List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that since the cause of action in both the petitions is different the same would not be barred by res judicata.          

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of X v. Y. 

What was the Background of X v. Y Case?  

• The Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) were married. 
• The Appellant filed a Matrimonial case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) for divorce mainly on the grounds of desertion. 
• The above was the first divorce case filed by the husband against the wife. 
• This was however dismissed on the ground that desertion on the part of the Respondent was not proved by the Appellant. 
• The second case was filed by the husband against the wife in 2021 whereby: 
  • The husband made similar allegations as made in the first case. 
  • Further, new claims of cruelty were also made whereby the husband alleged that  
    • The wife, her brother-in-law, and another relative allegedly attacked the husband's mother and sister 
    • The wife broke household items. 
    • The villagers were called and the alleged attackers fled. 
    • Thereafter, a police report was filed. 
• The wife responded to the allegations as follows: 
  • She denied the allegations of cruelty 
  • She confirmed that she lives in a two-room accommodation in the matrimonial house (as per a previous domestic violence case order) 
  • She argued that since the first divorce case was dismissed, the second case should also be dismissed  
• The Family Court dismissed the matrimonial case file by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of being barred by res judicata. 
• The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court  Ambedkar Nagar. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that while some paragraphs in the second divorce petition were identical to the first, the second petition introduced additional grounds not present in the first petition. 
• The Court observed that the new elements in the second petition are as follows: 
  • The second petition highlighted litigation costs and expenses paid to the wife. 
  • It mentioned a specific incident from 2020 involving physical and mental assault of the husband's family members. 
• The Court referenced Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) which focused on determining whether the cause of action in the second suit was different from the first. 
• The Court held that to apply the bar of res judicata, the court needed to assess if the fundamental cause of action had changed. 
• It was observed that addition of new grounds and incidents suggested a potentially different cause of action. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the present appeal and the impugned decree was ser aside.

What is Res Judicata? 

• Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”. 
• Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment. 
• It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. 
• It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause. 
• The object of the principle of res judicata can be traced by three judicial maxims:  
  • Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man should be vexed twice for the same cause.  
  • Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim means it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation.  
  • Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. 
• Essential Elements: 
  • Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially 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.

How is the Applicability of Res Judicata Determined in Divorce Cases? 

• Difference in reliefs in previous and later proceedings in marital status causes is immaterial for attracting the relevance of the doctrine of Res Judicata. 
• For the applicability of res judicata the cause of action in both the cases must be different.  
• A husband 1st filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights that was dismissed on the findings that the wife was turned out of the house and she was treated with cruelty. 
  • Subsequently the husband filed a suit for divorce on the grounds inter alia for desertion. 
  • It had been held that the issue of desertion was barred by Res Judicata.

What are the Case Laws on this Point?

• Balveer Singh v. Harjeet Kaur (2017) 
  • This judgment was delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court. 
  • The appellant had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce. 
  • The main issue before the High Court was whether this petition was prohibited by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (which deals with res judicata, meaning a case already decided cannot be re-litigated). 
  • This question arose because an earlier case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (related to restitution of conjugal rights) had already been resolved. 
  • The Court held that proceedings under section 13A of the Act will not be barred by Res Judicata on the basis of prior proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that individuals born as Christians cannot claim caste-based benefits by invoking the doctrine of caste eclipse, as Christianity does not recognize the caste system.  

• This doctrine applies only to those born in caste-based religions who convert to caste-less faiths and later reconvert.  
• The ruling came while dismissing an appeal seeking a Scheduled Caste certificate, as the appellant failed to prove her conversion to Hinduism. 

What was the Background of C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary- Cum District Collector and Others? 

