List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan have held that while deciding leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), the High Court must assess whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, rather than merely evaluating the likelihood of overturning the acquittal. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. Case ? 

• The respondent (Mahesh Prakash Ahuja) was initially tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2011 on charges of murdering his wife. 
• The alleged incident occurred on 2^nd April 2011, when India was playing the World Cup final against Sri Lanka in Mumbai. 
• According to the prosecution, after India won the match, the respondent began celebrating by firing shots in the air from his licensed pistol, and later allegedly fired a shot at his wife, who subsequently succumbed to the firearm injuries. 
• The couple's fifteen-year-old son was allegedly an eyewitness to the incident, but he later turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's case. 
• The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the murder charge, following which the State preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court. 
• The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(3) of CrPC, noting that the Trial Court's view to acquit was a "possible view" not liable to be interfered with. 
• The original first informant (brother of the deceased) challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, as the State chose not to appeal the High Court's order. 
• The offence in question was murder, which under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and also fine, for unlawfully causing the death of another person with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court found that the High Court's approach in denying leave to appeal was untenable, as it based its findings on whether the order of acquittal would be set aside rather than whether a prima facie case existed, or arguable points had been raised. 
• Relying on precedent from State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008), the Court emphasized that when deciding an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case exists. 
• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not deny leave solely based on a prima facie assessment of whether the acquittal would be overturned but should consider whether arguable points have been raised challenging the acquittal. 
• The Court observed that it was not convinced with the reasoning provided by the High Court while declining to grant leave against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 
• The Supreme Court acknowledged that the case hinged on circumstantial evidence and that one of the prime witnesses (the 15-year-old son) had turned hostile, but maintained these factors should not have prevented proper consideration of the leave application. 
• Without making further observations that might prejudice either side, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of the criminal appeal on its merits. 
• The Court clarified that the criminal appeal against the acquittal should be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order. 
• The offence under consideration was murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a grave offence against the person, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and also fine, involving the unlawful taking of human life with requisite mens rea. 

What is Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)? 

• Section 419 of BNSS deals with appeals against acquittals and provides who has the authority to direct such appeals and under what circumstances. 
• Section 378 of CrPC is replaced by Section 419 of BNSS (New Criminal Law). 
• Under subsection (1), the District Magistrate may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate in cognizable and non-bailable offence cases. 
• The State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the High Court from any original or appellate acquittal order passed by any court (except High Court), provided it's not an order under clause (a) or an acquittal order passed by the Court of Session in revision. 
• Subsection (2) extends similar powers to the Central Government in cases investigated by agencies empowered under Central Acts. 
• As per subsection (3), no appeal to the High Court under subsections (1) or (2) can be entertained without obtaining leave from the High Court. 
• Subsection (4) appears to allow complainants to make applications for special leave to appeal in certain circumstances (though the full text of this subsection seems truncated in your provided information). 
• Subsection (5) establishes time limits for filing applications for special leave to appeal: six months for public servant complainants and sixty days in all other cases, calculated from the date of the acquittal order. 
• According to subsection (6), if an application for special leave to appeal is refused, no appeal from that acquittal order can be made under subsections (1) or (2). 

Landmark Judgment  

• State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008): 
  • The Supreme Court established that when deciding an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case exists or if arguable points have been raised. 
  • Justice C.K. Thakker clarified that the High Court should not enter into minute details of prosecution evidence at the leave stage or refuse leave merely by observing that the judgment of acquittal could not be termed "perverse." 
  • The ruling established that while it's not mandatory to grant leave in every petition against acquittal, if arguable points have been raised and the material on record requires deeper scrutiny or reappreciation of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave and decide the appeal on merits.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Abhay S Oka held that discharge order should be stayed only in exceptional circumstances.   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025). 

What was the Background of Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025) Case?   

