List of Current Affairs

Source: Notification 

Why in News?

By way of a notification dated 6^th January 2025 the President appointed two advocates as the judges of the Delhi High Court.                   

• The notification provided for appointment of S/Shri (i) Ajay Digpaul and (ii) Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar to be judges of the Delhi High Court. 

What did the Notification Provide for?

• The Notification is dated 6^th January 2025. 
• The Notification was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice (Appointments Division). 
• The Notification provided that the appointment was done in exercise of powers under Article 217 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal via post in X confirmed the appointments. 
• It provided that the President was pleased to appoint the following persons as the judge of the Delhi High Court: 
  • S/Shri Ajay Digpaul 
  • S/Shri Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar  
• The appointment was done in that order of seniority.  
•  On 21st August 2024 the Supreme Court collegium recommended the names of the following persons to be appointed as the judge of the Delhi High Court: 
  • Ajay Digpaul 
  • Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar 
  • Shewtasree Majumder 
  • While the Centre appointed the first two as the judge of the Delhi High Court, the government did not clear the name of Shewtasree Majumder. 

What is the Composition of Delhi High Court?  

• The Delhi High Court was initially formed with a panel of four Judges, including Chief Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice I.D. Dua, Justice H.R. Khanna, and Justice S.K. Kapur.  
• Over the years, the number of Judges in this High Court has gradually increased. 
• At present, the authorized number of Judges for the Delhi High Court stands at 45 Permanent Judges and 15 Additional Judges. 
• The Delhi High Court is currently functioning with 35 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 60 judges. 
• Currently, the Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is Justice Vibhu Bakhru.

How are Judges Appointed in Delhi High Court?

• Article 217 of the COI provides for the appointment and conditions of the office of a judge of a High Court. 
• The President appoints Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). 
  • The CJI is required to consult with two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. 
• The President appoints Judges to the Delhi High Court (excluding the Chief Justice) through a formal process by warrant under his hand and seal. 
  • This involves consulting with the Chief Justice of India and following the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. 
• Additionally, the Chief Justice of India is obligated to seek input from the two most senior judges in the Supreme Court, while the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court must also consult with their two most senior associate judges when suggesting a candidate for a High Court appointment. 
• Removal of the judge of the High Court (Article 217 (1)) 
  • The Proviso to Article 217 (1) provides for ways in which the Judge of the High Court can be removed: 
    • a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; 
    • a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court; 
    • the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.
      
• Qualifications to be appointed as the judge of the High Court: 
  • Citizen of India 
  • has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India 
  • has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court ' or of two or more such courts in succession; 
• If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gopal Krishan & Ors. v Daulat Ram & Ors.  has held that 'Unprivileged Will' is deemed to be executable under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) when the attesting witnesses have witnessed the Will's testator signing or affixing their mark on the Will. 

What was the Background of Gopal Krishan & Ors. v Daulat Ram & Ors.  Case? 

