List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that if it is proved that the married couple had access to each other at the time of the child's conception, the child is deemed legitimate, thereby establishing the paternity of the couple.                

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025).

What was the Background of Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph Case?  

• The Respondent’s mother married Mr. Raju Kurian on and had a daughter in 1991. 
• The Respondent was born on 11.06.2001, and Mr. Raju Kurian was listed as his father in the birth register. 
• Due to marital differences, the Respondent’s mother and Mr. Raju Kurian separated in 2003 and obtained a divorce in 2006. 
• The Respondent’s mother claimed the Appellant was the biological father, as she had an extra-marital affair with him, and requested a name change in the birth register, which was denied without a court order. 
• First Round of Litigation: 
  • In 2007, the Respondent and his mother filed suit before the Munsiff Court, seeking a declaration of the Appellant as the father and a direction for a DNA test. 
  • The Munsiff Court directed the Appellant to undergo a DNA test, but he challenged it before the High Court. 
  • The High Court ruled that a paternity test could only be ordered if a strong prima facie case was established under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
  • The Appellant sought a review, citing Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, and the High Court revised its order, stating that a DNA test could only be permitted if non-access between the Respondent’s mother and Mr. Raju Kurian was proven. 
  • The Respondent and his mother challenged this before the Supreme Court, which dismissed it on 14th September 2009. 
  • The Munsiff Court dismissed the Original Suit citing that the Respondent’s mother failed to prove non-access. 
  • The Family Court closed the Maintenance Petition but allowed its revival if the Original Suit was overturned. 
  • The Respondent and his mother appealed to the III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam, but the appeal was dismissed on 21st February 2011. 
  • A Second Appeal (RSA No. 973/2011) before the High Court was also dismissed on 28th October 2011, upholding the legitimacy presumption. The order attained finality. 
• Second Round of Litigation: 
  • In 2015, the Respondent sought to revive the Maintenance Petition, citing financial difficulties and lack of support from Mr. Raju Kurian. 
  • The Family Court revived the petition on 09th November 2015, ruling that it had exclusive jurisdiction over maintenance and legitimacy matters. 
  • The Appellant challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the issue had been decided earlier and could not be reopened. 
  • The High Court, in its judgment dated 21st May 2018, ruled that: 
    • Legitimacy does not affect a child's right to maintenance from the biological father. 
    • A paternity inquiry is distinct from legitimacy under Section 125 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).  
    • Civil Court rulings on legitimacy do not bar a Family Court from determining paternity for maintenance. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an instant appeal before the Supreme Court.  
• The Supreme Court answered the following questions in this case: 
  • Whether presumption of legitimacy determines paternity in law? 
  • Whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit; and accordingly, whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the Maintenance Petition? 
  • Whether the second round of litigation, initiated by the Respondent, was barred by the principle of res judicata? 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • This issue hinges on two prongs:  
    • Distinction between ‘legitimacy’ and ‘paternity’. 
    • Balancing of interest and the ‘eminent test’ for a DNA test. 
  • The Court in this case analyzed the position all over the world and held around the globe it is recognized that in the venn diagram of paternity and legitimacy, legitimacy is not an independent circle but is embodied within paternity. 
  • It was further observed that Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity. 
  • The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the parentage of a child. 
  • For a person to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, they must first assert non-access which, in turn, must be substantiated by evidence. 
  • Even if it is assumed that the Respondent’s mother had relations with the Appellant during her marriage and especially when the Respondent was begotten, such a fact per se, would not be sufficient to displace the presumption of legitimacy. 
  • What needs to be clarified is that an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and proves non-access thereof. 
  • Further, the Court held that the balance of interest in this case is not such that there is eminent need for DNA test.  
• With Respect to issue (ii): 
  • The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon Family Court is for settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes. 
  • The Court held that the matter cannot be construed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. 
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • The Court held that the order of Family Court reviving the maintenance petition is in direct contravention with the principles of res judicata.

What is Section 112 of IEA?

• Section 112 - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy –– The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that s/he is the legitimate daughter/son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. 
• Conclusive Proof is defined by Section 4 of IEA as: 
  • When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 
• The conclusive proof of paternity can only be rebutted by proving non-access by the husband at the time of conception of the child. Access here means actual marital intercourse. 
  • It must in all cases be established that at the time of conception, there was no chance that husband and wife could have access to each other. E.g. One was in London whereas the other was in India at the time of conception. 
• This provision is contained in Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 

What are the Landmark Judgments on Section 112 of IEA? 

