List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Why in News? 

Justice M A Chowdhary of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in the case of Rajeshwar Singh v. State & Ors. (2026), held that the protection afforded under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 218 of BNSS) extends to public servants even in cases where they have exceeded their powers, so long as the acts complained of bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty. The Court quashed the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate and the impugned order of the trial court, while clarifying that prosecution may still proceed upon receipt of valid government sanction.

What was the Background of Rajeshwar Singh v. State & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner was a former Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), R S Pura, who filed a petition under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC (analogous to Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of proceedings against him. 
• In May 2005, when the petitioner was posted as SDPO, one Indu Rani was found dead under mysterious circumstances. Inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated. 
• The complainant, Satish Kumar, was called to the police station for interrogation and was released after two hours. An FIR under Sections 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was subsequently registered against Kulwant Singh Manhas and Rameshwar Singh Manhas, who were later convicted. 
• The complainant alleged that he was illegally detained from May 10 to June 1, 2005, rotated among various police stations, and subjected to third-degree torture at the instance of the petitioner and other police officers. 
• A criminal complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who took cognizance under Sections 342, 330, and 34 RPC and committed the case to the Sessions Court. 
• During pendency, the petitioner moved an application claiming protection under Section 197 CrPC, which the trial court dismissed on the ground that the alleged acts had no reasonable nexus with his official duty. 
• The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court analysed the legal position on Section 197 CrPC and  held that the expression "official duty" denotes a duty arising by reason of an office, and that a reasonable connection between the acts complained of and the duties of a public servant determines whether protection applies — even where those acts were in excess of authority. 
• The Court offered a clarifying illustration:  
  • A Deputy Superintendent of Police who beats a prisoner attempting to escape would be entitled to protection, since preventing escape is connected with official duty — even if excessive force was used. 
  • A police officer thrashing a passerby without reason would not be entitled to such protection, as there is no connection with official duty. 
• Applying these principles to the facts, the Court held that the petitioner — as a gazetted supervisory police officer (SDPO) — was alleged to have misused authority by keeping the complainant in illegal custody and subjecting him to torture. Even on the petitioner's own stand that the complainant was released the same day, the allegations of illegal custody and torture could not be dissociated from his official duties as a supervisory officer. 
• The Court held that the alleged acts were so inextricably connected with his official duty, or at least bore its colour, that the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC was attracted. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the cognizance order and the impugned trial court order qua the petitioner, and clarified that the Magistrate would be at liberty to revisit cognizance upon receiving valid sanction to prosecute.

What is Section 218 of BNSS? 

Section 218 - Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants 

Scope of Protection: 

• Applies to Judges, Magistrates, and public servants not removable from office without government sanction. 
• Protection covers offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. 
• Courts cannot take cognizance of such offences without previous sanction. 

Sanction Requirements: 

• Central Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of the Union. 
• State Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of a State. 
• During President's Rule (Article 356), Central Government sanction required even for State employees, 

Time Limit for Sanction Decision: 

• Government must decide on sanction request within 120 days from receipt. 
• If no decision is taken within 120 days, sanction is deemed to have been accorded automatically. 

Exceptions - No Sanction Required: 

• For offences under specific sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 197, 198, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 141, or 351. 
• Exception also provided under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 

Armed Forces Protection: 

• No cognizance without Central Government's previous sanction for Armed Forces members. 
• State Government can extend this protection to forces maintaining public order through notification. 
• During President's Rule, Central Government sanction required for state forces as well. 

Prosecution Control: 

• Central/State Government may determine who will conduct prosecution. 
• Government may specify the manner of prosecution and specific offences to be prosecuted. 
• Government may designate the court where trial will be held. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court, in the case of Channappa (D) Thr. LRS. v. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. LRS. (2026), held that a suit for declaration of title filed subsequent to an earlier suit for permanent injunction — where the plaintiff's title was already in dispute — is barred under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, which embodies the doctrine of constructive res judicata. 

• The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had interfered with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and restored the bar on the second suit.

What was the Background of Channappa (D) Thr. LRS. v. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. LRS. (2026) Case? 

• The respondent (Parvatewwa) had filed the primary suit (Suit – I) seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant (Channappa) restraining interference with her peaceful possession of the suit property.  
• However, in that suit, she did not seek a declaration of title to establish her ownership, even though Channappa had clearly contested her ownership in the pleadings. 
• Subsequently, the respondent filed a second suit (Suit – II) seeking declaration of title over the same property — a relief that had been available to her and could have been claimed in the earlier proceedings. 
• The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that Suit – II was barred under Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 CPC.  
• The Karnataka High Court, however, interfered with these concurrent findings, prompting Channappa's legal representatives to approach the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that once the appellant had expressly disputed the respondent's ownership in the pleadings of Suit – I, it became obligatory upon the respondent to seek the comprehensive relief of declaration of title along with the consequential relief of injunction in that very suit itself. The omission to do so was fatal and could not be cured through a subsequent suit. 
• The Court underscored the following key principles: 
  • The dispute regarding the parties' rights over the property already existed at the time of institution of Suit – I, making it necessary for the respondent to claim all connected reliefs then and there. 
  • Under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC (constructive res judicata), any matter that might and ought to have been raised in the former proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in those proceedings. 
  • The doctrine underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that a plaintiff must claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in a single proceeding. Omission of a relief that could have been claimed earlier bars a subsequent suit for that relief. 
  • The respondent, being fully aware of the appellant's claim over the property during Suit – I, was not permitted to re-agitate the same issue in Suit – II. 
• The Court held that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had correctly applied the settled principles governing Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the High Court had erred in interfering with their concurrent findings. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Karnataka High Court's order was set aside.

What is Constructive Res Judicata? 

• The principle of Constructive Res Judicata is an extension of the principle of Res Judicata. 
• The origin of this principle in law can be found in the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the CPC. 
• Section 11 of the CPC contains the principle of Res Judicata, according to which, a subsequent suit in respect of a claim between the same parties is barred if an earlier suit has been tried involving the same issue which have been directly and substantially in issue and between the same parties. 
• Explanation IV appended to Section 11 of the CPC provides that any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. 
• The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) held that principle of Constructive Res Judicata as explained in the Explanation IV of Section 11 of CPC is applicable to Writ Petitions.