• Sanjhi Ram owned a 1/4^th share of land measuring 40 canals, 3 marlas in Village Umarpura, Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab. His specific share amounted to 10 canals and 1 marla. 
• Sanjhi Ram had no children and lived with his nephew, Gopal Krishan. 
• On 7^th November, 2005, Sanjhi Ram executed a Will. He passed away the following day on 8^th November, 2005. A death certificate was issued on 19^th November, 2005. 
• After receiving the property through the Will, Gopal Krishan transferred it to his four sons - Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Satish Kumar, and Roop Lal.  
• Subsequently, the property was jointly sold by the four sons to Madhu Sharma and Meena Kumari for Rs. 98,000 through a Sale Deed. 
• Respondents filed a suit seeking: 
  • A declaration that they were the owners of Sanjhi Ram's 1/4th share. 
  • A declaration that the Will was forged and fabricated. 
  • A declaration that the mutation carried out after the Will's execution was illegal and not binding on them. 
• The defendants (Gopal Krishan and others) filed a written statement denying all contentions made in the plaint. 
• The trial Court observed that the Will was suspicious and unreliable. 
• On appeal to the High Court, the court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and observed that: 
  • Found that the reduction of spacing while concluding the Will was a "glaring illegality and perversity" that lower courts had overlooked. 
  • Noted that the attesting witness had not specifically stated in his examination that his thumb print was appended to the Will "upon the direction of the testator." 
  • Without framing substantial questions of law, set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court 
  • Agreed with the Civil Court's finding that the Will was not proved. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Interpretation of Section 63(c) of ISA: 
    • The Court first examined the full scope of Section 63(c). 
    • Identified that there are five distinct situations for valid attestation. 
    • Clarified that these situations are alternatives, not cumulative requirements. 
    • Emphasized the importance of the word "OR" in the statutory provision. 
  • Analysis of the term "Direction": 
    • Examined various contexts of the word "direction" using Cambridge Dictionary. 
    • Identified relevant meanings in this case: "control or instruction" and "information or orders telling somebody how or what to do." 
    • Found that the High Court's strict interpretation requiring explicit mention of "direction" was incorrect. 
  • Critique of High Court's Reasoning: 
    • Found that High Court erred by requiring witness to specifically state that his thumb impression was at testator's direction. 
    • Pointed out that High Court incorrectly read the word "or" as "and" in Section 63(c). 
    • Established that there was no legislative intent to read "or" as "and." 
  • Principles of Statutory Interpretation Applied: 
    • Emphasized that "or" is normally disjunctive while "and" is normally conjunctive. 
    • Applied the principle that ordinary grammatical meaning should be given unless it leads to: 
      • Ambiguity 
      • Uncertainty 
      • Absurdity 
    • Found none of these exceptions present in this case.  
  • Clarification on "Direction" Requirement: 
    • Specified that "direction" requirement only applies when: 
      • The attestor sees someone else signing the Will. 
      • Such signing must be in testator's presence. 
      • Such signing must be upon testator's direction. 
    • Clarified that "direction" is not needed when witness directly sees testator sign. 
  • The Supreme Court set aside High Court's judgment and restored First Appellate Court's judgment and validated: 
    • Sanjhi Ram's Will as legal and valid. 
    • Subsequent Sale Deeds executed by Gopal Krishan. 
    • Established precedent for interpreting attestation requirements under Section 63(c). 
  • Legal Impact of the Judgment: 
    • Provided clarity on interpretation of Section 63(c). 
    • Established that requirements for attestation are alternative, not cumulative. 
    • Set precedent for future cases involving Will attestation. 
    • Simplified the process of proving Will execution by clarifying when "direction" is necessary. 
    • This judgment significantly clarifies the legal requirements for Will attestation and provides guidance for lower courts in handling similar cases involving Will disputes. 

What is Section 63 of ISA? 

About: 

• Chapter III, Part IV- Testamentary Succession of the ISA covers Section 63. 
• This section provides the provisions for execution of Underprivileged Wills. 
• This section essentially creates a three-tier system of safeguards: 
  • Proper execution by testator or authorized person. 
  • Appropriate placement of signature showing clear intention. 
  • Valid attestation by witnesses. 

Legal Provision:

• Scope And Application  
  • Applies to all testators except:  
    • Soldiers employed in expeditions/actual warfare. 
    • Airmen so employed or engaged. 
    • Mariners at sea. 
  • These exceptions are known as "privileged wills" 
• Mandatory Rules For Execution  
  • First Rule - Signature/Mark Requirement [Section 63(a)] 
    • Primary Methods:  
      • Testator shall sign the will, OR 
      • Testator shall affix his mark to the will. 
    • Alternative Method:  
      • Will may be signed by another person. 
      • Two concurrent conditions must be met:  
        • a) Signing must be in testator's
        • b) Signing must be by testator's direction.
  • Second Rule - Placement of Signature/Mark [Section 63(b)] 
    • Position Requirements: Applies to - 
      • Testator's signature/mark. 
      • Signature of person signing for testator. 
    • Intent Requirement:  
      • Placement must clearly indicate intention to give effect to the document as a will. 
      • Must demonstrate that signature/mark validates entire document as testator's will. 
  • Third Rule - Attestation Requirements [Section 63(c)] 
    • Number of Witnesses:  
      • Minimum two witnesses required. 
      • No maximum limit specified. 
    • Witness Requirements - Any ONE of these conditions must be met:  
      • Direct Observation of Testator:  
        • Witness has seen testator sign the will, OR 
        • Witness has seen testator affix mark to will. 
      • Observation of Proxy Signing:  
        • Witness has seen another person sign 
      • Two concurrent conditions:  
        • Signing in testator's presence. 
        • Signing by testator's direction. 
      • Personal Acknowledgment:  
        • Received from testator 
        • Can acknowledge:  
          • His own signature. 
          • His own mark. 
          • Signature of other person signing on his behalf. 
      • Witness Signature Requirements:  
        • Each witness must sign the will. 
        • Must sign in testator's presence. 
        • Not necessary for all witnesses to be present simultaneously. 
      • Form of Attestation:  
        • No particular form prescribed. 
        • Flexibility in manner of attestation. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently held that banks are responsible for safeguarding customers from unauthorized transactions and must use advanced technology to prevent fraud. It upheld SBI's liability for fraudulent transactions in a customer's account, stating banks' vigilance as per RBI guidelines. The Court also advised customers to exercise caution and avoid sharing OTPs. 

• Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held in the matter of State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors. 

What was the Background of State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors.? 

