List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan in the case of XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025) issued comprehensive guidelines to Magistrates on Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), clarifying when and how to seek superior officer reports before ordering investigation against public servants. 

What was the Background of XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• A woman alleged that she was sexually assaulted on three occasions by police officers while pursuing a complaint relating to a property dispute. 
• After the police filed a report terming her allegations as "untrue", she approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) under Section 210 BNSS read with Section 175, seeking directions for registration of an FIR. 
• Invoking Section 175(4), the Magistrate called for a report from the superior officer of the accused police personnel. 
• While those proceedings were pending, the woman moved the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition. 
• A Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that Section 175(4) was not mandatory in cases involving serious offences such as rape and directed the Magistrate to order registration of an FIR. 
• However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge decision, observing that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was inappropriate when statutory proceedings before the Magistrate were already pending. 
• This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench order, holding that the Single Judge erred in interfering with the magistrate's decision to seek a superior official's report in compliance with Section 175(4) of BNSS. 
• Two-fold Safeguard for Public Servants: 
• The Court explained that Section 175(4) introduces a two-fold safeguard: 
  • First, at the investigation stage, the Magistrate must call for a report from the superior officer and afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused public servant. 
  • Second, at the stage of taking cognizance, a sanction under Section 218(1) BNSS would ordinarily be required, subject to statutory exceptions for certain categories of offences such as sexual offences. 
• Interpretation of "may": 
  • The Court noted that Section 175(4) uses the modal verb "may" and not "shall". The Court held that "may" has to be read as "may" itself, bearing an element of discretion, and not as "shall". 
• Guidelines for Magistrates: 
  • Upon receiving a complaint under Section 175(4) alleging commission of an offence by a public servant arising in the course of discharge of official duties, the magistrate may do either of the following: 
  • Option 1: If the judicial magistrate is prima facie satisfied that commission of the alleged act giving rise to an offence arose in course of discharge of official duties by the public servant, such magistrate may not have any option other than following the procedure prescribed under Section 175(4) of calling for reports from the superior officer and the accused public servant. 
  • Option 2: Where the judicial magistrate entertains a prima facie doubt depending upon the circumstances as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant arose in course of discharge of official duties, such magistrate might err on the side of caution and proceed to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 175(4). 
  • Option 3: Where the judicial magistrate is satisfied that the alleged act of offence was not committed in the discharge of official duties and/or it bears no reasonable nexus thereto, and also that the rigours of Section 175(4) are not attracted, the complaint may be dealt with in accordance with the general procedure prescribed under Section 175(3). 
• Authority to Reject Frivolous Complaints: 
  • The Court clarified that the judicial magistrate would continue to retain the authority to reject an application under Section 175(3), lodged against a public servant, where such magistrate finds that the allegations made therein are wholly untenable, manifestly absurd, or so inherently improbable that no reasonable person could conclude that any offence is disclosed. However, such an order of rejection ought not to be based on whims and fancy but must have the support of valid reasons. 
• Non-submission of Superior Officer Report: 
  • The Court addressed situations where the superior officer fails to submit the report within a reasonable period. In such unlikely events, the judicial magistrate is not obliged to wait indefinitely and may proceed further in accordance with Section 175(3) after considering the version of the accused public servant under Section 175(4)(b), if on record. What would constitute 'reasonable time' must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Mandatory Affidavit Requirement: 
  • A key ruling of the judgment is that even complaints invoking Section 175(4) must be supported by an affidavit. Although the text of sub-section (4) refers only to a "complaint", the Court held that the term must be understood contextually and harmonised with Section 175(3), which expressly mandates an affidavit. 

What is Section 175 of BNSS? 

Section 175 BNSS – Police Officer’s Power to Investigate Cognizable Case: 

• The officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable offence without prior permission of a Magistrate. 
• Such investigation can be conducted for offences which a court having jurisdiction over the local area can inquire into or try. 
• Superintendent of Police (SP) may, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, direct that the investigation be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). 
• Validity of investigation protected: 
  No proceedings of a police officer shall be questioned merely on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate the case. 
• A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 BNSS may order investigation: 
  • After considering an application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4), and 
  • After making such inquiry as deemed necessary and considering the police officer’s submission. 
• In cases involving a complaint against a public servant arising during discharge of official duties, the Magistrate may order investigation only after: 
  • Receiving a report from the superior officer of the public servant, and 
  • Considering the version/explanation of the public servant regarding the incident. 
• Key Change: 
  Section 175 BNSS replaces Section 156 of the CrPC, introducing additional safeguards, particularly in cases involving public servants. 

