List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C has held that the order for modification/ alteration / or setting aside can only be passed when there is change in the circumstances subsequent to the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) and not otherwise. 

What was the Background of the S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C   Case? 

• In this case, the appellate was the wife of the respondent. 
• The appellant filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 12 of the DV Act. 
• The same was allowed and was granted Rs. 12000/- for maintenance and Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation. 
• The respondent appealed the decision before the Appellate Court under Section 29 of the DV Act which was dismissed due to delay in filing of the appeal. 
• The respondent filed an application before the Trail Court under Section 25 of the DV Act which was dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the Respondent filed the appeal before the Karnataka High Court under Section 29 of the DV Act which was allowed by the High Court and the same was remanded to the lower court for further consideration of the application under Section 25 of the DV Act. 
• The respondent sought to set aside the order of the Family court in regard to the maintenance and was also seeking refund of the paid amount. 
• The Respondent argued that the wife (appellant) was earning more than the respondent and therefore the maintenance relief should not be granted to her. 
• The acceptance of the application gave the opportunity to both the parties to produce evidences and for disposing of the application in accordance with the law. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the Appellate filed the Criminal Revision Petition before the Karnataka High Court which got dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the same the Appellate filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • As per Section 25 (2) of the DV Act if there is any change in the circumstance, the same could be a ground for seeking alteration, modification or revocation of such an order. 
  • The scope of Section 25(2) of the DV Act is broad enough to deal with all nature of orders passed under the Act, which may include orders of maintenance, residence, protection, etc. 
  • an order passed under the DV Act remains in force till the time that order is either set aside in an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act or altered/modified/revoked in terms of Section 25(2) of the DV Act by the Magistrate. 
  • An order cannot be set aside which is being passed prior to the application made by the respondent as per the provisions of Section 25 of the DV Act. 
• The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the application of the respondent and held that the order can be set aside as per Section 25 of the DV Act only when there is a change in the circumstances after passing of the order. 

What is Section 25 of the DV Act? 

• Section 25 of the DV Act states the provision regarding Duration and alteration of orders. 
• Under clause (1) it states that a protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge. 
• Under Clause (2) it states that an aggrieved person or a respondent as defined under the Act can seek alteration, modification or revocation of an order made under the provisions of the Act if there is a change in the circumstances. 
• The reasons of the modification need to be recorded in writing by the magistrate. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Alexander Sambath Abner v. Miron Lede (2009):  
  • In this case it was held that an order for alteration, modification or revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively. 
• Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr. (2016) 
  • In this case the Supreme Court, wherein it was held the power to allow amendment to applications filed under the DV Act provided, no prejudice was caused to the other side. It was held that amendments could be allowed in circumstances where such amendment was necessary in light of subsequent events or to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court ruled that documents classified as "Top Secret" and "Protected" under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal. This decision followed a plea from the Director General of Project Varsha, who opposed the submission of sensitive documents during arbitration with M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV over a construction contract, citing national security concerns. 

• Justices Manoj Jain held in the matter of Director General, Project Varsha Ministry of Defence (Navy), Union of India, New Delhi v. M/S Navayuga-van Oord Jv   

What was the Background of the Director General, Project Varsha Ministry of Defence (Navy), Union of India, New Delhi v. M/S Navayuga-van Oord Jv  ? 

• In 2017, the Director General of Project Varsha (part of the Union Ministry of Defence) entered into a contract with M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV for construction of outer harbor for Project Varsha. 
• Disputes arose between the parties, leading to M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV invoking arbitration proceedings. 
• During the arbitration, the claimant (M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV) filed an application seeking inspection and production of certain documents related to the project. 
• The Director General opposed the production of documents, citing national security concerns and applicability of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. 
• It was contended that Project Varsha was classified as "top secret" and the documents sought were protected under the Official Secrets Act. 
• The Arbitral Tribunal passed an order directing the Director General to submit the disputed documents in a sealed cover to the Tribunal. 
• The Director General challenged this order of the Arbitral Tribunal before the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution ,1950 . 
• The key issue before the High Court was whether documents classified as "Top Secret" under the Official Secrets Act could be directed to be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court noted that while both parties should have fair opportunity to present their case in arbitration proceedings, the aspect of National Security is paramount and cannot be compromised. 
• The court observed that the project in question, located on India's Eastern Coast, is highly sensitive and critical to India's defence, a fact that cannot be neglect. 
• The court held that if information is classified as "Top Secret" by the Government of India and directly relates to national defence, due importance must be given to this crucial fact. 
• The court opined that the Arbitral Tribunal should not have insisted on the production of classified documents, even in a sealed cover, as it would be beyond the Tribunal's purview to evaluate whether such documents were rightly classified. 
• The court concluded that once documents are labelled as confidential and classified, that should be the end of the matter, as national security concerns outweigh contractual obligations in such circumstances. 
• The court noted that certain aspects are better left to the wisdom of the Union of India, and neither the Arbitral Tribunal nor the court should venture into scrutinizing or evaluating classified information related to national security. 

Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) 

• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 is a legislation in India that provides for the protection of state secrets and official information, particularly in relation to national security and defense. 
• Documents classified as "Top Secret" represent the highest level of classification under the Act, indicating that unauthorized disclosure would cause exceptionally grave damage to national security. 
• "Protected" documents are safeguarded under the Official Secrets Act, with their disclosure restricted to authorized personnel only. 
• The Act makes it an offense to disclose, obtain, collect, record, publish, or communicate to any unauthorized person any secret official code, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information that might be useful to an enemy or adversely affect the interests of the state. 
• The classification of documents as "Top Secret" and "Protected" is typically done by designated government authorities based on the sensitivity and potential impact of the information contained therein. 
• Courts have generally shown deference to the government's classification of documents under the Official Secrets Act, particularly in matters concerning national security, while also maintaining a balance with principles of transparency and justice. 

What is Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923 ? 

• Deals with disclosure of secret official information . 
• Covers:  
  • Any person possessing/controlling secret official information 
  • Anyone obtaining information in violation of the Act 
  • Those entrusted with official information in confidence 
  • Those with access due to current/past government positions 
• Both the person communicating and receiving information are guilty. 
• Applies to any "secret" information, though "secret" is not defined in the Act. 
• Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment, fine, or both. 

How Does Judicial Review Interact with the Official Secrets Act and the Right to Information Act? 

• Judicial Review and the OSA: 
  • Courts can decide if a person has committed an offense under the Act. 
  • Courts can determine if information is "secret" (jurisdictional issue). 
  • Unclear if courts can rule on "public interest" disclosure. 
  • In Nand Lal More v. The State (1965), court held budget proposals were secrets. 
  • S P Gupta v. President of India case adopted a more lenient stance on disclosure. 
• RTI Act and OSA: 
  • RTI Act (2005) contrasts with OSA's culture of secrecy. 
  • RTI Act hasn't completely replaced OSA. 
  • Section 8(2) of RTI Act: Public interest in disclosure can override OSA. 
  • Section 22 of RTI Act: Its provisions apply despite inconsistencies with OSA.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale and Justice AS Gadkari held that imprisonment does not restrict an individual’s right to pursue education.                        

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The petitioner is an accused against whom the case has been registered under Section 153A, 505 (1) (B), 117, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.  
• The chargesheet was filed and the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 
• The case against the accused is pending before the Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. 
• The petitioner is currently detained in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. 
• The petitioner appeared in Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) law examination pursuant to the permission granted by the Special Judge. 
• He was ranked at Serial No. 95 in the final merit list. 
• He was provisionally allotted a seat in Siddharth Law College and his sister paid the required fee to freeze the seat allotted to the Petitioner. 
• The petitioner was required to be physically present for verification of his documents for the purpose of taking admission. However, he was not present physically as he was detained in the Taloja Central Prison. 
• It is the case of the petitioner that an order was passed on 21st September 2023 releasing the petitioner on bail. However, NIA has preferred Special Leave Petition assailing the order. 
• The petitioner that he should be allowed to take admission in the Siddharth Law College as right to education is a fundamental right. 
• The Counsel for the Siddharth Law College, however, submitted that LL.B. is a professional course and the University Rules require a candidate to have compulsory minimum attendance of 75% during every Academic Year. The petitioner being in jail would undoubtedly not be able to fulfill the above attendance requirement. 
• Thus, the matter was before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the petitioner appeared for the CET examination to seek admission for the LL.B course in a law college. 
• The Court held that in such a scenario denying the opportunity to take admission in the College despite seat being allotted by following the due process as prescribed is a violation of the fundamental right of the Petitioner. 
• Thus, the Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to take admission in the LL.B course in the Siddharth Law College. 
• Further the Court held that since the college requires physical presence of a candidate for verification of documents the Court left it to the College to consider permitting the authorized representative/next of kin of the Petitioner to physically attend the College and verify the documents or in the alternative, to take the signature of the Petitioner on the documents from the Taloja Central Prison. 
• However, the Court clarified that the petitioner was not granted any exemption from satisfying any of the requirements of the University and the Siddharth Law College that the candidates are required as per prevailing rules and regulations. 
• Also, the University and the College were at liberty to refuse permission to the Petitioner from appearing in the examination for failure to satisfy the minimum attendance criteria or any other eligibility criteria.  