• A customer of State Bank of India (SBI) made an online shopping purchase and subsequently attempted to return the item. 
• The customer received a call from someone who fraudulently posed as customer care representative for the retailer. 
• Following the fraudster's instructions, the customer downloaded a mobile application. 
• This led to unauthorized transactions being made from the customer's bank account, totaling ₹94,204.80. 
• State Bank of India denied liability for these transactions, arguing that they were authorized since they involved the sharing of OTPs and M-PINs by the customer. 
• The customer contested this claim, maintaining that they never shared sensitive information like OTP or MPIN with anyone. 
• The customer alleged that the fraud occurred due to a data breach on the retailer's website, which was beyond their control. 
• The customer reported the unauthorized transactions to SBI within 24 hours of their occurrence. 
• The matter was initially brought before a Single Judge Bench, which held SBI liable for the unauthorized transactions. 
• SBI filed an Intra-Court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed. 
• Subsequently, SBI filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court stated that banks cannot abdicate their responsibility to protect customers from unauthorized transactions reported from their accounts, emphasizing the bank's duty of vigilance. 
• The Court held that banks must utilize the best available technology to detect and prevent unauthorized and fraudulent transactions, placing this technological obligation squarely on the banking institutions. 
• The Court referenced Clauses 8 and 9 of the RBI Circular dated 6th July, 2017, which establish "zero liability" for customers in cases of unauthorized transactions resulting from third-party data breaches, provided they are reported promptly. 
• The Court noted the significance of the customer's prompt reporting, that the fraudulent transaction was brought to the bank's notice within 24 hours of occurrence. 
• While upholding SBI's liability in this case, the Court simultaneously observed the reciprocal duty of account holders to exercise extreme vigilance regarding OTPs and not share them with third parties. 
• The Court observed that in certain circumstances, customers could be held responsible for negligence, though no such negligence was established in the present case. 
• The Court ultimately found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, which had determined the transactions to be unauthorized and fraudulent in nature, with no negligence attributable to the customer. 

What are the Provisions of the RBI Notification on Customer Protection and Limiting Liability in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions? 

• The RBI issued this circular (RBI/2017-18/15) on 6th July, 2017, to address the increasing concerns about unauthorized electronic banking transactions and to strengthen customer protection measures. 
• The circular was prompted by a surge in customer grievances related to unauthorized transactions resulting in debits to their accounts/cards, necessitating a review of customer liability criteria. 
• The circular categorizes electronic banking transactions into two types:  
  • Remote/online payment transactions (internet banking, mobile banking, card-not-present transactions) 
  • Face-to-face/proximity payment transactions (ATM, POS transactions requiring physical presence of payment instrument) 
• The framework mandates banks to design systems and procedures that ensure customer safety in electronic banking transactions, including robust fraud detection mechanisms and comprehensive risk assessment tools. 
• Notification states that a mandatory registration for SMS alerts and where available, email alerts, with a requirement for banks to provide 24x7 access through multiple channels for reporting unauthorized transactions.

Limited Liability of a Customer

• Zero Liability (Clause 6): 
  • Customers have zero liability in two scenarios:  
    • When there is contributory fraud/negligence by the bank (no reporting timeframe required) 
    • In third-party breaches where neither bank nor customer is at fault, if reported within 3 working days 
• Limited Liability (Clause 7): 
  • Customer Bears Full Liability:  
    • When loss occurs due to customer negligence (e.g., sharing payment credentials) 
    • Customer bears entire loss until reporting to bank 
    • After reporting, bank bears all subsequent losses 
  • Limited Liability Based on Account Type (4-7 working days delay):  
    • BSBD Accounts: Maximum ₹5,000 
    • Regular savings accounts/PPIs/MSMEs/Credit cards up to ₹5 lakh limit: Maximum ₹10,000 
    • Other accounts/Credit cards above ₹5 lakh: Maximum ₹25,000 
• Overall Liability Structure (Clause 8): 
  • Reporting Timeline Framework:  
    • Within 3 working days: Zero customer liability 
    • 4-7 working days: Limited liability as per Table 1 
    • Beyond 7 working days: As per bank's board-approved policy 
  • Working Days Calculation:  
    • Based on home branch schedule 
    • Excludes date of communication receipt 
• Reversal Timeline (Clause 9): 
  • Bank's Obligations:  
    • Must credit disputed amount within 10 working days of notification 
    • Credit must be value-dated to unauthorized transaction date 
    • No need to wait for insurance claim settlement 
  • Bank's Discretionary Powers:  
    • Can waive customer liability even in negligence cases 
    • Can provide relief beyond prescribed limits 
• Additional Requirements: 
• Banks must:  
  • Display liability policy in public domain 
  • Inform existing customers individually 
  • Provide policy details at account opening