List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that in cases involving child trafficking, expeditious trial is essential to ensure justice, and directed all High Courts to monitor and ensure the completion of such trials within six months, while also mandating the implementation of recommendations from the BIRD report treating cases of missing children as potential trafficking or abduction until proven otherwise. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pinki v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Pinki v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr,2025 Case? 

• The case concerns an interstate child-trafficking racket where multiple FIRs (No. 201/2023, 193/2023, 76/2023, 74/2023, and 50/2023) were registered at various police stations in Varanasi for offences under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The victims were children from impoverished backgrounds who were kidnapped while sleeping with their parents on pavements or streets, including a four-year-old boy named Rohit and a one-year-old girl named Mohini. 
• The trafficking operation involved multiple accused persons who would kidnap children and sell them across states including Rajasthan, Bihar, and Jharkhand to childless couples for amounts ranging from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 10 lakhs. 
• The Allahabad High Court had granted bail to 13 accused persons involved in these cases, which was challenged by the victims' families through Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. 
• The police investigation revealed an organized racket with different roles: some accused were involved in kidnapping, others in transporting the children, and some functioned as agents who sold the children to buyers. 
• Chargesheets were filed in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 5, and Chief Judicial Magistrate in Varanasi, but the cases were pending for committal to the Court of Sessions. 
• Many accused persons absconded after being released on bail, and their whereabouts became unknown to the police, which jeopardized the trial proceedings. 
• One of the trafficked children was recovered on 20.03.2025 from the custody of accused Anil Prasad Baranwal in Kolkata, West Bengal, after intervention by the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the Allahabad High Court for dealing with the bail applications in a "very callous manner," which ultimately allowed many accused persons to abscond and jeopardize the trial. 
• The Court criticized the High Court for not imposing conditions on the accused to mark their presence weekly at the concerned police station to enable police monitoring of their movements. 
• The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State's handling of the situation, questioning why it did not challenge the bail orders granted by the High Court and noting that the "State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name." 
• The Court observed that in cases of child trafficking, which it described as "a kind of modern day slavery," the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favor of the accused persons given the serious nature of the offence and the modus operandi adopted. 
• The Court emphasized that "true test to ascertain whether discretion has been judiciously exercised or not is to see whether the court has been able to strike a balance between the personal liberty of the accused and the interest of the State, in other words, the societal interests." 
• The Court noted that several accused persons, including Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal, and Manish Jain, played significant roles in the trafficking network, with Manish Jain being described as "one of the kingpins in the entire racket." 

What were the Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court?  

• The Supreme Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Varanasi to commit all three criminal cases to the sessions court within two weeks without fail. 
• The Court mandated that upon commitment of the cases, the concerned trial court shall proceed to frame charges against individual accused persons within one week thereafter. 
• The Court instructed that if any accused persons have absconded, the trial court shall immediately take steps to secure their presence by issuing non-bailable warrants, and the trial of absconding accused shall be separated in accordance with law so that the trial of other co-accused persons does not get delayed. 
• The Court ordered that once charges are framed, the concerned trial courts shall proceed with recording evidence preferably on day-to-day basis and complete the trial proceedings within six months. 
• The Court directed the State Government to appoint three special public prosecutors well-versed in criminal trials at the earliest to conduct the trials. 
• The Court mandated that the State Government provide police protection to the victims and their families pending the trial to prevent tampering of evidence. 
• The Court granted the State Police two months to trace all absconding accused persons, apprehend them, and produce them before the concerned court. 
• The Court directed the State Government to ensure that trafficked children are admitted to schools in accordance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and to continue providing support for their education. 
• The Court instructed that at the end of the trial, the concerned trial court shall pass appropriate orders regarding compensation to victims under the BNSS 2023 and the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh. 
• The Court directed all State Governments across the country to study and implement the recommendations in the Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD) report dated 12.04.2023. 
• The Court ordered all High Courts across the country to call for necessary information regarding the status of pending trials relating to child trafficking, issue a circular for completion of trials within six months, and forward a compliance report to the Supreme Court. 
• The Court stipulated that non-compliance with its directions or any laxity by any authorities shall be viewed very strictly and may result in contempt proceedings. 
• The Court directed that if any newborn infant is trafficked from any hospital, the immediate action should be suspension of the hospital's license in addition to other legal actions. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh laid down two prong test to solve the conundrum produced by Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited (2025) Case?   

