List of Current Affairs

Why in News? 

• In 2025, the Supreme Court of India will witness significant transitions, with three Chief Justices presiding during the year and seven judges retiring. Justice Sanjiv Khanna will demit office as Chief Justice on 13^th May, succeeded by Justice BR Gavai until 23^rd November, followed by Justice Surya Kant. Retirements include notable names like Justice CT Ravikumar, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice BR Gavai, marking a pivotal year for judicial appointments and leadership. 

Justice CT Ravikumar 

• Born on 6^th January 1960, in Peermadu, Kerala, he comes from a legal background as his father worked as a Bench Clerk at Changanassery Magistrate Court. 
• After enrolling as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala in 1986, he practiced independently in Civil, Criminal, Service, and Labour matters at Mavelikkara courts. 
• He served as Government Pleader (1996-2001) and Senior Government Pleader (2006) before being appointed as Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court in 2009, and later as a Permanent Judge in 2010. 
• He holds the distinction of being the fifth Judge to be elevated to the Supreme Court directly from the Kerala High Court, with a tenure set to end in 2025. 
• He has served in several key positions including Executive Chairman of Kerala State Legal Services Authority, President of Kerala Judicial Academy, and President of Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 
• His notable judgments include important rulings on cases involving POCSO Act compliance, electoral freebies' impact on state finances, and the interpretation of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in the Gurmail Singh case. 
• In recent judgments (2024), he has made significant rulings on juvenile justice timeframes and child custody matters, emphasizing child welfare over personal law considerations. 

Justice Hrishikesh Roy 

• Born on 1^st February, 1960, he completed his LL.B. from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi in 1982 and was designated as Senior Advocate by the Gauhati High Court in 2004. 
• His judicial career progressed from Additional Judge of Gauhati High Court (12^th October, 2006) to permanent Judge (15^th July, 2008), then Chief Justice of Kerala High Court (8^th August, 2018), and finally to Supreme Court Judge (23^rd September, 2019). 
• As head of the Mediation Monitoring Committee in Assam, he oversaw the production of "Shako" (Bridge), a film used for mediation training, and while leading Arunachal Pradesh Legal Services, he produced "Apne Ajnabi," a short film addressing racial prejudice and legal aid. 
• He implemented the innovative "Reach Out & Respond" programme as Executive Head of Assam State Legal Services Authority to improve access to justice for marginalized communities. 
• He played a significant role in judicial education, leading training programs for Judicial Officers under the Gauhati High Court and serving as a member of the National Judicial Academic Council headed by the Chief Justice of India. 
• For about a decade, he served as editor of "ATMAN," the newsletter of the Gauhati High Court, demonstrating his commitment to legal communication and documentation. 

CJI Sanjiv Khanna 

• Born on 14^th May, 1960, he comes from a distinguished legal lineage - his father was Justice Dev Raj Khanna (former Delhi High Court judge), and he is the nephew of Justice Hans Raj Khanna, known for his dissenting opinion in the landmark ADM Jabalpur case. 
• After enrolling with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983, he practiced in Delhi's District Courts and High Court, specializing in arbitration, environmental law, and direct tax appeals. 
• He became a Permanent Judge of Delhi High Court on 20^th February, 2006, and was uniquely elevated directly to the Supreme Court on 18^th January, 2019, without ever serving as a Chief Justice of any High Court. 
• He is the 51^st Chief Justice of India as per the seniority rule, with a tenure that will last approximately 6 months until his retirement on 13^th May, 2025. 
• He was part of the recent landmark 5-judge bench judgment (2024) that unanimously struck down the anonymous electoral bonds scheme as violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 
• He authored the majority opinion in the significant Right to Information case (2019) that brought the office of Chief Justice of India under RTI, emphasizing that judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand. 
• He was instrumental in a landmark 7-judge bench ruling (2023) that clarified the law on unstamped arbitration agreements, overruling previous decisions and establishing that non-stamping is a curable defect. 
• He contributed to the significant constitutional bench judgment in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) that established "irretrievable breakdown" as a valid ground for divorce under Article 142. 
• In Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India (2023), he helped establish the important distinction between eligibility and suitability in judicial appointments, ruling that while eligibility is subject to judicial review, suitability remains outside its purview. 

