List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has directed the Union Government to consider the enactment of a law to protect the rights of domestic workers. 

• This was held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Mallik v State of Uttarakhand (2025). 

What was the Background of Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand Case?  

• In this case the appellant Ajay Malik is a DRDO Scientist and Ashok Kumar (Co-accused) is the neighbor of Ajay Malik. 
• The complainant is a domestic worker from the Scheduled Tribe community. 
• The Complainant was from Birhipani Nawatoli Bokhi, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 
• In 2009, her neighbors (Subhash and Mohan Ram) brought her to Delhi promising employment. 
• She was handed over to Shambhu who ran Saint Maryam Placement Services. 
• The placement agency deployed her as domestic help in various households. 
• She allegedly wasn't compensated properly for her work. 
• On 16^th October 2016, the appellant recruited the Complainant through the placement agency. 
• She worked at his official residence in Dehradun 
• On a certain day, the appellant left for official duty in Kanpur with his family. 
• The main entry to the house was locked. 
• A spare key was given to Ashok Kumar (neighbor). 
• Appellant left a mobile phone with the Complainant. 
• Later, the Complainant contacted police alleging wrongful confinement. 
• Police recovered her from the premises with Ashok Kumar's assistance 
• First Information Report was lodged and charges included Sections 343 (wrongful confinement) and 370 (trafficking) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• Appellant filed for quashing proceedings in High Court which the High Court stayed trial proceedings. Later the appellant filed a compounding application. 
• The High Court rejected both applications. 
• The co-accused filed for discharge, which was initially rejected by Sessions Court. 
• The High Court later allowed the revision and discharged him. 
• This led to two appeals before the Supreme Court: 
  • Appellant’s appeal against rejection of his quashing petition. 
  • State of Uttarakhand's appeal against Co-accused's discharge. 

What were the Observations of the Court? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  •  Regarding Appellant: 
    • Found no prima facie case established under Section 343 (wrongful confinement) under IPC: 
      • Alternative exit was available to Complainant. 
      • The complainant had a mobile phone for communication. 
      • Temporary pass issued by DRDO Colony. 
      • Complainant's no-objection affidavit denying confinement. 
    • Found no merit in Section 370 (trafficking) charges under IPC: 
      • Bulk of FIR focused on other co-accused. 
      • Complainant's Section 164 statement had minimal allegations against the appellant. 
      • Complainant's subsequent affidavits denying any trafficking or wrongful confinement. 
  •  On Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B under IPC): 
    •  Found no evidence of orchestrated arrangement with co-accused. 
    •  Only interaction was limited to hiring the Complainant. 
    •  Found charges highly speculative. 
  •  Regarding Co-accused: 
    • Upheld High Court's discharge order and noted that: 
      • No direct allegations by Complainant. 
      • Not named in original FIR. 
      • No evidence of awareness of any wrongful confinement. 
      • Lack of mens rea or direct involvement. 
  •  Additional Observations: 
    • Identified systemic issues regarding domestic workers' rights. 
    • Noted legal vacuum in protection of domestic workers. 
      • The court noted the absence of comprehensive legislation. 
      • Domestic workers are excluded from many existing labor laws. 
      • Previous legislative attempts have failed to materialize. 
    • Directed formation of Expert Committee to consider legal framework for domestic workers focusing on: 
      • Working conditions. 
      •  Social security benefits. 
      •  Protection against exploitation. 
      •  Fair wages and regulated working hours. 
      •  Registration and documentation. 
      •   Access to welfare schemes. 
    • Called for legislative intervention to protect domestic workers' rights. 
      • The court chose not to lay down interim guidelines. 
      • Respected separation of powers. 
      • Reposed faith in legislature to take necessary steps. 
  • The Supreme Court ultimately: 
    • Allowed appeal and quashed proceedings against the appellant. 
    • Dismissed State's appeal against Ashok Kumar's discharge. 
    • Issued directions for protecting domestic workers' rights. 

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court in the Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand Case? 

