List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News?

Justice Ashutosh Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court, in Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari v. State of U.P. (2026), refused to grant bail to a man accused of harbouring a Pakistani ISI agent and passing sensitive Indian Armed Forces data to Pakistan, holding that Section 437(6) CrPC (Section 480 of BNSS) does not confer an indefeasible right to bail even upon prolonged incarceration. 

What was the Background of  Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• A case was initially registered against the applicant, Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari, under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act; after investigation, he was charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B, 212, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. 
• It was alleged that Ansari worked hand-in-glove with a co-accused, Mohd. Ezaz alias Mohd. Kalam, a Pakistani national and suspected ISI agent. 
• According to the State, the Pakistani agent resided at Ansari's house for nearly 20 months, during which he learned Hindi, photography, and video mixing. 
• Ansari allegedly provided the agent with logistics and assisted him in transmitting confidential information concerning the Indian Army and Indian Air Force via emails to ISI officers in Pakistan and an operative in Bangladesh. 
• Highly confidential and prohibited sensitive military documents were subsequently recovered from the agent. 
• The State argued that releasing the applicant on bail would not be in the national interest, and prayed that the bail application be rejected. 
• The applicant's counsel submitted that Ansari had been incarcerated since November 27, 2015; though the chargesheet was filed in 2021 and charges framed in August 2024, the trial remained at the evidence stage with none of the 31 prosecution witnesses examined. 
• Reliance was placed on Section 437(6) CrPC and the Supreme Court's ruling in Sahil Manoj Machari v. State of Maharashtra on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, contending that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial entitled the applicant to mandatory bail. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of Section 437(6) CrPC: The Court held that while the provision was enacted to prevent unnecessary and prolonged detention of undertrials, it carries a strict legislative caveat and cannot be interpreted to grant an indefeasible right to bail, since the right is controlled by the latter part of the provision empowering a Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons. 
• On the discretionary character of the right: The Court underscored that the provision is discretionary rather than mandatory, and that the right to a speedy trial is not placed on so high a pedestal as to become absolute. 
• On legislative balance: The Court observed that the legislature incorporated the provision to recognise the accused's right to a speedy trial and protect individual liberty, while simultaneously empowering the Magistrate to refuse bail for reasons recorded in a given set of circumstances. 
• On national security considerations: Taking into account that the applicant was charged with assisting an ISI operative in undermining national data, the Court held that personal liberty cannot be placed above the security of the nation. 
• On relief granted: Notwithstanding its refusal of bail, the Court took serious note of the applicant's incarceration for over a decade and directed the trial court to fix short dates and conclude the trial expeditiously within six months. 

What is Section 480 of BNSS? 

Section 480 of BNSS - When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence: 

(Earlier this was covered under Section 437 of CrPC).   

Sub-section (1) — General Power to Grant Bail:  

• Any person accused/suspected of a non-bailable offence, arrested without warrant or brought before a court (other than High Court or Sessions Court), may be released on bail.  
• Bail shall NOT be granted if:   
• There are reasonable grounds to believe the person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment (clause i), or  
• The offence is cognizable AND the person was previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, life, or 7+ years, or convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with 3–7 years (clause ii).  
• Exceptions (Provisos):   
• A child, woman, or sick/infirm person falling under clause (i) or (ii) may be granted bail.  
• Bail may be granted under clause (ii) for any other special reason if the court deems it just and proper.  
• Requirement of identification by witnesses or police custody beyond 15 days alone is not sufficient ground to refuse bail, provided the accused gives an undertaking to comply with court directions.  
• For offences punishable with death, life, or 7+ years — bail cannot be granted without giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of hearing.  

Sub-section (2) — Bail Pending Further Inquiry:  

• If at any stage of investigation, inquiry, or trial, the court/officer finds no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence but finds sufficient grounds for further inquiry, the accused shall be released on bail or on a bond, subject to Section 492 BNSS.  