• C. Selvarani was born to a Christian father and a mother who allegedly converted to Hinduism after marriage, claiming descent from the Valluvan caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in Pondicherry. 
• She was baptized as an infant on 06th January 1991 at the Lourdes Shrine in Villianur, Pondicherry, and was born to parents whose marriage was registered under Christian marriage regulations. 
• During her job application for the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) post, Selvarani initially applied under the Scheduled Caste category and was selected. 
• During certificate verification, local authorities began investigating her religious background and community status, ultimately rejecting her application for a Scheduled Caste community certificate. 
• Selvarani argued that her family originally belonged to the Valluvan caste, that her mother converted to Hinduism, and that she herself was practicing Hinduism and had been issued previous community certificates. 
• The local authorities, after detailed investigations involving village administrative officers and community statements, maintained that Selvarani was a Christian by birth and practice, and thus ineligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate. 
• She filed multiple appeals through administrative channels and subsequently approached the High Court through a writ petition, challenging the rejection of her community certificate application. 
• The High Court dismissed her writ petition, agreeing with the local authorities that she did not meet the criteria for a Scheduled Caste community certificate. 
• Feeling aggrieved by the High Court's decision, Selvarani then appealed to the Supreme Court, which became the final judicial forum for resolving her case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court unequivocally held that an individual born as a Christian cannot invoke the doctrine of caste eclipse, as Christianity fundamentally does not recognize the caste system. 
• The doctrine of caste eclipse is exclusively applicable when a person practicing a caste-based religion converts to a caste-less religion, wherein their original caste remains eclipsed until potential reconversion. 
• The Court observed that upon conversion to Christianity, an individual irrevocably loses their previous caste identity, and cannot be associated with or identified by any prior caste classification. 
• The burden of proof for reconversion lies squarely with the individual claiming caste restoration, requiring more than a mere unsubstantiated claim and necessitating demonstrable evidence of ceremonial reconversion and community acceptance. 
• The Court critically examined the appellant's claim, noting the absence of any formal reconversion ceremony, public declaration, or documentary evidence supporting a return to Hinduism, and found that the appellant continued to actively practice Christianity. 
• The judgment underscored the principle that reservation benefits cannot be fraudulently obtained through opportunistic religious conversions, affirming that such actions would constitute an abuse of constitutional provisions designed to address historical social inequities. 
• Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing that born Christians cannot retroactively claim Scheduled Caste status for employment or other reservation benefits. 

Doctrine of Eclipse 

• The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle specifically addressing laws that were valid at their original enactment but became inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. 
• Under this doctrine, such laws are not rendered completely void, but are considered "eclipsed" or dormant due to their inconsistency with constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights. 
• The eclipsed law remains in a state of suspended animation, effectively unenforceable during the period of constitutional inconsistency, but not entirely dead or permanently invalidated. 
• If subsequent constitutional amendments remove the specific inconsistencies that originally rendered the law unconstitutional, the law automatically revives and regains its full legal enforceability. 
• This doctrine essentially provides a mechanism for preserving pre-constitutional laws that might have been temporarily invalidated, allowing them to be resurrected once they align with constitutional provisions. 
• The core purpose of the Doctrine of Eclipse is to prevent wholesale elimination of laws that might have minor constitutional discrepancies, instead offering a pathway for legislative correction and alignment. 
• By treating such laws as merely "eclipsed" rather than permanently extinct, the doctrine promotes legal continuity and provides flexibility in addressing historical legislative frameworks that may require nuanced constitutional reconciliation. 

Doctrine of Eclipse and Constitutional Provisions 

• The Doctrine of Eclipse is fundamentally linked to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which serves as a critical mechanism for protecting fundamental rights by addressing laws that potentially conflict with constitutional guarantees. 
• Under Article 13(1), any pre-constitutional law that contradicts the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution becomes invalid to the extent of such inconsistency, effectively rendering those specific provisions unenforceable but not eliminating the entire legislative framework. 
• Article 13(2) reinforces this protection by declaring that any new law enacted after the Constitution's commencement becomes automatically void if it violates fundamental rights, with courts typically having the power to invalidate specific problematic provisions rather than striking down entire legislative acts. 
• A unique aspect of this legal doctrine is Article 13(4), which explicitly exempts constitutional amendments from the invalidation process, meaning that even if a constitutional amendment conflicts with fundamental rights, it remains legally valid. 
• This approach differs from the doctrine of severability, which would typically recommend completely removing unconstitutional provisions from a law, whereas the Doctrine of Eclipse allows for potential revival of laws once their constitutional inconsistencies are addressed. 
• The Philosophy of Article 13 and the Doctrine of Eclipse is to provide a flexible mechanism that protects fundamental rights while simultaneously preserving legislative intent and minimizing wholesale legal disruption. 
• Ultimately, these constitutional provisions create a nuanced framework that allows laws to be temporarily eclipsed, potentially rehabilitated, and always subject to the paramount consideration of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. 

