List of Current Affairs

Source: Uttarakhand High Court 

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court, in Bhupendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2026), quashed a Sessions Court's direction for registration of an FIR against two police officers under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that an administrative enquiry is a mandatory precondition under the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act, in the absence of which a court cannot take cognizance of the alleged dereliction of duty. 

What was the Background of Bhupendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging that one Girish Chandra Tewari had subjected her to caste-based abuse and physical assault in January 2023. 
• Her first application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking registration of an FIR was dismissed for default. 
• On a second application, the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, directed registration of an FIR not only against Girish Chandra Tewari but also against a Circle Officer and a Station House Officer under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, on the ground that the police officers had failed to perform their official duties. 
• The two police officers (the applicants) challenged the Sessions Judge's order dated June 10, 2024 before the Uttarakhand High Court, contending that it was passed without application of mind and in disregard of the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act. 
• They argued that the law requires a preliminary administrative enquiry to determine whether the alleged lapse amounted to wilful neglect of duty or a mere error of judgment, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant. 
• The State opposed the petition and maintained that criminal action against the officers was warranted. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the mandatory nature of the administrative enquiry: The Court held that the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act operates as an administrative sine qua non before a public servant can be proceeded against for neglect of duty. Charges against a public servant under this provision can be booked only on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry, and the absence of such a recommendation bars the court from taking cognizance of the offence. 
• On the rationale for the safeguard: The Court reasoned that shifting from departmental consequences to potential imprisonment for public servants under the SC/ST Act necessitates a filter against misuse of the provision, and that the court below was duty-bound to ensure an administrative enquiry had first examined the allegation of negligence before criminal proceedings were set in motion. 
• On the precedent relied upon: Referring to Bijender Singh v. State and Anr., the Court reiterated that the administrative enquiry report must be obtained before criminal proceedings are initiated against the public servant, and not merely before the framing of charges. 
• On the Sessions Court's order: The Court found that the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, had erred in directing registration of an FIR against the Circle Officer and the Station House Officer without first calling for or considering any administrative enquiry report on their alleged dereliction of duty. 
• Accordingly, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court set aside the Sessions Court's order dated June 10, 2024, to the extent it directed criminal proceedings against the two police officers. 

What is Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, 1989? 

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance.

Section 4 of the SC/ST Act:  

Section 4— Punishment for Neglect of Duties 

• Sub-section (1) – Punishment for Wilful Neglect: 
  A public servant who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and wilfully neglects duties required to be performed under the Act and rules made thereunder is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than six months, extendable to one year. 

Sub-section (2) – Duties of Public Servant: 

• Read out to the informant the information given orally and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the informant's signature. 
• Register a complaint or FIR under the Act and other relevant provisions, under the appropriate sections. 
• Furnish a copy of the recorded information to the informant forthwith. 
• Record the statement of victims or witnesses. 
• Conduct the investigation and file the charge sheet in the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court within sixty days, explaining any delay in writing. 
• Correctly prepare, frame, and translate any document or electronic record. 
• Perform any other duty specified under the Act or rules made thereunder. 

Proviso: Charges against the public servant in this regard shall be booked only on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry. 

Sub-section (3) – Cognizance and Penal Proceedings: 
Cognizance of any dereliction of duty referred to in sub-section (2) by a public servant shall be taken by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, which shall give direction for penal proceedings against such public servant. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana took suo motu cognizance of media reports highlighting the plight of Japa Bhue, a visually impaired man, and his 80-year-old mother Radhika Bhue, residents of Bagadia village in Odisha's Subarnapur district, who were reported to be living in extreme poverty. The Court registered the matter as a suo motu case and issued notice to the State of Odisha, directing it to ensure that all social security benefits and basic amenities are extended to the family. 

What Led to the Suo Motu Cognizance? 

• Media reports stated that Japa Bhue, who is blind by birth, and his elderly mother Radhika Bhue were living in a dilapidated house and struggling despite being eligible for welfare benefits. 
• The reports indicated that the two were receiving some pension and food-grain assistance but had not secured the full range of social security measures available to them under government schemes. 
• Following these reports, local authorities initiated inquiries into the family's entitlement to housing and other welfare benefits, and the Supreme Court registered a suo motu case titled "In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues." 
• During the hearing, counsel for the State of Odisha informed the Court that a dwelling unit had reportedly been allotted to Radhika Bhue, and that dwelling units had also been allotted to Japa Bhue's brothers. Counsel further submitted that Radhika Bhue was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 3,500, that Japa Bhue was receiving Rs. 3,500 as disability pension, and that the family was receiving free rice under a government scheme. The Court took these submissions on record but directed the authorities to verify the claims. 

What were the Court's Directions? 

• On affidavit regarding Radhika Bhue's entitlements: The Court directed the State of Odisha to file an affidavit, through an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary, stating whether old-age pension has been granted to Radhika Bhue, the amount being paid, whether all arrears have been released, and what other social security benefits and welfare schemes she is entitled to under Central and State Government schemes. 
• On affidavit regarding Japa Bhue's entitlements: The Court sought details regarding Japa Bhue's entitlement to disability pension, whether such pension has been granted, and disclosure of other welfare benefits available to him and whether those have actually been provided. 
• On personal interaction by OSLSA: The Court directed Aravind Patnaik, Member Secretary of the Odisha State Legal Services Authority, to personally interact with the family. 
• On medical assistance: The Court directed that if any immediate medical assistance is required for Radhika Bhue or Japa Bhue, the district legal services authorities should coordinate with the Chief Medical Officer to make necessary arrangements. 
• On engagement as para-legal volunteer: The Court directed that Japa Bhue be engaged as a para-legal volunteer to sensitise specially abled persons about their rights and the benefits available under various Central and State welfare schemes, and that he be paid an honorarium not less than the minimum wages notified by the State of Odisha under the Minimum Wages Act. 
• On separate dwelling unit: The Court observed that Japa Bhue, prima facie, appeared entitled to a separate dwelling unit and directed the legal services authority to examine this under applicable government schemes, and to take up the matter with the State Government for appropriate relief if found eligible. 
• On compliance reporting: The Court directed the Odisha State Legal Services Authority to submit a separate report on the social security measures extended to the family, including allotment of any dwelling unit, and directed the State to file a status report with complete details of benefits extended, listing the matter for the third week of July 2026.

What is Suo Motu Jurisdiction? 

Definition: Suo motu jurisdiction in India is an aspect of judicial activism, where courts independently initiate proceedings to address significant public issues, particularly those related to human rights violations and environmental protection. 

Purpose: 

• Ensures justice for disadvantaged groups unable to approach the courts themselves. 
• Critics argue it may breach the separation of powers. 

Legal Framework: 

• There is no specific law for suo moto jurisdiction, but it is recognized under the Supreme Court Rules (2014). 
• In matters involving fundamental rights, such cognizance is exercised in conjunction with the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32, and its powers under Article 142 to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. 
• Such matters are typically registered as a distinct case (often titled "In Re:"), with the State or relevant authority impleaded as a party, as in the present case.

Landmark Cases: 

• Silent Valley Case: Initiated the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) movement in environmental issues. 
• Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation v. State of Punjab (2017): Addressed encroachments in Sukhna Lake's catchment area. 
• Doon Valley Case: Supreme Court treated a letter as a writ petition under Article 32, leading to a mining ban in Dehradun.