List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that when conditions under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act are met, the court has a mandatory duty to consider probation and cannot disregard its applicability. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police (2025). 

What was the Background of Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police (2025) Case? 

• The appellants in this case, a mother-in-law and her son, were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for subjecting the deceased (the son's wife) to cruelty.  
• The incident occurred on January 11, 2008, when a quarrel erupted regarding the celebration of their daughter's birthday.  
• Different ideas about how to celebrate led to an argument, and the deceased, who was 19 years old, set herself ablaze in distress. She ultimately succumbed to her burn injuries on January 16, 2008. 
• In her dying declaration, the deceased truthfully stated that the appellants never demanded dowry, which led to their acquittal for the more serious offence of dowry death under Section 304-B.  
• However, there were allegations in her dying declaration that the appellants occasionally beat her and verbally abused her by calling her a mental patient. 
• The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, convicted both appellants under Section 498A IPC, sentencing the mother-in-law to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the son to two years' rigorous imprisonment, along with fines. 
• The High Court maintained the conviction and the mother-in-law's sentence but reduced the son's sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. 
• The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking probation instead of imprisonment, noting that 17 years had passed since the incident, they had no prior criminal record, had not committed any crime since, and had properly cared for the daughter of the deceased, who was now 19 years old and pursuing her education. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that when the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act are attracted, courts have a mandatory duty to consider whether the offender deserves to be released on probation, rather than being sentenced to imprisonment. 
• The Court noted that both the Sessions Judge and the High Court had failed to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which constituted a failure of justice. 
• The Court emphasized that while an offender cannot claim probation as a matter of right, the courts must consider granting probation in appropriate cases to further the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of the Probation of Offenders Act. 
• The Court held that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has wider application than Section 360 of the CrPC, as it enables courts to exercise discretion in any case where the offender has committed an offence punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment. 
• The Court clarified that before granting probation, obtaining a report from the probation officer is mandatory, though courts are not bound by such reports when making their final determination. 
• The Court maintained the conviction but remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of probation upon obtaining a report from the relevant probation officer. 

What is Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act? 

• Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act primarily deals with the power of courts to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct rather than imposing immediate punishment. 
• It applies to any person found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 
• The court must form an opinion that, considering the circumstances of the case (including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender), it is expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct. 
• The court may direct the offender to be released on entering into a bond (with or without sureties) to appear and receive sentence when called upon within a period not exceeding three years. 
• During this probation period, the offender must keep the peace and be of good behavior. 
• The court can only grant such release if satisfied that the offender or surety has a fixed place of residence or regular occupation within the court's jurisdiction. 
• Before making any probation order, the court must consider the report of the probation officer related to the case. 
• The court may additionally pass a supervision order requiring the offender to remain under a probation officer's supervision for at least one year. 
• When issuing a supervision order, the court can impose conditions regarding residence, abstention from intoxicants, or other matters to prevent reoffending. 
• The court must explain the terms and conditions to the offender and provide copies of the supervision order to all parties involved. 

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the Court must apply it’s judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint. 

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Mr K Ganesh Babu v. The State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Mr K Ganesh Babu v. The State of Karnataka (2025) Case?   

• The petitioner, Mr. K. Ganesh Babu, is challenging an order dated 23rd January 2025, passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru. 
• The challenged order directed the court office to register a separate C. Misc. Petition based on IA No. 26 filed by the plaintiffs. 
• The respondent filed application IA No. 26 under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), alleging that the petitioner (defendant No. 11) submitted a false affidavit amounting to perjury. 
• Section 379 of the BNSS requires that before conducting an inquiry into offences affecting the administration of justice, the court must form an opinion that such inquiry is "expedient in the interest of justice."

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The trial court failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under Section 379 of the BNSS Act, 2023, by not forming or recording an opinion that an inquiry was "expedient in the interest of justice" before directing registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous petition. 
• Section 379 of the BNSS Act imposes a twofold statutory requirement:  
  • The Court must form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence.  
  • The Court must record a finding to that effect before directing a complaint be registered. 
• The procedural non-compliance rendered the impugned direction procedurally unsustainable under law. 
• The case decisions cited by respondent's counsel (Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another (2005) and Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2001)) were found to be distinguishable from the present case. 
• The High Court relied on the ruling in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others (2016), which established that courts must form an opinion that "it is expedient in the interest of justice" to initiate an inquiry into offences of false affidavit. 
• Under Section 380 of the BNSS Act, appeals are limited to two types of orders: those refusing to make a complaint and those directing the filing of a complaint after forming the requisite opinion. 
• Since the trial court merely directed registration without forming an opinion, no statutory appellate or revisional remedy existed under the BNSS Act, making invocation of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction appropriate and the petition legally maintainable.