Landmark Case 

• Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) 
  • The C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1947 was critically examined for its potential violation of Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. 
  • The case was pivotal in demonstrating the Doctrine of Eclipse's practical application, as the amendment act predated the Constitution's establishment, thereby rendering its conflicting provisions effectively suspended but not entirely eliminated. 
• Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay (1955) 
  • case further complicated the legal landscape by raising complex questions about the temporal application of Article 13(1), specifically addressing the nuanced interpretations of "invalid" in constitutional context. 
  • This case specifically challenged the Act's potential infringement of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, requiring the Court to meticulously examine the legislative provisions' constitutional compatibility.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of C. Selvarani V. The Special Secretary- Cum District Collector and Others has held that religious conversion should be motivated by genuine spiritual beliefs, not administrative advantages and such practices would undermine the sole objective of the reservation policies. 

What was the Background of C. Selvarani V. The Special Secretary- Cum District Collector and Others Case? 

• The appellant, C. Selvarani, was born on 22nd November, 1990 to a Christian father named Christian (son of Mounien) and a mother named Santhamarie. 
• The Appellant claimed that her father's side of the family originally belonged to the Valluvan caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the Pondicherry region. 
• She asserts that her mother converted to Hinduism after marriage and that her family has been practicing Hinduism. 
• In 2015, Selvarani applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) under the Scheduled Caste category and was selected. 
• During the verification process, she was asked to produce community, residence, and nativity certificates. 
• Her application for a Scheduled Caste community certificate was initially rejected by the local authorities on the grounds that she does not profess Hinduism. 
• Selvarani challenged this rejection through multiple appeals and legal channels, including: 
  • An initial appeal to higher authorities 
  • A writ petition in the High Court 
  • Approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal 
• She argued that despite being baptized as an infant, she and her family practice Hinduism and belong to the Valluvan caste. 
• She had previously been issued Scheduled Caste community certificates for herself, her father, and her brother. 
• The local authorities maintained their position that she is a Christian by religion and therefore ineligible for a Scheduled Caste community certificate. 
• The appellant prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondents before the Madras High Court. 
• The appellant also prayed to quash the orders passed by the respondents as they are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice. 
• She prayed for the order to issue Scheduled Caste Certificate as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, based on the community certificates already issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the appellant as well as her family members. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • Religious Conversion and Caste Status 
    • The Court acknowledged that conversion to another religion typically results in losing one's original caste status. 
    • Mere claims of reconversion are insufficient without clear evidence of genuine return to the original religious community. 
  • Burden of Proof 
    • The burden was on the appellant to establish: 
      • Her genuine reconversion to Hinduism 
      • Acceptance by the original caste community 
      • Sincere intention to fully embrace Hindu practices 
    • Documentary Evidence 
      • The Court found compelling documentary evidence contradicting appellant’s claims: 
        • Baptism certificate showing her baptism within two months of birth 
        • Marriage registration of her parents under Christian marriage laws 
        • Statements from villagers confirming her family's Christian practice 
  • Motivation for Conversion Claims 
    • The Court was skeptical of conversion claims made primarily to access reservation benefits. 
    • It emphasized that converting religions solely to obtain employment reservations defeats the constitutional principles of reservation. 
  • Principles of Reservation 
    • The Court stressed that reservation policies are intended to uplift historically disadvantaged communities. 
    • Fraudulent claims undermine the social justice objectives of these policies. 
• Procedural Fairness 
  • The Court found that the authorities followed proper procedures: 
  • Conducted thorough investigations 
  • Provided opportunities for appellant to present her case 
  • Gave her multiple chances to explain her circumstances 
• Legal Precedents 
  • The Court relied on previous judgments establishing that 
    • Conversion typically results in losing caste identity 
    • Reconversion requires more than personal claims 
    • The caste community's acceptance is crucial in re-establishing caste status  
  • Secular Perspective 
    • While affirming the constitutional right to religious freedom, the Court highlighted that religious conversion should be motivated by genuine spiritual beliefs, not administrative advantages. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was a Christian by religion and practice. 
  • Her claims of being a Hindu were not substantiated by credible evidence. 
  • The observations fundamentally rejected appellant’s claim to a Scheduled Caste community certificate, emphasizing the importance of genuine religious identity over opportunistic claims and dismissed the present appeal. 

