List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

 Why in News? 

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in the case of Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), held that the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are not imposable in cases involving non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.  

• The Court set aside the order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had cancelled the appellant's bail solely on the ground of alleged violation of conditions that ought never to have been imposed. 

What was the Background of Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• A case was registered against the appellant under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (MP Excise Act) for allegedly possessing illicit liquor — an offence carrying a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment and being non-bailable in nature. 
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) granted bail to the appellant under Section 480 of the BNSS, which governs grant of bail in non-bailable cases. However, while granting bail, the High Court imposed conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS. 
• Subsequently, the State filed an application for cancellation of bail before the High Court, contending that the appellant had misused his liberty by again being found in possession of 72 bulk litres of unauthorised liquor — an offence similar to the one for which he had been granted bail. 
• The High Court cancelled the bail, holding that the appellant had violated the bail conditions and displayed a propensity to commit the crime.  
• Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS were inapplicable to an offence punishable with only three years' imprisonment, and therefore no question of their violation could arise. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Section 480(3) BNSS Conditions Are Not Applicable to Offences Punishable Below Seven Years: 

• The conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS can only be imposed when the accused is charged with a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than seven years, or with offences under Chapter VI, VII, or XVII of the BNSS, or for abetment of, conspiracy in, or attempt to commit such offences. 
• Since the offence under the MP Excise Act carries a maximum sentence of three years, Section 480(3) conditions were wholly inapplicable and ought not to have been imposed by the High Court. 

Bail Cancellation on Ground of Violation of Inapplicable Conditions Is Unsustainable: 

• Since the conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS could not have been validly imposed in the first place, no question of their violation could arise so as to justify cancellation of bail. 
• The High Court therefore erred in cancelling bail solely on the ground of the appellant's involvement in a subsequent offence punishable with less than five years. 

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's bail cancellation order was set aside. 

What is Section 480 of the BNSS? 

Section 480 of BNSS - When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. 

(Earlier this was covered under Section 437 of CrPC).  

Sub-section (1) — General Power to Grant Bail: 

• Any person accused/suspected of a non-bailable offence, arrested without warrant or brought before a court (other than High Court or Sessions Court), may be released on bail. 
• Bail shall NOT be granted if:  
• There are reasonable grounds to believe the person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment (clause i), or 
• The offence is cognizable AND the person was previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, life, or 7+ years, or convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with 3–7 years (clause ii). 
• Exceptions (Provisos):  
• A child, woman, or sick/infirm person falling under clause (i) or (ii) may be granted bail. 
• Bail may be granted under clause (ii) for any other special reason if the court deems it just and proper. 
• Requirement of identification by witnesses or police custody beyond 15 days alone is not sufficient ground to refuse bail, provided the accused gives an undertaking to comply with court directions. 
• For offences punishable with death, life, or 7+ years — bail cannot be granted without giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of hearing. 

Sub-section (2) — Bail Pending Further Inquiry: 

• If at any stage of investigation, inquiry, or trial, the court/officer finds no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence but finds sufficient grounds for further inquiry, the accused shall be released on bail or on a bond, subject to Section 492 BNSS. 

Sub-section (3) — Mandatory Conditions for Serious Offences: 

• When bail is granted under sub-section (1) for offences punishable with 7 years or more, or offences under Chapter VI, VII, or XVII of BNS, or abetment/conspiracy/attempt of such offences — the Court shall impose the following conditions:  
• (a) Attendance in accordance with bond conditions. 
• (b) No commission of a similar offence. 
• (c) No inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case; no tampering with evidence. 
• Additionally, the court may impose any other conditions in the interest of justice. 
• Key Note: These conditions are not applicable to offences punishable with less than 7 years.  

Sub-section (4) — Recording of Reasons: 

• Any officer or court releasing a person on bail under sub-sections (1) or (2) must record reasons or special reasons in writing. 

Sub-section (5) — Power to Cancel Bail: 

• A court that released a person on bail under sub-sections (1) or (2) may, if necessary, direct the re-arrest and custody of such person. 

Sub-section (6) — Bail on Delay in Trial: 

• In a Magistrate-triable case, if the trial of a non-bailable offence accused is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and the accused has been in custody throughout, he shall be released on bail, unless the Magistrate records reasons in writing to the contrary. 

Sub-section (7) — Bail After Trial, Before Judgment: 

• If, after conclusion of trial and before delivery of judgment, the court believes there are reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty, it shall release the accused on a bond to appear and hear the judgment. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rekha Borana of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Smt. Champa Devi v.   Jogaram and Anr. (2026), held that a written power of attorney cannot be revoked, modified, or substituted through oral statements. The court further held that where a right is transferred by a written document, its revocation must also be in writing and must be communicated to the party in whose favour the right was conferred. Applying these principles, the court allowed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint as frivolous and vexatious. 

