List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PB Varale held that although Section 127 of TPA permits onerous transfer, a gift which is occasioned on perpetual rendering of services is violative of the Constitution.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Smt. Naresh Kumari & Others v. Smt. Chameli & Others. 

What was the Background of Smt. Naresh Kumari & Others v. Smt. Chameli & Others Case?  

• A land measuring 38 Bighas 8 Biswas was gifted by a donor to donee in 1953. 
• The oral gift was duly executed and mutation carried out in favor of the donees. 
• A suit was filed in 1998, after 45 years, for declaration and for possession or for resumption of property. 
• The case of the plaintiffs was that they were heirs to the donor, and they have asserted that the defendants have stopped rendering services and since the original donees have died the suit land should revert to the plaintiffs in terms of the gift condition. 
• The Trial Court held that since the services have been stopped the land is liable to be reverted to the plaintiffs. 
• The First Appellate Court agreed with the findings of the Trial Court. 
• The High Court allowed the defendant’s second appeal and held that it is nowhere provided in the mutation that the donees will have to serve the heirs of the donor. 
• Further, it was also held that the plaintiffs have failed to disclose what these “services” were and when they exactly stopped. 
•  Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Context in which the Transfer took Place: 
  • It was observed that the aforementioned transfer took place in December 1953 which was the period immediately after our independence when each State in the country had framed or was in the process of framing laws on land reforms with a focus on redistribution of land. 
  • It was thus clear to the land owners that they would not be able to hold land beyond a particular ceiling limit. 
  • The land owners therefore gifted the land to helpers or priest in whatever manner they thought would be in their best interest. 
  • The Court held that it is very important to view this transfer in the context in which it has been given and the entire accumulating circumstances including the fact that the possession of the property was transferred the same day.
• Applicability of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA): 
  • It is to be observed that the transfer in this took place in 1953 in the present-day Haryana. 
  • Even though the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) was not applicable at that time in the State of Haryana what definitely would be applicable are the provisions of TPA which are based on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. 
  • The above has been held by the Court in the case of Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char (2023).
• Validity of the Gift Deed: 
  • It was admitted that the possession was transferred on the date the gift was entered into. 
  • This transfer of the possession has a very strong bearing in the present facts. 
  • The Court made a very important observation with respect to onerous gift or gifts that have conditions attached: 
    • Although Section 127 of TPA permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees.  
    • The Court held that when the gift deed was executed the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) had already come into existence and the above gift deed violates Article 14, Article 21 and Article 23 of the COI. 
• It was finally held by the Court that the gift deed cannot be said to be void as the validity of the gift deed was not challenged by either the plaintiffs or the defendants. 
• The Court hence concluded that the plaintiff has no case in the present facts and the order of the High Court was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.

What is Gift under TPA?

• Section 122 to Section 129 contained in Chapter VII of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with gifts. 
• A gift is considered a gratuitous transfer as an existing property is transferred in favour of another person without consideration. 
  • A gift between living persons is intervivos (between the living) gift and it is a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 5 of this Act. 
• The following gifts do not come within the purview of this Act: 
  • Testamentary gift that is a gift by operation of law. 
  • A gift made in apprehension of death. 
• A gift is defined in Section 122 of the Act, which reads as follows: 
  • A gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. 
  • Acceptance when to be made – Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.

What are Onerous Gifts under TPA?

• A gift is said to be onerous when it is accompanied by a burden or obligation. 
  • This section is based on the maxim ‘qui sentit commodum sentire debetet onus’ which means that he who receives advantage must also bear the burden. 
• Section 127 of this Act deals with the concept of Onerous Gifts. It states that: 
  • Where a gift is in the form of a single transfer to the same person of several things of which one is, and the others are not burdened by an obligation, the donee can take nothing by the gift unless he accepts it fully. 
  • Where a gift is in the form of two or more separate and independent transfers to the same person of several things, the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the others, although the former may be beneficial and the latter onerous. 
• Onerous Gift to Disqualified Person - A donee not competent to contract and accept a property which, burdened by any obligation, is not bound by his acceptance. But if, after becoming competent to contract and being aware of the obligation, he retains the property given, he becomes so bound.

