List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a widowed daughter would be entitled to compassionate appointment. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan v. BSNL, New Delhi. 

What was the Background of Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan v. BSNL, New Delhi Case?  

• The petitioner is a widowed daughter and her father while working on the post of TOA (TL) in the office of General Manager (Telecom) died in harness leaving behind his wife, four daughters including the petitioner and a son. 
• The petitioner moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 
• The petitioner has urged that her husband had died and after the death of her husband she had been staying with her father along with her minor son. 
• Further, she has urged that if she is given an appointment, she will take care of the heirs of her deceased father to the best of her ability. 
• The Assistant General Manager (Telecom) however intimated her that as widowed daughter is not listed in the eligibility criteria of guidelines circulated, no action on her application for compassionate appointment can be taken. 
• The CAT, when faced with the matter returned the finding that as per the guideline's widowed daughter is not enumerated in the list of eligible persons and the Tribunal cannot enter into the shoes of the Executive in framing the guidelines. 
• The Tribunal dismissed the application. 
• Finally, a writ petition was filed before the High Court on this matter.  
• The issue to be determined by the Court in the present petition was “Whether a widow daughter of a deceased employee is a ‘Dependent Family Member’ or not so as to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground?” 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that the guidelines for Compassionate Appointment issued by the Government of India, Ministry Personnel Public Grievance and Pension states that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment is applicable to a ‘Dependent Family Member.’ 
• The Court analyzing several judgments held that the common string running through all of these judgments is that purposive and expansive interpretation has been given to the term ‘family member’. 
• The High Courts have included even married daughters within the meaning of family of dependent. 
• The Court held that any distinction between married and unmarried daughter with regard to compassionate appointment would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• Thus, the Court held that ‘daughter’ here would include even unmarried daughter. 
• The Court further answered the question if widowed daughter fell within the ambit of the definition of daughter. 
• It was observed that even after marriage and also after her widowhood the daughter continues her status as such even at the time of death of her father. 
• Therefore, the Court held that a widowed daughter would be covered in the definition of daughter. 
• Also, the Court added that if such widowed daughter was not dependent upon her father, then she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment under the guidelines.

What is Compassionate Appointment and the Guidelines Governing the Same? 

• The basis of Compassionate Appointment: 
  • The basis and rationale of these appointments is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution.  
  • The purpose of these policies is therefore, to give immediate succor to the family.  
  • It is to be noted that such a right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.  
  • Compassionate appointments are, therefore, provided to bail out the family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.  
  • This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment 
• Guidelines Governing Compassionate Appointment: 
  • The Guidelines for Compassionate Appointment have been issued by the Government of India and these state that the scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable to a ‘Dependent Family Member’. 
  • It provides that ‘Dependent Family Member’ would mean: 
    • Spouse, or 
    • Son (including adopted son) 
    • Daughter (including adopter daughter) 
    • Brother or sister in case of an unmarried government servant.  
  • The pre-requisites for appointment are that the applicant should be a family member and should be dependent upon the deceased employee. 
  • Once these conditions are satisfied the economic or financial condition of the family including the dependent is required to be assessed.

What are the Case Laws Highlighting the Status of Daughter? 

• Sunita v. Union of India (1996): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case succinctly summarized the status of daughter as follows: 
    • ‘A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout his life’. 
• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of UP and Another (2015): 
  • The Court in this case was faced with the issue as to the eligibility of “married daughter” for compassionate appointment under the “Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. 
  • The Court held in this case that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression “family” in Rule 2 (c) is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.   
• Uddham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bench Ltd and Others v. Anjula Singh and Others (2019): 
  • The question posed before the Larger Bench of Uttarakhand High Court was whether non-inclusion of a “married daughter” in the definition of “family” is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) 
  • The Court held that non-inclusion of married daughter within the ambit of family is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the COI. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that the term 'socialist' in the Constitution's Preamble reflects a commitment to being a welfare state and ensuring equality of opportunity, without mandating specific economic policies. The Court observed India's mixed economy model, where public and private sectors coexist, benefiting marginalized communities. 

• CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held in Balram Singh v. Union of India. 
• This observation came while dismissing petitions challenging the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. 

What was the Background of Balram Singh v. Union of India Case? 

