List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

A Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa, comprising Justice Dr Neela Gokhale, in the case of Shrinivas Shinde v. Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (2026), held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) limits penal action under Section 14 to the woman or person who files a false and malicious complaint — and does not extend such liability to a third party who may have instigated that complaint.  

• The court, however, directed that the ICC report be amended to name the instigator explicitly, and held that the petitioner was at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against him before a competent forum.

What was the Background of Shrinivas Shinde v. Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (2026) Case? 

• A female colleague of the petitioner, Shrinivas Shinde (a Low Division Clerk with the Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship), filed a sexual harassment complaint against him before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). 
• The ICC closed the complaint, recording a finding that the complainant had been 'instigated' by an 'unknown person' to file the false complaint. 
• Before the ICC, the female colleague had herself stated that one Dattaprasad Palni, the institute's Principal, had drafted the complaint and compelled her to sign it, threatening her with future harassment if she refused. 
• Shinde challenged the ICC's order before the Industrial Court, seeking initiation of proceedings against Palni for having instigated the false complaint. 
• The matter ultimately came before the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Scope of Section 14 is Limited to the Complainant: 

• Section 14 of the POSH Act empowers the ICC to recommend penal action only against the woman or the person who made the complaint under Section 9(1) or 9(2), as the case may be. 
• The statute does not contemplate any punishment for a third party who instigates a woman to file a false or malicious complaint, or who gives false evidence before the ICC. 

Petitioner's Remedy is Against the Complainant, Not the Instigator: 

• Since the female colleague was the author of the complaint, Shinde could legitimately seek penal action against her under Section 14 of the POSH Act. 
• His prayer to direct disciplinary action against Palni under the POSH Act was held to be misplaced and was accordingly rejected. 
• The court noted that the woman may have been compelled by threats, yet the statute did not provide a mechanism to proceed against the instigator under the POSH Act. 

ICC's Omission Criticised — Report Directed to Be Amended: 

• The court criticised the ICC for recording the instigator as an 'unknown person' even though Palni was named in the complainant's own retraction letter. 
• The ICC was held to have been selectively silent, which the court found impermissible. 
• The ICC report was accordingly directed to be amended to record that Palni had instigated the complainant to file a false sexual harassment case against the petitioner. 

Liberty to Pursue Other Remedies: 

• The court clarified that Shinde was at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against Palni before a competent forum, if permissible in law, subject to Palni being afforded an opportunity of hearing.

What is the POSH Act, 2013? 

About: 

• The POSH Act is a legislation made by the Indian government in 2013 to deal with sexual harassment that women face at work.  
• It's designed to make sure workplaces are safe for women and to protect them from sexual harassment.  
• According to the Act, sexual harassment can involve things like unwanted physical contact or advances, asking for sexual favors, making inappropriate sexual comments, showing pornography, or any other unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, whether it's spoken, written, or even gestures.  
• Sexual Harassment at the workplace is dealt by the legislative enactment – The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, (POSH ACT). 
• Where the victim of Sexual Offence is a minor the legislation that comes into play is The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 
• The act sets out obligations for the employer, including the requirement to recognize sexual harassment as “misconduct” under service rules and to set up an internal complaints committee (ICC) in workplaces with 10 or more workers. 

Background of the Act: 

• The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment in the Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan 1997 case gave ‘Vishakha guidelines’. 
• These guidelines formed the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 
• The SC also drew its strength from several provisions of the Constitution including Article 15 (against discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth), also drawing from relevant International Conventions and norms such as the General Recommendations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which India ratified in 1993. 

Section 14 of the Act: 

Section 14: Punishment for False or Malicious Complaints: 

• Action Against Malicious Complaints: 
  • Section 14(1) addresses the serious issue of false or malicious complaints while incorporating important safeguards: 
    • Establishes criteria for determining malicious intent including knowingly false complaints and forged documents. 
    • Provides that mere inability to substantiate a complaint does not attract punishment. 
    • Requires establishment of malicious intent through proper inquiry procedures before recommending action. 
  • Action Against False Evidence: 
    • Section 14(2) empowers Committees to recommend action against witnesses who provide false evidence or produce misleading documents, maintaining the integrity of the inquiry process.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, in the case of Rajeev Mehta @ Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Param Bir Singh (2026), held that where an accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint, the Magistrate is statutorily obligated to either conduct an inquiry himself or direct an investigation under Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before issuing process.  

• The court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment to the extent it upheld the Magistrate's decision to proceed against the accused without compliance with Section 225 BNSS.

What was the Background of Rajeev Mehta v. Param Bir Singh (2026) Case? 

• A criminal complaint was filed before a Magistrate against the appellant, who was admittedly residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of that court. 
• The appellant challenged the proceedings on two principal grounds: first, that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction; and second, that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 225 BNSS was not followed before the Magistrate exercised his power of examination of complaint under Section 223 BNSS. 
• The jurisdictional objection was raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but was not adjudicated upon. 
• The High Court upheld the proceedings without insisting on compliance with Section 225 BNSS, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Section 225 BNSS is Mandatory, Not Directory: 

• Where a Magistrate, upon receipt of a complaint, is satisfied that the accused resides outside the area of his territorial jurisdiction, he is mandatorily required to invoke Section 225 BNSS. 
• The Magistrate cannot directly issue process or proceed under Section 223 BNSS without first conducting an inquiry or directing an investigation as required under Section 225 BNSS. 

High Court Erred in Upholding Non-Compliance: 

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error in ignoring the non-compliance of Section 225 BNSS while the accused was admittedly residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. 
• Accepting the High Court's reasoning would render Section 225 BNSS otiose and redundant — a result impermissible in statutory interpretation. 

Remand for Adjudication on Jurisdiction: 

• The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the unresolved issue of the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction afresh.

What is Section 225 of the BNSS? 

Section 225 BNSS — Postponement of Issue of Process: 

Who Can Exercise This Power: 

• Any Magistrate authorised to take cognizance of the offence. 
• Also applies where complaint has been made over to him under Section 212.

Core Power — Postponement of Process: 

• On receipt of a complaint, Magistrate may postpone issuing process against the accused. 
• Postponement is discretionary in general cases. 
• Postponement is mandatory (shall) when accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. 

After postponement, Magistrate may either: 

• Inquire into the case himself, or 
• Direct investigation by a police officer or any other suitable person. 

Purpose: To decide whether sufficient ground exists to proceed against the accused. 

Proviso — Bar on Directing Investigation: 

Investigation cannot be directed in two situations: 

• Where offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. 
• Where complaint is not made by a Court, unless:  
  • Complainant has been examined on oath under Section 223, and 
  • Witnesses present (if any) have also been examined on oath.

Taking Evidence During Inquiry (Sub-section 2): 

• Magistrate may take evidence of witnesses on oath — discretionary. 
• Exception (mandatory): If offence is exclusively triable by Sessions Court → Magistrate shall call all complainant's witnesses and examine them on oath.

Powers of Non-Police Investigator (Sub-section 3): 

• A non-police person directed to investigate gets all powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station. 
• One exception: No power to arrest without warrant.

CrPC Equivalent: 

• Section 225 BNSS = Section 202 CrPC 
• Key addition in BNSS: Mandatory postponement when accused is beyond territorial jurisdiction is made a clearer statutory obligation.