• Nandlal Wasudev Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014):  
  • The SC held that the IEA was enacted at the time when modern scientific techniques were not in existence. When the truth is known there is no scope of presumption but where there is conflict between conclusive proof and modern scientific techniques, the latter must prevail over the prior. 
• Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroti Roy (2015): 
  • Husband’s Allegation of Infidelity – The husband, in his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claimed that his wife was unfaithful and identified another person as the father of the child. 
  • Request for DNA Test – To substantiate his claim, the husband sought a DNA test to determine the child’s paternity. 
  • Challenge in Proving Infidelity – The husband struggled to provide direct evidence of the alleged adultery, making a DNA test the most reliable scientific method to prove his claim. 
  • HC’s DNA Test Order Upheld – The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the High Court’s directive for a DNA test was justified in this context. 
  • Link to Adulterous Behavior – The husband's request for the DNA test was directly connected to his allegation of his wife’s infidelity. 
  • Section 112 of IEA & Modern Science – The court acknowledged that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes a presumption of legitimacy, was enacted before the advent of DNA testing. 
  • Presumption Can Be Challenged – The court noted that while Section 112 provides a conclusive presumption, it is not absolute and can be rebutted with scientific evidence. 
  • Scientific Evidence v. Legal Presumption – The SC recognized DNA testing as a highly accurate scientific tool and emphasized that when legal presumptions conflict with globally accepted scientific evidence, the latter should prevail. 
  • Justice & Best Scientific Methods – The court ruled that in cases where scientific evidence contradicts legal presumptions, courts should prioritize scientific accuracy over legal technicalities to ensure justice. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has held that the Advocates on Record (AOR) who are designated as Senior Advocates must inform their clients about their designation and submit a report to the Registry confirming that alternate arrangements have been made for their clients' representation. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep Case?  

• The case originated from Criminal appeal with the State of Madhya Pradesh as the appellant and Dileep as the respondent. 
• During the proceedings, the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) representing the respondent Dileep was designated as a Senior Advocate. 
• The case highlights an administrative issue regarding the proper procedure when an AoR is elevated to Senior Advocate status. 
• Under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, once an advocate is designated as a Senior Advocate, they can no longer: 
  • File vakalatnamas 
  • Appear without an AoR 
  • Accept briefs directly from clients 
• The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specifically Rule 18, Order IV, governs the obligations of AoRs who are designated as Senior Advocates. 
• The Registry had issued an Alternative Arrangement Notice to the respondent (Dileep) after their AoR's elevation to Senior Advocate status. 
• This procedural matter led to questions about the responsibility of communication between advocates and their clients when such designations occur. 
• The case also involves pending examination of trial court records, as the Registry was directed to provide soft copies to the appellant's counsel. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• On Rule 18 Obligations: 
  • The Court emphasized that Rule 18 of Order IV incorporates multiple obligations: 
    • First, advocates must inform parties of their designation as senior advocates. 
    • Second, they must report to the Registry that: 
      • All parties have been informed. 
      • Necessary arrangements have been made for the parties' representation. 
• On Current Registry Practice: 
  • The Court noted that the Registry frequently issues notices to litigants when their AoR becomes a Senior Advocate. 
  • This practice has caused delays in case disposal due to unserved notices. 
  • The Court expressed concern about this approach. 
• On Professional Duty: 
  • The Court referenced the Papanna v. State of Karnataka (2023) case to establish that: 
    • It is the professional duty of Senior Advocates to inform their clients about their designation. 
    • They must request clients to make alternate arrangements. 
    • This duty existed even before the 2013 Rules. 
• On Compliance and Consequences: 
  • The Court stated that Senior Advocates cannot appear before the Court until they fulfill Rule 18 obligations. 
  • Failure to comply would bar them from appearing before the Court. 
• On Court's Role: 
  • The Court clarified it is not obligated to notify clients about such changes. 
  • However, it retains discretion to issue notices where litigants are found unrepresented. 
  • The Court emphasized that the responsibility lies with the AoR, not the Court. 
• On Historical Context: 
  • The Court noted these obligations existed even before the 2013 Rules. 
  • It's the advocate's professional duty to handle these communications, not the Court's responsibility. 
• The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report by 27th February 2025, detailing compliance of AoRs designated as Senior Advocates since 1st January 2024, including names of non-compliant Advocates. 