What are the Provisions in the Constitution Relating to Forced Labour ? 

• Article 23 and Article 24 are a part of Right against Exploitation under Part III of the COI. 
• Article 23 lays down about prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labor. 
• Clause (1) lays down : 
  • Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labor are prohibited. 
  • Any contravention of this provisions shall be an offence and punishable in accordance with law.   
• Clause (2) lays down an exception and lays down that: 
  • Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. The State of Maharashtra & Othrs.  has held that high threshold required to justify preventive detention it should only be permissible when public order is disturbed. 

What was the Background of the Arjun v. The State of Maharashtra & Others Case?   

• Arjun Gaikwad (appellant) was detained by the District Magistrate of Parbhani under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA).  
• The detention order was issued for a period of twelve months, with the stated purpose of preventing Arjun from engaging in bootlegging activities and maintaining public peace. 
• The detention was primarily based on six separate cases registered against Arjun by the State Excise Department between January and October 2023.  
• These cases were related to the illicit manufacture of handmade liquor, specifically under various sections of the MPDA. 
• Notably, despite these six cases, the Excise Authority had not arrested the appellant at any point.  
• The grounds of detention were communicated to Arjun on 5th March 2024.  
• The detention order was subsequently approved by the Home Department on 14th March 2024, and confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra on 8th May 2024. 
• The detention order also relied on statements from two unnamed witnesses. These witnesses claimed that: 
  • The appellant had been producing handcrafted liquor for several years. 
  • His activities were causing problems for government machinery. 
  • People were afraid to file complaints against him. 
  • The witnesses alleged personal encounters with Arjun involving threats related to his liquor business. 
• The Appellant challenged this detention order, arguing that: 
  • There was no genuine nexus between his alleged activities and the detention order. 
  • There was a significant time gap (about two and a half months) between the detention proposal and the actual order. 
  • The authority acted mechanically without substantial material evidence. 
  • The alleged activities did not constitute a genuine threat to public order and could be handled by regular law enforcement. 
• The appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court aggrieved by the decision the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Distinction between Law & Order v. Public Order: 
    • The Court extensively discussed the distinction between law and order and public order, referencing previous landmark judgments like Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966). 
    • The Court emphasized that not every breach of peace leads to public disorder. 
    • They described public order as a "concentric circle" within law and order, where an act might affect law and order but not necessarily public order. 
  • Criteria for Public Order Disturbance: 
    • For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order, it must: 
      • Have an impact on the broader community. 
      • Evoke feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. 
      • Disturb the "current of life of the community." 
  • Assessment of the Present Case: 
    • The Court observed that all six cases were related to illicit liquor manufacture 
    • Notably, despite six cases, the Excise Authority never found it necessary to arrest the appellant. 
    • The witness statements were found to be: 
      • Vague 
      • Stereotypical 
      • Essentially describing personal conflicts rather than broader community threats. 
  • Preventive Detention Principles 
    • The Court reiterated that preventive detention is a harsh measure. 
    • It should not be used when ordinary law and order machinery can handle the situation 
    • The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be substantiated with clear evidence of public order threat 
• The Supreme Court in this case held that the Court ultimately concluded that the appellant did not constitute a threat to public order therefore, the detention order was deemed unjustified. 
  • The Court quashed both the High Court's order and the original detention order  

What are the Key Differences between Law & Order and Public Order?

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in the case of Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain directed a husband to pay Rs. 5 Crores as permanent alimony to his wife in a one-time settlement after declaring their marriage "irretrievably broken down."  

• The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, also ordered Rs. 1 Crore for their son's maintenance. The decision considered the husband's financial capacity and the wife's needs, emphasizing fairness without penalizing the husband. 

What was the Background of Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain case? 

