List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The Kerela High Court (HC) has held that DNA test cannot be carried out solely based on the presence of a disagreement or uncertainty regarding paternity in the matter of Sujith Kumar S v. Vinaya V S.

Background

• The present petition pertains to the facts that the couple got married in the year 2004 and a child was born to them in 2006.
• The paternity of the child was a matter of dispute before the Family Court.
• The petitioner (Sujith Kumar S, Husband) contended that he was abroad for years after the marriage and that he brought the respondent (Vinaya V S, Wife) abroad twice.
• The petitioner thereafter alleged suspicion regarding paternity of the child on the ground that they were not living together due to the mental illness of the respondent and sought DNA test to find out the paternity of the child.
• Family Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for conducting paternity test which was challenged before the Kerala HC.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Badharudeen of the Kerela HC observed that the Family Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner relying upon Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) on the presumption of birth during the subsistence of marriage.
• Upon HC’s examination of Section 112 of IEA it was deduced that DNA test was conducted only to rebut the conclusive proof of denial of paternity of the child and not in any other case while relying upon:
  • Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023): The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that the presence of a paternity dispute alone does not automatically grant permission for DNA tests or other scientific examinations.
  • Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019): Evidentiary value of expert opinion under Section 45 of IEA is advisory in nature and the court is not bound by the evidence of the experts.
• The HC further stated that the parties must present additional evidence to substantiate their claims of disowning the child's paternity. The court reinforced that DNA tests or similar scientific examinations could only be permitted in exceptionally rare cases, when the court was convinced that no alternative methods were available to resolve the dispute.

Legal Provisions

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Presumption Regarding Legitimacy

• Maternity is a fact and paternity is a presumption, the same is dealt with by Section 112 of the Act.
  • Section 112 - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy –– The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that s/he is the legitimate daughter/son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
  • Conclusive Proof is defined by Section 4 of IEA as:
    • When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
• The conclusive proof of paternity can only be rebutted by proving non-access by the husband at the time of conception of the child. Access here means actual marital intercourse.
  • It must in all cases be established that at the time of conception, there was no chance that husband and wife could have access to each other E.g. One was in London whereas the other was in India at the time of conception.

Case Laws on Presumption of Paternity

• Raghunath Parmeshwar Pandit Rao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni (1996): The SC in this case held that preposition of valid marriage can be presumed where there is evidence on record to prove that the couple was staying together as husband and wife for a prolonged period of time.
• Shyam Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar (2009): Both the plaintiff and the defendant were born while their mother's marriage to the deceased was legally valid. There was no documented evidence suggesting that the deceased ever lacked access to the mother.
  • Consequently, it was concluded by the SC that there existed a substantial presumption regarding the legitimacy of the child.
• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993): The SC laid down following guidelines:
  • Courts cannot order blood samples as matter of routine.
  • Wherever such prayer is made for inquiry, it must not be entertained.
  • Strong case of non-access must be proved by the husband.
  • The court may carefully examine such request as this may lead branding of child as a bastard and mother as unchaste.
  • No one can be compelled to provide blood samples.
• Nandlal Wasudev Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014): The SC held that the IEA was enacted at the time when modern scientific techniques were not in existence. When the truth is known there is no scope of presumption but where there is conflict between conclusive proof and modern scientific techniques, the latter must prevail over the prior.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. M/S National Building Construction India Ltd., held that the service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), involves service of summons along with the copy of the plaint.

Background

• In this case, there was service of summons by two modes.
• The first was through the bailiff, which was made on 19^th June 2017 and the second service was through speed post made on 22^nd August 2017.
• The contention of the petitioner is that the paper book which they received through the second mode did not carry two pages which were later made available.
• On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that the provision of Order V Rule 2 of CPC requires service of summons with plaint.
• The High Court did not believe the version of the incomplete service of the plaint.
• Thereafter the petition was filed before the SC which was dismissed by the Court.

Court’s Observations

• Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi observed that the service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of CPC implies the service of the summons along with a copy of the plaint.

Legal Provisions

• Order V Rule 2, CPC:
  • Rule 2 of Order V of CPC deals with the copy of the plaint which is to be annexed to summons.
  • It states that every summons should be accompanied by a copy of the plaint.
• Summons:
  • Summons is an authoritative call from the court to attend the court at a specified place and at a specified time.
  • The provision related to summons is given in Section 27-32 and Order V of CPC.
  • Rule 1 of Order V states that -

(1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant.

Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim.

Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.

(2) A defendant to whom a summons has been issued under sub-rule (1) may appear—

(a) in person, or

(b) by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit, or

(c) by a pleader accompanied by some person able to answer all such questions.

(3) Every such summons shall be signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints and shall be sealed with the seal of the Court.

• • In the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Haji Wali Mohammad (1972) the Supreme Court held that if a summon does not fulfil the requirements of Order V Rule 19 of CPC, then such service of summons would not be considered in accordance with the law.

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

The Union Government has introduced a Bill in the Parliament of India’s Lower House i.e., the Lok Sabha, marking a historic step towards providing one-third reservation to women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

Background

• The discussion upon the reservation of women reservation bill is prevalent since the tenure of Former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1996.
• As the then Government lacked a majority, the Bill could not have been approved.
• Earlier Attempts at Reserving Seats for Women:
  • 1996: First Women Reservation Bill was introduced in the Parliament.
  • 1998 – 2003: NDA Government tabled the Bill on 4 occasions but failed.
  • 2009: UPA Government tables the bill amid protests.
  • 2010: The Union Cabinet passes the Bill and Rajya Sabha passed it.
  • 2014: The Bill was expected to be tabled in Lok Sabha.
• Earlier, the 72^nd and 73^rd Constitutional Amendments of years 1992, 1993 respectively reserved one-third of all seats and chairperson posts for women in rural and urban local governments.

Key Features of the Bill

• The Bill presented by the Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal aims to provide 33% reservation to women in Parliament and Assemblies to be filled by direct election.
• The reservation can only come into effect after the delimitation exercise is undertaken in India i.e., it cannot be made effective before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
  • Delimitation plainly means a dividing line or boundary.
  • The Delimitation Commission of India is a commission established by the Government of India under the provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962.
  • Usually retired Supreme Court Judge heads the commission whereas Chief Election Commissioner and respective state election commissioner as ex officio commissioner.
  • The task of the commission is to redraw the boundaries of the various assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies based on a recent census.
  • The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 and the next delimitation will take place in the year 2026.
• The women's quota bill will remain effective for a period of 15 years following its enactment as an Act, with the possibility of extending its duration if deemed necessary.
• The quota will not be applicable to Rajya Sabha or State Legislative Councils.
• The present bill is similar to the Women’s Reservation Bill drafted in 2010.

Women Representation in Parliament: India and the world

• There are 82 women MPs In Lok Sabha (15.2%) and 31 women in Rajya Sabha (13%).
• While the number has increased significantly since the 1^st LS (5%) but is still far lower than in many countries.
• According to data, Rwanda (61%), Cuba (53%), Nicaragua (52%) are the top three countries in women representation. Bangladesh (21%) and Pakistan (20%) as well are ahead of India in case of female representation.