Bihar Current Affairs 4 August 2026

Welcome to the Ujiyari Bihar Current Affairs notes for 4 August 2026, prepared for BPSC and other State PCS aspirants. No separate Bihar administrative development for this date could be independently verified, so rather than pad the edition we cover two national developments of direct examinable relevance, the first with particular significance for a state where civil registration coverage and documentation have long been policy concerns. Each item is paired with a Prelims fact table and a Mains angle, followed by five practice MCQs.

1. Delayed Birth and Death Registration Moves to a Judicial Magistrate

Why in News: The Rajya Sabha passed the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026 by voice vote on 4 August 2026, completing Parliament’s approval. The Lok Sabha had passed it on 31 July 2026. It was moved by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai.

Background: The Bill amends the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and creates a graded regime for late reporting:

• Delay of one to two years: registration requires an order of a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or an Executive Magistrate authorised by the DM, after verification.
• Delay beyond two years: registration requires an order of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

The operative shift is in the second limb, where the deciding authority moves from the executive to the judiciary. The government’s stated rationale is anti-fraud, on the reasoning that a registration entered decades after the fact, verified thinly by a local executive officer, is a known route to manufacturing a documentary identity, and that a judicial order introduces an evidentiary process and a reasoned, appealable decision.

Read this alongside the 2023 amendment to the same Act, which digitised registration, created a national database and made the birth certificate a single document for school admission, driving licence, voter registration, marriage registration and government appointment. The 2023 change raised the value of a birth certificate; the 2026 change raises the cost of obtaining one late. The two are consistent with each other and should be learnt together.

Why this matters particularly for Bihar. The population whose births went unregistered is not randomly distributed. It is concentrated among the poor, migrants, home births and remote and flood-affected areas, and disproportionately among women of older cohorts. Bihar carries a large out-migration population, substantial historical gaps in registration coverage, and annual flood displacement across the north Bihar river systems, all of which raise the number of people who may need to establish a birth record long after the event. Those applicants will now require a court appearance, and in practice frequently a lawyer, travel and lost wages. The measure therefore raises the transaction cost of documentation for the group least able to bear it, in order to prevent fraud by a group that is comparatively better resourced. Whether the trade-off is defensible turns on an empirical question the debate did not settle: how many late registrations are fraudulent and how many are merely late.

Constitutional placement. Registration of births and deaths falls under Entry 30 of the Concurrent List, vital statistics including registration of births and deaths. It is administered by State Governments through Chief Registrars, District Registrars and Registrars, with the Registrar General of India, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, coordinating the Civil Registration System. Because administration is with the states, the workload created by the new magistrate route falls on Bihar’s own administration and courts.

Bihar Relevance:

• Prelims: Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969; delay of one to two years requires a DM, SDM or authorised Executive Magistrate; delay beyond two years requires a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class; passed Lok Sabha 31 July 2026 and Rajya Sabha 4 August 2026; moved by Nityanand Rai; the subject falls under Concurrent List Entry 30; the Registrar General of India coordinates the Civil Registration System under the Ministry of Home Affairs; the 2023 amendment made the birth certificate a single document for multiple purposes.
• Mains: Examine the trade-off between preventing fraudulent late registration and preserving documentary access for undocumented populations, with reference to Bihar’s out-migration, flood displacement and historical registration gaps.

2. Section 498A Extended to Live-In Relationships in the Nature of Marriage

Why in News: On 3 August 2026, the Supreme Court held that a man in a live-in relationship that is “in the nature of marriage” can be prosecuted for domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A formally solemnised marriage is not a precondition. The judgment, Dr. Lokesh B.H. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, neutral citation 2026 INSC 784, was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, sitting with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh.

Background: Section 498A punishes cruelty by a husband or the relative of a husband, and the textual difficulty is that a live-in partner is not a husband. The Court’s answer was constitutional: the distinction between a married woman and a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage bears no rational nexus with the object of the provision, which is preventing domestic cruelty, and a classification that does not serve the purpose of the law is arbitrary and offends Article 14.