Sub-section (3) — Mandatory Conditions for Serious Offences:  

• When bail is granted under sub-section (1) for offences punishable with 7 years or more, or offences under Chapter VI, VII, or XVII of BNS, or abetment/conspiracy/attempt of such offences — the Court shall impose the following conditions:   
• (a) Attendance in accordance with bond conditions.  
• (b) No commission of a similar offence.  
• (c) No inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case; no tampering with evidence.  
• Additionally, the court may impose any other conditions in the interest of justice.  
• Key Note: These conditions are not applicable to offences punishable with less than 7 years.   

Sub-section (4) — Recording of Reasons:  

• Any officer or court releasing a person on bail under sub-sections (1) or (2) must record reasons or special reasons in writing.  

Sub-section (5) — Power to Cancel Bail:  

• A court that released a person on bail under sub-sections (1) or (2) may, if necessary, direct the re-arrest and custody of such person.  

Sub-section (6) — Bail on Delay in Trial:  

• In a Magistrate-triable case, if the trial of a non-bailable offence accused is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and the accused has been in custody throughout, he shall be released on bail, unless the Magistrate records reasons in writing to the contrary.  

Sub-section (7) — Bail After Trial, Before Judgment:  

• If, after conclusion of trial and before delivery of judgment, the court believes there are reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty, it shall release the accused on a bond to appear and hear the 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors. (2026), held that an uncle-in-law cannot validly induct his niece's husband as a ghar damad under Oraon customary law, and set aside the concurrent findings of three courts below that had upheld such an arrangement. 

What was the Background of  Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute concerned ancestral property belonging to Sukhu Oraon, who had three sons — Dhungru, Ledura, and Bhoula. 
• Ledura died without children, while Bhoula died leaving behind a daughter, Budhain. 
• The plaintiff, Bejla Oraon, son of Dhungru, claimed that as the nearest male agnate, he inherited the property after the deaths of Ledura and Bhoula. 
• The defendants contended that Budhain's husband, Punai, had been taken as ghar damad by Ledura and was therefore entitled to succeed to the property, relying on a document dated February 27, 1975, described as a partition deed. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit after accepting the defendants' plea regarding the validity of the ghar damad arrangement, and the first appellate court affirmed the decree. 
• The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the second appeal despite framing a substantial question of law on whether an uncle-in-law was entitled under Oraon customary law to keep a ghardamad. 
• Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the plaintiff's contention: The plaintiff contended that the courts below had erred in upholding the ghardamad arrangement despite the absence of any customary practice on record permitting such induction by an uncle-in-law, and that upon the deaths of Ledura and Bhoula, he alone, as the nearest male agnate, was entitled to inherit the property. 
• On the failure to establish the custom: The Court found force in the plaintiff's contention and held that the defendants had failed to establish that the alleged ghar damad arrangement satisfied the requirements of the applicable custom. 
• On the scope of the ghar damad institution: While the existence of the institution of ghardamad in Oraon customary law was not in dispute, the Court emphasised that the facts of the present case did not fit within that custom. 
• On who may induct a ghar damad: Relying on S.C. Roy's authoritative work, The Oraon of Chotanagpur, the Court noted that a ghar damad could acquire succession rights only when he was adopted into the household by the last male owner or his widow. In the present case, Punai had allegedly been inducted by Ledura, who was merely the uncle of Budhain and not her father. 
• On the resulting right of succession: The Court held that in the absence of a ghardamad validly inducted by the last male owner or his widow, or any other male heir directly related to the landowner, the nearest male agnate would have the right in the property. Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. 
• On relief granted: The appeal was allowed, and the property was held to devolve upon the plaintiff as the nearest male agnate. 

What is the Custom of Ghar Damad Among the Oraon Tribe? 

