List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court in the case of Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2026) set aside a police notice issued to a journalist under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that police lack the power to summon or question individuals without a registered case.

What was the Background of Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a journalist, challenged a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon him to provide an explanation for an article published in a journal. 
• The article allegedly contained defamatory statements against the police. 
• The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, had come across the article while investigating another case. 
• The police forwarded certain questions to the petitioner along with a notice seeking explanation under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. 
• The notice did not disclose the case number or crime number in which the petitioner was being summoned. 
• The investigation in the earlier case (in which the police had come across the article) had already been completed and the final report had been filed. 
• No separate case had been registered against the petitioner for allegedly making defamatory statements against the police. 
• The petitioner contended that if a cognizable offence was made out, the police should first register a case and then summon him in accordance with law. 
• The police conceded during the hearing that the investigation in the main case had been completed and no separate case had been registered against the petitioner for making defamatory statements. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only specifies circumstances under which a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant. 
• The Court held that Section 35 does not empower police to summon or question a person in the absence of any registered case. 
• The Court noted that if the petitioner was required for enquiry in any other case, the police ought to have referred to the crime number of such case. 
• The Court emphasized that no case had been registered against the petitioner for the alleged defamatory statements. 
• The Court held that the police did not have power to summon or question without registration of a case. 
• The Court set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. 
• However, the Court clarified that if any case was registered against the petitioner and his presence was required for enquiry in such case, the police could proceed in accordance with law. 
• The Court thus quashed the notice while preserving the police's right to proceed lawfully if a case is properly registered in the future. 

What is Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023? 

About: 

• Section 35 of the BNSS 2023 is a provision that empowers police officers to arrest any person without obtaining a warrant from a Magistrate in specific circumstances involving cognizable offences. 

Grounds for Arrest Without Warrant: 

Immediate Arrest Situations: 

• When a person commits a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer. 
• When credible information is received that a person has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years, with or without fine, or with death sentence. 
• When a person has been proclaimed as an offender under BNSS or by State Government order. 
• When stolen property is found in someone's possession and they are reasonably suspected of committing an offence related to it. 
• When a person obstructs a police officer in execution of duty or has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody. 
• When a person is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the Armed Forces. 
• When a person is involved in an act committed outside India which would be punishable as an offence if committed in India. 
• When a released convict breaches rules made under Section 394(5). 
• When a requisition for arrest is received from another police officer. 

Conditional Arrest for Offences Up to Seven Years:  

• For cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years or extending up to seven years, arrest is permitted only if specific conditions are satisfied: 
  • The police officer has reason to believe the person committed the offence based on reasonable complaint, credible information, or reasonable suspicion. 
  • The police officer is satisfied that arrest is necessary for preventing further offences, proper investigation, preventing evidence tampering, preventing inducement or threats to witnesses, or ensuring court appearance. 
  • The police officer must record reasons in writing while making the arrest. 
• Notice Procedure (Alternative to Arrest):  
  • When arrest is not required under the above provisions, the police officer must issue a notice directing the person to appear before him or at a specified place.  
  • The person has a duty to comply with the notice terms, and as long as they comply, they cannot be arrested unless the police officer records specific reasons for arrest necessity. 
• Consequences and Safeguards:  
  • If a person fails to comply with the notice or is unwilling to identify themselves, the police officer may arrest them for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject to any orders passed by a competent court.  
  • For offences punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is required before arresting infirm persons or those above sixty years of age. 
  • The provision includes a mandatory safeguard requiring police officers to record reasons in writing when arrest is not made, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary arrests while balancing law enforcement needs with protection of individual liberty. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026) upheld the Bombay High Court's ruling dismissing the appeal filed by a transferee pendente lite, who had challenged the rejection of his objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 

What was the Background of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute traces back to a 1973 agreement for sale between the original seller and buyer. 
• After the seller's default, a suit for specific performance was filed in 1986 by the Respondent No.1-original buyer. 
• The suit was decreed in 1990 in favor of the original buyer. 
• During the pendency of the suit, the judgment debtor-seller sold portions of the property to third parties. 
• The present appellants later derived title from these third parties who had purchased during litigation pendency. 
• This led to repeated obstruction in execution of the decree. 
• Execution proceedings began in 1991, and a court-commissioned sale deed was executed in 1993. 
• However, possession was blocked by the subsequent transferees. 
• In 2019, the appellants obstructed the delivery of possession upon filing an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. 
• Their objections were rejected by the executing court, the First Appellate Court, and the Bombay High Court. 
• This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging these rejections. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that a transfer made during the pendency of a suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and remains subject to the litigation's outcome. 
• Since the appellant bought the property during the pendency of specific performance suit, the decree in favour of the buyer prevailed. 
• The appellant was left with no independent rights over the property, as well as to resist the execution of the decree due to the specific bar contained under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. 
• The Court observed that the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is squarely applicable. 
• All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. 
• The Court noted that awareness is not even necessary, as the scope of adjudication is limited to whether the objector is a transferee pendente lite or not. 
• If the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist execution. 
• The Court affirmed that since the property was purchased by the Appellants during the pendency of the suit, and the decree being passed in favor of the original buyer, they would not be entitled to resist the execution of the decree. 
• The Court observed that now that the decree and conveyance in favour of respondent No. 1 have attained finality, the transferee pendente lite have to give way and hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1. 
• The High Court had held that if the subsequent transferee acquires right, title and interest with respect to the subject property before filing of the suit, the law laid down in Lala Durga Prasad would be applicable. 
• Since in the present case, the transfers are pendente lite, such transactions are covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the law laid down in Lala Durga Prasad would have no application. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

What is Transferee Pendente Lite? 

• A transferee pendente lite is a person who acquires property during the pendency of litigation concerning that property. 
• The term "pendente lite" means "during the pendency of litigation." 
• Such transfers are governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens. 
• The doctrine provides that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the final decree in that suit. 
• The transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to all rights and liabilities as they may be finally determined in the pending litigation. 

What is  Order XXI Rule 97 CPC ? 

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC - Resistance or Obstruction to Possession: 

• Order XXI Rule 97 provides a remedy when possession of immovable property under a decree is resisted or obstructed. 
• Sub-rule (1) allows the decree holder or purchaser to file an application to the Court if any person resists or obstructs them in obtaining possession of immovable property. 
• The application can be filed by either the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property or the purchaser of such property sold in execution of a decree. 
• The remedy is available when there is actual resistance or obstruction by any person in obtaining possession. 
• Sub-rule (2) mandates that upon receiving such an application, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon it in accordance with the provisions contained in the rule. 
• This provision enables the decree holder to seek Court intervention to remove obstacles in taking possession of the property awarded by the decree. 
• The rule ensures that the successful party in litigation can effectively enforce their decree and obtain actual physical possession of the property.