What is the Reservation? 

• Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical injustice. 
• Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of society in employment and access to education. 
• It was also originally developed to correct years of discrimination and to give a boost to disadvantaged groups. 
• In India, people have been historically discriminated on the basis of caste. 
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India (COI) briefly states the provisions guaranteeing equal opportunity to all the citizens in public employment without any discrimination as a general rule but subject to certain exceptions. 
  • Clause (4) states the provisions for Reservations as:  
    • It empowers the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 

What are the Main Issues and Loopholes in the Reservation System?  

• Fraudulent obtainment of Non-Creamy Layer (NCL), Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and disability certificates.  
• Inadequate scrutiny of eligibility for reservation benefits.  
• Strategies to circumvent creamy layer exclusion, such as asset gifting or premature retirement by parents.  
• Lack of consideration of the applicant's or spouse's income in creamy layer determination.  
• Concentration of benefits among a small percentage of OBC castes/sub-castes.  
• Absence of creamy layer concept for SC and ST categories.  
• Persistent unfilled vacancies in reserved seats, despite high reservation percentages.  
• Lack of sub-categorization within reserved categories, leading to underrepresentation of certain communities.  
• Potential misuse of disability certificates to access reserved seats.  
• Insufficient mechanisms to ensure benefits reach the most marginalized within underprivileged groups.  
• Absence of regular reviews and updates to the list of backward classes and income thresholds.  
• The lack of a comprehensive system to track and prevent multiple generations of a family from continuously benefiting from reservations. 

What is the Status of Religious Conversion Laws in India?  

• Religious conversion has become a highly debated topic in India, with several states enacting laws to regulate or prohibit certain types of conversions.   
• Constitutional Provision:  
  • The Indian Constitution under Article 25 of the COI guarantees the freedom to profess, propagate, and practice religion, and allows all religious sections to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.  
  • However, no person shall force their religious beliefs and consequently, no person should be forced to practice any religion against their wishes.  
• State-Level Anti-Conversion Laws in India  
  • Arunachal Pradesh: The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, fraud, or inducement  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Chhattisgarh: The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to district magistrate for conversion  
  • Gujarat: The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (amended in 2021)  
    • Prohibits forcible conversion and conversion by allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires prior permission for conversion  
  • Haryana: The Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2022  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes provisions against conversions for marriage  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement, or any fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Jharkhand: The Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2017  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Karnataka: The Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022  
    • Prohibits unlawful conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, allurement, force, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 60-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Odisha: The Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, fraud, or inducement  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Rajasthan: The Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 (not enforced due to lack of rules)  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Uttarakhand: The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires one-month prior declaration for conversion  
  • Uttar Pradesh: The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes provisions against conversions for marriage  
    • Requires 60-day prior notice for conversion 
• There isn't any specific "Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act" in India at the national level. 
  • Some states have introduced laws related to religious conversions, often referred to as anti-conversion laws. 
  • These laws typically aim to regulate or restrict religious conversions, particularly conversions that are alleged to be coerced or fraudulent.