• The Appellant was arraigned as an accused in connection with offences under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• Initially, the Appellant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). 
• The Appellant was formally charged in the 3rd Supplementary Chargesheet under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 
• On 20th October 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the appellant from all offences, subject to a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety. 
• The appellant was released from custody on the same day after furnishing the bond. 
• The NCT of Delhi (first respondent) filed a revision application challenging the discharge order in the Delhi High Court. 
• On 21^st October 2023, the High Court Single Judge stayed the discharge order ex-parte and extended this stay periodically. 
• The first respondent filed an application seeking the appellant's surrender to judicial custody, arguing that he couldn't benefit from the stayed discharge order. 
• On 4^th November 2024, the High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court, with liberty to apply for bail thereafter. 
• On 11^th November 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's surrender order while allowing the High Court to proceed with hearing the revision application. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The question in this case is whether the power to grant a stay can be exercised for staying an order of discharge. 
• It is to be noted that as per Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), when an appeal against the order of acquittal is filed, the High Court has the power to order the arrest of the accused and his production before it or any subordinate court. 
• As Section 390 has been made applicable to Section 401, the power under Section 390 can be exercised in a revision against order of discharge. 
• Difference between discharged person and the accused person: 
  •  After considering the material on the charge sheet and the submissions of parties, if the Court concludes that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court must discharge the accused for the reasons recorded. 
  • When a discharge order is passed, the person discharged ceases to be an accused. 
  • The position of a discharged accused is on a higher pedestal than that of an accused who is acquitted after a full trial. 
  • The reason is that a charge can be framed, and an accused can be tried only when there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to proceed against him. 
  • An order of discharge is passed when the charge sheet does not contain sufficient material to proceed against the accused. Therefore, he is discharged at the threshold. 
• The Court, after discussing the law on power to stay the order of discharge and Section 390 of CrPC held that ex parte order of stay of the order of discharge should not have been passed by the High Court. 
• Hence, the Court held that the ex parte order of stay is illegal. 
•  The impugned order dated 21st October 2023, and 4th November is quashed and set aside. 

 What is the Scope of Power to Stay the Order of Discharge?  

• An order staying the order of discharge is a very drastic order which has the effect of curtailing or taking away the liberty granted to the accused by the discharge order. 
• The grant of stay to the order of discharge amounts to the grant of final relief, as the trial can proceed against him. 
• An interim order can be granted pending disposal of the main case only if the interim order is in the aid of final relief sought in the main case. 
• Therefore, the order staying the order of discharge by way of interim relief cannot be said to be in the aid of final relief. 
• It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order. 
• However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused. Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged accused. 
• If the trial against a discharged accused proceeds, even before the revision application against an order of discharge is decided, the final outcome of the revision will become fait accompli. 

 What is Section 390 of CrPC? 

• Section 390 of CrPC provides for the following: 
  • When an appeal is presented under Section 378, the High Court has the authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. 
  • The accused must be brought before the High Court or any subordinate Court. 
  • The Court before which the accused is presented has the discretion to: 
    • Commit him to prison pending the appeal's disposal. 
    • Grant him bail as per the circumstances. 
• The object of Section 390 of the CrPC is that if ultimately the order of acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the accused must be available for undergoing sentence 
• The second object of Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the accused's presence at the hearing can be secured. 
• Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the appeal against acquittal. 
• Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the CrPC is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. 
• Passing an order under Section 390 directing the discharged accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan have held that visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. The Registrar General the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. The Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Case? 

• The case concerns a rule established by the Madhya Pradesh judicial services that prohibited visually impaired and low-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services positions. 
• This rule effectively barred qualified candidates with visual impairments from participating in the selection process for posts within the judicial service, regardless of their qualifications or capabilities. 
• The rule was challenged on the grounds that it discriminated against persons with disabilities and violated their fundamental rights. 
• The challenge asserted that the blanket disqualification of visually impaired candidates from judicial services constituted arbitrary discrimination and denied equal opportunity in public employment. 
• The matter was brought before the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether such a prohibition was constitutional and in accordance with disability rights legislation. 
• The case raised significant questions regarding reasonable accommodation, substantive equality, and the rights of persons with disabilities to participate fully in professional spheres, particularly the judiciary. 
• The challenge was mounted against the presumption that visual impairment rendered candidates inherently "not suitable" for judicial service, regardless of their qualifications, skills, or technological accommodations available. 

 What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • The Supreme Court quashed the rule of the Madhya Pradesh judicial services which disallowed visually impaired and low-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services. 
  • The Court held that "Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service." 
  • The Court, composed of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, emphasized the fundamental right to reasonable accommodation through affirmative action. 
  • The Court recognized substantive equality by acknowledging that any form of indirect discrimination would also lead to exclusion. 
  • The Court referenced numerous examples of successful visually impaired legal professionals, including judges and lawyers from India and around the world, to demonstrate that "disability is no bar to excellence in the legal profession or any other field." 
  • The Court stated that these individuals stand as a testament to the fact that visual impairment does not prevent professional excellence, competing on equal footing, and making significant contributions to the justice delivery system. 

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

• It was enacted on 27^th December 2016, replacing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 
• This Act came into force on 19^th April 2017, heralding a new era of rights and recognition for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India. 
• This Act broadens the scope of disabilities to cover 21 conditions, including physical, intellectual, mental, and sensory impairments. 
• It mandates that educational institutions and government organizations reserve seats and positions for persons with disabilities, ensuring their access to education and employment opportunities. 
• The Act emphasizes the creation of barrier-free environments in public spaces, transportation, and information and communication technologies, enabling greater accessibility for persons with disabilities. 
• It mandates the government to formulate schemes and programs for social security, healthcare, and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. 
• The Act mandates the formulation of guidelines and standards for public buildings to ensure universal accessibility.