List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs., has held that under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (SRA) a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.

What was the Background of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs. Case?

• In this case, the action that set-in motion in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter.
• Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993.
• The Trial Court decided the matter in 1999 and held that the plaintiff has not taken any action in respect of the document executed and filed the suit in the year 1993 and held that the suit is barred by Limitation and the rights of the plaintiff were abated.
• Thereafter, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, and the appeal was dismissed.
• The Second Appeal was filed before the High Court in which the High Court held that plaintiff will be entitled to half share of the property after the lifetime of life estate holder.
• It is against this order and judgment that the present civil appeal has been preferred before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol observed that it is a well-established position of law that under Section 34 of SRA, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Venkataraja and Ors. v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) thr. LRs, (2014).
  • The Supreme Court held that the purpose behind Section 34 of SRA is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings. A mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases.

What is Section 34 of SRA?

About:

• This Section deals with the discretion of the Court as to declaration of status or right. It states that—
  • Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.
  • Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
  • Explanation. —A trustee of property is a person interested to deny a title adverse to the title of someone who is not inexistence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
• The section provides that courts have discretion as to declaration of status or right, however, it carves out an exception that a court shall not make any such declaration of status or right where the complainant, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Case Law:

• In Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi (1973), the Supreme Court had held that the suit seeking for declaration of title of ownership but where possession is not sought, is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, thus, not maintainable.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra declared Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

What is the Background of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Case?

• Background of the Challenge:
  • The petitioners initiated proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), contesting the validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme and provisions within the Finance Act 2017.
  • These challenged amendments impacted various laws, including the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (RBI Act), the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Companies Act, 2013 and the Finance Act, 2017.
• Amendments to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934:
  • Previously, Section 31 of the RBI Act, 1934 restricted the issuance of financial instruments for payment solely to the RBI or entities authorized by it.
  • The Finance Act, 2017 altered this by introducing Section 31(3), enabling the Central Government to authorize scheduled banks to issue electoral bonds.
• Evolution of Corporate Contributions Regulation:
  • Initially, the Companies Act, 1956 lacked provisions regulating corporate contributions to political parties.
  • The Companies Act 2013, mirroring Section 293A, increased the cap to 7.5% of average net profits and mandated Board resolutions for contributions, alongside disclosure requirements.
  • Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 substantively incorporated the provisions of Section 293-A of the 1956 Act, as amended in 1985.
  • Section 182 enables a company to contribute any amount directly or indirectly to any political party.
  • The provision bars a Government company and a company which has been in existence for less than three financial years from contributing to a political party.
• The Finance Act, 2017 further altered corporate funding regulations, removing caps and modifying disclosure obligations while adding restrictions on contribution methods.
  
  • The first proviso to Section 182(1) which prescribed a cap on corporate funding was omitted by Finance Act, 2017.
• Tax Exemption for Political Parties:
  • The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978 introduced Section 13A to the IT Act, 1961 exempting political parties' income from contributions and investments from income tax.
    • To qualify for exemption, political parties had to maintain proper accounts, record voluntary contributions exceeding twenty thousand rupees, and undergo annual auditing.
• Incentivizing Contributions:
  • The Election and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 added Sections 80GGB and 80GGC to the IT Act, making contributions to political parties tax-deductible.
    • This move aimed to encourage contributions through transparent channels like cheques.
• Transparency Measures:
  • The Finance Act, 2017 amended Section 13A, allowing political parties to receive contributions via electoral bonds without disclosure.
    • However, parties had to report contributions exceeding twenty thousand rupees to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
• RBI and ECI Concerns
  • The RBI expressed concerns over electoral bonds, citing potential currency misuse and money laundering risks.
  • The ECI criticized the lack of transparency and recommended reintroducing caps on corporate funding to prevent misuse. Despite objections, the Electoral Bond Scheme was implemented in 2018, subject to ongoing constitutional challenges.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Conclusions of the Court:
  • The Electoral Bond Scheme, certain sections of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Companies Act, and amendments therein, violate Article 19(1)(a) and are unconstitutional.
  • The removal of the proviso to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, allowing unlimited corporate contributions to political parties, is arbitrary and breaches Article 14.
• Directive for Disclosure:
  • The Court mandated the disclosure of information regarding political party contributions under the Electoral Bond Scheme to uphold its ruling.
  • SC said that Political parties are required to provide detailed particulars of donors, bond amounts, and credits received against each bond.
• Issuance of Directives:
  • The Court issued directives including the cessation of Electoral Bond issuance, submission of purchase details by SBI, disclosure of political party recipients, publication by ECI, and return/refund of unencashed bonds.
  • The court said that the issuing bank shall herewith stop the issuance of Electoral Bonds.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Teresa Mary George v. State of Kerala, has held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) cannot be invoked for the execution of a decree.

What was the Background of Teresa Mary George v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the Petitioner’s late husband has obtained 3.24 acres of land by virtue of a Will executed by his mother.
• The petitioner and her children had filed an original Suit in Sub Court for obtaining a decree for the fixation of boundaries of a property under a Will.
• Pending the suit, the survey commission was taken out for the demarcation of the boundary and preparation of the survey plan.
• The parties entered into a compromise and the suit was decreed.
• Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents to fix survey marks as agreed in the compromise.
• This was rejected by the respondent and the petitioner filed a petition before the Kerala High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Viju Abraham observed that when an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for executing the decree passed by a civil court, then the petitioner cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the COI to execute the decree passed by the civil court.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Corporation of Kochi v. Thomas John Kithu and Ors. (2020).
  • In this case, Kerala High Court has held that public law remedy under Article 226 of the COI cannot be invoked in a case where there is a mechanism provided for execution of a decree.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Article 226 of the COI

About:

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose.
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -
  • Located within its jurisdiction or
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
• It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.
• The following writs are available under this Article:
  • Writ of Habeas Corpus
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Writ of Certiorari
  • Writ of prohibition
  • Writ of Quo warranto

Case Laws:

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.

Order XXI of CPC

• Order 21 of the CPC deals with the execution of decrees and orders payment under decree.
• This Order contains 106 rules.
• It provides the procedure for the execution of decrees, such as the attachment of property, sale of property, arrest, and detention of a judgment debtor, appointment of a receiver, etc.