• These directions represent a significant step towards recognizing and protecting the rights of domestic workers in India, while respecting the constitutional framework of separation of powers.   
  • Formation of Expert Committee: Directed multiple ministries to jointly constitute a committee: 
    • Ministry of Labour and Employment. 
    • Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.  
    • Ministry of Women and Child Development. 
    • Ministry of Law and Justice. 
  • Committee's Mandate: To consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework and to focus on: 
    • Benefits for domestic workers. 
    • Protection of domestic workers. 
    • Regulation of domestic workers' rights. 
  • Committee Composition: 
    • To include subject matter experts. 
    • Exact composition left to the discretion of the Government of India and concerned ministries. 
  • Timeline: Committee to submit its report within 6 months 
  • Government's Role: Upon receiving the report, the Government of India to consider: 
    • Necessity of introducing legal framework. 
    • Effective ways to address causes and concerns of domestic workers.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan laid down principles to be followed for impleading a transferee pendente lite.              

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar & Ors. Case?  

• Ownership & Agreement of Sale (1995): 
  • Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa (Defendant No.1) owned two adjacent lands in Bagalur Village. 
  • She agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs (appellants) for ₹20,00,000 through her Power of Attorney holder (Defendant No.2). 
  • ₹5,00,000 was paid as earnest money, and Defendants 1 & 2 agreed to evict unauthorized occupants. 
• Supplementary Agreement (1997): 
  • Since unauthorized occupants were not evicted, a supplementary agreement was executed, extending the sale deed execution timeline. 
  • Plaintiffs paid an additional ₹10,00,000, totaling ₹15,00,000 of the agreed amount. 
• Sale of Property to a Third Party (Defendant No.3): 
  • Despite the subsisting agreement with the plaintiffs, Defendant No.1 allegedly sold 40 out of 42 acres to Defendant No.3 for ₹40,00,000. 
  • Plaintiffs became aware when Defendant No.3 attempted to change revenue records. 
• Plaintiffs’ Legal Action (2003): 
  • Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 1093/2003 (later O.S. No. 458/2006) in Bangalore Rural District Court, seeking Specific Performance of the Sale Agreement. 
  • Temporary Injunction granted (17th December 2003), restraining Defendants 1-3 from alienating or creating third-party rights. 
• Violation of Injunction & Further Sale: 
  • Defendant No.3, violating the court order, sold 10 acres (4+6 acres) to Respondents Nos.1 & 2. 
• Confirmation Deed by Defendant No.1: 
  • Defendant No.1 later executed a Confirmation Deed acknowledging the validity of the sale agreement with plaintiffs and admitting she was misled into selling to Defendant No.3. 
• Impleadment Application (2007): 
  • Respondents Nos.1 & 2 filed an application, seeking to be added as defendants. 
  • Trial Court rejected it (06^th August 2014), ruling that they purchased the property in violation of the injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.  
  • No appeal was filed against this order, making it final. 
• Trial Court’s Final Judgment (2016): 
  • The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, directing execution of the Sale Deed within 2 months. 
  • Defendant No.3’s appeal was dismissed. 
• Delayed Appeal by Respondents Nos.1 & 2 (2018): 
  • Despite their impleadment being rejected and their vendor’s appeal being dismissed, they challenged the decree after 2 years. 
  • Application was filed seeking condonation of 586 days’ delay and leave to appeal. 
• High Court’s Decision: 
  • The High Court allowed both applications, condoning the inordinate delay and granting leave to appeal. 
  • This decision was opposed by plaintiffs. 

 What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the rejection of an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is per se not a ground to reject the application for leave to file appeal. 
• The appellate court has to see whether the transferee pendente lite is aggrieved by a decree or is otherwise prejudicially affected by it.  
• The Court in this case observed the following two legal provisions: 
  • Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) 
  • Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC 
• The Court held that both the provisions of CPC are similar and therefore the principles applicable to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, in order to bring a purchaser pendente lite on record, are applicable to Order I Rule 10 CPC. 
• Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court is required to record a finding that person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. 
• While Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC confers right upon the legal representative of a party to the suit to be impleaded with the leave of the Court and continue the litigation. 
• While deciding an application under Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not required to go in the controversy as to whether person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. If the person sought to be impleaded as party is legal representative of a party to the suit, it is sufficient for the Court to order impleadment/substitution of such person. 
• Thus, a lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. 
• However, whether to grant such leave or not is within the discretion of the court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• The Court in the facts of the present case set aside the order passed by the High Court. 

