List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court, in State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed (2026), set aside a Tripura High Court order that permitted the recall of a rape victim for further cross-examination. The Court held that Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) cannot be invoked merely to fill up lacunae in the defence case, and that directing another recall after a four-year delay would cause unjustifiable hardship to the prosecutrix who had already been examined on four separate occasions.

What was the Background of State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed (2026) Case? 

• A First Information Report was registered in 2016 alleging offences under Sections 342, 376(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 
• The prosecutrix was examined and cross-examined before the Trial Court in 2018. 
• Pursuant to an earlier order of the Tripura High Court, she was recalled, re-examined, and re-cross-examined in 2019. 
• In December 2023, nearly four years after completion of her cross-examination, the accused filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to recall the prosecutrix once again. 
• The application proposed 94 questions to be put to the witness, contending that certain aspects arising from call detail records (CDRs) could not be put to her earlier due to oversight. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application, noting that the prosecutrix had already undergone extensive examination and that the application appeared to be a tactic to delay a trial pending since 2017. 
• The Tripura High Court, by its order dated March 14, 2024, overturned the Trial Court's order and permitted further cross-examination with reference to the CDRs. 
• Aggrieved, the State of Tripura approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Section 311 CrPC — Sparingly Exercised: 

• The Court reiterated that while Section 311 CrPC confers wide powers upon the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage, such powers must be exercised sparingly. 
• The provision can be invoked only when it is essential for a just decision of the case, and not as a matter of routine. 
• The Court categorically held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be exercised merely to fill up lacunae in the prosecution or the defence case.

Hardship to Victim — Rights and Dignity: 

• The Court emphasised the rights and dignity of victims of serious offences, particularly in sensitive cases. 
• The prosecutrix had already been subjected to deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions before the Trial Court, in addition to having her statement recorded during investigation and before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. 
• Directing another recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix. 
• Witnesses, particularly victims of heinous crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination.

Defence Argument on CDRs Rejected: 

• The Court rejected the accused's contention regarding the call detail records, noting that the CDRs had been filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet and had remained part of the trial record throughout the proceedings. 
• The defence was, therefore, fully aware of the material and could have put relevant questions to the prosecutrix during the earlier rounds of cross-examination. 
• The defence could not be permitted to use the CDRs as a ground for recall when the oversight was entirely attributable to the accused.

Outcome: 

• The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the Tripura High Court's order dated March 14, 2024, and restored the Trial Court's order dated February 6, 2024, which had rejected the recall application. 
• The Court further directed that the trial be concluded by the end of the year, subject to the Trial Court's convenience.

What is Section348 of BNSS? 

Section 348 BNSS, 2023 — Power to Summon Material Witness or Examine Person Present: 

• Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the provision corresponding to Section 311 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), with no substantive change in content. 

Key Provisions: 

• Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the BNSS, exercise the following powers:  
  • Summon any person as a witness. 
  • Examine any person present in court, even if not formally summoned as a witness. 
  • Recall and re-examine any person already examined. 
• The Court shall (mandatory) summon, examine, or recall any such person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

Two-Part Structure: 

• The first part is discretionary — the Court may exercise the power at its own initiative. 
• The second part is mandatory — the Court is obliged to act where the evidence of a person is essential for a just decision.

Judicial Interpretation (applicable to Section 348 BNSS by parity): 

• The power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. 
• It cannot be invoked merely to fill up lacunae or rectify oversights in the case of either the prosecution or the defence. 
• The object is to serve the ends of justice, not to give a party a second opportunity to cure its own lapses. 
• In sensitive cases, particularly involving victims of sexual offences, courts must weigh the hardship caused to the witness by repeated appearances before ordering recall. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court of India, in Savelife Foundation v. Union of India (2026), issued sweeping interim directions to all States and Union Territories to strengthen India's trauma care and emergency response framework, holding that timely medical intervention after road accidents is integral to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The directions were passed on May 26, 2026, while hearing a public interest litigation seeking recognition of trauma care as a constitutional right and implementation of a uniform emergency medical response system across the country.

What was the Background of Savelife Foundation v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by a social impact organisation and its founder before the Supreme Court. 
• The petitioners sought a series of directions including integration of all emergency helpline numbers into the universal emergency number 112, implementation of Good Samaritan protections, standardisation of ambulance services, creation of trauma registries, and operationalisation of cashless treatment schemes for road accident victims. 
• The Court noted that the Union government had already introduced several schemes and policies, including the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme, Good Samaritan Rules, National Ambulance Code, and the ERSS-112 framework. 
• However, implementation across States and UTs was found to be "scanty and fragmented." 
• The Court accepted suggestions placed before it by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and proceeded to issue comprehensive interim directions. 
• The matter was also assisted by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Advocate Malvika Kapila.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Trauma Care as Part of Article 21: 

• The Court held that timely medical intervention after road accidents is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• It emphasised that "every minute spent without medical intervention or urgent care significantly narrows the scope for survival," and that "swiftness is, quite literally, like medicine." 
• A uniform and robust system of trauma care, coupled with sustained public awareness, could substantially reduce preventable deaths caused by road accidents and other traumatic incidents.

Integration of Emergency Helplines: 

• The Court directed all States and UTs to integrate emergency and ambulance helpline numbers such as 100, 101, 102, 108, 1033, and 1091 into the unified helpline number 112 within three months. 
• States and UTs were also directed to undertake mass media campaigns publicising the unified emergency number.

Good Samaritan Protections: 

• The Court observed that bystanders frequently hesitate to assist accident victims due to fear of police or legal proceedings. 
• It held that systemic intervention and public awareness are essential to strengthen Good Samaritan protections under Section 134A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
• States and UTs were directed to establish Good Samaritan grievance redressal systems at physical and digital levels within three months, with designated nodal officers at district and State levels.

Ambulance Standards and Response Systems: 

• The Court directed all States and UTs to ensure full compliance with AIS-125 ambulance standards. 
• GPS tracking and real-time integration of ambulances with the 112 emergency system were made mandatory. 
• Periodic audits of ambulance response times, quality of care, and equipment standards were also directed.

Standardised Trauma Protocol and National Trauma Registry: 

• The Union government was directed to issue a standardised medical rescue protocol for trauma cases within three months, after which States and UTs were ordered to operationalise the same. 
• The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was directed to issue guidelines for a national trauma registry within eight weeks. 
• All States and UTs were thereafter required to establish State Trauma Registries covering both public and private medical facilities.

PM RAHAT Cashless Treatment Scheme: 

• States and UTs were directed to fully operationalise the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims within three months. 
• The Court warned that non-implementation would amount to a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution of India? 

About:  

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. 
• Article 21 secures two rights: 
  • Right to life 
  • Right to personal liberty 
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.  
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.  
• This right has been provided against the State only.  

Rights under Article 21:  

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:  
  • Right to privacy  
  • Right to go abroad  
  • Right to shelter  
  • Right against solitary confinement  
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment  
  • Right against handcuffing  
  • Right against custodial death  
  • Right against delayed execution  
  • Right against public hanging  
  • Protection of cultural heritage  
  • Right to pollution-free water and air  
  • Right of every child to a full development  
  • Right to health and medical aid  
  • Right to education  
  • Protection of under-trials 

Case Laws:  

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society 
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.