List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice C. S. Sudha states that the absence of specific legal provisions to address cyberbullying and online harassment, urging legislative action to fill this gap. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v. State of Kerala and Another? 

• The appellant/accused was charged in Crime No. 251/2024 at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, for uploading a derogatory video on his YouTube channel, Visal Media. 
• The case involves the appellant downloading and editing videos originally uploaded by Sooraj Palakkaran, an editor of True T.V., depicting the second respondent/informant. 
• The edited video included an interview with the informant's husband and portrayed her as a person allegedly involved in immoral activities. 
• The appellant created and uploaded the video on 22nd June 2022, allegedly with prior knowledge of the informant's scheduled caste background. 
• The video described the informant as a woman who deserted her husband, allegedly engaged in immoral activities, and was part of a supposed sex racket. 
• The informant had previously filed complaints against online platforms like Crime Online, True T.V., and Bharat Live T.V. 
• The appellant was charged under multiple sections, including Section 354A(i)(iii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act,2000 (IT) and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 
• The appellant sought pre-arrest bail, which was initially dismissed by the Sessions Court, leading to this appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court carefully examined the video content and found it to be indisputably derogatory and constituting online harassment against the informant. 
• While acknowledging that the appellant did not specifically mention the informant's caste name, the court determined that the video's content was abusive and insulting. 
• The court noted that the video depicted the informant as a woman of loose morals and sexually promiscuous, with the content viewed by over 100,000 people. 
• The legal analysis revealed potential challenges in establishing offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 due to insufficient evidence. 
• The court states a significant gap in legal frameworks addressing cyberbullying, particularly non-sexual forms of online harassment. 
• Despite the lack of explicit caste references, the court found that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out. 
• The court ultimately dismissed the appellant's appeal, maintaining that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act was correctly applied by the trial court. 

What is Cyber Bullying? 

• Cyberbullying is a form of harassment that occurs through digital platforms, utilizing electronic devices and online communication channels to intentionally harm, degrade, or intimidate another person. 
• It encompasses various malicious activities such as sending threatening messages, sharing embarrassing images or videos, spreading rumors, creating fake online profiles, and excluding individuals from digital social groups. 
• Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying provides perpetrators constant access to victims through mobile devices and often allows for anonymous harassment, making it particularly distressing. 
• The digital nature of cyberbullying means that harmful content can be quickly shared, potentially reaching a wide audience and causing prolonged psychological damage to the victim. 
• Typical manifestations of cyberbullying include social media harassment, messaging service abuse, online stalking, and creating platforms to publicly humiliate or shame individuals. 
• The psychological consequences for victims can be severe, potentially leading to reduced self-confidence, social withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and in extreme cases, suicidal thoughts. 
• With the increasing prevalence of internet and digital technologies, cyberbullying has emerged as a significant social issue, particularly affecting younger demographics and women. 
• Unlike traditional bullying confined to specific spaces like schools, cyberbullying transcends physical boundaries, making victims vulnerable to harassment at any time and from anywhere. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Cyber Bullying? 

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) provides several sections addressing cybercrimes, including Sections 66(D), 66(E), and 67, which offer penalties for misusing personal details, publishing inappropriate content, and posting vulgar or insulting information online. 
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) contains multiple provisions that can be applied to cyberbullying, including Section 507 for criminal threats, Section 354(C) for non-consensual photography of women, and Section 354(D) for online stalking and monitoring without consent. 
• Section 499 of the IPC penalizes derogatory communications, which can be interpreted as cyberbullying when conducted through social media or digital platforms. 
• Specific provisions targeting women's protection include Section 354A for sexual harassment and Section 354D for stalking, which covers both offline and online monitoring of a woman's electronic communications. 
• The IT Act and IPC provide legal recourse for various forms of digital harassment, such as Section 67 for publishing pornographic content, Section 67A for transmitting sexually explicit material, and Section 509 for actions intended to offend a woman's modesty. 
• For men facing cyberstalking, legal remedies include defamation under Section 499 and criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC, though specific protection mechanisms are less comprehensive compared to those for women. 
• Additional legal provisions include Section 292A for printing or advertising obscene or slanderous material, Section 66E for privacy invasion, and Section 507 for anonymous criminal communications. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures. 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2025). 

What was the Background of the Indian Medical Association v. Union of India Case? 