• Parvin Kumar Jain and Anju Jain got married on December 13, 1998, following traditional Hindu ceremonies, and had a son born in May 2001. 
• The couple's marital relationship quickly deteriorated, with the parties separating in January 2004 after approximately five years of living together. 
• In May 2004, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife was short-tempered and hostile towards him and his family. 
• The wife countered these allegations, claiming that she was treated poorly by her husband and his family, feeling more like a domestic helper than a wife, and ultimately leaving the matrimonial home fearing for her safety. 
• During their separation, multiple legal proceedings were initiated, primarily revolving around maintenance for the wife and son, with both parties challenging various court orders over the years. 
• The wife remained unemployed throughout their separation, residing with their son in a house owned by her mother, while the husband pursued a successful banking career, working in senior roles and eventually becoming a CEO in Dubai. 
• Despite attempts at reconciliation, the couple's relationship continued to deteriorate, with prolonged litigation and no prospect of reunion. 
• After nearly two decades of separation and multiple court battles, both parties mutually agreed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and consented to its dissolution. 
• The Supreme Court ultimately decided to dissolve their marriage and provide a comprehensive financial settlement that would secure the wife's and son's future. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court meticulously examined the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, considering factors such as the prolonged separation of over two decades, multiple serious allegations, and the complete absence of cohabitation since 2004. 
• The Court noted that despite initial cohabitation for approximately five to six years, the relationship between the parties was consistently strained, with both parties making substantial allegations of misconduct against each other. 
• Judicial precedents, particularly the cases of Shilpa Sailesh and Kiran Jyot Maini, were referenced to substantiate the Court's discretionary power to dissolve a marriage when it has conclusively and irretrievably broken down. 
• The Court recognized that reconciliation attempts during the divorce proceedings had failed, and the prolonged maintenance litigation indicated an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship. 
• While dissolving the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to ensure financial protection for the dependent spouse, particularly considering the wife's unemployment and the son's recent graduation. 
• The Court carefully assessed the husband's financial capacity, considering his senior banking roles, substantial investments, multiple properties, and current position as a CEO in Dubai, to determine an equitable one-time settlement. 
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court viewed the dissolution not as a punitive measure, but as a means to provide a just and reasonable financial arrangement that would secure the future of both the wife and the son. 

What are the Supreme Court Guidelines for Alimony? 

• The Supreme Court stated that the following guidelines are not a rigid formula but flexible principles to ensure fair and just alimony settlements. 
  • Social and economic status of husband and wife. 
  • Basic future needs of wife and children. 
  • Qualification and employment status of both parties. 
  • Means of income and property owned. 
  • Wife's standard of living during marriage. 
  • Employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. 
  • Reasonable litigation costs for non-working wife. 
  • Husband's financial capacity, income, and maintenance obligations. 

Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

• About: 
  • Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a crucial provision addressing permanent alimony and maintenance between spouses after divorce or separation.  
  • The primary objective of Section 25 is to ensure financial protection and support for a spouse after the dissolution of marriage, taking into account the economic circumstances and needs of both parties. 
  • Section 25 represents a progressive approach to post-divorce financial arrangements, recognizing the potential economic vulnerabilities of spouses after marriage dissolution and providing a legal mechanism for their protection and support. 
• Scope of Maintenance Order: 
  • The court has broad discretionary powers to grant maintenance at the time of passing a divorce decree or at any subsequent time 
  • Either the husband or the wife can apply for maintenance. 
  • The maintenance can be awarded as:  
    • A gross sum (lump-sum payment). 
    • Monthly or periodical payments. 
    • For a term not exceeding the life of the applicant. 
  • Factors Considered by the Court When determining maintenance, the court considers: 
    • Respondent's income 
    • Respondent's other property 
    • Applicant's income and property 
    • Conduct of both parties 
    • Other circumstances of the case 
• Security for Maintenance: 
  • The court can secure maintenance payments by placing a charge on the respondent's immovable property if necessary. 
  • Modification Provisions: The section provides flexibility through two important sub-sections: 
• Subsection (2): Change in Circumstances: 
  • Either party can request variation, modification, or rescission of the maintenance order. 
  • This can be done if there is a significant change in the circumstances of either party. 
  • The court has discretion to modify the order as it deems just. 
• Subsection (3):  
  • Remarriage or Conduct The court may vary, modify, or rescind the maintenance order if: 
    • The party receiving maintenance remarries. 
    • In case of the wife, she has not remained chaste. 
    • In case of the husband, he has had sexual intercourse outside wedlock.