List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have the power to order eviction and transfer possession to protect senior citizens and uphold the Act's objectives. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others. Case? 

• The appellant, Urmila Dixit, purchased property on 23rd January 1968, and later executed a Gift Deed on 7th September 2019, in favor of her son (the respondent). 
• The Gift Deed contained a condition stating that the donee (son) maintains the donor (mother) and makes necessary provisions for her peaceful life. 
• Simultaneously, a promissory note was executed wherein the son undertook to care for the mother until the end of her life, with a stipulation that failure to fulfill this obligation would entitle the mother to reclaim the gifted property. 
• On 24th December 2020, the mother filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging mistreatment and seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed. 
• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur, declared the Gift Deed null and void, which was upheld by the Collector upon appeal by the son. 
• The son then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed by the Single Judge who affirmed the lower authorities' orders. 
• Subsequently, the son filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which reversed the Single Judge's decision. 
• The Division Bench held that Section 23 was a standalone provision and found no condition for maintenance in the Gift Deed itself. 
• The mother then approached the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench's decision. 
• No criminal offence was specifically charged against the son; the case centered on civil provisions regarding property transfer under the senior citizen welfare legislation.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation that must receive a liberal construction in consonance with its objectives to provide effective remedies for senior citizens. 
• The Court clarified that Tribunals under the Act have the implicit power to order eviction and transfer possession if necessary and expedient to ensure protection of senior citizens, as previously established in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. 
• Rejecting the Division Bench's view, the Court held that Section 23 is not a standalone provision but is intrinsically linked with the Act's purpose of empowering senior citizens to secure their rights when property is transferred with maintenance conditions. 
• The Court found both requirements under Section 23 were met: the property was transferred subject to maintenance conditions, and these conditions were not fulfilled by the son. 
• The judgment emphasized that a strict interpretation of beneficial legislation would render the legislative intent otiose, particularly in cases concerning senior citizens' welfare. 
• No criminal offence was established in this case; rather, the legal question centered on the proper interpretation and application of civil provisions under the senior citizens welfare legislation. 
• The Court ordered restoration of property possession to the appellant mother by 28th February 2025. 

What is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

About 

• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens in India. The Act defines a "senior citizen" as any person who is a citizen of India and has attained the age of 60 years or above.

Key Provisions 

• Maintenance Obligation (Sections 4-18): Children have a legal obligation to maintain their parents, and relatives have an obligation to maintain childless senior citizens. 
• Establishment of Tribunals (Section 7): State governments must establish Maintenance Tribunals to adjudicate maintenance claims. 
• Old Age Homes (Section 19): State governments are required to establish old age homes in each district. 
• Medical Support (Section 20): Provisions for medical care for senior citizens. 
• Protection of Life and Property (Sections 21-23): Measures to protect senior citizens' lives and property.

Section 22: Authorities for Implementation 

• Section 22 deals with the authorities responsible for implementing the Act's provisions: 
• Powers to District Magistrate:  
  • The State Government may confer powers and duties on District Magistrates to ensure proper implementation of the Act. 
  • District Magistrates can delegate these powers to subordinate officers within specified local limits. 
• Comprehensive Action Plan:  
  • State Governments are required to prescribe a comprehensive action plan specifically for protecting the life and property of senior citizens. 
• This section essentially creates the administrative framework for enforcement of the Act, placing responsibility on District Magistrates as the primary implementation authorities at the district level. 

Section 23: Protection of Property Rights 

• Section 23 is particularly significant as it provides safeguards against property transfers that may leave senior citizens vulnerable: 
• Void Transfers (Section 23(1)):  
  • If a senior citizen transfers property (by gift or otherwise) with the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs. 
  • And if the transferee fails to provide these amenities and needs. 
  • Then the property transfer can be declared void by the Tribunal. 
  • Such transfers are deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. 
• Right to Maintenance from Estate (Section 23(2)):  
  • If a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance from an estate. 
  • And if that estate is transferred to another person. 
  • The right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee if:  
    • The transferee had notice of this right, OR 
    • The transfer was gratuitous (without consideration). 
  • The right cannot be enforced against a transferee who paid consideration and had no notice of the right. 
• Third-Party Action (Section 23(3)):  
  • If a senior citizen is incapable of enforcing these rights. 
  • Authorized organizations can take action on behalf of the senior citizen. 
• Section 23 essentially provides a mechanism to invalidate property transfers where the senior citizen is left without care after transferring property and protects their right to maintenance despite property transfers. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan states if the initial appointment is illegal, the candidate cannot seek equitable relief under Article 142 of Indian Constitution,1950 (COI) to retain the post. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and others Case? 

