List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the power under Section 348 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness must be exercised cautiously and only for strong, valid reasons to ensure the ends of justice. 

• The Chhattisgarh High Court held this in the matter of Abc Prescription of Prosecutrix in the Closed Envelope v. Anil Kumar (2025).

What was the Background of Abc Prescription of Prosecutrix in the Closed Envelope v. Anil Kumar (2025) Case? 

• Respondent No. 1, Anil Kumar, is accused in Special Sessions Case No. 67/2021 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti District Janjgir-Champa. 
• The accused has been charged with offences under Sections 454 (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 8 (punishment for sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. 
• The prosecutrix was examined in court on 30th March 2022 and was cross-examined extensively by the accused during the proceedings. 
• On 19th February 2025, approximately three years after her initial testimony, the prosecutrix filed an application under Section 348 BNSS seeking re-cross-examination. 
• In her application, the prosecutrix claimed that her earlier testimony was given under pressure from her parents when she conceived pregnancy, after which her parents expelled her from their house. 
• The prosecutrix further claimed that she subsequently went to the house of the accused and delivered a child, and that she was about 18 years of age at the time of the incident, which is why she sought re-cross-examination on this point. 
• The prosecutrix produced a birth certificate as supporting evidence, which was registered with the authorities on 27th September 2024, approximately two and a half years after her original deposition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the prosecutrix was fully examined and re-cross-examined in 2022, with detailed cross-examination conducted where she responded to all questions without indicating any parental pressure. 
• The Court noted that the application filed by the prosecutrix contradicted her earlier evidence given as PW-2 in the proceedings. 
• The Court observed that the birth certificate produced by the prosecutrix to support her claim of being 18 years old at the time of the incident was registered on 27.09.2024, approximately two and a half years after her original testimony. 
• The Court determined that the prosecutrix had not provided any reasons for the delay in filing the application for re-cross-examination. 
• The Court observed that Section 348 of BNSS (formerly Section 311 of CrPC) can only be invoked to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 
• The Court concluded that the entire scenario indicated the prosecutrix had been "won over by the defence" and that the benefit of Section 348 of BNSS cannot be extended to parties to fill up lacunae in their case. 

What is Section 348 of BNSS ? 

About: 

• Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita confers upon courts a discretionary power to summon any person as a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita. 
• The provision vests courts with the authority to examine any person in attendance, even if not summoned as a witness, thus expanding the court's evidentiary scope beyond formal witness lists. 
• Courts are empowered under this to recall and re-examine any witness previously examined when deemed necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 
• While the first part of Section 348 grants discretionary power, the latter part imposes a mandatory obligation ("shall summon") upon courts to recall and re-examine witnesses whose evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. 
• This provision serves the paramount objective of preventing failure of justice that might otherwise occur due to inadequate evidence or testimonial omissions. 
• The judicial interpretation of this section establishes that such power must be exercised judiciously, with caution and circumspection, only for strong and valid reasons, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. 
• Courts must balance the exercise of this power with considerations of potential hardship to witnesses, undue delay in proceedings, and the need to prevent unfair advantage to either party in the litigation. 

Case Laws: 

• Ratan Lal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) - The Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) enables courts to find truth and render just decisions by allowing them to summon, examine, or recall witnesses, but this power must be exercised only for strong and valid reasons with caution and circumspection. 
• Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2011) - The Supreme Court clarified that the discretionary power under Section 311 can only be invoked for the ends of justice and should be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily. 
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Others (2006) - The Supreme Court held that Section 311 exists to prevent failure of justice due to mistakes by either party in bringing valuable evidence on record. 
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2016) - The Supreme Court emphasized that recall of witnesses is not a matter of course and must be justified by tangible reasons, not merely claiming it's "for ensuring fair trial." 
• Umar Mohammad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2007) - The Supreme Court underscored the importance of explaining delay in filing applications for recalling witnesses. 
• Manghi @ Narendra v. State of M.P. (2005) - The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a witness, once examined as a prosecution witness, cannot be recalled merely because they filed an affidavit contrary to their earlier deposition. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that hospital can be held vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the doctor which caused the death of the patient. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of The Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of The Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr.(2025) Case?   

• This case involves an appeal by Kamineni Hospitals challenging orders related to medical negligence compensation. 
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had imposed a liability of Rs. 15 lakhs on the hospital and Rs. 5 lakhs on Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar (total Rs. 20 lakhs). 
• The case concerns the death of a 27-year-old son of Respondent No. 1 (Peddi Narayana Swami). 
• The deceased was a B.Tech graduate working in a soap factory at the time of his death. 
• The hospital appealed claiming there was no medical negligence, arguing they followed standard care procedures and had obtained necessary permissions from the patient's attendants. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of medical negligence against both Kamineni Hospitals and Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar. 
• The Court determined there was "ample evidence" and records indicating medical negligence, validating the conclusions reached by both the APSCDRC and NCDRC. 
• The Court rejected the hospital's argument that they had followed standard care procedures and obtained necessary permissions. 
• The Court upheld the vicarious liability of the hospital for the negligence of its doctors and staff. 
• Regarding compensation quantum, the Court considered the deceased's age (27), education (B.Tech), employment (soap factory), and future earning potential. 
• The Court confirmed the NCDRC's assessment of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid by Dr. Vidyasagar was appropriate. 
• The Court modified the hospital's liability from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs plus accrued interest. 
• The Court ruled that the modified compensation amount "would serve the interest of justice" and would be sufficient for the hospital's liability. 
• The Court directed that the deposited amount with accrued interest be disbursed to the complainant upon application to the Court Registrar. 
• The appeal was disposed of with these terms, maintaining the finding of negligence but adjusting the compensation amount. 