The extension is confined. A woman invoking it must establish two things: that the relationship was akin to marriage rather than mere cohabitation, and that both parties intended to marry. The Court added that penal statutes, though ordinarily construed strictly, may be read purposively where the object is reformative and socially beneficial.

The category is not new to Indian law; what is new is its movement from civil into penal territory. Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already defined a domestic relationship to include a relationship in the nature of marriage, but for civil and protective remedies only. The tests for what qualifies come from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): the couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to marry including being unmarried, and have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out as spouses for a significant period.

The counter-position deserves statement. Criminal liability is ordinarily created by the legislature, and reading a non-husband into a section that says “husband” widens penal reach without parliamentary sanction. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), a judgment BPSC candidates should know by name for its Bihar connection, recorded judicial concern about the misuse of Section 498A and laid down safeguards against automatic arrest, and expanding a provision already flagged for misuse carries a risk that the two-condition threshold may or may not contain.

Bihar Relevance:

• Prelims: Dr. Lokesh B.H. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2026 INSC 784, 3 August 2026, authored by Justice Sanjay Karol with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh; grounded in Article 14; the woman must show the relationship was akin to marriage and that both parties intended to marry; Section 498A IPC corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with cruelty defined in Section 86; Section 2(f) PWDVA 2005 already covered relationships in the nature of marriage for civil remedies; the tests come from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010); Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) laid down arrest safeguards under Section 498A.
• Mains: Discuss whether purposive extension of a penal provision to relationships in the nature of marriage advances substantive equality or amounts to judicial creation of criminal liability, and assess the adequacy of the conditions the Court imposed.

Practice MCQs

1. Under the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026, a registration reported more than two years after the event requires an order from which authority?

a) The District Magistrate b) The Registrar General of India c) A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class d) The State Chief Registrar

Answer: c

Explanation: The amendment creates a two-tier regime. A delay of one to two years continues to require an order of a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or authorised Executive Magistrate after verification, while a delay beyond two years now requires an order of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The shift from executive to judicial authority for very late registrations is the operative change.

2. Registration of births and deaths falls under which legislative list?

a) The Union List b) The State List c) The Concurrent List, Entry 30, vital statistics including registration of births and deaths d) The residuary power of Parliament

Answer: c

Explanation: Entry 30 of the Concurrent List covers vital statistics including registration of births and deaths. The central statute is the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, while administration rests with State Governments through Chief Registrars, District Registrars and Registrars, with the Registrar General of India coordinating the Civil Registration System under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. To invoke Section 498A IPC in a live-in relationship following the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment, what must a woman establish?

a) Only that the parties cohabited for at least five years b) That the relationship was akin to marriage and that both parties intended to marry c) That a religious ceremony of some form was performed d) That the relationship was registered with a competent authority

Answer: b

Explanation: The Court held that a solemnised marriage is not a precondition but confined the extension by requiring two things to be established: that the relationship was akin to marriage rather than mere cohabitation, and that both parties intended to marry. The constitutional reasoning is that the distinction between the two categories has no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic cruelty and therefore fails Article 14.

4. Which judgment, arising from Bihar, laid down safeguards against automatic arrest under Section 498A IPC?

a) Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) b) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) c) D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) d) Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Answer: b

Explanation: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) recorded concern about the misuse of Section 498A and issued directions restraining automatic arrest, requiring police to satisfy themselves of the necessity of arrest under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. D. Velusamy (2010) supplies the tests for a relationship in the nature of marriage, and Lily Thomas (2013) concerns disqualification of legislators on conviction.

5. Which statute already recognised a “relationship in the nature of marriage” before the 2026 judgment, and for what purpose?

a) The Indian Penal Code, 1860, for criminal liability b) The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(f), for civil and protective remedies c) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for succession d) The Special Marriage Act, 1954, for registration

Answer: b

Explanation: Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines a domestic relationship to include a relationship in the nature of marriage, but the remedies under that Act are civil and protective, such as protection orders, residence orders and monetary relief. The significance of the 2026 judgment is that it carries the category across from civil into penal territory.