Target CLAT 2026 (Crash Course) Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) Starting On: 22 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Lucknow Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Karol Bagh Starting On: 12 May 2025 (Admission Open)
         









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

 01-Apr-2025

Iman Pratapgadhi v. The State of Gujarat And Anr. 

“Therefore, when the commission of cognizable offences is alleged, where punishment is for imprisonment up to 7 years, which is based on spoken or written words, it will always be appropriate to exercise the option under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 and conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed.” 

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that when allegation is of the commission of offence covered by law referred to in Article 19 (2), if Section 173 (3) is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025). 

What was the Background of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) Case?   

  • On 26th January 2025, the Indian Constitution completed 75 years of existence. 
  • The case involves a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution - the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
  • The appellant, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted a video clip on social media platform 'X' with a poem recited in the background. 
  • The incident occurred after the appellant attended a mass wedding program on 29th December 2024, organized on the birthday of Altaf Ghafarbhai Khafi, a Municipal Councillor of Jamnagar. 
  • The 2nd respondent (first informant) filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Jamnagar Police Station against the appellant. 
  • The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
  • The complaint alleges that the poem in the video: 
    • Incites people of one community against another. 
    • Hurts religious and social sentiments of a community. 
    • Creates enmity between two communities at the national level. 
    • Has a detrimental effect on national unity. 
  • The text of the poem has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment (and is quoted in the provided text). 
  • The case suggests that despite 75 years of constitutional existence, law enforcement either lacks awareness of or disregards the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. 
  • The Appellant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the FIR, and subsequently submitted an affidavit stating that the poem was likely authored by either Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib (based on ChatGPT research), asserting that the poem conveyed a message of love and non-violence. 
  • The High Court (learned Single Judge) rejected the petition, reasoning that the investigation was at a "very nascent stage" and citing the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra as grounds for not interfering with the investigation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court first of all discussed the law on preliminary investigation before registration of FIR. 
  • The Court observed that as per Section 173 (3) of BNSS in the category of cases mentioned a police officer is empowered to conduct preliminary inquiry to ascertain if a prima facie case is made out for proceeding. 
  • Under Section 173 (3) of BNSS after holding preliminary inquiry if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should proceed to investigate the case and register the FIR. 
  • Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS confers a discretion on the officer receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists to proceed. This option is available when the offence alleged is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years. 
  • In the facts of the present case all the offences except the one falling under Section 57 of BNS are punishable by imprisonment for less than 7 years. 
  • The Court finally held that in the facts of the present case even without taking recourse to sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, the information furnished to the police officer did not attract the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS. 
  • The Court also observed that in the facts of the present case it is impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant. 
  • The Court thus, in the facts of the case set aside the order passed by the High Court.

What are the Changes Made in BNSS with respect to Preliminary Inquiry? 

  • Section 173 (3) of BNSS provides for preliminary inquiry which is a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC which does not provide for any such inquiry. 
  • Section 173 (3) of BNSS provides the following: 
    • Upon receiving information about a cognizable offence that carries a punishment of three to less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station must obtain prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police before proceeding further. 
    • After obtaining such permission and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the officer in charge has two options available. 
    • The first option is to conduct a preliminary inquiry within fourteen days to determine if a prima facie case exists that warrants further action. 
    • The second option is to directly proceed with a full investigation if a prima facie case already exists. 
  • Under CrPC the scope of preliminary inquiry is as follows: 
    • As held in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) only a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether information received discloses a cognizable offence. 
    • A preliminary inquiry can be made under CrPC only if the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. 
  • Under BNSS preliminary inquiry is provided under Section 173 (3) of BNSS: 
    • Section 173 (3) of BNSS is an exception to Section 173 (1) of BNSS. 
    • In the category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence. 
    • Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. 
    • But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173. 

Constitutional Law

Article 311 of the COI

 01-Apr-2025

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra 

“Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not on its own terms require that disciplinary proceedings be initiated” 

Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that an appointing authority's approval is required for dismissal but not for initiating disciplinary action. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the matter of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025). 

What was the Background of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025 Case ? 

  • Rukma Kesh Mishra was a civil service officer in the State of Jharkhand who faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct including dishonesty, financial irregularities, and forgery of documents. 
  • On 13th January 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Koderma initiated a proposal seeking approval to start disciplinary proceedings against Mishra, which included a draft charge-sheet containing nine charges. 
  • The Chief Minister of Jharkhand approved the proposal on 21st March 2014, including the suspension of Mishra and appointment of inquiry and presenting officers. 
  • Mishra was suspended from service on 31st March 2014, and a formal charge-sheet was issued on 4th April 2014, under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 
  • After Mishra denied the allegations, an inquiry was conducted in which he participated, and the inquiry officer found him guilty of most charges in a report submitted on 31st July 2015. 
  • A second show cause notice was issued to Mishra on 11th April 2016, to which he responded on 24th September 2016. 
  • The State Cabinet approved a proposal to dismiss Mishra on 13th June 2017, after which the Governor issued a dismissal order on 16th June 2017. 
  • Mishra challenged his dismissal in the High Court of Jharkhand, primarily arguing that the charge-sheet had not been properly approved by the Chief Minister, who was the competent authority. 
  • Through RTI information, Mishra claimed that the Chief Minister's approval had not been "accorded at the time of issuing/signing of the memo of charge," which became the central issue in his legal challenge. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court held that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) does not on its own terms require that disciplinary proceedings be initiated by the appointing authority; the sole safeguard it provides is that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. 
  • The Court affirmed that a charge-sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority; any controlling authority superior to the charged officer can initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet, unless specific rules provide otherwise. 
  • The Court observed that when the Chief Minister approved the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, which included the draft charge-sheet, it amounted to approval of the charge-sheet itself; no separate approval was required. 
  • The Court noted that mechanical reliance on precedents as if they were statutes is improper; courts must distinguish precedents based on factual dissimilarities when appropriate. 
  • The Court clarified that the phrases "draw up" and "cause to be drawn up" in disciplinary rules have different meanings - the former means the Disciplinary Authority itself prepares the charge-sheet, while the latter allows delegation of this task. 
  • The Court relied on established precedents including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh (1970), P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993), Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy (1995), and Inspector General of Police v. Thavasippan (1996), which consistently held that a charge-sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority. 
  • The Court distinguished B.V. Gopinath v. Union of India (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018), noting that these decisions were based on different disciplinary rules that expressly specified who could issue charge-sheets. 
  • The Court found that the High Court's reliance on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar was misplaced, as those decisions dealt with different rules that expressly specified who could issue charge sheets, unlike Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules applicable in this case. 
  • The Court observed that an officer's charge of committing offences including dishonesty, financial irregularities, and forgery must be properly adjudicated according to established legal principles governing disciplinary proceedings. 

What is Article 311 of the Constitution of India? 

  • Article 311 of Constitution of India deals with Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. 
  • No civil servant can be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them. 
  • No civil servant can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an inquiry where they are informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 
  • Once the inquiry is completed, penalties can be imposed based on evidence without further opportunity for representation. 
  • The requirement for inquiry does not apply if the person is dismissed based on conduct that led to criminal conviction. 
  • The inquiry requirement is also waived if the dismissing authority finds it's not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry and records this in writing. 
  • The inquiry can be bypassed if the President or Governor determines that national security interests make it inexpedient to hold an inquiry. 
  • If a question arises about whether holding an inquiry is reasonably practicable, the decision of the dismissing authority is final. 
  • These provisions are designed to provide procedural safeguards for civil servants while allowing exceptions in specific circumstances.