List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Vishwanathan laid down the law on possession of stolen property under Section 411 of    the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Section 317 of BNS).  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra (2025) Case?   

• The case involved fraud committed through fake Telegraphic Transfers and subsequent withdrawals amounting to Rs. 6,70,00,000/- at Vijaya Bank, Nasik Branch, Maharashtra. 
• On 6th February 1997, a bank account was opened for a fictitious firm called Globe International using forged documents. 
• Between April and August 1997, multiple fraudulent Telegraphic Transfers totaling Rs. 6,70,00,000/- were credited to this account and subsequently withdrawn. 
• The Central Bureau of Investigation found that most of the Demand Drafts were issued to M/s. Chenaji Narsinghji (M/s. CN) for purchasing gold bars that were delivered to accused No. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni). 
• On 1st June 2001, a search at accused No. 3's shop led to the seizure of 205 gold bars and other documents. 
• The Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 (S.K. Sheenappa Rai), 2 (Devdas Shetty), and 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) for various offences but directed that the 205 gold bars be returned to accused No. 3. 
• The High Court overturned the convictions of accused Nos. 1 and 2 but upheld the conviction of accused No. 3. The court also quashed the Trial Court's order to return the gold bars to accused No. 3 and ordered them to be confiscated. 
• Criminal appeals were subsequently filed by accused No. 3 challenging his conviction and seeking the return of the gold bars, and by Hiralal Babulal Soni and Vijaya Bank also seeking the return of the gold bars. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• In the present facts the prosecution relied on Section 411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Section 317 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)) and Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) (Section 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)) in order to establish the commission of offence. 
• The defence set up by the appellant/accused in this case was that: 
  • Firstly, there was a delay of four years in finding out the property. 
  • Secondly, the appellant/ accused himself is the jeweller. 
  • Thirdly, the gold bars are not proved to be stolen property due to differences in markings. 
• The Court observed that in the facts of the case the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the seized gold as being the same gold which were sold by M/s CN to M/s Globe International. 
• Further, it was held that due to the delay of 4 years in recovery of the property the very basis of identification was found shattered and hence the possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out. 
• Further, it was also observed by the Court that Section 114 of IEA cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case as the prosecution has failed to discharge it’s initial burden. 
• With Respect to Section 106 of IEA the Court held that Section 106 of IEA is applicable only when the prosecution is able to establish the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that there are certain facts especially within the knowledge of the accused.  
• Where the case is resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden under Section 106 of IEA, such failure may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidences. 
• However, the Court held that in the present facts this provision cannot be invoked. 
• Therefore, the Court held that identity of the seized property being stolen property is not established and hence the appeal preferred by the Vijaya Bank stood dismissed. 
• Hence, the Court dismissed the appeal of Hiralal Babulal Soni seeking return of gold.

What is the Offence of Possession of Stolen Property? 

• The offence of possession of stolen property was contained in Section 410 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This is now contained in Section 317 of BNS. 
•  Comparative Analysis of the two provisions is as follows 

• In order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove  
  • That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused. 
  • That some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it. 
  • That the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice A. Badharudeen has held that Sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) [or Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS)] is not mandatory to prosecute a public servant for offenses under Section 21 read with Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).   

• The Kerala High Court has held that in the case of Dr Ditto Tom P. v. State of Kerala  (2025). 

What was the Background of the Dr Ditto Tom P. v. State of Kerala Case?  