• The case originated from a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) primarily targeting misleading medical advertisements, with a specific focus on Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.  
• The primary concern was the proliferation of advertisements making unsubstantiated medical claims, potentially misleading the public about health treatments and remedies. 
• Patanjali's Advertising Practices Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., a prominent alternative medicine and consumer goods company co-founded by Baba Ramdev and led by Acharya Balkrishna, was at the center of the controversy.  
• The company was accused of publishing advertisements that made exaggerated or false claims about medical treatments and products. 
• The case centered on the implementation and enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which was designed to prevent misleading medical advertisements but had been ineffectively implemented over seven decades. 
• The matter progressed through multiple stages: 
  • The IMA's initial petition sought regulation of medical advertisements. 
  • The case expanded to include contempt proceedings against Patanjali's leadership. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Implementation of the DMR Act: 
    • The 1954 Act is over 70 years old. 
    • There has been poor implementation of the Act "in its letter and spirit." 
    • The Act's provisions have not been adequately implemented despite being longstanding legislation. 
  • Scope of "Advertisement" - The Court observed that "advertisement" under the Act: 
    • Is not restricted to printed media or television. 
    • Covers a broad range of communication methods including:  
      • Circular 
      • Label 
      • Wrapper 
      • Any document 
      • Oral announcements 
      • Visual stimulations 
      • Light and sound representations 
      • Oral or transmitted sound and smoke representations 
      • The Court noted that Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the DMR Act: 
      • Apply to those who design advertisements. 
      • Apply to those who publish prohibited advertisements. 
  • The Court referenced the DMR Act's original objectives, emphasizing that misleading advertisements: 
    • They can cause great harm to society. 
    • Need to be stopped to protect "ignorant masses." 
  • The Court observed that: 
    • Most states are only issuing warnings and undertakings. 
    • This approach is insufficient for addressing misleading advertisements. 
    • A more robust enforcement mechanism is needed. 
  • The Court noted: 
    • Some states have not complied with previous orders. 
    • Specific states like Himachal Pradesh, known for pharmaceutical manufacturing, had not filed compliance affidavits. 

What are the Directions Issued by the Supreme Court? 

• Appointment of Authorized Officers:  
  • States must appoint an adequate number of gazetted officers authorized under Section 8 of the DMR Act. 
  • These officers will have powers for search and seizure, 
  • Appointments must be completed within one month from the date of the order. 
• Police Machinery Sensitization: 
  • States must sensitize their police machinery about the DMR Act's provisions. 
  • This will be done through state police training academies. 
  • Goal: Ensure better understanding and implementation of the Act. 
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism: 
  • States must create grievance redressal mechanisms for the public. 
  • Mechanisms should allow citizens to lodge complaints about objectionable advertisements. 
  • Two primary complaint channels must be established:  
    • A toll-free number 
    • An email system 
  • These mechanisms must be established within two months. 
  • States must give "adequate publicity" to these complaint channels. 
• Complaint Processing Protocol: 
  • When a complaint is received through the grievance mechanism:  
    • It must be immediately forwarded to the officer authorized under Section 8(1) of DMR. 
    • If the authorized officer finds a violation of the 1954 Act. 
    • The officer must initiate criminal proceedings by lodging a First Information Report (FIR) at the local police station. 
• Public Awareness and Education: 
  • The Court directed the registry to forward the order to the National Legal Services Authority. 
  • Purpose: Conduct sensitization programs in legal camps. 
  • Programs should:  
    • Educate the public about the DMR Act's provisions. 
    • Warn citizens about potential health risks from misleading advertisements. 
    • Highlight the dangers of following misleading medical advertisements. 
• Dashboard Development: 
  • The Union of India was directed to develop a digital dashboard. 
  • Purpose: Allow states to upload information about actions taken under the 1954 Act. 
  • Timeline: Dashboard to be developed within 3 months. 
• Compliance Reporting: 
  • All states and the Union of India must report compliance with these directions. 
  • Deadline: End of June 2025. 
• Specific State Directions: 
  • Himachal Pradesh was specifically directed to file compliance affidavits by April 2025. 
  • The Court ordered the registry to forward the order to:  
    • The state's Chief Secretary. 
    • The state's Advocate on Record.

What Does the DMR Act Prohibit? 

• Section 3 of the Act prohibits the advertisements of drugs for: 
  • the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women; or 
  • the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human beings for sexual pleasure; or 
  • the correction of menstrual disorder in women; or 
  • the cure related to diseases specified in the Schedule and the Rules whih include diseases like cancer, cataract, diabetes, blood pressure, venereal diseases, kidney stones etc. 
  • Section 4 prohibits misleading advertisements giving false impressions or false claims regarding the drugs. Section 5 prohibits advertisements of magic remedies. Section 6 prohibits the import of objectionable advertisements. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held that when moulding the relief, the Court considers the issues and circumstances established during full-fledged trial, looks at shortening of litigation and then in its perspective render complete justice. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of J Ganapatha and others v. N Selvaraj Alou Chetty Trust Rep by its Trustees (2025). 

