List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court, in Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others (2026), held that a Judicial Magistrate does not require prior sanction under Sections 196 or 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC (Now Section 175(3) of BNSS). The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's observation to the contrary, clarifying that the sanction requirement is a cognizance-stage condition and has no application at the pre-cognizance stage of FIR registration or police investigation.

What was the Background of Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others (2026) Case? 

• CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat filed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against BJP leaders including Kapil Sharma and Anurag Thakur for alleged hate speeches made ahead of the 2020 Delhi riots. 
• The Judicial Magistrate refused to direct registration of the FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC was a prerequisite. 
• The Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate's view. 
• Aggrieved, Brinda Karat filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 
• The matter was heard as part of a batch of cases concerning hate speeches and hate crimes.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Prior Sanction Operates Only at Cognizance Stage: 

• The requirement of prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC (and their BNSS counterparts — Sections 217 and 218) is triggered only when a court proceeds to take cognizance of an offence. 
• It has no application at the pre-cognizance stage, which encompasses the registration of an FIR and the conduct of police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175(3) BNSS. 
• A Magistrate directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) is acting at a stage anterior to cognizance, and therefore no prior sanction is required. 

Mandatory Duty to Register FIR: 

• Reiterating the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., the Court held that the duty of the police to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory and admits of no discretion. 
• In case of failure to register an FIR, the law provides complete statutory remedies: an aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC / Section 173(4) BNSS, invoke the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175 BNSS, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC / Section 223 BNSS. 

No Legislative Vacuum on Hate Speech: 

• The Court observed that the existing criminal law framework — including the IPC and allied legislations — adequately addresses acts promoting enmity, outraging religious sentiments, and disturbing public tranquillity. 
• The creation of criminal offences is exclusively within the legislative domain; the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions. 
• The grievance of the petitioners arose not from the absence of law but from its lack of enforcement — a concern that does not justify judicial law-making. 

Complete Statutory Architecture: 

• The Court noted that the available remedies, read together with the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, constitute a complete statutory architecture, leaving no room for the extraordinary intervention sought by the petitioners. 

Outcome: 

• The Supreme Court partly allowed Brinda Karat's petition to the extent of setting aside the Delhi High Court's observation that prior sanction is required for a Magistrate to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC. 
• The Court declined to issue general directions on hate speech legislation but left it open to the Union and the States to consider whether further legislative measures are warranted, including amendments as recommended in the Law Commission's 267th Report (March 2017). 
• Contempt petitions alleging non-compliance by police officials of various states were closed.

What is Section 175 of BNSS? 

Section 175 BNSS – Police Officer’s Power to Investigate Cognizable Case: 

• The officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable offence without prior permission of a Magistrate. 
• Such investigation can be conducted for offences which a court having jurisdiction over the local area can inquire into or try. 
• Superintendent of Police (SP) may, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, direct that the investigation be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). 
• Validity of investigation protected: 
  No proceedings of a police officer shall be questioned merely on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate the case. 
• A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 BNSS may order investigation: 
  • After considering an application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4), and 
  • After making such inquiry as deemed necessary and considering the police officer’s submission. 
• In cases involving a complaint against a public servant arising during discharge of official duties, the Magistrate may order investigation only after: 
  • Receiving a report from the superior officer of the public servant, and 
  • Considering the version/explanation of the public servant regarding the incident. 
• Key Change: 
  Section 175 BNSS replaces Section 156 of the CrPC, introducing additional safeguards, particularly in cases involving public servants. 

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News? 

A single judge bench of Justice K. Manmadha Rao of the Karnataka High Court, in Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M. (2026), held that registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is not a mandatory precondition for maintaining a divorce petition under Section 27 of the Act. The Court upheld the Kanakapura Family Court's order refusing to dismiss the husband's divorce petition on grounds of non-registration, and dismissed the wife's writ petition challenging the same.

What was the Background of Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M. (2026) Case? 

• Both parties, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe 'Meda', solemnised their marriage in April 2006 as per community and customary rites. 
• The marriage was never registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• A child was born out of the wedlock, and the parties have been living separately since 2009. 
• Being members of the 'Meda' Scheduled Tribe, they were excluded from the operation of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• The husband initially filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Kanakapura Family Court, which was rejected for want of jurisdiction. 
• He thereafter filed a dissolution of marriage petition under Section 27(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, citing cruelty and desertion. 
• The wife filed an interim application before the Family Court in June 2025, contending that registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act was compulsory for a divorce petition under Section 27 to be maintainable. 
• The Family Court dismissed the wife's interim application. 
• Aggrieved, the wife approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Family Court's interpretation of Section 15 as directory rather than mandatory.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Section 15 — Directory, Not Mandatory: 

• The Court held that Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, which prescribes conditions for registration of marriages celebrated in other forms, does not declare registration to be compulsory. 
• There is no specific provision in the Act stating that a divorce petition under Section 27 is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered. 
• Registration of marriage under the Act is only directory in nature. 