• The appellant, Jomon K.K., applied for the post of "Boat Lascar" in the Kerala State Water Transport Department in response to an advertisement dated 17th October 2012. 
• The advertisement stipulated possession of a current Lascar's Licence as an essential qualification for the post. 
• The appellant possessed a Syrang's Licence, which is considered superior to a Lascar's Licence, but did not possess a current Lascar's Licence at the time of application. 
• Based on a letter from the Director of Ports dated 9th October 2012, which stated that Syrang's Licence holders were proficient in Lascar work and eligible for the job, the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) considered the appellant's application. 
• The appellant performed well in the selection process and was ranked first in the "Ranked List" effective from 22nd February 2017, and was subsequently appointed as "Boat Lascar" on 28th July 2017. 
• During this period, unsuccessful candidates filed applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging the inclusion of candidates without current Lascar's Licence in the selection process. 
• The Tribunal, without impleading the appellant as a party to the proceedings, directed KPSC to recast the "Ranked List" and cancel advice to appoint ineligible candidates. 
• Consequently, KPSC cancelled the advice for appointment of the appellant, and the Director cancelled his appointment as "Boat Lascar" on 27th October 2018. 
• The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed his writ petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that appointment made contrary to statutory requirements is void, and the essential qualification prescribed in the Special Rules and advertisement was possession of a current Lascar's Licence, which the appellant did not possess. 
• The Court noted that merely because the post of Lascar is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Syrang does not automatically make a holder of Syrang's Licence qualified for the job of Lascar. 
• The Court held that allowing higher qualified candidates (with Syrang's Licence) to compete for posts meant for those with lesser qualifications (Lascar's Licence) would disadvantage candidates who possess only the basic qualification. 
• The Court opined that each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts, and there can be no universally accepted rule that a higher qualified candidate is always to be preferred over a candidate who matches the essential qualification. 
• The Court observed that equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is a sine qua non for a fair selection process, which was absent in this case as other potential candidates with Syrang's Licence might not have applied due to lack of awareness. 
• The Court stated that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law, rendering the appointment a nullity, and principles of equity have no role to play in such cases. 
• The Court concluded that since the appellant gained entry through an invalid process, it was not a fit case for exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to overlook the illegality. 

What is Article 142 of Indian Constitution? 

• Article 142 of the COI confers special powers on the Supreme Court to ensure "complete justice" in cases pending before it. 
• Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, with such orders being enforceable throughout India. 
• Article 142(2) grants the Supreme Court power across the entire territory of India to secure attendance of persons, discovery or production of documents, and investigation or punishment of contempt of itself. 
• The Supreme Court's power under Article 142 has been interpreted as plenary and supplementary to powers specifically conferred by various statutes, though not limited by those statutes. 
• In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963), the Supreme Court held that despite the wide powers under Article 142, it cannot make orders plainly inconsistent with constitutional provisions. 
• The Union Carbide v. Union of India case (1991) established that limitations contained in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto restrict the exercise of powers under Article 142. 
• In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court clarified that powers under Article 142 are inherent, complementary to statutory powers, and are of very wide amplitude serving as a residual source of power. 
• Recent jurisprudence has established that while exercising powers under Article 142, the Court can depart from procedural and substantive laws based on public policy considerations but cannot ignore substantive rights of litigants or principles of natural justice. 
• The Court has applied Article 142 in various contexts including dissolution of marriages on grounds of irretrievable breakdown even when opposed by one spouse, quashing criminal proceedings pursuant to settlements, and bypassing procedural requirements when justice demands.