List of Current Affairs

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Subhas Mehla of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2026), quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog as Lord Krishna, holding that the act did not attract the ingredients of Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 

What was the Background of Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2026) Case? 

• The Petitioner, a bank manager, had shared a WhatsApp status featuring her pet dog dressed in attire associated with Lord Krishna, on the occasion of Janmashtami. 
• A complaint was filed by a local youth leader affiliated with the Shiv Sena, alleging that the act insulted the Hindu community and amounted to desecration under Section 298 BNS. 
• The Petitioner contended that the act was a private expression of affection towards her pet, shared on a limited-access platform, and that she herself being a Hindu could not be attributed with an intention to insult her own faith. 
• The State opposed the plea, contending that the act of dressing an animal as a deity was inherently offensive, and that the Petitioner's admission of the act during investigation confirmed the transgression irrespective of her stated intent. 
• The matter came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the essential ingredient of intent: The Court held that individual expression shaped by personal experience cannot be criminalised merely because it does not align with the sensitivities of others. 
• On the meaning of "sacred object": The Court observed that the term "object" under Section 298 BNS must be read ejusdem generis with "place of worship," and that items such as a cloth, crown, or ornaments used privately could not be classified as sacred objects outside a formal religious space or procession. 
• On the applicable standard for offence: The Court applied the Community Standard Test laid down in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, declining to apply the older Hicklin test which rested on hypersensitivity rather than an objective community standard. 
• On constitutional tolerance: The Court held that constitutional tolerance must prevail over hypersensitivity, and that innocent acts should not be construed as desecration merely because they offend individual sensibilities. 
• On the absence of mens rea: The Court held that criminal liability cannot rest on subjective hypersensitivity or idiosyncratic perceptions of offence, since permitting this would make the threshold for prosecution dependent on varying individual sensibilities. 
• On relief granted: The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, cautioning against the frivolous invocation of criminal statutes for personal or political ends. 

What is Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

Section 298 BNS – Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship with Intent to Insult the Religion of Any Class: 

• Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

Classification: 

• Punishment: Imprisonment for a term up to 2 years, or fine, or both 
• Cognizable 
• Non-Bailable 
• Triable by: Any Magistrate 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (2026), after finding that both tribunals had relied on judicial precedents that were entirely fictitious and generated through Artificial Intelligence. The Court declared a zero-tolerance approach toward the use of unverified AI-generated material in judicial proceedings and directed the Bar Council of India to frame guidelines for the responsible use of such technology by legal practitioners. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. had filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Essel Infraprojects Ltd. 
• The NCLT admitted the application, and the NCLAT subsequently upheld that order in appeal. 
• The Appellant, a suspended director of Essel Infraprojects Ltd., challenged both orders before the Supreme Court. 
• It was pointed out that the reasoning of the tribunals rested on six judicial citations that were either wholly non-existent or contained fictional paragraphs falsely attributed to genuine judgments. 
• The Appellant contended that the entire adjudicatory process stood vitiated since the tribunals had failed to verify the authenticity of the precedents relied upon.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of the citations: The Court confirmed that the precedents relied upon by the tribunals were AI-hallucinations, that is, material that appeared to be genuine judicial authority but did not exist in reality. 
• On the effect of relying on fabricated material: The Court held that a judgment or order founded even partly on such fake and hallucinated material cannot be treated as a valid decision, since it amounts to a subversion of the rule of law. 
• On the gravity of the lapse: The Court drew a stark analogy, comparing the unchecked spread of fabricated legal material to the release of a toxic industrial gas, describing it as invisible and damaging by the time its effects are discovered. 
• On professional responsibility: The Court observed that it is professional misconduct for an advocate to cite judgments without verifying their authenticity, and equally a serious lapse for a judge to rely on such unverified material while arriving at a determination. 
• On the role of Artificial Intelligence in adjudication: While acknowledging the efficiency that AI tools can bring to legal work, the Court cautioned against treating AI as a substitute for independent judicial reasoning and decision-making, rather than as a mere aid. 
• On the need for human oversight: The Court emphasised that human actors must retain complete control at every stage of adjudication, so as to preserve the disciplined and deliberate reasoning process that distinguishes right from wrong in judicial decision-making. 
• On accountability going forward: The Court directed the Bar Council of India to constitute an expert committee to frame clear guidelines on the responsible use of technology by legal practitioners, including disciplinary consequences for advocates who cite fabricated precedents. 
• On relief granted: The Section 7 application was restored to its original number before the NCLT, with directions to proceed to a fresh determination within two weeks, uninfluenced by the previously relied-upon fabricated citations. 

What is Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016? 

Section 7 IBC – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by Financial Creditor: 

• Section 7 empowers a financial creditor, either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors, to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a corporate debtor, upon occurrence of a default. 
• The application must be filed in the prescribed form, along with records of the default, the name of a proposed interim resolution professional, and any other information as specified. 
• The Adjudicating Authority is required to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of an information utility or other evidence furnished by the financial creditor, and must admit or reject the application within the prescribed timeline. 
• Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application is complete, it shall, by order, admit the application, subject to no disciplinary proceeding being pending against the proposed resolution professional.