What was the Background of Smt. Champa Devi v. Jogaram and Anr. (2026) Case? 

• In 2012, the respondent-plaintiff (Jogaram) entered into a development agreement with the petitioner Champa Devi and one Anil Kaushik, who were developers. Under the agreement, the plaintiff executed power of attorneys in their favour to convert his land from agricultural to residential use.  
• The developers were to bear all expenses, and in return, 13 bighas out of the total 27 bighas of land were to be transferred to them as consideration. 
• In 2021, the plaintiff alleged that no development work had been undertaken. He claimed to have orally revoked the POA in January 2022.  
• In October 2023, the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of one Geegaram. The plaintiff subsequently issued a formal registered notice of revocation of the POA in November 2023 and thereafter challenged the sale deed on the ground that it had been executed fraudulently, despite the alleged oral revocation. 
• The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the Rajasthan High Court in revision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Oral Revocation of a Written POA Is of No Legal Consequence: 

• A contract or disposition required to be in writing, and which has been reduced to writing, cannot have its terms modified, altered, or substituted by an oral contract or disposition. 
• No parol evidence is admissible to substantiate such an oral contract or disposition. 
• Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Saktivel (Dead) by LRs v. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors. (2000), the court reiterated that only another written document can alter, rescind, or substitute the terms of an earlier written document. 

Revocation of a Written Instrument Must Be in Writing and Communicated: 

• Where any right is transferred through a written document, the revocation of that document must also be in writing. 
• Such revocation or cancellation must be brought to the notice of the party in whose favour the right was conferred. 
• The alleged oral revocation of the POA in January 2022 was therefore of no legal consequence. 

Sale Deed Was Valid as POA Stood Unrevoked at the Time of Execution: 

• The court noted that the trial court had erroneously recorded the date of execution of the sale deed as 03.11.2023, when in fact the sale deed was executed on 31.10.2023. 
• The date 03.11.2023 was merely the date of registration of the sale deed, not its execution. 
• Since the POA had not been validly revoked as on 31.10.2023, the sale deed executed on that date was perfectly valid. 
• The formal written notice of revocation was only issued on 02.11.2023 — after the sale deed had already been executed. 

Plaint Liable to Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: 

• The execution of the POA and the development agreement on 05.12.2012 was an admitted fact, not disputed by the plaintiff. 
• Given the settled legal position on oral revocation and the validity of the sale deed, the court found the suit to be frivolous and vexatious. 
• The court allowed the petitioner's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application and rejected the plaint. 

What is the Power of Attorney? 

Definition and Basic Concept: 

• A Power of Attorney (POA) or letter of attorney is a written authorisation to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs (financial or health-related), business, or other legal matters.  
• The person authorising another to act is called the principal, grantor, or donor. The one authorised to act is the agent, attorney, or attorney-in-fact.  
• As an agent, an attorney-in-fact is a fiduciary for the principal — the law requires complete honesty and loyalty toward the principal.  

Formal Requirements: 

• For a POA to be a legally enforceable document, at a minimum it must be signed and dated by the principal.  
• Some jurisdictions require that a POA be witnessed, notarised, or both. Even when not required, notarisation increases the likelihood of withstanding a legal challenge.  
• Many institutions such as hospitals, banks, and the IRS require a POA to be in writing before they will honour it.  
• The equal dignity rule requires that the authorisation for someone performing certain acts on another's behalf must have been given with the same formality as required for the act itself — for example, a POA to sell real property must itself be in writing. 

Mental Capacity Requirement: 

• A person can only create a POA if they have the requisite mental capacity at the time of execution.  
• If a person is already incapacitated, it is not possible for them to execute a valid POA; the only alternative may be a court-imposed conservatorship or guardianship.  

Types of Power of Attorney: 

• Special (Limited) POA — Limited to a specified act or type of act only.  
• General POA — Allows the agent to make all personal and business decisions on behalf of the principal.  
• Temporary POA — One with a limited time frame.  
• Durable/Lasting/Enduring POA — The principal specifies that the POA will continue to be effective even if the grantor becomes incapacitated. Authority continues until the grantor's death or the POA is revoked.  
• Springing POA — A power that takes effect only after the incapacity of the grantor or some other definite future act or circumstance; it cannot be invoked before that triggering event.  
• Health Care POA — Gives the attorney-in-fact lasting authority to make health-care decisions for the grantor, up to and including terminating care and life support. It is also referred to as a "health care proxy."