List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan in G Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2026), issued a slew of directions to strengthen mechanisms for tracing missing children and combating child trafficking across the country. The Court directed that FIRs must be registered immediately upon receipt of information about a missing person, without waiting for a preliminary inquiry or requiring guardians to initiate the process.  

• The FIRs must mandatorily invoke the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to kidnapping and abduction of children.

What was the Background of G Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a plea filed by one G. Ganesh, whose minor daughter went missing from Chennai in 2011. 
• An FIR was registered and the matter was investigated by multiple agencies; however, the child remained untraced. 
• The police eventually closed the case as undetectable. 
• The Madras High Court declined to interfere with the closure report. 
• The matter thereafter reached the Supreme Court. 
• Troubled by the systemic issues emerging from the case, the Court expanded the proceedings suo motu to examine the larger issue of missing children and child trafficking across the country. 
• The Court expressed serious concern over the widening gap between the number of children reported missing and those eventually traced. 
• Taking note of submissions that Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) in several States exist only on paper, the Court issued comprehensive directions to address the systemic gaps.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Immediate FIR Registration: The Court directed that upon receiving any information about a missing person, police must immediately register an FIR without waiting for a preliminary inquiry or requiring the guardian to initiate the process. Such FIRs must mandatorily invoke the relevant provisions of the BNS relating to kidnapping and abduction of children. 
• On Early Transfer to Anti-Human Trafficking Units: The Court held that as soon as the investigating agency has sufficient reason to believe that a case relates to trafficking, it must transfer the matter immediately to the specialised unit dealing with offences of human trafficking, kidnapping, and abduction, without waiting for the existing four-month period prescribed under the current guidelines. 
• On Creation of an All-India Police Grid: The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to create an all-India police grid with a dedicated portal for cases involving human trafficking, missing children, and missing women. 
• On Functionality of AHTUs: Noting that AHTUs in several States exist only on paper, the Court directed the Union and State governments to immediately ensure that such units are fully functional and effective on the ground. 
• On Nodal Officers: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of nodal officers appointed by States, observing that such appointments were often made casually and that officers frequently failed to respond or delegated their responsibilities to others. It directed all Home Secretaries and Directors General of Police to appoint nodal officers with integrity, competence, and experience in handling such cases. 
• On Restoration of Recovered Children: The Court expressed concern over delays in restoring recovered children to their families. However, it clarified that children should not be restored to families where the guardians themselves are found to have played a role in trafficking. 
• On Cooperation of Agencies: The Court directed that all agencies, including District Legal Services Authorities and similar institutions, must extend full cooperation in matters concerning missing children and trafficking investigations. 
• The matter has been listed for further hearing in August.

What are the Relevant BNS Provisions on Kidnapping and Abduction of Children? 

Kidnapping and Abduction under BNS, 2023: 

Section 137 – Kidnapping: BNS recognises two forms of kidnapping — kidnapping from India (taking a person beyond the limits of India without consent) and kidnapping from lawful guardianship (taking or enticing a minor under 18 years or a person of unsound mind out of the keeping of their lawful guardian without the guardian's consent). 

Section 138 – Abduction: Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. 

Section 139 – Kidnapping or Maiming a Minor for Begging: Prescribes punishment for kidnapping or obtaining custody of a minor for the purpose of begging or maiming. 

Section 140 – Kidnapping for Ransom: Prescribes enhanced punishment for kidnapping for the purpose of ransom, extortion, or causing grievous hurt or death. 

Section 141 – Importation of Girl from Foreign Country: Penalises importation of a girl under 21 years of age for illicit intercourse. 

Section 143 – Trafficking of Persons: Provides for punishment of trafficking, with enhanced punishment where the victim is a minor, or where the offence involves multiple victims or is committed by a person in a position of trust or authority. 

Key Principle: The registration of FIRs in missing children cases must mandatorily invoke the provisions relating to kidnapping and abduction so as to ensure that the matter is treated with the seriousness warranted and is not prematurely closed as a routine missing person report.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), upheld the conviction of the appellant under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 351 of BNS), while reducing the sentence to the period of custody already undergone. 

• The Court held that threatening to upload a woman's private bathing video on Facebook constitutes criminal intimidation by imputing unchastity, and that the concept of "unchastity" under Section 506 IPC must be understood through constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy rather than through traditional or patriarchal moral notions.

What was the Background of Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026) Case? 

• The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had been in a romantic and sexual relationship with her and had secretly recorded her while she was bathing. 
• The appellant subsequently threatened to upload the video on Facebook if she continued to contact him or insisted on continuing the relationship. 
• The trial court acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC on the basis of the threat established through oral evidence. 
• The High Court affirmed the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 
• The central issue before the Court was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, punishable under Part II of Section 506 IPC, even though the alleged mobile phone or video was not recovered.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Independent Examination of Charges: The Court held that the acquittal of the appellant under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC did not automatically nullify the conviction under Section 506 IPC. Each offence has distinct legal ingredients, and the fact that the sexual relationship was found to be consensual did not mean that a subsequent threat to expose a private video was lawful. 
• On the Constitutional Meaning of "Unchastity": The Court held that "unchastity" under Part II of Section 506 IPC must be understood through constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy, and not merely through traditional moral notions. Threatening to publish a woman's nude or semi-nude private bathing video on social media attacks her sexual autonomy, bodily privacy, and dignity, and therefore amounts to imputing unchastity within the meaning of the provision. 
• On the Threat Assessed from the Victim's Perspective: The Court held that whether the threat could actually be executed is not decisive. What matters is whether the threat was made and whether it caused genuine alarm. A person may be criminally intimidated even by a threat not ultimately capable of execution, if the victim genuinely perceives it as real and it was intended to cause alarm or compel an act or omission. 
• On Non-Recovery of Digital Evidence: The Court held that failure to recover the mobile phone or video is not necessarily fatal to conviction where credible oral evidence establishes the threat beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix's testimony was corroborated by her sisters and sister-in-law, and the appellant did not effectively contradict or impeach it. However, the Court expressly criticised the investigating officer for failing to pursue digital evidence, signalling higher expectations in the investigation of cyber-related offences. 
• On Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Intimate Relationships: The Court observed that "especial knowledge" under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not confined to events occurring within a physical space. It can extend to private interpersonal spaces created by intimate relationships. Since many relevant events occurred only between the appellant and the prosecutrix, the appellant's bare denial was insufficient once the prosecution had established the foundational facts.

What is Section 351 of BNS? 

Section 351 BNS — Criminal Intimidation 

Definition: Threatening another person with injury to their person, reputation, or property (or of anyone in whom they are interested), with intent to: 

• Cause alarm to that person, or 
• Compel them to do an act they are not legally bound to do, or 
• Compel them to omit an act they are legally entitled to do

Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the threatened person is interested is also covered. 

Illustration: A threatens to burn B's house to stop B from pursuing a civil suit — A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

Punishment: 

Aggravated Category (S. 351(2)) includes threats to: 

• Cause death or grievous hurt 
• Destroy property by fire 
• Commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to 7 years 
• Impute unchastity to a woman

Anonymous Threat (S. 351(3)): Where the threat is made through anonymous communication or the offender conceals their name or address, an additional punishment of up to 2 years applies over the base punishment under S. 351(1).