List of Current Affairs

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court, in MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others (2026), set aside a single judge's order that had upheld the cancellation of a settlement deed executed in 2004.  

• The court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be applied retrospectively to property transfers predating its commencement, thereby restoring the son's title over the subject property while directing him to provide residential accommodation to his father if approached. 

What was the Background of MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others (2026) Case? 

• MS Manikavasagam, the father, executed a settlement deed dated June 23, 2004, transferring property to his son MM Ramesh, with love and affection and as future security. 
• In accordance with the father's instructions, the son paid Rs. 1,50,000 to his brother toward relinquishment of the brother's rights in the property. 
• In 2016, the father filed a civil suit seeking to declare the settlement deed null and void and to validate its revocation. The suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. 
• On October 21, 2019, the father filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The RDO dismissed the complaint, noting that the father received a monthly family pension and that civil courts had already ruled against him. The RDO further noted that four other children of the father were also obligated to maintain him. 
• The father's appeal before the District Collector was similarly dismissed. 
• The father then filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, wherein a single judge upheld the cancellation of the settlement deed and directed the son to hand over vacant possession of the property to the father. 
• Aggrieved, the son filed the present appeal before the Division Bench. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Retrospective Application of the Act: 

• The court held unequivocally that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is prospective in nature and applies only to property transfers made after its commencement on September 29, 2008. Since the settlement deed was executed in 2004, the Act could not be invoked to void it. 
• The court relied on Section 23 of the Act, which expressly states that a transfer shall be void only when made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act, with the condition that the transferee fails to provide basic amenities and care. The statutory language itself forecloses retrospective application. 

On the Merits of the Cancellation: 

• The court noted that the RDO had dismissed the original complaint on sound grounds — the father received a monthly pension and the civil courts had already rejected his challenge to the deed. The court also emphasized that the obligation to maintain parents is statutory and not contingent on possession of property, meaning the son remained obligated to maintain his father regardless of the outcome of the property dispute. 

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. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan of the Supreme Court, in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026) upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order and held that once an individual converts to Christianity and actively professes and practises the same, he cannot be regarded as a member of the Scheduled Caste community. 

• The Court held that no person professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism can be regarded as a member of a Scheduled Caste, and that conversion to any other religion results in the immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status. The Court further held that a converted Christian cannot invoke the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

What was the Background of Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by Respondent 2, a Pastor conducting Sunday prayer meetings in Pittalavanipalem Village, Andhra Pradesh. He alleged that he was subjected to repeated assaults, life threats to himself and his family, and was abused in the name of caste. 
• He registered a case against the Petitioner under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed. 
• The accused (Petitioner) approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court for quashing of the charges, arguing that the complainant had converted to Christianity and was actively functioning as a Pastor, and therefore could not claim membership of a Scheduled Caste community under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. 
• On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the Tahsildar of Pittalavanipalem Mandal (Witness 12) had confirmed in his statement that Respondent 2 belonged to the Hindu-Madiga caste, and that he possessed a valid caste certificate issued by the same authority. 
• By an order dated April 30, 2025, Justice Harinath N of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, holding that the caste system is alien to Christianity and consequently quashed the charges filed under the SC/ST Act. Against this, the Pastor filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950: 

• The Court noted that the 1950 Order made the bar absolutely clear. Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 of that Order — i.e., any religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism — results in the immediate loss of Scheduled Caste status, regardless of birth. 

On simultaneous claims of religion and caste: 

• The Court held that a person cannot simultaneously profess and practise a religion other than those specified in Clause 3 and also claim membership of the Scheduled Caste. The bar admits no exception, and no statutory benefit, protection, reservation or entitlement under the Constitution or any legislation can be extended to such a person. 

On the facts of the present case: 

• The Court observed that the Petitioner had not re-converted from Christianity to his original religion, nor had he been accepted back into the Madiga community. The evidence established that he had continued to profess Christianity and had been functioning as a Pastor for more than a decade, conducting regular Sunday prayers. The Court found no room for doubt that he continued to remain a Christian on the date of the alleged incident. 

On the validity of the caste certificate: 

• The Court held that mere non-cancellation of a caste certificate does not entitle a person who has converted to protection under the SC/ST Act. Cancellation of the certificate is a matter to be dealt with under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, by the appropriate authority — but the non-cancellation of the certificate does not restore or preserve SC status for purposes of the 1989 Act. 

What is Scheduled Castes & Legal Framework Related to it? 

On the definition of Scheduled Castes: 

• Article 366 defines the term 'Scheduled Caste.' 
• According to Article 341, the President, after consulting the Governor of the respective State, may notify the Scheduled Castes for that State or Union Territory (UT). The list can be amended by Parliament through legislation. 
• The term "Scheduled Castes" was initially introduced in the Government of India Act, 1935, marking its recognition in legal and administrative frameworks. 

Framework to address caste-based atrocities in India: 

• Fundamental Rights: Article 14, 15, 16 and 17. 
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of SCs. 
• Article 338 establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to safeguard the rights of SCs. 
• Legal Framework:  
• Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955: Enacted to penalise the practice of untouchability, which was later amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976, making untouchability, resulting from social and religious disabilities, punishable. 
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: A special law addressing crimes specifically committed against SC/ST communities, defined as "atrocities." It mandates the establishment of Special Courts for the speedy trial of such cases. 
• Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013: This Act aims to eliminate manual scavenging and ensure the rehabilitation of those involved in the practice. 
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015: This amendment expanded the definition of atrocities to include sexual offences against women from SC/ST communities, thereby strengthening legal protection.