• In 2020, multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the insertion of words "socialist" and "secular" in the Constitution's Preamble through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976. 
• The petitioners argued that these terms were added during the Emergency period without genuine public consultation when the normal parliamentary tenure had already ended. 
• A key contention was that the Constituent Assembly had deliberately eschewed these terms during the original drafting of the Constitution in 1949. 
• The petitioners claimed that the retrospective insertion of these ideological terms 27 years after the Constitution's adoption was procedurally improper. 
• They specifically argued that the term "socialist" unnecessarily restricts the economic policy choices of democratically elected governments. 
• The challenge questioned whether an amendment made during the Emergency could fundamentally alter the Constitution's philosophical framework. 
• The legal petition states that the Constituent Assembly had intentionally not included these terms in the original Preamble, suggesting their subsequent insertion was inappropriate. 
• Notably, the petitioners filed their challenge 44 years after the actual amendment, which itself became a point of judicial scrutiny. 
• The core legal question was whether the Parliament had the constitutional authority to unilaterally modify the Preamble's foundational principles through an amendment during an extraordinary political period. 

What were the Petitioner’s Arguments in relation to 42nd Amendment's Insertions into the Preamble? 

• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 inserted three new words - "secular", "socialist", and "integrity" - into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. 
• This amendment was made decades after the original adoption of the Constitution in 1949, where the Constituent Assembly had deliberately chosen not to include the terms "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble. 
• The petitioners argued that the retrospective addition of these ideological terms in 1976 was procedurally improper, as it fundamentally altered the philosophical framework envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. 
• Specifically, the inclusion of "secular" was challenged, as the Constituent Assembly had previously avoided this term, with some scholars interpreting it as being opposed to religion. 
• Similarly, the term "socialist" was contested by the petitioners, who claimed it unduly restricted the economic policy choices of democratically elected governments. 
• The third term inserted was "integrity", which was meant to put an end to any secessionist tendencies and reinforce the idea of India as a "Union of States" as per Article 1 of the Constitution. 
• The petitioners contended that these amendments, made during the Emergency period, lacked genuine public consent and consultation, as they were passed after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended. 
• Overall, the central legal challenge revolved around the validity of unilaterally modifying the Preamble's foundational principles through a constitutional amendment, especially during an extraordinary political period like the Emergency. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution is a living document, with Parliament possessing legitimate amendment powers under Article 368, which extends to modifying the Preamble. 
• The Court explicitly clarified that "socialism" should not be interpreted as a restrictive economic ideology, but rather as the State's commitment to welfare and ensuring equality of opportunity. 
• Regarding "secularism", the Court elaborated that it represents the nation's fundamental commitment to treating all persons equally, irrespective of religious affiliations, without supporting or penalizing any specific faith. 
• The Court noted that the Indian framework of socialism embodies economic and social justice principles, ensuring no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. 
• The judiciary emphasized that neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy structure, whether left or right-oriented, but represents a broader commitment to social welfare. 
• The Court highlighted that India has consistently embraced a mixed economic model, where private entrepreneurship coexists with public sector initiatives, contributing to societal upliftment. 
• The judgment observed that the constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, and 26, inherently reflect secular principles of non-discrimination and religious freedom. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the late filing of these petitions - 44 years after the amendment - significantly undermines their credibility and suggests widespread public acceptance of these constitutional changes. 
• Ultimately, the Court rejected all arguments challenging the 42nd Amendment, affirming that the insertions of "socialist" and "secular" were valid constitutional modifications that did not infringe upon fundamental rights or the basic constitutional structure. 

What is Socialism" in the Indian Constitution? 

• The term "socialism" in the Indian Constitution should not be interpreted as a restrictive economic ideology imposed on the elected government. 
• Rather, "socialism" denotes the State's commitment to being a welfare state and ensuring equality of opportunity for all citizens. 
• India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished and coexisted alongside the public sector. 
• In the Indian context, "socialism" embodies the principles of economic and social justice, ensuring that no citizen is disadvantaged due to their economic or social circumstances. 
• The term "socialism" reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment of the marginalized and underprivileged sections of society. 
• Importantly, "socialism" does not restrict private entrepreneurship or the fundamental right to carry on any business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
• The court emphasized that neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific left or right-leaning economic policy structure for the elected government. 
• The insertion of "socialist" in the Preamble represents the State's broader commitment to the welfare of its citizens and the elimination of all forms of exploitation, be it social, economic, or political. 