Ghar Damad Under Oraon Customary Law: 

• A ghar damad refers to a resident son-in-law who is taken into the household of his wife's family, in the absence of male heirs, and may under custom acquire rights of succession to the family property. 
• Succession rights accrue to a ghar damad only where he has been adopted into the household by the last male owner of the property or, in his absence, by his widow. 
• Induction by a collateral relative, such as an uncle, who is not the last male owner or his widow, does not satisfy the requirements of the custom and does not confer succession rights on the person so inducted. 
• In the absence of a validly inducted ghardamad or any other male heir directly related to the landowner, the right to succeed to the property vests in the nearest male agnate of the family. 

What is Adoption under Hindu Law? 

Statute – The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) 

About: 

• HAMA, 1956 was enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bill to codify and standardise Hindu law on adoption. 
• It is the first enactment on the subject of adoption passed by Parliament. 
• It applies to Hindus within Indian territory, and to Hindus domiciled in India even while residing outside it. It has no operation beyond Indian territories otherwise. 
• Adoption means the process by which a child is permanently separated from his/her biological parents and becomes the lawful child of the adoptive parents, with all attendant rights, privileges, and responsibilities. 

Section 6 – Requisites for a Valid Adoption: 

• The adopter must have the capacity and right to adopt. 
• The person giving the child in adoption must have the capacity to give. 
• The child being adopted must be capable of being taken in adoption. 
• The adoption must conform to all other conditions prescribed under the Act. 

Section 7 – Capacity of a Hindu Male to Adopt: 

• Must be a major and of sound mind. 
• Consent of the wife is mandatory for a valid adoption; adoption without such consent is void. 
• Must be at least 21 years older than the girl, where adopting a daughter. 
• Krishna Chandra Sahu v. Pradeep Das (1982) – Orissa High Court held that the wife's consent is mandatory for a valid adoption. 

Section 8 – Capacity of a Hindu Female to Adopt: 

• Must be of legal age and sound mind. 
• Must be unmarried, or if married, must have the husband's full consent. 
• No consent of the husband is required if he is of unsound mind, has renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or the marriage has been dissolved. 
• Must be at least 21 years older than the boy, where adopting a son. 

Section 9 – Capacity to Give a Child in Adoption: 

• Father – Has the right to give the child in adoption if alive, but cannot do so without the mother's consent, unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or been declared of unsound mind by a competent court. 
• Mother – May give the child in adoption if the father is dead, has renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared of unsound mind by a competent court. 
• Guardian – Where both parents are dead, parentage is unknown, or the child has been abandoned, the guardian may give the child in adoption with prior court permission, subject to the court being satisfied that the adoption serves the child's welfare. 
• Smt. Prafulla Bala Mukherjee v. Satish Chandra Mukherjee (1998) – Held that a valid adoption requires that the adopter be capable of lawfully taking in adoption, the giver be capable of lawfully giving in adoption, and the child be capable of being lawfully adopted; all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively. 

Section 10 – Who May Be Adopted: 

• The child must be a Hindu. 
• The child must not have been adopted previously. 
• The child must be unmarried, unless a contrary custom permits otherwise. 
• The child must be below 15 years of age, unless a contrary custom permits otherwise. 

Section 16 – Registration of Adoption: 

• Provides for registration of the adoption with the Registrar of documents. 
• A registered instrument signed by both parties serves as evidence of adoption, though not conclusive proof. 

Section 17 – Prohibition on Payments in Adoption: 

• Prohibits the exchange of money or reward for giving or taking a child in adoption, to curb trafficking risks such as child labour, prostitution, theft, and misuse for property gain. 
• Contravention is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. 

Irrevocability of Adoption: 

• A valid adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive parents. 
• The adopted child has no right to renounce the adoption and return to the biological family once the adoption is properly completed. 

Effects of a Valid Adoption: 

• The adopted child is deemed the natural-born child of the adoptive parents. 
• All ties with the biological family stand severed from the date of adoption. 
• The child remains barred from marrying any person he/she could not have married prior to adoption. 
• Property already vested in the child prior to adoption continues to vest in the child, subject to attendant obligations. 
• The adopted child does not divest any member of the adoptive family of an estate already vested in them prior to the adoption.