Legal Current Affairs 04 February 2026 for Judiciary/APO/APP Exams

Legal Current Affairs 04 February 2026 consists of a collection of recent judicial updates and statutory interpretations relevant to the Judiciary, APO, and APP examinations. The legal current affairs of today detail the Supreme Court's observations in Shobha Namdev Sonavane v/s Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane regarding the evidentiary standards for eyewitnesses in mob assault cases under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC. 

It also includes the Kerala High Court's ruling in Susan K. John v/s. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, which classifies maternity leave as a fundamental right under Article 21, independent of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Additionally, the content addresses the Supreme Court's determination that a temple trust is not an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and clarifies that legally challenging trial court orders does not constitute an intentional delay of trial by the accused.

Legal Current Affairs 04 February 2026 for Judiciary/APO/APP Exams

Legal Current Affairs 04 February 2026 for Judiciary/APO/APP Exams provides essential insights into recent legal decisions and updates. Staying informed helps candidates prepare for law-related competitive examinations. These topics focus on significant rulings from the Supreme Court and High Courts, offering a concise overview of their implications.

Evidentiary Value of Eye Witnesses

The Supreme Court, in Shobha Namdev Sonavane v/s Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane, addressed the evidentiary value of eyewitnesses in mob assault cases. The case involved a deceased from a Scheduled Caste community, assaulted by six accused over a land dispute. The Bombay High Court granted bail, citing a lack of specific injury attribution. The Supreme Court disapproved this reasoning. It observed that an eyewitness cannot be expected to detail which specific injury was caused by whom in a mob assault. When Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) apply, specific individual acts are not always required to be mentioned. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offence and indicated that bail should not be granted casually in such circumstances.

DAILY LEGAL CURRENT AFFAIRS FREE BATCH - Enroll Now

Maternity Leave As a Right

The Kerala High Court, in Susan K. John v/s. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, affirmed maternity leave as a right. It held that maternity leave cannot be combined with other regular leaves to cancel a trainee's candidature. The Court stated that a woman, including a postgraduate trainee, possesses an inherent right to maternity leave during her pregnancy. This right exists independently of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The ruling relates to fundamental rights like the Right to Life (Article 21) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 42). The K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. case (2025 INSC 781) also provided guidance on maternity benefits, referencing Section 5 (up to 26 weeks leave) and Section 27 (overrides inconsistent rules) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Temple Trust Is an Industry?

The Supreme Court, in Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v/s Laxminarayan Dev Trust, ruled that a temple trust does not qualify as an "industry." The Court upheld the termination of an accountant from the trust, despite no formal inquiry and 12 years of service. It observed that the trust, being a temple and charitable institution, does not fall within the definition of an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court found that the trust neither engaged in manufacturing activities nor operated for profit.

Delay of Trial By Legally Challenging Trial Court Orders?

In Kawasi Lakhma v/s State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court orally remarked on the issue of trial delays. The Court stated that an accused cannot be deemed to be delaying a trial simply by exercising their right to legally challenge an order passed by the trial court. This observation came during a petition hearing related to the liquor scam case. The Supreme Court expressed an inclination to grant interim bail, considering the petitioner's incarceration for over one year and the delay in the trial's commencement.

Important Legal Updates Key Rules

The legal framework for addressing offences committed by groups is primarily governed by specific provisions within the Indian Penal Code that establish collective responsibility. These rules ensure that every member of an assembly is held accountable for actions taken in pursuit of a shared criminal objective, regardless of their individual physical contribution. Understanding these sections is essential for interpreting recent Supreme Court observations regarding the evidentiary standards required for eyewitnesses in cases of public mob assaults.

IPC Sections in Mob Assaults

Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code deal with unlawful assembly and rioting. Section 147 defines punishment for rioting. Section 148 defines rioting armed with a deadly weapon. Section 149 states that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object. These sections are crucial for understanding liability in group crimes.

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

This Act provides for maternity benefits to women employed in certain establishments. Section 5 outlines the entitlement to maternity leave, generally up to 26 weeks. Section 27 ensures that its provisions override any inconsistent laws or service rules. Constitutional articles like Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 15(3) (Special provisions for women and children), and Article 42 (Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief) underpin these benefits.

"Industry" Definition under Industrial Disputes Act

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines an "industry." This definition is critical for determining the applicability of industrial laws. Generally, it refers to any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. Charitable institutions or purely sovereign functions may fall outside this definition.

Explore the Judiciary Coaching 2026 to access essential resources for Judiciary exam preparation, including detailed insights and strategies. Dive into the Judiciary 2026 for structured courses and focused study plans designed to help aspirants in their exams.