List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice N.J. Jamadar of the Bombay High Court, in Geeta Kampani v. State of Maharashtra with Parag Shah v. Geeta Kampani (2026), heard two criminal applications arising from an order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing the de-freezing of bank accounts and mutual fund units of the accused, subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 6.55 crores. 

• One application was filed by the first informant challenging the very de-freezing of the accounts. The other was filed by accused no. 2 challenging the condition requiring the furnishing of the bank guarantee. The Court dismissed the first informant's application and partly allowed the application of accused no. 2 by modifying the condition imposed for de-freezing from a bank guarantee to an indemnity bond.

What was the Background of Geeta Kampani v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The accused contended that there was no nexus whatsoever between the frozen accounts and the alleged offences.  
• It was argued that Section 102 CrPC empowers seizure only of property having a direct connection with the offence under investigation, and not any property belonging to an accused merely by virtue of such association. 
• The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the de-freezing of the bank accounts and mutual fund units subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the frozen amount of Rs. 6.55 crores.  
• Both the first informant and accused no. 2 challenged this order before the Bombay High Court on different grounds.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 102 CrPC: The Court held that though bank accounts constitute "property" within the meaning of Section 102 CrPC, the power to seize can be exercised only where there exists a direct link between the property and the commission of the alleged offence. The Court emphasised that the provision uses the expression "any property," but the power to seize is conditioned by the requirement that such property be alleged or suspected to be stolen, or be found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. 
• On the Character of the Property: The Court observed that the emphasis under Section 102 is on the character of the property rather than its association with the persons involved in the offence. Only property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of an offence, can lawfully be seized under this provision. 
• On the Purpose of Section 102 CrPC: The Court held that Section 102 is intended to assist in investigation and the collection of evidence. It is not a mechanism to secure recovery for the complainant or to hand over property to a person whom the investigating agency believes to be the rightful owner. 
• On the Bank Guarantee Condition: The Court held that requiring the accused to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 6.55 crores — equivalent to the frozen amount — as a condition for de-freezing virtually amounted to a refusal of the very prayer for de-freezing. Such an onerous condition frustrated the purpose of de-freezing the accounts. The Court held that only reasonable conditions could be imposed in such circumstances. 
• On the Facts of the Case: The Court noted that the material on record did not prima facie establish the necessary nexus between the frozen bank accounts and mutual funds and the commission of the alleged offences. It accordingly modified the Magistrate's order, directing de-freezing subject to the furnishing of an indemnity bond instead of a bank guarantee.

What is Section 106 of BNSS? 

Section 106 BNSS – Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property:  

• This Section Corresponds to Section 102 CrPC.   
• Any police officer may seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence.  
• If the seizing officer is subordinate to the Station House Officer, he must forthwith report the seizure to that officer.  
• The seizing officer must also report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay.  
• Where the seized property cannot be conveniently transported to court, or custody is difficult, or continued police custody is unnecessary, the officer may hand it over to any person on a bond undertaking to produce it before the court as required.  
• Where seized property is subject to speedy decay, the owner is unknown or absent, and its value is below ₹500, it may be auctioned under orders of the Superintendent of Police; Sections 503 and 504 BNSS apply to the net proceeds.

Legal History of the Provision: Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in Padam Mehta and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2026), directed the State of Rajasthan to take concrete steps for the introduction and provision of Rajasthani language as a subject in all government and private schools across the state, and also to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction. 

• The Court held that the right of a child to receive primary education in a language of their choice is traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and that the continued inaction of the State of Rajasthan in operationalising this mandate risked infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

What was the Background of Padam Mehta and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petition arose from the State of Rajasthan's failure to take adequate steps to ensure that children receive instruction in Rajasthani or at least in a language of their choice, in accordance with the Central government's policy on mother tongue-based education. 
• The petitioners contended that the State had neither introduced Rajasthani as a subject in schools nor taken sufficient measures to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction, leaving children without meaningful access to education in a comprehensible language. 
• The Supreme Court, upon examining the State's inaction, called out the failure to implement the mandate and issued directions for remedying the same.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Article 19(1)(a) and the Right to Receive Education in Mother Tongue: The Court held that the right to receive education in one's mother tongue finds its normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible. The true value of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in the ability to understand, internalise, and process information so as to make informed choices. 
• On the Role of Mother Tongue in Education: The Court observed that education, being a primary vehicle for the transmission of knowledge, must — to the extent practicable — be imparted in a language the child best understands. Instruction in the mother tongue or a language of choice fortifies the learner's conceptual clarity, ensures deeper cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional promise of meaningful access to knowledge. 
• On State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary and Secondary Schools: The Court referred to this precedent, wherein it had been observed that Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of choice on a child regarding the medium of instruction at the primary level. Importantly, the Court reiterated that the State cannot impose education in the mother tongue on a child even on the ground that it would be beneficial, as the freedom of choice vests in the child. 
• On Rajasthan's Inaction: The Court noted that the Central government's policy was unambiguous on the question of mother tongue-based education. It criticised the State of Rajasthan for failing to take appropriate steps to ensure instruction in a language of the child's choice or at least in the regional language. The Court held that such continued inaction not only undermines statutory and policy directives but also risks infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

What is Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Freedom of speech and expression is contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The essence of free speech is the ability to think and speak freely and to obtain information from others through publications and public discourse without fear of retribution, restrictions or repression by the Government. 

Article 19(1)(a) of the COI: 

• Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
  • The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. 
• The following aspects are included in Article 19(1)(a): 
  • Freedom of Press 
  • Freedom of Commercial Speech 
  • Right to Broadcast 
  • Right to Information 
  • Right to Criticize 
  • Right to expression beyond national boundaries 
  • Right not to speak or right to silence 

Essential Elements of Article 19(1)(a) of the COI: 

• This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals. 
• It includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc. 
• This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions. 

Article 19(2) of the COI: 

• The exercise of this right is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions for certain purposes imposed under Article 19(2). 
• The Article 19 (2) states that nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 

Significance of Article 19 (1)(a) of the COI: 

• Societal good: Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment plays a significant role in the development of a particular society. 
• Self-development: Free speech is an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and fulfilment. Restrictions inhibit our personality and its growth. 
• Democratic value: Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic Government. This freedom is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process as it allows people to criticize the government in a democracy, freedom of speech and expression open up channels of free discussion of issues. 
• Ensure pluralism: Freedom of Speech reflects and reinforces pluralism, ensuring that diversity is validated and promotes the self-esteem of those who follow a particular lifestyle.