List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held that the Courts should be cautious while permitting the Investigating Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).  

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Avinash v. The State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Avinash v. The State of Karnataka (2025) Case?   

• The accused, who is identified as Accused No.2 in the case, has filed a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail. This case has been registered by the Southeast Police Station in Bengaluru City. 
• The case involves allegations of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 
• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on a complaint lodged by Ms. Manthalir N, who is the daughter of Keshav Singh K. The complaint was filed against unknown persons. 
• During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, 2023 
• In response to this notice, the petitioner appeared before the police on 06th January 2025. On the same day, he was arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. 
• The petitioner had earlier applied for bail before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court. However, his bail application was rejected by the court on 20th January 2025. 
• The Learned Counsel representing the petitioner has submitted the following: 
  • The petitioner does not have any prior criminal record. 
  • Apart from the petitioner, no other accused has been arrested in connection with the case so far. 
  • It has further been contended that the Investigating Officer (IO) sought permission from the Trial Court to invoke additional offences under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of the BNS, 2023. 
  • The Trial Judge granted this request without applying judicial mind. 
  • Since the charge sheet has not been filed within the period prescribed under the law, the petitioner asserts that he is entitled to statutory bail. Accordingly, he has prayed for the petition to be allowed. 
• The Counsel for the State has submitted the following: 
  • During the course of interrogation, the police recorded the statement of one Hazarat Ali Malhakatti. 
  • On 06th January 2025, the petitioner was arrested following this development. 
  • The prosecution has further stated that the investigation is still in progress and, therefore, has prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• With regard to invoking Section 111 (3) and 111 (4) of BNS the Court laid down the following: 
  • It was observed by the Court that in the present facts the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and except the petitioner no other accused has been arrested. 
  • The Court held that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS there are certain parameters that should be met. 
  • A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court shows that a requisition was filed by the IO to invoke Section 111 of BNS much prior to the arrest of the petitioner. 
  • Even in the affidavit filed before the Court the IO has stated that till date no material has been collected for him to invoke Section 111 of BNS.  
• The Court observed that Section 187 (3) of BNSS (which is pari materia to Section 167 (2) (a) of Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC) provides for right to statutory bail to accused person. 
• The Court further observed that in the present case the chargesheet was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused.  
• However, since the Trial Court has permitted IO to invoke Sections 111 (3) and (4) of BNS the time to complete investigation and submit final report gets extended. (As offence under Section 111 is punishable with life imprisonment and the statute provides 90 days to complete investigation and file final report). 
• The High Court thus held that the Courts should be cautious before passing necessary orders to invoke Section 111 of BNS.  
• It is only after considering the material produced by IO along with application/requisition that the Court can consider the request to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS. 
• Thus, the Court, in the light of the present case, granted bail.

What is Section 111 of BNS?

• Section 111 of BNS provides for the offence of Organized Crime. 
• Section 111 (1) of BNS defines what would constitute ‘Organized crime’: 
  • Organized crime is defined as any continuing unlawful activity committed by groups of individuals who act together, either singly or jointly. 
  • The criminal activities that constitute organized crime include: 
    • Kidnapping 
    • Robbery 
    • Vehicle Theft 
    • Extortion 
    • Land Grabbing 
    • Contract Killing 
    • Economic offences, and  
    • Cyber-crimes that have severe consequences. 
  • Other offences that fall under organized crime include trafficking in people, drugs, illicit goods or services, weapons trafficking, and human trafficking rackets for prostitution or ransom. 
  • Organized crime can be carried out by members of an organized crime syndicate or by individuals acting on behalf of such a syndicate. 
  • The methods used to commit organized crime include violence, the threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, corruption, and other unlawful means. 
  • The primary objective of organized crime is to obtain a direct or indirect material benefit, including financial gain.

What are the Essential Requisites of Section 111 of BNS as per this Judgment of Karnataka High Court? 

• The Court held in this case that the primary intent for invoking Section 111 of BNS is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organized crime syndicate. 
• The parameters to be qualified for invoking Section 111 of BNS are: 
  • The offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed. 
  • The accused should be a member of an organized crime syndicate. 
  • He should have committed the crime as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. 
  • He should have been charge sheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more and the Court before which chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognizance of such offence and includes economic offence; 
  • The crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma have held that an advocate's right to appear in Court is coupled with the duty to be present in the Court at the time of hearing. 

• The Supreme Court has held in the matter of Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. Case? 

• The case involves Miscellaneous Applications filed in Criminal Appeal. 
• The Miscellaneous Applications were jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). 
• These applications sought intervention in a disposed criminal matter and requested clarification/modification of directions of a judgment dated 20th September 2024. 
• The applicants' primary concerns related to the recording of appearances of advocates in court proceedings. 
• The SCBA and SCAORA expressed concerns that the directions in the original judgment would adversely affect their members' rights, including: 
  • Voting rights in bar associations. 
  • Eligibility for chamber allotments in the Supreme Court premises. 
  • Consideration for designation as Senior Advocates. 
• The associations argued that the recording of appearances impacts: 
  • The criteria for designation as Senior Advocates, which requires submitting reported/unreported judgments where the advocate appeared as arguing or assisting counsel. 
  • The eligibility for chamber allocation in the Supreme Court premises 
  • Voting eligibility in the SCBA, which requires a minimum number of appearances. 
• The associations contended there was an established practice in the Supreme Court to mark appearances of all counsels present for a case who contributed to its adjudication. 
• The matter concerns the interpretation and application of various provisions, including: 
  • The Advocates Act, 1961 
  • The Bar Council of India Rules 
  • The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2019) 
  • Form No. 30 in the Fourth Schedule of the Supreme Court Rules regarding Appearance Slips 
• The case fundamentally addresses the question of whether advocates have an indefeasible right to appear for a party or get their appearances marked when not duly authorized. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court Observed that: 
  • The Supreme Court noted that they were "constrained to give the impugned directions as a part of corrective measures" because the court had found "not only a misuse and abuse of process of law, but also a fraud on the court having been prima facie committed at the instance of the party-litigants and their advocates involved in the case." 
  • The Court observed a "very strange practice" being followed in the Supreme Court regarding marking the appearances of numerous advocates for a party, without verification of whether they were all authorized to appear for that party. 
  • The Court noted that in almost all matters, "a number of appearances of Advocates would be shown in the Record of Proceedings, running into pages and pages, without any verification as to whether such advocates were in fact present in the Court or were in fact authorized to appear for a particular party in the case." 
  • The Court emphasized that a right of an advocate to appear for a party is "coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability." 
  • The Court observed that "in many cases the Advocate-on-Record would merely lend his/her name without any further participation in the proceedings of the case." It noted that Advocates-on-Record would "seldom be found present along with the Senior Advocate." 
  • The Court stated that "no practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules," particularly when the Rules are framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court emphasized that "casual, formal or ineffective presence in the Court along with the AOR or arguing Advocate, without due authorization by the party concerned, cannot entitle the Advocate to insist the Court Master to record his or her appearance in the Record of Proceedings." 
  • The Court rejected the argument that their directions would have an adverse impact on the rights of advocates, stating that there is "no fundamental right or statutory right of an Advocate to have an allotment of chamber in any court premises" and that the "right to vote or to contest election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but is purely a statutory right." 
  • The Court concluded that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2019) have "statutory force" and must be "adhered to and complied with by all the officers of the Court as also the Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court." 

What are the Differences Between Senior Advocates and Advocates-on-Record (AOR)?