• The case involves Dr. Ditto Tom P (Petitioner), aged 48, who is the 2nd accused in a criminal case and the revision petitioner in this proceeding. 
• The primary incident involves a minor female child, aged 13 years, who suffered aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a child in conflict with law on October 2 and 19th October 2020, resulting in her pregnancy. 
• The 1st, 3rd, and 4th accused allegedly had knowledge of this sexual assault but failed to report it to authorities and allegedly participated in conducting a miscarriage to eliminate evidence. 
• Dr. Ditto Tom P (2nd accused) treated the victim. During the 25th November visit, he allegedly learned about the pregnancy and the underlying POCSO Act offense. 
• Initially, when the victim and her mother visited the Petitioner, they reported an issue with menstruation. Later, the mother disclosed to the doctor that the girl was pregnant and had been taking homeopathic medicine to abort the pregnancy. 
• Despite gaining knowledge of a POCSO offense, the Petitioner allegedly failed to inform the police as required by law.  
• The Petitioner was charged under Section 21(1) read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act for failing to report the sexual offense despite having knowledge of it. 
• The Petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the Special Judge, leading to this revision petition. 
• The case raises a legal question about whether a government servant accused of POCSO Act offenses requires sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecution. 
• The Trial Court dismissed Petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC. 
• The Trial Court held that the prosecution materials sufficiently established a prima facie case against Dr. Ditto Tom under Section 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act to warrant framing of charges and proceeding to trial. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before the Kerala High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Kerala High Court made the following observations: 
  • On the Question of Sanction for Prosecution: 
    • Sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC (or Section 218 of BNSS) is not mandatory to prosecute a public servant for offenses under Section 21 read with Section 19 of the POCSO Act. 
    • The non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act specifically excludes the provisions of CrPC, making the sanction requirement inapplicable. 
    • The Court reasoned that when a statute imposes a duty upon a public servant, and omission of that duty falls within the POCSO Act under Section 19(1) and (2) read with Section 21, the non-obstante clause excludes the application of Section 197 CrPC. 
  • On Petitioner’s Criminal Liability: 
    • The Court found that the petitioner gained knowledge about the POCSO offense on 25th November 2020, when the victim's mother disclosed the pregnancy and attempted abortion. 
    • Despite this knowledge, the petitioner failed to report the matter to the police as mandated by Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. 
    • This failure delayed the registration of the crime by approximately three weeks (until 12th December 2020), which could have impacted the investigation. 
    • The Court rejected the argument that Dr. Ditto's omission wasn't deliberate because he was acceding to the victim and her mother's request not to report. 
  • On Discharge Application: 
    • The Court found that the prosecution materials established a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting trial. 
    • The Court distinguished this case from other cases where quashment was allowed, noting that here there was a "deliberate omission" perceivable in the petitioner’s failure to report. 
  • Final Decision: 
    • The Court dismissed Revision Petition. 
    • The Court vacated the interim stay order. 
    • The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for further steps. 
  • Implications for Doctor-Patient Relationship: 
    • The Court upheld the principle that the mandatory reporting obligation under POCSO overrides professional confidentiality considerations when it comes to sexual offenses against minors.

What is Section 19 of the POCSO Act?

• This section states the provisions regarding reporting of the offence as: 

19(1) Mandatory Reporting Obligation: 

• Application: Notwithstanding anything in Code of Criminal Procedure 
• Persons Obligated: Any person (including a child) 
• Threshold for Reporting: 
  • Apprehension that an offence is likely to be committed. 
  • Knowledge that an offence has been committed. 
• Designated Authorities: 
  • Special Juvenile Police Unit, or 
  • Local police. 

19(2) Documentation of Reports: 

• Entry Requirements: 
  • Ascription of entry number. 
  • Recording in writing. 
  • Reading over to the informant. 
  • Entry in Police Unit book. 

19(3) Child-Friendly Recording 

• Special Procedure: Recording in simple language. 
• Purpose: To ensure child understands contents being recorded. 

19(4) Language Assistance Provisions 

• Situations Requiring Translator/Interpreter: 
  • When language is not understood by child. 
  • Whenever deemed necessary. 
• Requirements for Translators/Interpreters: 
  • Qualifications and experience as prescribed. 
  • Payment of prescribed fees. 

19(5) Immediate Care and Protection 

• Threshold for Intervention: Police satisfaction that child needs care and protection. 
• Procedural Requirement: Recording reasons in writing. 
• Timeframe: Immediate arrangement within twenty-four hours. 
• Protection Options: 
  • Admission to shelter home. 
  • Admission to nearest hospital. 

19(6) Mandatory Referral to Authorities 

• Timeframe: Without unnecessary delay but within twenty-four hours. 
• Authorities to be Notified: 
  • Child Welfare Committee, and 
  • Special Court or Court of Session. 
• Content of Report: 
  • Details of the matter. 
  • Child's need for care and protection. 
  • Steps taken. 