• Two appeals arise from a common judgment dated 22nd October 2024, by the Gujarat High Court concerning a copyright infringement dispute. 
• The case involves Inox India Limited (Respondent) against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited (Appellants) regarding alleged IP infringement related to Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems. 
• Inox filed a Trademark Suit on 24th September 2018, alleging the Appellants infringed copyright in their Proprietary Engineering Drawings and Literary Works for LNG Semi-trailers. 
• Inox sought declarations of infringement, permanent injunctions against using their drawings and IP, surrender of infringing materials, and damages of Rs. 2 Crores. 
• LNG Express filed an application to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), claiming the drawings were actually "designs" under the Designs Act, 2000 (DA) and ineligible for copyright protection after 50 industrial reproductions. 
• The Commercial Court initially allowed LNG Express's application on 1st April 2022, rejecting Inox's plaint and interim injunction request. 
• The High Court set aside this order on 13th March 2024, and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court. 
• On 3rd May 2024, the Commercial Court again rejected Inox's plaint and dismissed their interim injunction application. 
• The High Court, through the Impugned Judgment, set aside the Commercial Court's orders, ruling that it erred in presuming the drawings qualified as "designs" under the Designs Act. 
• The High Court restored the original suit and directed the Commercial Court to decide on the interim injunction application within eight weeks.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court determined the following two issues: 
  • What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (CA) thereby classifying it as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the DA? 
  • Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC? 
• The Court first of all analyzed the laws applicable for protection under the Copyright Act. 
• The Court observed that ‘artistic work’ under Section 2 (c) of the CA has a wide connotation and enjoys protection under Section 14 (c) of the CA. 
• However, if the artistic work is reproduced through an industrial process (manual, mechanical, or chemical) resulting in a visually appealing article, the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition constitute a 'design' under Section 2(d) of the DA. 
• While an 'artistic work' qualifies for copyright protection, its commercial or industrial application (the 'design') is subject to limitations under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. 
• A design derived from an artistic work receives protection only if registered under the DA. 'Artistic work' has a broad definition, while 'design' is restricted to specific features (shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or color composition) applied industrially to create visually appealing products. 
• Works not qualifying as 'artistic works' under the Copyright Act do not automatically receive protection under the DA. Protection under the DA is less enduring than under the Copyright Act and requires meeting specific criteria. 
• Courts apply the 'functional utility' test to determine if a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act. 
• The Court in this case laid down two pronged approach in order to crack open the conundrum caused by Section 15 (2) of CA: 
  • Whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the CA or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the CA. 
  • If such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design protection under the DA. 
• The Court held that the High Court was correct in laying down that the question as to whether the original artistic work will fall within the meaning of design cannot be answered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

What is Design?

• Section 2 (d) of DA defines the term “design”. 
• A "design" refers to features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to articles in either two-dimensional or three-dimensional forms. 
• These features must be applied through an industrial process (manual, mechanical, or chemical) and must appeal visually in the finished article. 
• The definition explicitly excludes: 
  • Any mode or principle of construction 
  • Anything that is essentially a mechanical device 
  • Trademarks as defined under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 
  • Property marks as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
  • Artistic works as defined in section 2(c) of the CA.

Which Provision Provides for Interplay Between Design and Copyright? 

• Section 15 (1) provides that copyright protection does not subsist in any design that is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. 
• Section 15 (2) provides that for designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act but which remain unregistered, copyright protection ceases once any article incorporating that design has been reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process by either the copyright owner or any licensed person.