List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News? 

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others (2026), held that service of a pre-arrest notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) through electronic means — including WhatsApp or email — is invalid in law. The court further held that where an accused deliberately evades physical service of such notice for an extended period, this constitutes non-cooperative behaviour justifying arrest.

What was the Background of Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner Yugadev and his wife, posing as Yoga teachers, were allegedly running a company called Jai Bhairavi Devi (JBD) and collecting investments from members of the public. They are accused of duping investors of nearly Rs. 98 lakhs. 
• An FIR was registered against the petitioner at Adugodi Police Station on December 9, 2025 for offences under Section 66(c) of the IT Act, 2000, Section 66(d) of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) of the BNS.  
• The police sought to serve a pre-arrest notice under Section 35(3) BNSS upon the petitioner, but he remained untraceable for over 40 days, evading physical service. 
• On January 17, 2026, when the police finally confronted the petitioner, he refused to accept the physical notice. He was subsequently arrested, and his arrest was approved by the jurisdictional magistrate. 
• The petitioner challenged the magistrate's order approving his arrest before the Karnataka High Court, contending, among other things, that the police could have simply served the notice electronically if the intention was only to inform him of the proceedings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The court held that Section 35(3) BNSS does not empower the police to communicate the pre-arrest notice or a copy of the FIR through electronic means such as WhatsApp or email. Physical service of the notice at the pre-arrest stage is mandatory as intended by the legislature. 
• The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026) where the apex court held that electronic communication of the notice under Section 35 BNSS is invalid owing to a "conscious omission" in the statute — the legislature deliberately excluded Section 35 notices from the procedures permissible through electronic communication. 
• The court reiterated the apex court's observation that it cannot introduce a procedure into Section 35 which is not intended by the legislature, and that the restrictions imposed on the use of electronic communication — confined to only certain procedures under the BNSS — preclude its use for service of pre-arrest notices. 
• On the question of arrest, the court held that the petitioner's deliberate evasion of physical service of the Section 35(3) notice for nearly 40 days amounted to non-cooperative behaviour. This was a sufficient circumstance to justify taking him into custody. 
• The court further held that since the failure to effect physical service was attributable entirely to the accused himself — who had been absconding and ultimately refused to accept the notice when confronted — no constitutional right of the petitioner was violated by the police action. 
• Accordingly, the court rejected the petition challenging the arrest and upheld the magistrate's order approving the same.

What is Section 35 BNSS? 

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 are 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: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division and another (2026), reiterated that if the conditions prescribed under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are satisfied, the agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be deemed a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights — and that such bhumidhari status cannot be subjected to revision by any authority, whether executive or revisional.

What was the Background of Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste agricultural labourer, was in occupation of Plot No. 147/2 M (area 0.400 hectares) situated at Village Laglesra, Pargana Asiwan Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao — since before 03.06.1995. 
• In proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, after due inquiry, the petitioner was granted the benefit under Section 122-B(4-F) and declared a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. 
• The opposite party — an ex-pradhan of the village and a member of the upper caste — moved an application for recall of this order. The order declaring the petitioner as Bhumidhar was set aside ex parte, without notice to the petitioner. 
• The petitioner filed a recall application, which was allowed by the Pargana Adhikari, restoring the ex-parte order and reinstating the petitioner's right to be heard. 
• The opposite party then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division. The Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the Pargana Adhikari's recall order. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court, raising the question of whether the revisional authority could lawfully undo an order that merely restored natural justice without deciding any substantive rights.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court held that the order of the Pargana Adhikari — which had been set aside by the Commissioner — did not decide any substantial rights of the petitioner; it merely restored the principles of natural justice by giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 
• By reinstating the ex-parte order, the revisional authority effectively took away the petitioner's right to defend himself, which the Court found impermissible. 
• The Court reaffirmed that Section 122-B(4-F) operates as a statutory deeming provision — once the prescribed conditions are satisfied, the labourer is automatically conferred the status of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, and no suit for declaration of such rights is necessary. 
• Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Manorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue, U.P., the Court emphasized that the provision is an instrument of agrarian reform aimed at achieving socio-economic justice, and its benefit cannot be curtailed by a narrow or technical approach. 
• The Court held that rights under Section 122-B(4-F) flow from the statute and, once declared, cannot be revised. 
• The Court set aside the Commissioner's revisional order, restored the Pargana Adhikari's recall order, and directed a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

What is Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950? 

Section 122-B — Powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector 

Sub-section (1) — Reporting Obligation: 

• If Gaon Sabha/local authority property is damaged, misappropriated, or occupied unlawfully, the Land Management Committee or local authority must inform the concerned Assistant Collector. 

Sub-section (2) — Show Cause Notice: 

• On receiving such information, if the Assistant Collector is satisfied of wrongful occupation/damage/misappropriation, he shall issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the concerned person asking why compensation should not be recovered or why eviction should not follow. 

Sub-section (3) — Eviction Order: 

• If the person fails to respond within the specified time (extendable up to 30 days), or the cause shown is insufficient, the Assistant Collector may order eviction and recover compensation as arrears of land revenue. 

Sub-section (4) — Discharge of Notice: 

• If the Assistant Collector finds the person not guilty, he shall discharge the notice. 

Sub-section (4-A) — Revision: 

• Any aggrieved person may prefer a revision before the Collector within 30 days of the Assistant Collector's order. 

Sub-section (4-B) — Procedure: 

• The procedure to be followed shall be as prescribed by rules. 

Sub-section (4-C) — Finality of Orders: 

• Orders of the Assistant Collector are final (subject to revision under 4-A and suit under 4-D). 
• Orders of the Collector are final (subject only to suit under 4-D). 

Sub-section (4-D) — Civil Suit: 

• Any aggrieved person may file a suit in a competent court to establish their right over the property. 

Sub-section (4-E) — Bar on Suit: 

• No suit under 4-D lies against an Assistant Collector's order if a revision has already been preferred to the Collector under 4-A. 

Sub-section (4-F) — Protection for SC/ST Agricultural Labourers: 

• Notwithstanding all foregoing sub-sections, no action shall be taken against an SC/ST agricultural labourer if all of the following conditions are met:  
  • The labourer is in occupation of Gaon Sabha land vested under Section 117. 
  • Occupation existed from before 13 May 2007. 
  • Total land held (occupied + previously held as bhumidhar/sirdar/asami) does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres). 
• On satisfying these conditions:  
  • The labourer shall be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195. 
  • No suit for declaration of such rights is necessary. 
• "Agricultural labourer" has the meaning assigned under Section 198. 

Sub-section (5) — Saving of Rules: 

• Rules 115-C to 115-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 shall be deemed to have always been validly made and shall continue in force until altered, repealed, or amended.