What was the Background of J Ganapatha and others v. N Selvaraj Alou Chetty Trust Rep by it’s Trustees (2025) Case?   

• In 1929, Somasundaram Chettiar purchased a property of 0.75 cents through a registered sale deed. He was the brother-in-law of N. Selvarajalou Chetty.
• In 1952, Padmini Chandrasekaran (daughter of N. Selvarajalou Chetty) filed a civil suit to resolve the right and title to her father's property. This suit was decreed, leading to appeals by both parties. 
• On 04th May 1962, a court auction sale of properties offered as security by Somasundaram Chettiar was held, and Padmini Chandrasekaran became the auction purchaser. 
• On 30th May 1962, Somasundaram Chettiar executed a will in favor of his adoptive son (Defendant No. 1), and he passed away on 14.06.1962. 
• On 25^th September 1963, the Advocate Commissioner executed a sale deed in favor of Padmini Chandrasekaran for the property in question. 
• On 30^th September 1975, Padmini Chandrasekaran executed a will bequeathing properties to the N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and some individuals, specifically mentioning a 0.75 cent land to be sold with proceeds deposited in a fixed deposit for Vinayagamurthy. 
• On 24^th February1992, V. Arumuga Chandran (Defendant No. 2) executed sale deeds on behalf of S. Sarvothaman (Defendant No. 1) in favor of Defendants 3 to 6. 
• On 12th March 1998, the N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust filed a civil suit (C.S. No. 504 of 1998) against the defendants, seeking: 
  • Declaration that the 1992 sale deeds are void. 
  • Possession of the property. 
  • Permanent injunction against dealing with the property. 
• The Trust's primary argument is that Padmini Chandrasekaran became the absolute owner through the 1962 court auction and 1963 sale deed, and therefore the 1962 will by Somasundaram Chettiar could not transfer ownership to Defendant No. 1. 
• The defendants (particularly Defendants 3-6) argue that they were unaware of previous encumbrances and that the 1963 sale deed did not properly convey title against Defendant No. 1's rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Defendants did not challenge the court's competence to mould relief but argued that moulding relief in favor of the will's executors was illegal. 
• Padmini Chandrasekaran died without children and had divided her property disposition between a trust and specific individuals, bequeathing the specific property to Vinayagamurthy and his children. 
• The original executors of her will, Dr. H.B.N. Shetty and Shri R. Krishnamoorthy, were aged and some had passed away, which influenced the court's decision. 
• The Single Judge found that the first defendant had no title to sell the property to defendants 3-6, and the sale was invalid. 
• The Court considered it unnecessary to make H.B.N. Shetty file another suit, especially given his advanced age (over 80 years) and the 8-year delay. 
• The Court allowed the suit to be decreed in favor of H.B.N. Shetty in his capacity as executor of Padmini Chandrasekaran's will. 
• The Division Bench confirmed the Single Judge's findings, and the Civil Appeal court reviewed whether the moulding of relief was tenable. 
• The Court found that Padmini Chandrasekaran's ownership was established, the trust's declaration was not accepted, and an independent disposition was made to Vinayagamurthy. 
• The Appellate Court emphasized minimal interference in relief moulding, focusing on shortening litigation and preventing further legal complications. 
• Ultimately, the Civil Appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court. 

When Can the Relief be Moulded? 

• Moulding of relief is a judicial power that allows courts to modify the relief sought by a party based on the specific circumstances and facts established during a trial. 
• The principle enables courts to grant appropriate remedies even when the original relief request is not precise or has been rendered obsolete by changing circumstances. 
• Courts aim to serve justice by maintaining flexibility in relief and exercising equitable jurisdiction, guided by judicial discretion. 
• When moulding relief, courts carefully consider the issues and circumstances established during the trial, with the primary goal of shortening litigation and rendering complete justice. 
• The fundamental principle is that the modified relief should not surprise or prejudice the aggrieved party. 
• Moulding of relief is an exceptional measure, not a standard procedural practice, and is applied sparingly and thoughtfully. 
• The ultimate objective is to provide a just and practical resolution that adapts to the evolving nature of legal proceedings while maintaining fairness to all parties involved.