Effect of Registration — Benefit, Not Precondition: 

• The Court noted that if a marriage is registered under the Act, Section 18 confers certain benefits upon the parties. 
• However, beyond these benefits, there is no requirement of compulsory registration under the Act. 
• The Court made specific reference to Section 27A, which provides for alternative relief in divorce proceedings, further supporting the directory nature of registration. 

Distinguishing Case Law: 

• The wife had relied upon Amitava Bhattacharya v. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya (2009). 
• The Court held that the said judgment declared a marriage to be of no effect primarily on account of the minor age of the bride at the time of marriage, and did not lay down any law regarding the mandatory nature of registration under Section 15 as a precondition for maintaining a divorce petition under Section 27. 
• Accordingly, the precedent relied upon by the wife was distinguishable on facts and was not applicable to the present case. 

Outcome: 

• The Karnataka High Court dismissed the wife's writ petition and upheld the Kanakapura Family Court's order, affirming that the husband's divorce petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was maintainable despite the absence of registration of the marriage. 

What is Section 15 of SMA? 

Special Marriage Act, 1954: 

• The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 is an Indian legislation providing a legal framework for marriages between persons belonging to different religions or castes. 
• It governs civil marriages where the State, and not any religious authority, sanctions the union. 
• The Indian system of recognising both civil and religious marriages is comparable to the UK's Marriage Act, 1949. 
• The Act adopts a secular approach, allowing couples to marry irrespective of religious affiliation while retaining their individual religious identities.

Basic Provisions of the Act: 

Applicability: 

• The Act extends to persons of all faiths — Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Buddhists — across India. 
• It provides a uniform framework for solemnising marriages regardless of the religious background of the parties. 
• Couples may opt for a civil marriage ceremony conducted by State authorities in lieu of a religious ceremony. 

Recognition and Legal Standing of Marriage: 

• The Act provides for registration of marriages, conferring legal recognition and attendant benefits such as inheritance rights, succession rights, and social security benefits. 
• It prohibits polygamy and declares a marriage null and void if either party had a living spouse at the time of marriage. 
• A marriage is also void where either party is incapable of giving valid consent due to unsoundness of mind. 
• Marriages solemnised under the Act carry the same legal standing as those conducted under personal laws. 

Written Notice Requirement: 

• Section 5 of the Act requires both parties to give written notice to the Marriage Officer of the District. 
• At least one of the parties must have resided in the district for a minimum of 30 days immediately preceding the date of notice. 
• Section 7 permits any person to raise an objection to the intended marriage within 30 days of publication of the notice. 
• While designed to prevent fraudulent or illegal marriages, this provision has been a source of controversy and misuse. 

Age Limit: 

• The minimum marriageable age under the SMA is 21 years for males and 18 years for females. 
• These requirements are mandatory for a valid marriage under the Act.

Section 15 – Registration of Marriages Celebrated in Other Forms: 

Scope: 

• This section allows registration of marriages that were not solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or the Special Marriage Act, 1872 — covering both pre- and post-commencement marriages. 

Conditions for Registration: 

• (a)A marriage ceremony was performed AND parties have been living together as husband and wife ever since. 
• (b)Neither party has more than one spouse living at the time of registration. 
• (c)Neither party is an idiot or lunatic at the time of registration. 
• (d)Both parties have completed 21 years of age at the time of registration. 
• (e)Parties are not within degrees of prohibited relationship (subject to proviso below). 
• (f)Both parties have been residing in the district of the Marriage Officer for at least 30 days before the application date. 

Proviso to Condition (e): 

• For marriages celebrated before the commencement of the Act, the prohibited relationship condition is subject to any law, custom, or usage having the force of law applicable to the parties — i.e., if their personal law/custom permits such a marriage, registration shall not be denied on this ground. 

Key Takeaway: 

• Section 15 serves as a validation and registration mechanism for customary, religious, or other-form marriages, bringing them within the legal fold without requiring fresh solemnisation, provided the above six conditions are met.