List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria of the Supreme Court, in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026), acquitted an accused convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) are inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 of the BSA).  

• The Court set aside concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court, reaffirming that oral testimony of telecom officials cannot substitute the statutory certification requirement for electronic evidence.

What was the Background of Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from the 2010 murder of a woman, with the prosecution alleging that the deceased's husband conspired with the appellant to commit the crime. 
• To establish the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution relied on Call Detail Records showing frequent contact between the two accused around the time of the incident. 
• The prosecution also relied on the recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly matching the deceased's blood group, and recovery of ₹46,000 purportedly paid to the appellant for committing the murder. 
• The appellant challenged the admissibility of the CDRs on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. 
• The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction, following which the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the Section 65-B certificate is a mandatory prerequisite for electronic evidence, and its absence renders CDRs wholly inadmissible. It rejected the State's argument that examining telecom nodal officers as witnesses could substitute the certificate, holding that oral evidence cannot replace a statutory requirement. 
• On the recovery of ₹46,000, the Court found the prosecution's case unreliable, noting that the amount counted in court was ₹46,145 — casting doubt on the very factum of recovery. It held that mere recovery of currency notes without a link to the crime cannot constitute an incriminating circumstance. 
• On the FSL report, the Court found that the chain of custody was broken, with unexplained discrepancies in the malkhana register, rendering the forensic report a "redundant and worthless piece of paper." 
• The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and accordingly acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release.

What is Section 63 of the BSA?

Section 63 of BSA – Admissibility of Electronic Records 

• Section 63(1) –  Electronic records (printouts, optical/magnetic/semiconductor storage, or any computer/device output) are admissible as documents without needing the original, provided certain conditions are met.
• Section 63(2) – Four Conditions for Admissibility- 
  • The computer/device was regularly used during the relevant period for the activity in question. 
  • Information was regularly fed into the system in the ordinary course of those activities. 
  • The computer was operating properly during the material period (or any malfunction didn't affect the record's accuracy). 
  • The electronic record reproduces or derives from information fed in during normal activities. 
• Section 63(3) – If multiple computers or devices were used (standalone, networked, via intermediary, etc.), they are all treated as a single computer for the purposes of this section.
• Section 63(4) – A certificate must be submitted alongside every electronic record at each instance of admission, which must: 
  • Identify the record and describe how it was produced. 
  • Give details of the device(s) involved. 
  • Address the conditions in Section 63(2). 

The certificate must be signed by the person in charge of the device or relevant activities, along with an expert, and is accepted as evidence on a best-of-knowledge basis. 

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Justice G. Girish of the Kerala High Court, in the case of Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026), dismissed the plea filed by the editors of Vellinakshatram magazine seeking to quash a criminal complaint against them for allegedly defaming an actor by redisplaying derogatory comments — originally made in a Facebook group — on their website. 

• The Court held that the offence of defamation under Section 499 of IPC (Section 356 of BNS) applies equally to the republication or redisplay of defamatory content, regardless of whether it was already in the public domain through another platform.

What was the Background of Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The complainant, an actor and director active in the film and television sector, had a disagreement with the first accused — also a film personality — regarding the arrest of a prominent actor for involvement in the rape of an actress. 
• Following this dispute, the first accused posted derogatory comments against the complainant in a Facebook group of which both were members. 
• The accused magazine (Vellinakshatram) and its editors (accused nos. 2 to 4) redisplayed these comments on their website. 
• The complainant alleged that this publication caused his friends and well-wishers to form the opinion that he was a person of deplorable character who supported a rapist for personal gains, thereby harming his reputation. 
• A private complaint was filed before the Magistrate, who took it on file, recorded the complainant's statement, and issued summons to the accused for the offence under Section 500 IPC (Punishment for Defamation). 
• The magazine and its editors then approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the complaint.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court firmly rejected the argument that mere redisplay of another person's post from a social media platform does not attract defamation liability, holding that Section 499 IPC draws no distinction between an original defamatory publication and the republication of one already in the public domain. 
• It was held that unless the act of redisplaying falls within any of the seven exceptions enumerated under Section 499 IPC, criminal liability is not absolved merely because the content was first published by someone else on a different platform. 
• The Court observed that the nature of the words published on the petitioners' website was, prima facie, capable of lowering the moral and intellectual character of the complainant in the eyes of others. 
• It was noted that the complainant specifically alleged the petitioners were influenced by the first accused and published the derogatory content without good faith, with the intent to lower the complainant's reputation. 
• The Court took into account the sworn statement of the complainant, which revealed that many of his friends and well-wishers developed a negative impression of his character upon reading the content on the petitioners' website. 
• Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

What is Section 356 of BNS? 

356 BNS – Defamation

Definition: 

• Making/publishing any imputation (spoken, written, signs, or visible representations) about a person that harms or intends to harm their reputation. 

Key Explanations: 

• Applies to deceased persons if hurtful to family. 
• Applies to companies/associations too. 
• Ironic or alternative statements can also count. 
• Harm means lowering moral/intellectual character, caste, profession, credit, or suggesting a loathsome physical condition. 

Exceptions (not defamation if…): 

• Truth published for public good. 
• Good faith opinion on a public servant's public conduct. 
• Good faith opinion on any person's conduct on a public question. 
• Substantially true reports of court proceedings. 
• Good faith opinion on merits of a decided court case. 
• Good faith opinion on a publicly submitted performance/work. 
• Good faith censure by a lawful authority (judge, employer, parent, teacher). 
• Good faith accusation made to a person's lawful superior. 
• Imputation made in good faith to protect one's own or another's interests. 
• Good faith caution given for the benefit of the recipient or public. 

Punishments: 

• Defaming another → simple imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both, or community service. 
• Printing/engraving defamatory matter → up to 2 years, fine, or both. 
• Selling defamatory printed material → up to 2 years, fine, or both.