19(7) Good Faith Protection 

• Immunity Granted: No liability (civil or criminal). 
• Protected Activity: Giving information in good faith. 
• Scope of Protection: For purpose of subsection (1).

Landmark Judgement

• State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court made these observations: 
    • "Prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is of utmost importance" and failure to report "would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act." 
    • The Supreme Court emphasized that timely reporting enables immediate examination of the victim and commencement of investigation without delay, which is crucial in sexual offense cases. 
    • The Court stated that medical evidence has significant corroborative value in sexual offense cases, highlighting the importance of prompt reporting to secure such evidence. 
    • The Supreme Court noted that provisions like Section 27(1) of the POCSO Act and Sections 164A and 53A of the CrPC, which deal with medical examination of victims and accused persons in sexual offense cases, underscore the importance of prompt reporting.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh has set aside RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh's expulsion, stressing that punishment for legislative misconduct must be proportionate. It noted that disproportionate action weakens democracy and leaves constituents unrepresented. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors.(2025). 

What was the Background of Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors. Case? 

• The Petitioner, an MLC (Member of Legislative Council) from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party, was elected to the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) on 29th June 2020 for a six-year term and served as Chief Whip of the RJD in the BLC. 
• The political landscape in Bihar changed when the coalition government comprising JDU (led by the incumbent Chief Minister), RJD, and INC dissolved in January 2024, with JDU subsequently forming a new alliance with BJP. 
• On 13th February 2024, during the 206th Session of the BLC, following the Governor's address and during the motion of thanks, the Petitioner and another MLC, Md. Sohaib, approached the well of the House and allegedly directed indecent slogans against the Chief Minister. 
• The Petitioner reportedly mocked the Chief Minister as "Paltu Ram," imitated his body language, made sarcastic remarks about his lack of electoral experience, referred to him as an "expert in manipulations," and likened him to a snake shedding its skin annually. 
• These actions allegedly obstructed House proceedings, prompting a complaint on 19th February 2024 against both MLCs by a JDU member of the BLC. 
• The Chairman of the BLC forwarded the complaint to the Ethics Committee for enquiry, directing both MLCs to attend proceedings on 03rd May 2024. 
• While Md. Sohaib appeared before the Committee, expressed regret, and assured future restraint, the Petitioner did not appear, citing various engagements including Lok Sabha election campaigning responsibilities. 
• The Petitioner was granted multiple exemptions from appearance on 3rd May 2024, 22nd May 2024, 31st May 2024, and 06th June 2024, despite requesting documentary evidence regarding the charges against him. 
• On 12th June 2024, the Petitioner finally appeared before the Ethics Committee and was provided with the charges but allegedly questioned the Committee's authority rather than addressing the allegations. 
• The Ethics Committee unilaterally rescheduled earlier the next proceedings from 19th June 2024 to 14th June 2024 without notifying the Petitioner, and on that date submitted its report recommending the Petitioner's expulsion from the BLC. 
• For Md. Sohaib, the Committee recommended a two-day suspension for the upcoming Session. 
• On 26th July 2024, the House accepted these recommendations by majority vote, expelling the Petitioner and suspending Md. Sohaib for two days. 
• The BLC Secretariat issued a notification on 26th July 2024 terminating the Petitioner's membership and declaring a vacancy. 
• During the pendency of the petition, on 30th December 2024, the Election Commission of India issued a Press Note declaring bye-elections for the Petitioner's former seat, with the process to be completed by 25th January 2025. 
• The Supreme Court, via order dated 15th January 2025, stayed the declaration of the bye-election results pending resolution of this case. 
• The key issue in this case: 
  • Whether the Supreme Court can review the Bihar Legislative Council's decision to expel RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh. 
  • It examines whether the Ethics Committee’s proceedings fall under judicial review despite Article 212(1) of the Constitution.  
  • Additionally, the Court must determine if the punishment was disproportionate and, if so, whether it has the authority to modify the penalty. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that while legislative bodies possess inherent privileges to discipline members, such powers are circumscribed by constitutional limitations and remain amenable to judicial scrutiny in appropriate cases. 
• The Court noted that disproportionate punishment against legislators constitutes a dual constitutional infringement by simultaneously depriving the member of participation in democratic processes and abrogating constituents' right to effective representation. 
• The Court observed that even temporary exclusion from legislative proceedings may substantially impair a member's capacity to discharge constitutional obligations during critical legislative deliberations. 
• The Court held that Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to review prima facie excessive or disproportionate punitive measures imposed by legislative bodies pursuant to the principles of constitutional justice. 
• The Court stated that disciplinary actions against legislators must be primarily reformative rather than retributive, with the predominant objective of maintaining parliamentary decorum. 
• The Court articulated a multi-faceted framework for evaluating proportionality of sanctions, encompassing obstruction caused, institutional dignity impaired, member's antecedent conduct, availability of less restrictive alternatives, and balancing of competing interests. 
• The Court concluded that legislative disciplinary actions must satisfy the tripartite test of justification, necessity, and equitable balance to preserve both institutional integrity and representative democratic principles. 