What are the Safeguards Introduced by Section 175 of BNSS? 

• The following are the new changes which are introduced in the form of safeguards to prevent abuse of process of law: 
  • Firstly, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). 
  • Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. 
  • Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3). 
• It is to be noted that Section 175 (3) of BNSS is a result of law laid down by the judicial decisions over the years. 
• In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) the Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). 
  • It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. 
  • The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar in the case of X v. Y (2025) held that mere registration of marriage between two individuals cannot determine matrimonial harmony or their intention to cohabit together, and allowed mutual divorce before completion of one year from the date of marriage. 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025) Case? 

• The wife filed a petition challenging a family court order that rejected her application seeking leave to present a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage. 
• The parties never cohabited even for a single day after the marriage. 
• The marriage was never consummated between the parties. 
• Immediately after the marriage ceremony, both parties continued to reside separately at their respective parental homes. 
• The joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was presented within seven months of the marriage. 
• The Family Court declined to grant leave under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
• The Family Court held that the parties failed to establish a case of "exceptional hardship" warranting relaxation of the statutory bar. 
• The Family Court also held that the parties had not made sufficient or sincere efforts to preserve and save the marriage. 
• The Family Court observed that the subsequent registration of the marriage shortly after its solemnization militated against and diluted their claim of exceptional hardship. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that it was an admitted fact that the parties never cohabited, the marriage was never consummated, and they had lived separately since the very inception of the marriage. 
• The Court emphasized that registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship. 
• The Court held that the facts strike at the very foundation of a subsisting matrimonial relationship. 
• The Court stated that "insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation, thereby causing avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute." 
• The Court held that the case squarely fell within the exception carved out under Section 14 of the HMA. 
• The Court set aside the impugned order of the Family Court. 
• The Court allowed the couple's application and granted them leave to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. 
• The Court remanded the matter to the Family Court concerned to proceed with the petition under Section 13-B HMA in accordance with law, expeditiously. 

What are the Provisions Regarding Registration of Marriage? 

Hindu Law: 

• Section 8(1) of HMA enables the State Governments to make rules for the purpose of registration of marriage. 
• Section 8(2) mentions that regardless of what is stated in sub-section (1), the State Government can, if it deems necessary or appropriate, mandate the submission of the details mentioned in sub-section (1) within the entire state or specific regions, either universally or for specific cases.  
• In instances where such directives are issued, anyone who violates any such regulation established in this regard may face a fine of up to twenty-five rupees. 

Muslim Law: 

• Registration of marriage in Muslims is compulsory and mandatory, as a Muslim marriage is treated as a civil contract.  
• Every marriage contracted between Muslims after the commencement of this Act, shall be registered as hereinafter provided, within thirty days from the conclusion of the Nikah Ceremony. 
• Nikah Nama is a type of legal document in Muslim marriages which contains the essential conditions/details of the marriage.

Christan Law: 

• Sections 27-37 form Part IV of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, specifically addressing the registration process for marriages conducted under this Act among Indian Christians.  
• Marriages must adhere to the prescribed regulations, and they are typically officiated by clergymen affiliated with the Church of England.  

What is the Consequence of Non- Registration of Marriage? 

• The consequences of non-registration of marriage in India can vary depending on the context and legal requirements. Here are some general implications: 
  • Legal Recognition: While registration of marriage is not mandatory for its validity in most cases, it serves as conclusive evidence of the marriage having taken place. Without a registered marriage certificate, proving the existence of the marriage may be challenging, especially in legal proceedings. 
  • Rights and Benefits: A registered marriage certificate is often required for availing various rights and benefits provided by the government, such as inheritance rights, spousal benefits, and social security schemes. Non-registration may therefore result in the denial of these entitlements. 
  • Legal Proceedings: In case of disputes related to marital status, property rights, or divorce, a registered marriage certificate can simplify legal proceedings by providing clear documentation of the marriage. Non-registration may complicate such matters and prolong legal processes. 
  • Visa and Immigration: In certain cases, a registered marriage certificate may be required for visa applications and immigration purposes, especially for spouses intending to join their partners in another country. Non-registration could therefore hinder such processes. 

What are the Landmark Cases for Registration of Marriage? 

• Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2007): 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registration of marriages is left to the discretion of the parties, they can either solemnize the marriage before the Sub-Registrar or register it after performing the marriage ceremony according to customary beliefs.
• Abdul Kadir v. Salima and Anr.(1886): 
  • Justice Mahmood observed the nature of Muslim marriage as purely a civil contract rather than a sacrament.