What is Article 368 of the Indian Constitution?

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of X v. Y has held that the doctrine of Res Judicata shall not be applicable to the reliefs of permanent reliefs and stridhan. 

What was the Background of the X v. Y Case? 

• In the present case, a matrimonial dispute arose between a wife and husband who got married on 12th June 2017, in Udaipur District.  
• Shortly after their marriage, the husband began subjecting the wife to mental harassment, particularly regarding some gold ornaments she owned.  
• The wife alleges that her husband had been in an illicit relationship with another woman prior to their marriage and was pressuring her to quit her job.  
• On 25th January 2018, the husband expelled her from their matrimonial home, forcing her to live with her parents.  
• The husband was residing in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. 
• Subsequently, the wife discovered that her husband had obtained an ex parte divorce decree on 8th March 2021, from a court in Gandhinagar.  
• In response, she filed an application in the Family Court in Udaipur seeking: 
  • Divorce 
  • Permanent alimony 
  • Possession of her stridhan (personal property) 
• The Family Court dismissed her application, citing that the matter was barred by res judicata due to the previous divorce decree. 
• The wife then filed a civil appeal before the Rajasthan High Court lodging a criminal complaint against her husband under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which are related to dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust. 
• The core of her appeal was to challenge the dismissal of her claims for permanent alimony and recovery of her stridhan, arguing that the previous ex-parte divorce decree should not prevent her from seeking these legal remedies. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Rajasthan High Court observed that:  
  • Interpretation of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) (Permanent Alimony): 
    • Section 25 is a social welfare provision aimed at securing women's rights. 
    • The provision is continuous in nature and can be invoked at any stage of matrimonial proceedings. 
    • The legislative intent is to provide financial independence to women. 
    • The court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation that advances social justice. 
  • Socio-Economic Context of Women in Rajasthan: 
    • The court acknowledged the significant social and financial barriers faced by women 
  • Jurisdictional Considerations: 
    • Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows a wife to file petitions in the court within whose jurisdiction she resides. 
    • The court stressed that women should not be made to "run from pillar to post" to seek fundamental legal reliefs. 
  • Stridhan (Personal Property): 
    • It is the absolute property of a woman. 
    • Highlighted that the husband has no control over stridhan. 
    • Emphasized that stridhan cannot be interfered with by anyone else. 
  • Previous Divorce Decree: 
    • Noted that an ex parte divorce decree had already been passed by the Gujarat Court. 
    • It is observed that such a decree can only be challenged in the appellate court. 
  • Procedural Approach: 
    • Emphasized that procedure should be the "handmaid of justice, not its mistress". 
    • Argued against rigid procedural interpretations that might prevent substantive justice. 
  • Legal Interpretation: 
    • Applied the "golden rule" of interpretation. 
    • Used the legal maxim "ut res magis valeat quam pereat" (the interpretation should ensure smooth working of the system). 
    • Focused on interpreting laws in a way that achieves their true legislative intent by applying Section 25 of HMA. 
  • The Rajasthan High Court held that the doctrine of Res Judicata shall not be applicable on the reliefs of permanent reliefs and stridhan as per the provisions of Section 25 of the HMA. 
  • The court's observations were fundamentally geared towards ensuring justice, protecting women's rights, and interpreting laws in a manner that serves their social welfare purpose. 

What is the Principle of Res Judicata?  

About: 

• This principle simply means that nothing should be adjudicated twice, or no subsequent suit should be filed for the same issue which has been already decided by the court.  
• The principle of Res Judicata is based upon three Latin maxims:  
  • Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium: it means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.  
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa: it means that, no man should be vexed for the same reason twice.   
  • Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur: it means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. in case where, there is a conflict in judgment then it leads to embarrassment of judiciary. 

Essential Elements: 

• The matter in issue must be the same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially the same in the former suit.  
• Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.   
• Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and subsequent suits.   
• Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been raised.  
• Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by the former court.   

Extent and Applicability: 

• The doctrine of res judicata applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, administrative orders, interim orders, etc.  
• The doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 of CPC is not exhaustive.