What is Section 379 of BNSS? 

• Subsection (1): 
  • When a court believes it is expedient in the interests of justice, it may inquire into offences under Section 215(1)(b) committed in relation to court proceedings or documents. 
  • After conducting any necessary preliminary inquiry, the court may:  
    • Record a finding about the offence. 
    • Make a written complaint. 
    • Send the complaint to a first-class Magistrate with jurisdiction. 
    • Take security for the accused's appearance or send them in custody if the offence is non-bailable. 
    • Bind any person to appear and give evidence before the Magistrate. 

Subsection (2): 

• The power given to a court under subsection (1) may be exercised by a superior court if the original court has neither made nor rejected a complaint regarding the offence. 

Subsection (3): 

• A complaint made under this section must be signed by an appointed officer if made by a High Court. 
• For other courts, the complaint must be signed by the presiding officer or by an officer authorized in writing. 

Subsection (4) 

• The term "Court" in this section has the same meaning as defined in section 215 of the BNSS Act. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that non-framing of points under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) does not invalidate an appellate judgment if there is substantial compliance and no specific issues are raised for reconsideration. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a civil dispute between Nafees Ahmad & Another (Appellants) and Soinuddin & Others (Respondents). 
• The First Appellate Court had previously rendered a judgment in the matter, which was challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Second Appeal No. 69/2008. 
• The High Court of Allahabad partly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents (Soinuddin & Others) and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court. 
• The High Court's decision to remit was based on its finding that the First Appellate Court had failed to comply with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically regarding the framing of points of determination. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment dated 4th September 2017, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was subsequently granted and converted to Civil Appeal No. 5213/2025. 
• No specific offence was mentioned in the case as it pertained to a civil matter involving procedural compliance. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view that Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC is mandatory in all circumstances and that non-compliance would automatically vitiate the entire judgment. 
• The Court adopted the principle established in G. Amalorpavam and Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Others (2006), holding that substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC may be sufficient, determined on a case-by-case basis. 
• The Court observed that a procedural code must be reasonably interpreted to facilitate justice rather than frustrate it through overly technical constructions. 
• The Supreme Court held that provisions of Rule 31 should be reasonably construed to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination. 
• The Court noted that under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, it is discretionary for the Appellate Court to refer to proceedings of the court below, and this reference is necessary only if considered essential. 
• The Supreme Court determined that if an appellant submits no grounds showing that the judgment under appeal is erroneous, the Appellate Court may decide the appeal without detailed reference to lower court proceedings. 
• The Court concluded that procedural requirements should not be interpreted so technically as to impede substantial justice. 
• No offence was discussed in the observations as the case concerned civil procedural law. 

What is Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the procedure for appeals from original decrees passed by subordinate courts. 
• Rule 31 of Order XLI prescribes the mandatory form and content requirements for judgments delivered by appellate courts. 
• As per Rule 31, the judgment of an appellate court must be in writing and must articulate the following elements:  
  • The points for determination in the appeal; 
  • The decision on each identified point;  
  • The reasoning underlying the decision; and  
  • The specific relief granted to the appellant where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied. 
• The judgment must be signed and dated by the judge or judges concurring in the decision at the time of its pronouncement. 
• The purpose of these procedural requirements is to ensure transparency, clarity and reasoned adjudication in appellate proceedings. 
• Rule 31 serves to structure appellate judgments in a manner that enables parties and reviewing courts to understand the basis of the appellate decision. 
• The requirement to state points for determination ensures that the appellate court addresses the specific issues raised by the appellant challenging the original decree. 
• The requirement to provide reasons for decisions promotes judicial accountability and facilitates further appellate review if necessary. 
• While Rule 31 appears mandatory in its language, judicial interpretation has established that substantial compliance may be sufficient depending on the circumstances of each case. 
• The Supreme Court has held that Rule 31 requirements apply primarily when specific issues are raised by the appellant for determination, rather than in cases where no specific grounds challenging the lower court judgment are advanced. 

Case Laws 

• Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus (1921):  
  • Privy Council case establishing that appellants must show reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed. 
• Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Anr. (1963): 
  • Three-Judge Bench decision supporting the principle that it is the appellant's duty to show the judgment under appeal is erroneous, and only then would the appellate court call upon the respondent to reply. 
  • Also referenced to support that if the appellant submits nothing for consideration, the Appellate Court can decide without reference to proceedings below. 
• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya (1955):  
  • Court emphasizes that procedural provisions should not be interpreted too technically, as procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends.