List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in Chetan Dashrath Gade v. The State of Maharashtra (2026), upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife by strangulation, holding that once the prosecution establishes that certain incriminating facts were especially within the accused's personal knowledge, the burden shifts to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 109 of BSA), to offer a credible explanation.  

• The Court held that the husband's failure to explain the circumstances surrounding the death within the matrimonial home constituted a significant incriminating circumstance against him, and that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.

What was the Background of Chetan Dashrath Gade v. The State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from the death of a woman who had married the appellant on April 24, 2012. 
• The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been subjected to harassment over demands for gold and money.  
• According to the evidence of the deceased's father, the accused had demanded Rs. 1 lakh for the purchase of a pick-up vehicle, which was subsequently paid by the complainant's family. 
• On August 23, 2015, the accused informed his father that the deceased had allegedly attempted suicide by hanging.  
• She was first taken to a private clinic and thereafter to another hospital, where she was declared "brought dead." 
• When the deceased's father saw the body, he noticed fresh injury marks on her face, ligature marks around her neck, and missing ornaments, including an earring, anklet, and toe rings. An FIR was subsequently lodged. 
• The Trial Court acquitted all accused persons of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC for want of sufficient proof of cruelty and dowry death. However, the husband was convicted for murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence.  
• The conviction was affirmed by the Bombay High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Burden of Proof Under Section 106 of IEA (Section 109 of BSA): The Court held that once the prosecution establishes that certain incriminating facts were especially within the accused's personal knowledge, the burden shifts to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to offer a credible explanation. The husband's failure to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances of his wife's death within the matrimonial home constituted a significant incriminating circumstance against him. 
• On the Adverse Inference from the Accused's Silence: The Court observed that the appellant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation during his examination under Section 313 CrPC regarding the circumstances in which his wife suffered fatal injuries, the injuries on her face, the ligature marks on her neck, the missing ornaments, and the events leading to her death. This failure led the Court to draw an adverse inference against him, holding that the appellant could not displace the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
• On the Completeness of the Circumstantial Evidence: The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant and wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. The medical evidence, the attending circumstances surrounding the death within the matrimonial home, the conduct of the appellant subsequent to the incident, the false defence projected through the alleged suicide note, and the appellant's failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 IEA cumulatively formed a chain leaving no reasonable ground for doubt. The Court held that the principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence, as enunciated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, stood fully satisfied on the facts of the present case.

What is Section 109 of BSA? 

Section 109 of BSA:  

• Section 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) : Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge.  
• Previously it was covered under 106 of Evidence Act.   
• Basic Principle: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact shifts to that person, not the opposing party.  
• Rationale: This section prevents unfair advantage where one party has exclusive or special access to information that others cannot reasonably obtain or know.  
• Application Test: The fact must be "especially" within knowledge - meaning it's not general knowledge but specific information only that person would possess or have easy access to.  
• Criminal Law Application: In criminal cases, if certain facts about the accused's actions, mental state, or circumstances are only known to the accused, they must prove those facts (e.g., self-defense claims, alibi).  
• Civil Law Application: In civil matters, parties with special professional knowledge, access to records, or exclusive information about events must prove facts within their special domain.  
• Judicial Interpretation: Courts apply this section reasonably and don't impose impossible burdens - the person must only prove facts they can reasonably be expected to know.  
• Limitation: This provision is an exception to the general rule "he who asserts must prove" and should be applied judiciously to ensure fairness in proceedings. 

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News? 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan of the Kerala High Court, in Renjini KK v. Mannancherry Grama Panchayat & Ors. (2026), held that tribunals are not permitted to dispose of cases through cryptic, non-speaking orders that merely narrate facts and close the matter in a few lines without discussing the rival arguments or recording reasons for the conclusions reached. 

• The Court set aside both the tribunal's order and the Panchayat's demolition notice, remitting the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration, and emphasised that a speaking order is essential to ensure fairness, transparency, and meaningful judicial review.

What was the Background of Renjini KK v. Mannancherry Grama Panchayat & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Renjini KK, had constructed a single-storeyed residential building measuring approximately 560 square feet in 2019 in Alappuzha. 
• At the time of construction, such buildings did not require a building permit under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. 
• Despite the building being intended solely for residential use, the Mannancherry Grama Panchayat treated it as a commercial structure and subsequently rejected the petitioner's application for regularisation and an occupancy certificate, also refusing to assign a building number. 
• The petitioner challenged the Panchayat's refusal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. However, the tribunal dismissed her appeal through a short order stating that the Panchayat was justified in refusing regularisation of the unauthorised building. 
• Aggrieved by the tribunal's order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, challenging both the Panchayat's decision and the tribunal's dismissal order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Requirement of Speaking Orders by Tribunals: The Court held that tribunals must pass speaking orders recording reasons for their conclusions, and cannot dispose of cases by simply narrating facts and closing the matter in two lines without discussing the rival arguments or the reasons for the decision. A speaking order is essential to ensure fairness, transparency, and meaningful judicial review. 
• On Rule 20 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999: The Court observed that Rule 20 of the 1999 Tribunal Rules itself required the tribunal to record its decision on the petition after considering the pleadings and connected records. The expression "order recording its decision" necessarily implied that the reasoning process leading to the conclusions must be disclosed. The tribunal's obligation was not merely to state its conclusion but to demonstrate how it arrived at it. 
• On the Tribunal's Order in the Present Case: The Court examined the tribunal's four-paragraph order and found that it merely narrated the facts before stating that the Panchayat had given a speaking order which was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court held that the tribunal had not discussed the issues raised by the petitioner or given any reasons for rejecting them, rendering the order a non-speaking, cryptic order that could not be sustained. 
• On the Consequence of Non-Speaking Orders: The Court held that the absence of reasoning in the tribunal's order made it incapable of meaningful judicial review. Where a tribunal fails to disclose the basis for its conclusions, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under the writ jurisdiction is effectively frustrated.

What is a Speaking Order? 

• A speaking order is a judicial or quasi-judicial order that does not merely announce a conclusion but discloses the reasoning process by which the authority arrived at that conclusion. The requirement of a speaking order flows from the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. 
• Basis in Natural Justice: The duty to give reasons is now well-established as a facet of natural justice in Indian administrative law. An order affecting rights must reflect the application of mind of the authority and must enable the affected party to understand why the decision went against them. 
• Purpose of Reasoned Orders: 
  • It ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary decision-making. 
  • It enables meaningful appellate or judicial review of the order. 
  • It promotes transparency in the exercise of public authority. 
  • It acts as a check against the authority's own bias or oversight.
• Applicability to Tribunals: Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are bound by the same requirement of giving reasons as courts of law. Statutory rules governing tribunals — such as Rule 20 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999 — often expressly codify this requirement. 
• Distinction from a Cryptic Order: A cryptic order is one that states a conclusion without explanation — for example, merely saying that the lower authority's order is "justified" or "does not warrant interference" without engaging with the contentions raised. Such orders are liable to be set aside by superior courts on the ground of non-application of mind.