List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that witnesses who identified the appellant in TIP were not examined during trial, the TIP had no evidentiary value.   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025).  

What was the Background of Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh Case? 

• The case involves a bus robbery (dacoity) that occurred on 28th September 1993, around 11:30 PM on a bus belonging to Adarsh Transport Bus Service heading to Raipur. 
• The prosecution alleged that one person, sitting behind the driver, put a country-made pistol to the driver's temple and ordered him to stop the bus. 
• After the bus stopped, eight people in total (four who were already on the bus and four who boarded at the stop) began assaulting passengers and robbing them of their belongings. 
• During the incident, a shot was fired, resulting in injuries to one of the passengers. 
• The bus driver drove to Ambikapur Police Station where an FIR was lodged at 12:20 AM on 29th September 1993. 
• Police set up barricades to prevent the culprits' escape. On 29th September 1993, at around 3:00 AM, police constable Khemraj Singh allegedly arrested the appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla, who was reportedly carrying a country-made pistol with five cartridges (two live and three empty). 
• On 30th September 1993, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted where the bus driver Ram Sajeevan Sharma and Khalasi (cleaner) Ainul Khan allegedly identified the appellant. However, the bus conductor Kamal Singh failed to identify him. 
• The appellant was tried along with one other accused, Mohd. Kalam Ansari, in the Court of Session, Surguja, Ambikapur. 
• The prosecution produced several witnesses, including three eye-witnesses who were passengers on the bus. 
• None of the stolen or looted articles were recovered from either the appellant or at his instance. 
• The case involved charges under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
• The trial court convicted the accused of dacoity. The same was appealed before the High Court.  
• The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment and dismissed the appellant's appeal. Found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's findings 
• The same has been appealed before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • On Test Identification Parade (TIP):  
    • TIP is not substantive evidence but only corroborative evidence. 
    • Since witnesses who identified the appellant in TIP were not examined during trial, the TIP had no evidentiary value. 
  • On PW-9's Testimony (Police Personnel):  
    • Found his dock identification unreliable because: 
    • He couldn't explain his presence on the bus satisfactorily. 
    • Despite being available, he wasn't used for TIP. 
    • He admitted seeing the appellant before yet wasn't used for TIP. 
  • On Arrest and Recovery:  
    • Found the arrest story implausible as: 
      • It was unlikely that an armed person wouldn't use weapon to escape from a single policeman. 
      • No injuries were reported despite claimed resistance. 
      • 9-hour delay in preparing seizure memo was unexplained. 
      • Discrepancy in pistol description was inadequately explained. 
  • Final Conclusion:  
    • Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
    • Granted benefit of doubt to appellant. 
    • Set aside both lower courts' judgments. 
    • Acquitted the appellant of all charges. 
    • Discharged the appellant's bail bond. 
• The Supreme Court's judgment essentially highlighted how both lower courts failed to scrutinize the evidence critically and accepted the prosecution's case without testing it against probability and established legal principles. 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

About: 

One of the methods of establishing the identity of the accused is TIP which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 

• Section 9 of the IEA deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 
• The same section has been covered under Section 7 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 

Purpose: 

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence. 
• It has two major purposes: 
  • To satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime. 
  • To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. 

Essential Elements: 

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible. 
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded. 
• TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of witness concerned as given in the Court. 

Section 310 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS): 

• This section deals with the punishment for dacoity. 
• It states that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 
• The offence of dacoity has been described under Section 397 of IPC. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhati held that filing of bail application once an earlier bail application has been rejected is a matter of right.     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. (2025).

What was the Background of Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. Case?  

• The Appellant's earlier bail application was allowed by the High Court on 3rd October 2023. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order that had granted bail. 
• The Appellant then filed a fresh bail application before the High Court. 
• The issue before the Supreme Court was whether fresh bail application should be allowed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held in this case that filing a fresh bail application after previous rejection/ cancellation is a matter of right. 
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application merely because the Supreme Court had not specifically permitted filing of a fresh application. 
• The High Court rejected this fresh application solely on the ground that the Supreme Court, while canceling the previous bail, had not explicitly given liberty to file a fresh application. 
• The above argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court's order 31st May 2024 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for decision on merits.

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

• Bail has been defined under BNSS under Section 2 (b): 
  • “Bail” means release of a person 
    • Accused or 
    • Suspected of commission of offence 
  • A person is released on bail from the custody of law: 
    • Upon certain conditions imposed by an officer or Court 
    • On execution by such person of a bond or bail bond. 
• Section 2 (d) defines “bail bond” as an undertaking for release with surety. 
• Section 2 (e) defines “bond” as: 
  • Personal bond or 
  • Undertaking for release without surety

What are the Provisions Governing Bail under BNSS? 