What is Medical Negligence? 

• Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) medical negligence is contained in Section 106. 
• Any person who causes the death of another person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• If such rash or negligent act causing death is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the practitioner shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. 
• For the purposes of this provision, a "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognized under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. 
• The definition of "registered medical practitioner" extends to practitioners whose names have been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. 
• Medical practitioners face a reduced maximum imprisonment term (two years instead of five years) compared to the general provision for causing death by negligence. 

What are the Case Laws on Medical Negligence? 

• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (2006):  
  • In this case the Supreme Court held defined negligence as Negligence is defined as when a defendant fails to use ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom he/she owes a duty, resulting in the plaintiff suffering damage to his person or property  
  • The Court further stated the difference between medical negligence and criminal negligence.  
• Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (2005):   
  • The court in this case held that negligence occurs when the expected standards are not followed by the medical practitioner, however if due care has been taken then negligence cannot be constituted.  
• Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research (2010):   
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that being negligent means doing or not doing something that a prudent man would do or not do. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that a person appointed to the State Waqf Board as a Muslim member of the State Bar Council ceases to be a member of the Waqf Board once their tenure in the Bar Council ends. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. The State of Manipur & Ors.(2025). 

What was the Background of Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. The State of Manipur & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• An individual named Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid was elected as a member of the Bar Council of Manipur on 26th December 2022. 
• On 8th February 2023, the Government of Manipur appointed Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid as a member of the 7th Waqf Board Committee, replacing a previous member who had ceased to be a member of the Bar Council of Manipur. 
• The appointment was made under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) and 14(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, which allows for Muslim members of State Bar Councils to be appointed to the Waqf Board. 
• The previous member (respondent No. 3) challenged this appointment by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. 
• The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 23rd August, 2023, ruling that since respondent No. 3 had lost the Bar Council election, he could no longer continue as a member of the Waqf Board. 
• A Division Bench of the High Court, however, overturned this decision on 23rd November 2023, holding that a person could continue to be a member of the Waqf Board even after ceasing to be a member of the Bar Council. 
• This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, leading to the present case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the substantive part of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995, makes it mandatory for a Waqf Board member to fulfill twin conditions: They must be from the Muslim community and must hold a position either as a Member of Parliament, State Legislative Assembly, or Bar Council. 
• The Court noted that an explanation to a statutory provision performs a clarificatory function and cannot be interpreted in a manner that violates the substantive part of the provision. 
• The Court held that there is no intelligible differentia for treating Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly differently from Members of Bar Council regarding continuation in the Waqf Board after cessation of their primary position. 
• The Court observed that when a right accrues to a person pursuant to a position they hold, it becomes a qualification, and once such qualification ceases to exist, the person would not be eligible to hold any other post based on their earlier position. 
• The Court determined that an ex-Member of the Bar Council would be eligible for Waqf Board membership only when there is no serving Muslim Member in the Bar Council and no Senior Muslim advocate available. 
• The Court concluded that Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act must be given a harmonious construction to mean that the term of a Bar Council Member serving on the Waqf Board is co-terminus with their membership in the Bar Council itself. 
• The Court found that the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another) was not applicable to this case as it would result in an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent. 

What is Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995? 

• Section 14 deals with Composition of Board. 
• Section 14(1) establishes that the Waqf Board for a State or the National Capital Territory of Delhi shall consist of a Chairperson and various members elected from different categories. 
• Section 14(1)(b) provides for the election of one or two members from electoral colleges comprising Muslim Members of Parliament, Muslim Members of the State Legislature, Muslim members of the Bar Council, and mutawallis of auqaf with annual income above one lakh rupees. 
• Section 14(1)(b)(iii) specifically designates Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union Territory as eligible for election to the Waqf Board. 
• The proviso to Section 14(1)(b)(iii) empowers the State Government to nominate a senior Muslim advocate in case there is no Muslim member in the Bar Council. 
• Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) explicitly states that when a Muslim member ceases to be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, they shall be deemed to have vacated their office as a member of the Board. 
• Section 14(2) prescribes that elections shall be conducted through proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. 
• The first proviso to Section 14(2) declares that where only one Muslim Member exists in Parliament, State Legislature, or State Bar Council, that member shall be declared elected to the Board. 
• The second proviso to Section 14(2) establishes that where no Muslim Members exist in any category, ex-Muslim Members of Parliament, State Legislature, or ex-members of the State Bar Council shall constitute the electoral college. 
• Section 14(3) grants discretionary power to the State Government to nominate members when it is not reasonably practicable to constitute an electoral college. 
• Section 14(4) mandates that elected members shall outnumber nominated members except as provided under sub-section (3). 
• Section 14(8) requires members to elect a Chairperson from amongst themselves whenever the Board is constituted or reconstituted. 
• Section 14(9) stipulates that members shall be appointed by the State Government through notification in the Official Gazette.