Justice Abhay Sreeniwas Oka  

• Born on 25^th May, 1960, he currently serves as a Supreme Court judge and has previously held positions as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and judge in Bombay High Court. 
• After completing his B.Sc. and LL.M. from the University of Bombay, he began his legal career by enrolling as an Advocate on June 28, 1983, initially practicing under his father's guidance in the Thane District Court. 
• His judicial career progressed from Additional Judge of Bombay High Court (29^th August, 2003) to permanent Judge (12^th November, 2005), then Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court (May 10, 2019), and finally to Supreme Court Judge (31^th August, 2021). 
• In the Vinod Kumar v. Amrit Pal case (2021), he authored a significant judgment clarifying that intention to cause death is not necessary to attract "thirdly" clause of Section 300 IPC in murder cases. 
• In Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran Bhaskar (2021), he established an important precedent regarding child custody cases, ruling that a writ court cannot compel a parent to leave India with their child as it would violate their right to privacy. 
• He delivered a landmark judgment in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya case (2022), recognizing Anganwadi workers and helpers as employees entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
• In Neeraj Dutta v. State NCT of Delhi (2022), as part of the Constitution Bench, he contributed to the ruling that direct evidence isn't mandatory for proving corruption cases, and circumstantial evidence can establish culpability. 
• His expertise spans civil, constitutional, and service matters, with significant involvement in public interest litigations throughout his career. 
• In Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023), he demonstrated his commitment to fair trial procedures by acquitting the appellant based on discrepancies in witness testimonies and improper trial procedures, overturning the lower court's decision 

Justice Bela Trivedi 

• Born on 10^th June, 1960, in Patan, North Gujarat, she completed her BCom-LLB from MS University, Vadodara, after having her schooling at various places due to her father's transferable judicial service. 
• After practicing as a lawyer in civil and constitutional matters at the Gujarat High Court for about ten years, she was appointed as Judge at the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in 1995. 
• Her appointment created a unique record, documented in the 1996 Limca Book of Indian Records, as she served alongside her father who was also a judge in the same court. 
• She has held diverse judicial and administrative positions including Registrar-Vigilance in High Court, Law Secretary in Gujarat Government, CBI court judge, and Special Judge for Serial Bomb blast matters. 
• Her High Court career began with elevation to Gujarat High Court in February 2011, followed by a transfer to Rajasthan High Court (June 2011-February 2016), before returning to Gujarat High Court. 
• She was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 31^th August, 2021. 
• Her tenure as Supreme Court Judge will continue until 9^th June 2025, when she is due to retire. 

 Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 

• Coming from a second-generation legal background, he completed his education at Allahabad University (graduating in 1981), followed by a master's in modern history (1983) and a law degree (1986). 
• His legal career began at the Allahabad High Court in 1986, and he became a Senior Advocate at the Uttarakhand High Court in 2004, notably serving as the First Chief Standing Counsel of the newly created state of Uttarakhand. 
• His judicial career progressed from permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court (2008) to Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court (2021), and finally to Supreme Court Judge (7^th May, 2022). 
• He delivered a significant split verdict in the Aishat Shifa case (2023) regarding the hijab ban, ruling that wearing a hijab should be a matter of choice and expression, viewing it as a ticket to education for many conservative families. 
• In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), he established that an irretrievably broken marriage constitutes mutual cruelty and grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• His recent 2024 judgment in Chander Bhan established that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies universally based on principles of justice and equity, even in states where the Act isn't applicable. 
• He made a significant ruling in Raj Reddy Kallem (2024) that courts cannot compel complainants to compound cheque dishonor cases merely because of compensation by the accused. 
• While serving as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, he ordered CCTV cameras in hospitals to be connected to police stations to protect medical practitioners during Covid-19 (Asif Iqbal v. State of Assam, 2021). 
• In Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute (2023), he ruled against excessive residential reservation, declaring that 75% reservation for residents violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 