 What is Transfer Pendente Lite? 

• It is provided for under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA). 
• It provides that when a suit or proceeding is pending in any court and an immovable property is the subject matter of that suit or proceeding, any transfer of that property by any party to the suit or proceeding is void against any person acquiring an interest in the property under the decree or order resulting from that suit or proceeding. 
• The transfer referred to in the section is void as against a subsequent transferee from the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding. 
• This means that if a person transfers an immovable property while a suit is pending, and another person acquires an interest in the property as a result of the court's decision in that suit, the transfer made during the pendency of the suit will be considered void. 

 What are the Landmark Cases on Transfer Pendente Lite? 

• Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010): 
  • The Court held that Section 52 does not render transfers affected during the pendency of the suit void but only render such transfers subservient to the rights as may be eventually determined by the Court. 
• Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. (2013): 
  • The Court held in this case that the transfer of the suit property pendete lite is not void ab initio and that the purchaser of any such property takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit. 

What are the Principles Laid down by the Court in this Case for Impleadment of Tranferee Pendente Lite?

• The guidelines laid down by the Court are as follows: 
  • For the purpose of impleading transferee pendente lite the Court should consider the facts and circumstances, and Court can permit such a party to come on record either under Order I Rule 10 or under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. 
  • Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right. 
  • Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party. 
  • Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of material available on record. 
  • Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record. 
  • Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented 
  • Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 
  • Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti has held that domicile-based reservations in PG medical seats are unconstitutional as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI).  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others (2025). 
• The bench held that State quota seats must be filled solely on the basis of NEET merit, reaffirming previous judgments.  
• The ruling will not affect students already admitted under domicile-based reservations. 

What was the Background of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others Case? 

• The case originated from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, involving its sole medical institution - Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. 
• The medical college had a total of 64 PG Medical seats under State Quota. 
• These 64 seats were divided equally - 32 seats for institutional preference and 32 seats for UT Chandigarh residents. 
• For the UT Chandigarh Pool, candidates needed to fulfill one of three criteria: 5 years of study in Chandigarh, parents' 5-year residence, or family's 5-year property ownership. 
• The admission process for these PG Medical seats commenced on March 28, 2019. 
• The prospectus contained specific provisions for reserving seats based on residence/domicile criteria. 
• Multiple petitions challenged these residence-based reservation provisions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• The High Court struck down the residence-based reservation as unconstitutional. 
• Appeals were filed against the High Court's judgment in the Supreme Court. 
• The matter was referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court for determination of constitutional validity. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court declared that India recognizes only one domicile - the domicile of India, rejecting the concept of state-wise domicile. 
• The Court distinguished between 'domicile' and 'residence', noting that states often incorrectly use these terms interchangeably. 
• The Court held that while Article 15 doesn't explicitly prohibit residence-based discrimination, such reservations must pass the test of reasonable classification under Article 14. 
• The Court recognized that residence-based reservation may be permissible to some extent in MBBS courses due to state investment and local needs. 
• For PG courses, the Court emphasized that merit must be the primary criterion for selection. 
• The Court held that national interest demands selection of the best talent at higher levels of medical education. 
• The Court affirmed that institutional preference reservation is constitutionally valid to a reasonable extent. 
• The Court declared that residence-based reservation in PG medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 
• The Court emphasized that such reservations create artificial barriers between states, contrary to national unity. 
• The Court held that state quota seats must be filled strictly based on merit in the NEET examination. 
• The Court clarified that its judgment would not affect students who have already been admitted or completed their courses under the residence category. 

 What are Constitutional Provisions? 