What is Rule 18, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013? 

• Order IV states the rules regarding advocates. 
• Rule 18 specifically states that: 
  • An advocate-on-record who, on being designated as a senior advocate or on being appointed as a Judge or for any other reason ceases to be an advocate-on-record for any party in a case shall forthwith inform the party contended that he has ceased to represent the said party as advocate-on-record in the tase.
  • The senior advocate, so designated, shall not appear as senior advocate till he reports to the Registry that parties represented by him earlier have been so informed of his designation as senior advocate and that necessary arrangements have been made for the parties to make appearance before the Court in all the cases represented by him till then. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen has held that cash in a bank account qualifies as 'property' liable for provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih (2025). 
• The court observed that the term "any property" includes bank deposits, even though they are not explicitly mentioned.  
• The decision came in a case where the Income Tax Department attached an assessee’s bank account after unaccounted cash was seized. 

What was the Background of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih (2025) Case? 

• On 12^th April 2022, police intercepted a car and seized cash amounting to ₹1,56,00,000/- from two individuals (later respondents). 
• The seized amount was initially produced before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate's Court. 
• The Income Tax Department applied under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for release of the amount to the Department. 
• The respondents challenged this order before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Cases. 
• The High Court, through an order dated 21thDecember, 2023, directed the release of cash to the respondents upon furnishing a bond for the amount. 
• Subsequently, the Income Tax Department initiated proceedings after finding no explanation for the cash and determining that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 
• The Department issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to commence reassessment proceedings. 
• Anticipating that the expected demand on assessment, including penalties, would exceed two crores, the Department ordered provisional attachment of the respondents' bank accounts under Section 281B. 
• The respondents challenged these attachment orders through a writ petition, which was initially allowed by the Single Judge. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The term "any property" under Section 281B (1) should be interpreted broadly and not in a restricted sense, encompassing money lying in bank accounts. 
• The presence of the word "any" before "property" in Section 281B (1) carries significant legal weight in determining the scope of attachable assets. 
• The Court held that except for properties exempted under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all other properties are liable to attachment under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act. 
• Security furnished before the Magistrate's Court for interim release cannot be construed as sufficient security for potential tax demands under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 
• The Court observed that provisional attachment orders must be proportionate to the probable demand including penalties. 
• The attachment should not be blanket orders covering properties valued significantly higher than the probable demand. 
• The Court acknowledged that while exact demand cannot be determined at the provisional attachment stage, authorities must form a reasonable opinion regarding probable demand. 
• The Court noted that attachment of bank accounts should be resorted to as a last measure, with preference given to immovable properties when possible. 
• The power of attachment under Section 281B must be exercised with extreme care and caution, being a drastic measure affecting taxpayer rights. 

What is Section 281B of Income Tax Act,1961? 

• Section 281 deals with certain transfers to be void. 
• Section 281B deals with provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. 
  • The section empowers the Assessing Officer to provisionally attach any property belonging to an assessee during pending assessment or reassessment proceedings. 
  • The attachment power can only be exercised with prior approval from higher authorities (Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Commissioner, Principal Director General, Director General, Principal Director, or Director). 
  • The attachment must be deemed necessary to protect the interests of revenue, requiring the Assessing Officer to form and record this opinion. 
  • The manner of attachment must follow the procedure laid down in the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. 
  • The attachment is temporary, initially valid for six months, though it can be extended up to two years or sixty days after assessment/reassessment order, whichever is later. 
  • The assessee can get the attachment revoked by providing a bank guarantee equal to or greater than the fair market value of the attached property. 
  • The Assessing Officer may accept a bank guarantee for a lower amount if satisfied it adequately protects revenue interests. 
  • For determining the property's value, the Assessing Officer can refer to a Valuation Officer who must submit a report within 30 days. 
  • If the assessee fails to pay the sum demanded after assessment, the Assessing Officer can invoke the bank guarantee to recover the amount, with any excess being deposited in the Personal Deposit Account of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 

What are the Key Provisions Indicating the Scope of "Any Property" under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act? 

• Section 281B provisions indicate that "any property". 
• Not restricted to any specific type of property. 
• Subject to valuation and substitution by bank guarantee. 
• Must be owned by the assessee. 
• Can only be attached through prescribed procedures. 
• Must be proportionate to protecting revenue interests.