Justice BR Gavai 

• Born on 24^th November, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, he is set to become the 52nd Chief Justice of India and notably is the first judge from the Scheduled Caste community to be appointed to the Supreme Court since Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. 
• After completing his B.A.LL.B. from Nagpur University, he began his legal career in 1985, practicing independently at the Bombay High Court and later primarily at its Nagpur Bench. 
• His career progressed from Standing Counsel for various institutions to Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, before being elevated as Additional Judge of Bombay High Court in 2003 and becoming permanent Judge in 2005. 
• He was elevated to the Supreme Court on 24^th May, 2019, with a tenure that extends until 23^rd November, 2025. 
• He authored the majority judgment in the significant demonetization case (Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023), upholding the decision with a 4:1 majority and noting its role in addressing various economic evils. 
• In the landmark Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC case (2022), he ruled that Emergency Awards passed by Singapore International Arbitration Centre are enforceable under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 
• He was part of the bench that handled the notable contempt case against advocate Prashant Bhushan (2020), imposing a symbolic fine of Re.1 while emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial dignity. 
• In the Pattali Makkal Katchi case (2022), he delivered a significant judgment on reservation policy, ruling against the Tamil Nadu government's 10.5% reservation for the Vanniyar community due to reliance on outdated data. 
• His judicial philosophy is reflected in his famous quote emphasizing continuous learning in legal practice: "The practice of law is an eternal process of learning and that one must continue to learn until the end of one's career. The day one decides to stop learning, it will be the last day."

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Mahendra Prasad v. Smt. Bindu Devi has held that a 'free-willed' wife's acts of travelling alone or interacting with members of civil society without engaging in any illegal or immoral relationships cannot be considered an act of cruelty against her husband. 

What was the Background of Mahendra Prasad v. Smt. Bindu Devi Case?  

• The case involves a marriage dispute between Mahendra Prasad (appellant) and Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent). 
• The parties were married on 26^th February 1990, with the Gauna ceremony taking place on 4^th December1992. 
• A male child was born to the couple. 
• There are conflicting claims about the duration of cohabitation: 
  • The husband (appellant) claims that they lived together for only 8 months total, from marriage until December 1996.  
  • The wife (respondent) claims they lived together intermittently until August 2001. 
• The appellant is a qualified Engineer by profession, while the respondent is a government teacher. 
• The appellant filed Divorce Petition before the First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur. 
• The appellant sought divorce on two main grounds: 
  • Mental cruelty by the respondent. 
  •  Desertion by the respondent. 
• The specific allegations of cruelty included: 
  • That the respondent was "free-willed" and would go to markets and other places without observing 'Parda.' 
  • That she verbally insulted the appellant regarding his poor economic status. 
  • That she allegedly had immoral relations with a person described as 'Punjabi Baba.' 
• The original divorce petition was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge. 
• The appellant then filed this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the dismissal of his divorce petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Mental Cruelty: 
    • Rejected the claim that being "free-willed" and not observing 'Parda' constituted cruelty, noting both parties were well-educated. 
    • Found that differences in perception and behavior cannot automatically be labeled as cruelty. 
    • Noted that since it was an arranged marriage, the families knew each other's status, so claims about economic status-based insults weren't credible. 
    • However, ultimately found that the wife's sustained refusal to cohabit and maintain the relationship itself constituted mental cruelty. 
  • On Desertion: 
    • Found clear evidence of long-term separation (23 years). 
    • Noted that out of 35 years of marriage, the parties barely cohabited for a few years. 
    • Considered significant that the wife never filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 
    • Found the wife's admission (through counsel) that parties cannot live together, yet refusing divorce, as problematic. 
  • On Evidence: 
    • Found insufficient evidence to prove immoral relations with 'Punjabi Baba.' 
    • Noted lack of credible evidence about cohabitation between 1996-2001. 
    • Acknowledged failed mediation attempts.  
  • On Overall Marriage Status: 
    • Observed that maintaining such a marriage would only keep alive a legal fiction. 
    • Found the long separation and refusal to cohabit as sufficient grounds for dissolution. 
    • Noted that both parties are gainfully employed, and their child is now 29 years old. 
• The High Court ultimately disagreed with the Trial Court's findings and allowed the appeal, granting divorce based on both mental cruelty and desertion. 

What is Cruelty?  

Meaning: 

• Cruelty means as per Section 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:  
  • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or  
  • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 

Essential Elements: 

• For commission of an offence, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:  
  • The woman must be married;  
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;  
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. 

 Position under BNS: 

• Section 85: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty  
  • Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.  

 Position Under Hindu Law: 

• By the 1976 Amendment to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cruelty was made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia).  
  • Section 13 – Divorce —   
    • Clause (1) states that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—  
      • has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or  
• Prior to 1976 cruelty was merely a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the HMA.