What are the Principles Laid Down by Supreme Court to Determine Proportionality of Punishment Imposed on Member of Legislature? 

• Disciplinary Purpose, Not Retribution: The Court states that punishment of legislators should primarily serve a disciplinary function rather than punitive objectives and maintain decorum rather than serve as retribution, focusing on creating an environment for constructive debate. 
• Obstruction Assessment: Courts must consider the degree to which the member obstructed House proceedings, recognizing that different levels of disruption warrant correspondingly different disciplinary measures. 
• Institutional Dignity and Conduct Pattern: The impact on the House's reputation must be evaluated alongside the member's previous behavior patterns and their subsequent actions, including expressions of remorse and cooperation with institutional mechanisms. 
• Minimal Necessary Restriction: Any disciplinary action should represent the least restrictive measure capable of addressing misconduct, ensuring that democratic representation isn't unduly compromised. 
• Contextual Evaluation: Courts should distinguish between deliberately inappropriate expressions and those influenced by regional dialect or cultural context, acknowledging that intent and background matter in assessing severity. 
• Rational Connection to Purpose: The punishment must be suitable for achieving its stated disciplinary objective rather than being punitive for its own sake. 
• Balancing Stakeholder Interests: Finally, disciplinary decisions must balance multiple competing interests—the rights of the electorate to representation, the member's individual rights, and the legislature's need to maintain order and dignity.

What is Article 212 of Indian Constitution?

• Article 212 establishes immunity for legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny on grounds of procedural irregularities. 
• Clause (1) prohibits courts from questioning the validity of state legislative proceedings based on alleged procedural irregularities. 
• Clause (2) provides immunity from judicial oversight to legislative officers or members vested with powers for regulating procedure, conducting business, or maintaining order within the legislature. 
• This provision implements the constitutional principle of separation of powers by establishing a protective shield around internal legislative functioning. 
• The Article aims to preserve legislative independence while ensuring that legislative bodies can effectively discharge their constitutional duties without undue judicial interference. 
• However, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, this immunity is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review is permitted only in cases of substantive constitutional violation. 

What is an Ethics Committee? 

• The Ethics Committee is a parliamentary oversight body that operates year-round to maintain the integrity and dignity of Parliament. 
• It was first established in the Rajya Sabha in 1997, followed by the Lok Sabha in 2000, with the latter becoming permanent in 2015. 
• The Ethics Committee originated from a resolution at the Presiding Officers Conference in New Delhi in October 1996. 
• The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee consists of up to fifteen members nominated by the Speaker for a term not exceeding one year. 
• The Ethics Committee examines complaints about unethical conduct by members and recommends appropriate actions. 
• It is responsible for developing and refining a Code of Conduct for members of Parliament. 
• Any individual can file a complaint about unethical conduct, though non-MPs must have their complaints forwarded by an MP. 
• The Ethics Committee differs from the Privileges Committee in that it focuses exclusively on misconduct involving MPs, while more serious allegations typically go to the Privileges Committee. 
• In 2005, the Ethics Committee reviewed a significant "Cash-for-Query" case involving MPs who allegedly accepted money to ask questions in Parliament.