recorded during investigation. 
  • The accused may use any part of the statement to contradict the witness 
  • The prosecution may also use it with court permission. 
  • Such contradiction must follow Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Re-examination Rights:  
  • When a statement is used for contradiction. 
  • Any part of it may be used in re-examination. 
  • Limited to explaining matters raised in cross-examination. 
• Exceptions:  
  • Does not apply to statements under Section 26(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 
  • Does not affect provisions of Section 23(2) proviso of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 
• Regarding Omissions:  
  • An omission in the statement can amount to contradiction. 
  • Must be significant and relevant in context. 
  • Whether an omission amounts to contradiction is a question of fact. 
  • Context of the omission is crucial for determining contradiction. 
• Purpose of the Section:  
  • Protects against misuse of police statements. 
  • Ensures proper procedure for using statements in court. 
  • Provides framework for handling contradictions and omissions. 
  • Balances rights of accused and prosecution. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) award of interest is discretionary.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/s Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of M/s Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another Case?  

• In 1990, the Ministry of Urban Development (MUD) decided to develop 71 acres of land at Andrew's Ganj, New Delhi, through HUDCO (Respondent No. 1). 
• HUDCO invited bids for various properties, including land to establish a 5-star hotel with an already-built car park to be leased for 99 years. 
• The Appellant emerged as the highest bidder for the hotel site and car park, receiving an allotment letter on 31st October 1994. 
• The Appellant was required to pay Rs. 64.10 crores for the hotel site and Rs. 14 crores for the car parking space in three installments. 
• The Appellant paid the first installment of Rs. 27.04 crores along with interest and maintenance corpus, totaling Rs. 28,11,31,939. 
• A dispute arose because HUDCO did not execute required documents after obtaining clearances under income tax and urban land ceiling laws. 
• HUDCO could not execute the 'agreement to sub-lease' because it did not have a perpetual lease from MUD. 
• The Appellant filed Suit No. 275/1996 in the High Court seeking extensions for payment and an injunction against cancellation. 
• The High Court issued a conditional order requiring the Appellant to deposit Rs. 15 crores by 08th April 1996, which the Appellant failed to do. 
• HUDCO cancelled the allotment on 02nd May 1996 and forfeited the entire amount of Rs. 28,11,31,939. 
• HUDCO invited fresh bids in November 1996, this time disclosing that a lease in its favor was yet to be executed. 
• The Appellant filed a second suit (No. 1/1997) in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that the cancellation was null and void. 
• The first suit was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally by the Appellant. 
• Leela Hotels Limited emerged as the highest bidder in the fresh bid, though their allotment was contingent on the outcome of the Appellant's pending suit. 
• MUD executed the perpetual lease deed in favor of HUDCO on 04th July 1997. 
• The Civil Court and First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, declaring the cancellation null and void. 
• The High Court overturned these decisions, noting that the Appellant's suit suffered from a fatal defect of not claiming possession as required by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court in this case dealt with the following three issues: 
  • Whether Respondent No. 1/HUDCO was in breach of its reciprocal contractual obligations qua the Appellant? 
  • If so, whether the Appellant is entitled to a refund of the forfeited amount under Clause 5(vi) of the Allotment Letter? 
  • If Issue (b) above is answered in the affirmative, whether the Appellant is entitled to interest on refund of the forfeited amount? 
• With respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court concluded that Respondent no 1 was in breach of its contractual duty under Clause 5 (vi) of the Allotment Letter. 
  • It was held by the Court that Respondent no 1 was in breach of several obligations as contemplated in the Allotment Letter. 
• With respect to Issue (ii): 
  • The Court in this regard held that the parties had ample knowledge of the obligation cast upon Respondent No 1 to refund the amount paid by the Appellants. 
  • The Court further held that it is a settled position if law that a commercial document ought not to be interpreted in a manner that arrives at a complete variance with what may originally have been the intention of the parties. 
  • As a result the Court held that the Respondent no 1 is liable to refund of amount.  
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • It was observed that the law on award of interest is provided for under Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
  • The provision states that “the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree.” 
  • The Court laid down that the general rule is that in commercial disputes, the award of interest pendente lite or post decree is typically granted as a matter of course. 
  • However, in the present case the Court held that the facts are such as warrant deviation from the general rule as the conduct of the appellant cannot be said to be equitable. 
  • Hence, it was concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the discretionary relief of interest under Section 34 of CPC.

What is the Law on Interest under CPC?