What is Right to Education? 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) that the citizens of the country have a fundamental right to education. 
  • The Court held in this case that such right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• Subsequently, Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted which introduced the following constitutional amendments: 
  • Article 21 A:  
    • This was inserted in Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights. 
    • This provision provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law determine. 
  • Article 45:  
    • This was inserted in Part IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy. 
    • The Article provides that the State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years. 
  • Article 51 A:  
    • This was inserted in Part IV A i.e. Fundamental Duties. 
    • Article 51A lists the fundamental duties of every citizen. 
    • Clause (k) was added in these duties and it was provided that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India ‘who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.’ 
• Further, to enforce Article 21A the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE Act) was enacted in 2009.

What are the Relevant International Legal Provisions Regarding Right to Education? 

• Article 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
  • Education shall be free at least in elementary and fundamental stages. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 
  • Education shall promote tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial and religious groups. 
  •  Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. 
• Article 28 of Convention on the Rights of the Child 
  • States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, 
  • States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention. 
  • States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, 
• Article 13 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC) 
  • The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. 
  • No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions. 
• Article 14 of ICESC 
  • Each State Party shall provide compulsory primary education, free of charge and work out a detailed plan of action in this regard.   

What is the Right to Education Act, 2009? 

• Article 21A and the RTE Act came into effect on 1^st April 2010. 
• The title of the Act incorporates the words ‘free and compulsory’.  
• ‘Free education’ means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.  
• With the enactment of this Act India moved towards rights-based framework wherein the duty is cast on the Central and the State Government to implement this fundamental child right as enshrined in Article 21 A of the Constitution. 
• The RTE Act provides for: 
  • Right of children to free and compulsory education till completion of elementary education in a neighborhood school. 
  • It makes provisions for a non-admitted child to be admitted to an age appropriate class. 
  • It specifies the duties and responsibilities of appropriate Governments, local authority and parents in providing free and compulsory education, and sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and State Governments. 
  • It provides for appointment of appropriately trained teachers, i.e. teachers with the requisite entry and academic qualifications. 
  • It prohibits: 
    • physical punishment and mental harassment;  
    • screening procedures for admission of children; 
    • capitation fee;  
    • private tuition by teachers and  
    • running of schools without recognition, 
  • It lays down the norms and standards relating inter alia to Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs), buildings and infrastructure, school-working days, teacher-working hours. 

What are the Landmark Cases on Right to Education? 

• Unni Krishnan JP And Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. (1993) 
  • The Supreme Court held that right to education flows directly from the right to life and right to education is concomitant to the fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The effect of holding that right to education is implicit in the right to life is that the State cannot deprive the citizen of his right to education except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.
• Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (2012) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 12 of the RTE Act which requires that all schools (whether state funded or private) to accept 25% intake from disadvantaged groups. 
  • The Court in this case reiterated that it is the primary obligation of State to provide free and compulsory education to all children, especially those who cannot afford primary education.
• Master Jai Kumar Through his Father Manish Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth and Ors. (2024) 
  • The Delhi High Court in this case held that imparting of education by an unaided private institution falls within the definition of public duty. 
  • The Court in this case held that denial of admission to any child after allotment of seats violates the objective of the RTE Act.