List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Meenakshi v. State of Haryana and Another (2026) held that directing appellant-accused to be present before appellate or revisional courts on every hearing date is not warranted, particularly after an order for suspension of sentence has been passed and bail has been granted.

What was the Background of Meenakshi v. State of Haryana and Another (2026) Case? 

• The case originated from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) for dishonor of two cheques issued by the appellant's mother for Rs. 7,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,240. 
• The cheques were dishonored, culminating in conviction and sentence against the accused. 
• An appeal (CRA No. 956/2017) was filed and remained pending before the appellate court. 
• The appellant was initially granted suspension of sentence and released on bail on October 10, 2017. 
• The bail order was extended from time to time but was eventually rejected and cancelled by the appellate court. 
• The appellant changed counsel on more than six occasions, which appeared to trigger the appellate court's adverse action. 
• The appellant's mother, Ms. Mary Parashar, allegedly expired, and a death certificate was produced, but the appellate court did not accept it and directed the jurisdictional SHO to verify its correctness. 
• The appellant filed an exemption application on August 22, 2025 due to health conditions (suffering from Herpes Zoster), which was allowed, and the matter was adjourned to September 4, 2025. 
• Before the appellant could reach court on the adjourned date, the matter was called, the suspension of sentence and bail order was recalled, and a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued. 
• On September 20, 2025, the appellant surrendered and sought bail, but without passing any order on the bail prayer, she was taken into custody. 
• The bail application was subsequently rejected on September 23, 2025. 
• The appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of CrPC in CRM-M-56737 of 2025, which was adjourned from time to time due to paucity of time. 
• The Supreme Court issued notice on November 27, 2025 and subsequently released the appellant.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court expressed that it was "appalling and shocking" that the appellate court insisted on the appellant's appearance on every date of hearing, particularly when suspension of sentence had already been passed. 
• The Court noted that the proper course for the appellate court would have been to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits or grant an opportunity to the appellant to make alternate arrangements if counsel was not assisting. 
• The Court acknowledged that the appellate proceedings had been pending for more than eight years, which was "not justifiable on any ground whatsoever," but held that this alone would not justify the course adopted by the appellate court. 
• The Court recognized that in Haryana, the practice of requiring accused persons to be present before appellate courts on all hearing dates was prevalent, even after suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 
• This practice was based on Form No. 45 (Bond and Bail-Bond for attendance before Officer in Charge of Police Station or Court) found in Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• The Court held that calling upon the accused to be present on every date of hearing before revisional or appellate courts would be burdensome to such accused and was not warranted at all, serving no purpose. 
• The Court emphasized that in the event of appeal or revision being dismissed, the consequences would automatically follow and the jurisdictional magistrate would be fully empowered to secure the presence of such accused in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 
• The Court directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation to the District Judiciary through issuance of an appropriate circular. 
• The Court made it clear that bail granted to the appellant on November 27, 2025 would remain in operation till disposal of the appeal, and the appellant shall cooperate with the appellate court in expeditious disposal, preferably within three months. 

What are the Statutory Provisions in Relation to Bail? 

• The Indian bail system operates under Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory framework creates a bifurcated classification between bailable and non-bailable offenses, establishing distinct procedural pathways for release consideration. 
• Section 479 of BNSS mandates that persons accused of bailable offenses possess an absolute right to bail upon furnishing appropriate security. Police officers in charge of stations and courts lack discretionary authority to deny bail for scheduled bailable offenses, ensuring immediate release upon compliance with statutory conditions. 
• Non-bailable offences under Section 480 require judicial evaluation based on statutory criteria including offense gravity, evidence strength, and defendant's antecedents. Courts must consider factors prescribed in Section 480(3) including likelihood of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight risk when exercising discretionary authority. 
• Section 482 provides for anticipatory bail, enabling individuals apprehending arrest for non-bailable offenses to seek pre-arrest protection from Sessions Courts or High Courts. This provision incorporates constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention while maintaining investigative authority. 
• The statutory framework mandates automatic bail under Section 187 when investigations exceed prescribed time limits, implementing the "default bail" doctrine to prevent indefinite detention without trial. 

What is Section 138 of the NI Act? 

About: 

• Section 138 creates a statutory offence for dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount.  
• The essential elements that must be satisfied for constituting an offence under this section are: 
  • Primary Requirement: A cheque drawn by a person on his account with a banker for payment of money to another person must be returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged overdraft limit. 

Three Mandatory Conditions under the Proviso: 

• The cheque must be presented to the bank within six months from the date it was drawn or within its validity period, whichever is earlier. 
• The payee or holder in due course must issue a written demand notice to the drawer within thirty days of receiving information from the bank about the cheque being returned unpaid. 
• The drawer must fail to make payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of receiving the demand notice. 
• Penalty Provision: Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the drawer commits an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. 
• Scope Limitation: The debt or liability must be legally enforceable as clarified in the Explanation to the section. 

Source: High Court of Kerala 

Why in News? 

Justice A. Badharudeen of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Another (2026) held that while considering a discharge petition, the statement of the aggrieved person alone would prima facie disclose the ingredients for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of the discharge petition. 

What was the Background of Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Another (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from an incident that occurred at 4:00 p.m. on March 31, 2023, during a meeting held in an open space in front of the Bharat Services Facility Management Office. 
• The office was situated on the ground floor of the Trans Asia Cyber Park building near Infopark Phase-2, Padathikkara, Puthencruze Village. 
• The allegation was that the accused humiliated the defacto complainant by calling her by her caste name in public view. 
• The incident allegedly took place in the presence of cleaning staff of Bharath Services Facility Management Office. 
• An FIR was filed on May 9, 2023 at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam City. 
• The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkara submitted the Final Report on October 12, 2023. 
• The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• The case was registered as SC No. 1912/2023 before the Special Court for trial of offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 
• The appellant/accused filed a discharge petition dated May 14, 2025, numbered as Crl. M.P. 901/2025. 
• The Special Court dismissed the discharge petition on November 10, 2025, finding prima facie case against the accused. 
• The accused then filed Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court challenging the order. 
• The appeal came up for admission on January 13, 2026.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the appellant's counsel primarily relied on the statements of the defacto complainant and witness No. 2, arguing that witness No. 2's statement did not contain overt acts to fasten criminal culpability on the appellant. 
• The Court examined the statement of the defacto complainant and found specific allegations that at about 4:00 p.m. on March 31, 2023, the accused abused her by calling her caste name in the presence of cleaning staff. 
• The Court outlined the essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 
• For an offence under Section 3(1)(r), there must be intentional insult or intimidation by a non-member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, with intention to humiliate such member within public view. 
• The Court held that abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community by caste name within public view by a non-member would attract offence under Section 3(1)(r). 
• The Court found that the statement of the defacto complainant disclosed the ingredients to attract offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). 
• The Court emphasized that the evidence of a solitary wholly reliable witness would suffice the purpose. 
• The Court held that the mere statement of the aggrieved person would prima facie disclose the ingredients for the offences charged. 
• The Court clarified that mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement for framing charges. 
• Applying these principles, the Court found that the impugned order did not require any interference and dismissed the criminal appeal. 

What ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance. 

Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act: 

• Section 3 of this Act deals with punishments for offences atrocities. 
• Section 3(1)(r) states that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act: 

• This provision makes it an offence when a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.