• Section 34 of CPC provides for an award of interest. 
• Section 34 (1) provides that: 
  • The court has discretion to order interest on principal sums in money decrees. 
  • There are three phases in which interest may be awarded: 
    • Pre-suit interest: For any period before filing the suit 
    • Pendente lite interest: From the date of filing suit to the date of decree 
    • Post-decree interest: From the date of decree to the date of payment 
  • For post-decree interest:  
    • The default maximum rate is 6% per annum. 
    • For commercial transactions, the rate can exceed 6%, limited by: a) The contractual rate of interest, or b) The rate at which nationalized banks lend money for commercial transactions (if no contractual rate exists). 
• Explanation 1 appended defines "Nationalized bank" as  a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). 
• Explanation 2 provides that for the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. 
• Section 34 (2) provides that: 
  • If a decree is silent about post-decree interest, it's deemed that the court has refused such interest 
  • When post-decree interest is deemed refused, a separate suit cannot be filed to claim it. 
• In the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors (2002), the Court held that: 
  • Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. 
  • The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice PK Mishra has summarized the principles relating to compassionate appointment. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K (2025).  

What was the Background of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K Case?   

• A Canara Bank employee (father of Ajithkumar G.K.) passed away on 20th December 2001 while in service, with 4 months remaining before his retirement. 
• At the time of death, Canara Bank had a compassionate appointment scheme from 1993 in force. 
• Within a month of his father's death, defendant applied on 15th January 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 
• On 30th October 2002, the Deputy General Manager rejected his application citing two reasons:  
  • His mother was receiving family pension of Rs. 4,367.92. 
  • He was overaged for the post of "Prob. Peon". 
• The scheme had an age limit of 26 years for both clerical and sub-staff positions, with provision for up to 5 years relaxation. The defendant was 26 years and 8 months old. 
• The defendant requested reconsideration on 7th January 2003, which was rejected on 20th January 2003. 
• His mother then made another request on 4th February 2003, citing that her deceased husband had served for over 24 years. This was also rejected on 18th February 2003. 
• During the pending litigation, Canara Bank introduced a new scheme in 2005 that discontinued the 1993 policy of compassionate appointments and instead provided for lumpsum ex-gratia payment. 
• The deceased employee's family situation at the time was:  
  • Three daughters who were already married and settled. 
  • Wife (mother) receiving family pension. 
  • One unmarried son (Ajithkumar). 
  • Family owned their house. 
  • Received terminal benefits of Rs. 3.09 lakhs (net after liabilities). 
  • Last drawn net salary of deceased was Rs. 9,772. 
• High Court (Single Judge Bench) - First Round: 
  • Found that the Deputy General Manager's order rejecting a compassionate appointment was not in accordance with the 1993 scheme. 
  • Held that the bank failed to properly consider its power to relax age requirements under paragraph 5.1. 
  • Directed the bank to reconsider Ajithkumar's case taking into account:  
  • The 1993 scheme provisions. 
• High Court (Single Judge Bench) - Second Round: 
  • Set aside the Managing Director's order rejecting the application. 
  • Directed Canara Bank to consider Ajithkumar for appointment under the 1993 scheme in sub-staff cadre within 2 months. 
  • Ordered payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the bank's reluctance in giving timely compassionate appointment. 
• High Court (Division Bench): 
  • Dismissed the bank's appeal. 
  • Ordered additional exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs. 
  • Expressed astonishment at how the bank handled Ajithkumar's claim. 
  • Directed appointment in sub-staff category within one month. 
  • Found it "audacious" that the bank passed an order conflicting with Supreme Court's decision in M. Mahesh Kumar case. 
• Criticized the bank for:  
  • Brushing aside age relaxation consideration. 
  • Using family pension as grounds for rejection despite it being held irrelevant. 
  • Rejecting the claim based on family pension and retirement benefits. 
  • This case has gone through multiple rounds of litigation from 2003 to 2025, moving through various courts and appeals. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Disagreed with High Court's reliance on Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar case (2015). 
  • Found the MD & CEO's order refusing compassionate appointment was justified. 
  • Held that Division Bench shouldn't have overlooked suitability criteria while directing appointments. 
  • Set aside both Single Judge and Division Bench orders. 
  • Using Article 142 powers as per the Constitution of India, 1950, directed:  
    • Bank to pay Rs. 2.5 lakhs lumpsum to the defendant within 2 months. 
    • This would be in addition to Rs. 50,000 already paid. 
  • Made observations about:  
  • The necessity to examine financial conditions. 
  • The relevance of terminal benefits in assessing claims. 
  • The proper interpretation of age relaxation provisions. 
  • The timing of compassionate appointments. 
  • The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the 20+ year dispute by setting aside the High Court orders while ensuring some financial compensation for the defendant. 