• Article 14 - Right to Equality 
  • The State shall not deny equality before law or equal protection of laws. 
  • Forms the primary basis for striking down residence-based reservations. 
  • All other equality provisions (Articles 15-18) are extensions of Article 14. 
•  Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination 
  • Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 
  • Does not explicitly mention "residence" as a prohibited ground. 
  • Contains enabling provisions (Clauses 4,5,6) for reservations for backward classes and EWS. 
•  Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women and children 
  • Article 16 - Equality in Public Employment 
  • Explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of residence in public employment. 
  • Only Parliament can make laws requiring residence for state employment (Article 16(3)). 
  • Shows constitutional intent against residence-based discrimination. 
•  Article 5 - Citizenship Provisions 
  • Refers only to "domicile in the territory of India". 
  • Establishes concept of single Indian domicile. 
  • No provision for state-wise domicile. 
•  Constitutional Structure 
  • India has one citizenship. 
  • Single unified legal system. 
  • Supreme Court at apex of single judicial hierarchy. 
  • State laws operate within unified Indian legal system. 
•  Fundamental Rights 
  • Right to move freely throughout India. 
  • Right to reside and settle in any part of India. 
  • Right to practice profession anywhere in India. 
  • Right to equal protection throughout territory of India. 
•  Distribution of Powers 
  • States can make laws on subjects in State List and Concurrent List. 
  • But laws must operate within the framework of fundamental rights. 
  • Cannot create barriers based on residence. 

Why the Constitution Prohibits Reservation Based on Domicile? 

• Constitutional Unity: 
  • India follows a single citizenship concept under the Constitution. 
  • There is only one domicile recognized - "domicile in the territory of India". 
  • This promotes national unity and prevents state-wise fragmentation. 
•  Fundamental Rights Framework: 
  • Citizens have the right to move freely throughout India. 
  • They have the right to reside and settle in any part of the country. 
  • The right to practice profession or carry on occupation in any part of India is guaranteed. 
  • These rights cannot be restricted based on domicile or residence. 
•  Merit and National Interest: 
  • Talent is not the monopoly of residents of any particular State. 
  • National development requires selection of best available talent. 
  • Domicile-based restrictions create artificial barriers to merit. 
  • Such restrictions can harm national progress, especially in specialized fields. 
•  Equal Protection: 
  • Article 14 guarantees equal protection of laws to all citizens. 
  • Discriminating between citizens based on domicile creates unreasonable classification. 
  • Such discrimination undermines the constitutional vision of India as one nation. 
  • It violates the principle of equality before law. 

What are the Landmark Cases Referred? 

• Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980): 
  • The Court held that institutional-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is constitutionally valid and permissible to a reasonable extent as it creates a reasonable classification with a nexus to the objective. 
  • The Court emphasized that at higher levels of education (PhD, MD), where international measures of talent are applied, losing one great scientist or technologist is a national loss. 
  • The Court observed that merit must be the primary criterion at higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment, as relaxing standards could pose national risks. 
  • The Court noted that while reservation may be acceptable at lower levels of education, at higher specialties like PG courses, the best skill and talent must be selected based on capability. 
•  Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): 
  • The Court directly addressed residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses and declared it impermissible and violative of Article 14. 
  • The Court established that India recognizes only one domicile - "domicile in the territory of India" - and rejected the concept of state-wise domicile. 
  • The Court held that talent is not the monopoly of residents of any particular state and equal opportunity cannot be made dependent upon where a citizen resides. 
  • The Court warned against using domicile requirements in educational institutions, particularly medical colleges, as it could threaten national unity. 
  • The Court distinguished between UG and PG medical courses, allowing some residence-based reservation in MBBS courses while prohibiting it in PG courses. 
•  Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003): 
  • The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the principles laid down in Pradeep Jain and held that residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses is constitutionally impermissible. 
  • The Court upheld institutional preference to a reasonable extent while maintaining that residence cannot be a basis for reservation in higher medical education. 
  • The Court emphasized the importance of merit-based selection in specialized medical education for national development. 
  • The Court followed the reasoning in Magan Mehrotra's case, which had relied on Pradeep Jain, establishing that apart from institutional preferences, no other preferences including residence-based reservation are envisaged in the Constitution.