• Chapter XXXV of the BNSS provides for Provisions as to Bail and Bonds. 
• Section 478 to Section 496 of BNSS provides for provisions related to bail. 
• Section 485 of BNSS provides for bond of accused and sureties. 
  • Section 485 (1) provides that: 
    • Before a person is released on bond or bail bond, they must execute a bond for a sum of money. 
    • The amount of the bond is determined by the police officer or Court, based on what they consider sufficient. 
    • When the person is released on bond or bail bond, one or more sufficient sureties must also execute the bond. 
    • The bond contains a condition that the person shall attend at the specified time and place mentioned in the bond. 
    • The person is required to continue attending as directed until otherwise instructed by the police officer or Court. 
    • This provision applies regardless of whether the release is authorized by a police officer or by a Court. 
    • The purpose of the bond is to ensure the person's appearance at required proceedings. 
  • Section 485 (2) provides that where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail, the bond or bail bond shall also contain that condition.  
  • Section 485 (3) provides that if the case so requires, the bond or bail bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge. 
  • Section 485 (4) provides that: 
    • The Court may accept affidavits as proof of facts regarding the sufficiency or fitness of sureties. 
    • If necessary, the Court can choose to hold an inquiry itself to determine surety fitness or sufficiency. 
    • Alternatively, the Court may direct a subordinate Magistrate to conduct the inquiry on surety qualification. 
    • This provision gives the Court flexibility in verifying surety fitness while maintaining proper oversight of the process. 
• Section 486 of BNSS provides for declaration by sureties. 
  • Every person acting as a surety for an accused person's release on bail must make a declaration before the Court. 
  • This declaration must disclose the total number of persons for whom the individual has stood surety (including the current accused) along with all relevant particulars. 
• Section 487 of BNSS provides for discharge from custody 
  • Upon execution of the bond or bail bond, the person for whose appearance it was executed shall be released immediately. 
  • If the person is in jail, the court admitting them to bail must issue a release order to the officer in charge of the jail. 
  • The jail officer, upon receiving this order, is obligated to release the person. 
  • However, this provision does not require the release of a person who is liable to be detained for matters other than the one for which the bond/bail bond was executed. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice D. K. Singh has held that reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), cannot be applied to Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor appointments as they lack a specific cadre strength. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Mrs. Shinu K R v State of Kerala (2025). 

What was the Background of Mrs. Shinu K R v. State of Kerala Case? 

• The matter arose through writ petitions seeking mandamus for implementing reservation in favor of persons with benchmark disabilities for the position of Public Prosecutor in Pathanamthitta district. 
• The petitioners relied on Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates 4% reservation of total vacancies in cadre strength for persons with benchmark disabilities. 
• The appointment and service conditions of Public Prosecutors and Government Law Officers are governed by the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976. 
• As per Rule 8(9) of the 1976 Rules, the term of appointment for Government Law Officers at the district level is fixed for three years. 
• Rule 17 of the 1976 Rules empowers the Government to terminate any Government Law Officer's appointment before the expiry of term without assigning reasons, by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. 
• The petitioners contended that since Public Prosecutors are appointed by the Government, it constitutes public employment, thereby necessitating implementation of disability reservation. 
• The Government Pleader contested that Public Prosecutors are engaged contractually from the bar to defend cases, and there exists no formal cadre structure. 
• The matter primarily centered on whether the position of Public Prosecutor constitutes a cadre-based service warranting statutory reservation under the Act of 2016.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the 4% reservation under Section 34 is specifically applicable against vacancies within an established cadre service structure. 
• The appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors does not constitute appointment to a service with defined cadre strength. 
• The Court observed that no individual possesses an inherent right to be appointed as Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor. 
• The relationship between the Government and its legal officers is essentially that of client and counsel, rather than employer and employee. 
• Being the client, the Government retains the prerogative to engage the most competent advocates to represent its interests before courts. 
• The Court noted that public bodies have an obligation to engage the most competent legal representatives for safeguarding public interests. 
• The contractual nature of engagement of Public Prosecutors distinguishes it from regular public employment warranting statutory reservations. 
• The Court affirmed that the appointment and continuation of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors remains at the pleasure of the Government. 
• The absence of a formal cadre structure precludes the application of Section 34 reservations to these positions. 

What are the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016? 

• The Act was enacted by the Indian Parliament to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), replacing the earlier Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995. 
• The Act significantly expands the scope of disabilities from 7 types under the previous law to 21 types, including physical, mental, intellectual, and multiple disabilities. 
• A "person with disability" is defined as someone having long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that hinders their equal participation in society when interacting with barriers. 
• The Act introduces the concept of "benchmark disability," defined as not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the authorized certifying authority. 
• The legislation acknowledges persons with high support needs who require intensive assistance for daily activities. 
• The Act empowers the central government to notify additional categories of specified disabilities beyond the 21 types currently listed. 
• The comprehensive list of disabilities includes conditions like thalassemia, hemophilia, Parkinson's disease, and acid attack victims, which weren't previously recognized. 
• The Act represents a paradigm shift from the medical model to a rights-based approach in addressing disability issues in India. 

What is Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016? 

• Every appropriate Government must ensure a minimum 4% reservation of total vacancies in the cadre strength within each group of posts in Government establishments for persons with benchmark disabilities. 
• The 4% reservation is distributed as 1% each for three categories:  
  • blindness and low vision,  
  • deaf and hard of hearing, and  
  • Locomotor disabilities including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy. 
• The remaining 1% is reserved for persons with (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness, and (e) multiple disabilities including deaf-blindness. 
• Reservations in promotions shall follow instructions issued by the appropriate Government from time to time. 
• The appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner, may exempt any Government establishment from these provisions based on the nature of work. 
• If vacancies cannot be filled due to the unavailability of suitable candidates with benchmark disabilities, they shall be carried forward to the next recruitment year and may be filled through interchange among the five categories. 
• If no person with disability is available even after interchange, the vacancy may be filled by a person without disability. 
• The appropriate Government has the authority to provide relaxation in upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disabilities.