List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Gauhati 

Why in News?

Justice Pranjal Das of the Gauhati High Court, in the case of Hamedur Islam alias Hamidur Islam v. The State of Assam and Anr. (2026), held that the existence of a love relationship between parties does not dilute the criminality of rape, and that even in a premarital relationship, any forceful physical act against a woman's will constitutes a criminal offence. 

• The Court refused to exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, noting that the victim's statements consistently disclosed commission of rape without any indication of consent, and that the offences involved were serious in nature — particularly given the victim's age at the time of the alleged incident.

What was the Background of Hamedur Islam v. State of Assam (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner filed a criminal petition before the Gauhati High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a charge-sheet filed against him under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 
• An FIR was originally lodged by the father of the victim alleging that the accused entered their house, committed rape upon his daughter when she was alone, and threatened her not to disclose the incident. 
• The petitioner contended that a compromise had since been entered into with the informant (the father), that the victim had attained majority, that the parties were in a love relationship at the time of the alleged incident, and that both families had consented to their proposed marriage. 
• The informant also filed an affidavit before the Court expressing no objection to the quashing of proceedings. 
• The prosecution opposed the petition on the ground that the victim's statements consistently implicated the accused in the commission of rape and that the offences were serious in nature. 
• The Court noted that the victim was prima facie approximately 17 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, thereby attracting the provisions of POCSO.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the existence of a love relationship between a man and a woman does not, in any manner, license the commission of rape. Even in a premarital relationship, any forceful physical act against the woman's will remains a criminal offence in law. 
• The Court clarified that while marital rape is still not criminalised in India, this legal position does not extend to premarital relationships — and any non-consensual physical act within such a relationship continues to attract criminal liability under applicable law. 
• On the question of compromise, the Court noted that although the informant (the victim's father) had entered into a compromise and filed an affidavit of no-objection, the victim herself had not entered into any such compromise, and her opinion and statements remained crucial to the proceedings. 
• Upon examining the victim's statements recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and during police investigation, the Court found that she had consistently disclosed commission of rape without indicating any consent on her part — and that while she acknowledged the love affair, nothing in her statements suggested the physical relationship was consensual. 
• The Court held that, given the nature and gravity of the offences involved and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding quashing of serious offences, it would not be justified to exercise inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings. 
• Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

What are the Offences of Rape under BNS? 

• Section 63 of BNS= Definition of Rape   

Any of the above acts constitutes rape when done under any of these circumstances: 

Explanation and Exceptions: 

• Section 64 (1) of BNS = Punishment for offence of Rape 
  • This provision provides for punishment of offence of rape which is Rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life imprisonment and also fine.    
• Section 64 (2) of BNS = Punishment for offence of Rape in Specific Circumstances 
  • This provides for the offence of rape in specific circumstances. 
  • The punishment provided here is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine 
• Section 65 of BNS = Punishment for Rape in Certain Cases (Minors) 

• Section 66 = Punishment when victim of rape is in Persistent Vegetative State 
  • Rigorous Imprisonment not less than 20 years which may extend to life imprisonment or with death. 
• Section 70 = Gang Rape 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Deepesh Maheswari & Anr. v. Renu Maheswari & Ors. (2026), held that an unsuccessful appeal preferred under Section 96 CPC against an ex-parte decree does not preclude the aggrieved party from subsequently filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside that decree. 

• The Court further held that a minor cannot be expected to respond to public notices or take independent legal steps, and that prolonged suppression of material facts by co-heirs renders a succession certificate liable to be quashed under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.

What was the Background of Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from succession proceedings initiated following the death of one Omprakash Maheshwari. The deceased's daughters from his first marriage applied for a succession certificate, falsely claiming themselves to be the sole legal heirs, while deliberately concealing the existence of his second wife and a minor son born from her. 
• The minor son — Appellant No. 1 — was never impleaded as a party in the proceedings despite the respondent daughters being fully aware of his existence. No guardian was appointed to represent his interests as required by law. As a result, the succession certificate was granted ex-parte. 
• Upon attaining majority, Appellant No. 1, along with his mother and the second wife of the deceased — Appellant No. 2, Malti Maheswari — challenged the ex-parte order by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 
• The trial court, first appellate court, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) all rejected the application on the ground that the mother had already participated in earlier appellate proceedings, thereby disentitling both appellants from seeking recourse under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 
• Aggrieved, the son and the second wife appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the scope of proceedings under Section 96 CPC and Order IX Rule 13 CPC are entirely distinct. While Section 96 deals with an appeal on the merits of the decree, Order IX Rule 13 enables an applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and seek setting aside of the ex-parte decree — a remedy of wider amplitude operating on independent grounds. 
• The Court further held that mere dismissal of an appeal under Section 96 CPC preferred by Appellant No. 2, at a time when Appellant No. 1 was still a minor, would not operate as a bar to their jointly seeking the setting aside of the ex-parte succession certificate under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 
• On the question of the minor's non-appearance, the Court categorically rejected the Additional District Judge's finding that the minor could have impleaded himself upon publication of the public notice, terming it "wholly erroneous and perverse." It held that being a minor at the relevant time, Appellant No. 1 was under a legal disability and was entirely incapable of taking such independent legal steps. It was only upon attaining majority that he acquired the legal capacity to challenge the proceedings. 
• The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to indicate any collusion between the minor and his mother, and that the respondents had taken no steps to secure appointment of a lawful guardian to represent the minor — a legal obligation they were bound to fulfil. 
• On the validity of the succession certificate itself, the Court held that where an application is defective or material facts have been suppressed or misstated, the certificate issued pursuant thereto is liable to be revoked under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. 
• Accordingly, the Court set aside the ex-parte succession certificate and restored the proceedings for fresh adjudication, directing the concerned court to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within one year.

What is Order IX Rule 13 CPC? 

Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside Decree Ex Parte Against Defendant: 

• A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed may apply to the court which passed the decree to set it aside. 
• The defendant must satisfy the court on either of two grounds: that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing. 
• If satisfied, the court shall set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into court, or otherwise as it thinks fit. 
• Upon setting aside the decree, the court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. 
• Where the decree cannot be set aside against the applying defendant only, it may be set aside against all or any other defendants also. 
• No court shall set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons, if the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to appear. 
• Where an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that decree. 
• The rule confers discretionary power upon the court to balance the interests of justice whilst preventing abuse of process.