What is a Compassionate Appointment?  

• Compassionate Appointment is a provision that allows family members (usually spouse, son, or daughter) of a government employee who dies while in service or retires on medical grounds to be given a job in government service. 
• This is done to help the bereaved family cope with the financial crisis arising from the loss of the earning member. 

What are the Principles Relating to Compassionate Appointment? 

• Following are the 26 principles highlighted by the Supreme Court for Compassionate appointment: 
  • Compassionate appointments are an exception to equality in public employment rules. 
  • Such appointments cannot be made without proper rules or instructions in place. 
  • These appointments are typically offered in two situations: death of a breadwinner or their medical invalidation during service. 
  • The appointments should be made immediately to help families in a sudden financial crisis.  
  • Rules for compassionate appointments must be interpreted strictly as they allow side-door entry.  
  • It's a concession, not a right, and all applicants must meet the set criteria.  
  • No one can claim such appointments as inheritance. 
  • Appointment based on descent goes against constitutional principles and must be strictly limited to its intended purpose. 
  • These appointments aren't a vested right and require consideration of the family's financial condition. 
  • Applications must be made immediately or within a reasonable time after death/incapacitation. 
  • The purpose isn't to give the exact same post to a family member but to provide financial support. 
  • Financial need (indigence) is the primary requirement for consideration. 
  • Compassionate appointments aren't meant to provide endless support. 
  • Meeting eligibility criteria is necessary, beyond just proving financial distress. 
  • Vacancies cannot be reserved for minors to grow up, unless specifically provided for. 
  • Family pension or terminal benefits don't replace employment assistance. 
  • Appointments made years after death/incapacitation violate constitutional principles. 
  • Dependents who are already employed cannot be considered. 
  • Retirement benefits must be considered when determining the family's financial status. 
  • The family's complete financial condition must be evaluated to prevent misuse. 
  • All sources of family income should be considered when evaluating need. 
  • Family Benefit Scheme payments don't disqualify someone from compassionate appointments. 
  • Setting income limits helps ensure objectivity in decision-making. 
  • Courts cannot grant appointments based merely on sympathy. 
  • Courts must follow regulations and cannot make exceptions for hardship cases. 
  • Employers cannot be forced to make appointments against their policy. 

Landmark cases referred in the Present Case 

• Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar (2015): 
  • Held that grant of family pension or terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for employment assistance. 
  • Minor dependents can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority if provided in the scheme. 
  • This judgment was later referred to larger bench. 
• General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain (2008): 
  • Reinforced that compassionate appointments are exceptions to equality in public employment. 
  • Emphasized humanitarian grounds as basis for exception. 
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi (2002): 
  • Established requirement for rules/instructions. 
  • Cannot make compassionate appointments without formal framework. 
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997): 
  • Established fundamental rationale for compassionate appointments. 
  • Emphasized these are exceptions to regular merit-based recruitment. 
  • Main objective: Provide immediate relief to families in sudden crisis. 
  • Made clear it's not an alternative recruitment route. 
• V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India (2008): 
  • Identified two valid exceptions for compassionate appointment: 
    • Death of breadwinner. 
    • Medical invalidation while in service. 
• Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989): 
  • Emphasized immediacy requirement. 
  • Appointments should be made promptly to address family's distress. 
  • Delay defeats purpose of scheme. 
• Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009): 
  • Called for strict interpretation of rules. 
  • Being a side-door entry, rules cannot be loosely interpreted. 
• SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008): 
  • Established compassionate appointment as concession, not right. 
  • All criteria in rules must be satisfied. 
• State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009): 
  • Rejected inheritance-based claims 
  • Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as inheritance  
• Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India (2011): 
  • Appointments based solely on descent violate constitutional scheme. 
  • Must be strictly confined to intended purpose. 
• Union of India v. Amrita Sinha (2021): 
  • Rejected vested right concept. 
  • Financial condition must be considered. 
  • Cannot be granted automatically upon death/incapacitation. 
• Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009): 
  • Emphasized timely application. 
  • Delay in application creates presumption against financial need. 
  • Cannot be claimed after crisis period is over. 
• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994): 
  • The precedent establishing multiple principles: 
    •  Not about post-for-post replacement. 
    •  Must consider financial condition. 
    •  Limited to Class III and IV posts. 
    •  Cannot be granted as matter of course. 
• Union of India v. B. Kishore (2011): 
  • Established indigence as primary precondition. 
  • Without indigence, scheme becomes unconstitutional reservation.