List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench

Why in News?

Justice Ashish Shroti of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), in the case of Smt Sunita Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), held that while determining the creamy layer status of a candidate belonging to the OBC category, only the income of the candidate's parents is to be considered. The candidate's self-income and the income of her husband, unless he holds the rank of a Class I officer, are entirely irrelevant for this determination. 

• The Court upheld the OBC reservation granted to the private respondent — who had been appointed as Assistant Professor (Law) — holding that she did not fall within the creamy layer, and dismissed the petition challenging her appointment.

What was the Background of Smt Sunita Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a MPPSC aspirant, approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant Professor (Law) under the OBC (Woman) category, and prayed for a direction to appoint her to the said post instead. 
• In the selection list, Respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 34 while the petitioner was ranked at Serial No. 35. Respondent No. 3 was accordingly given the appointment through the impugned order. 
• The petitioner's counsel argued that Respondent No. 3, though belonging to the OBC category, fell within the creamy layer and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of reservation. The argument was based on the fact that her husband had been appointed as a Civil Judge Class I, and she herself was earning ₹30,000 per month as Guest Faculty — making their combined family income exceed ₹12 lakh per annum. 
• It was further contended that Respondent No. 3 had wrongly claimed the benefit of the OBC category. 
• Respondent No. 3's counsel countered that for the determination of creamy layer status, only the income of the parents is assessed under the applicable guidelines, and neither the candidate's own income nor her husband's income is relevant to the determination.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court, relying on the landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), reiterated that the concept of creamy layer exists to ensure that reservation benefits are not extended to those who are no longer socially or economically backward. Extending such benefits to non-deserving candidates would breach the spirit of the constitutional provision. 
• The Court emphasised the object behind the exclusion of the creamy layer: "The object of excluding the creamy layer is to ensure that socially advanced sections within the OBCs do not appropriate benefits meant for the genuinely backward. The guidelines in the shape of circulars are therefore issued by the Government of India as also by State Government in order to ensure that the intended benefits of reservation reach the truly deserving candidates among the backward classes." 
• After examining various judgments and applicable government guidelines, the Court reiterated the following settled principles for creamy layer determination:  
  • Only the income of the parents is looked into while determining the creamy layer status of a candidate. 
  • The self-income of the candidate is not relevant. 
  • The income of the husband can be considered only when the candidate is married to a Class I officer. 
  • A candidate is excluded from OBC reservation if both parents are Class II officers. 
  • A candidate is excluded when the father is a Class II officer and is promoted to Class I officer before the age of 40 years. 
• The Court further held that these guidelines are not exhaustive in nature. 
• Applying these principles to the facts, the Court held that since the respondent's husband, though a Civil Judge, was not a Class I officer for the purpose of creamy layer determination, his income could not be taken into account. Likewise, the respondent's own income as Guest Faculty was irrelevant. 
• Accordingly, the Court held that Respondent No. 3 did not fall within the creamy layer and was rightly granted the benefit of OBC reservation. The petition was dismissed.

What is the Creamy Layer Concept and How is it Defined and Applied?  

Definition and Purpose: 

• The creamy layer concept sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.  
• It aims to exclude relatively well-off individuals from the OBC category from availing reservation benefits.  
• The concept was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) to ensure that reservation benefits reach the truly disadvantaged. 

Income Criteria: 

• The current income threshold for the creamy layer is Rs 8 lakh per year.  
• This limit applies to income from sources other than salary and agricultural income.  
• The income threshold is supposed to be revised every three years but was last updated in 2017. 

Other Criteria: 

• For children of government employees, the creamy layer is determined by their parents' rank rather than income.  
• Children of parents in constitutional posts, directly recruited Group-A officers, or both parents in Group-B services fall under the creamy layer.  
• Children of high-ranking military officers (Colonel and above or equivalent) are also considered part of the creamy layer. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria, in the case of Save Mon Region Federation And Anr. v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. (2026), ordered a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into allegations of favouritism and repeated departures from open and competitive tendering in the allotment of public work contracts by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, to his relatives and close associates. 

• The Court categorically held that the State cannot rely on a numerically small percentage of tainted awards as a defence, and that even a single instance of award of a public contract through a process vitiated by conflict of interest constitutes an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution.

What was the Background of Save Mon Region Federation And Anr. v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The writ petition was filed by Save Mon Region Federation, alleging that the award and execution of public work contracts in the State of Arunachal Pradesh were marked by arbitrariness, favouritism, and serious departures from procurement norms — including allegations of preferential allotment of work to Respondents 4 to 6. 
• The petitioners alleged that contracts and tenders of the State were awarded to firms associated with the Chief Minister, his spouse, mother, and nephew. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that contracts worth Rs. 1270 crores were illegally allotted to the Chief Minister's relatives. 
• Among the specific allegations, it was claimed that the construction company M/s Brand Eagles — belonging to the Chief Minister's spouse — was awarded contracts without following due procedure. Similarly, the Chief Minister's nephew, Tsering Tashi, an MLA from Tawang District and owner of M/s Alliance Trading Co., was also alleged to have been granted work contracts without adherence to procurement norms. 
• A connected petition was filed by the Voluntary Arunachal Sena, which the Court disposed of with a direction that it may be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). 
• The State argued that the impugned awards were minuscule in numerical terms — for instance, contending that only 0.32% of tenders and 0.07% of work orders were awarded for the Department of Power in a disputed manner. 
• The petitioners approached the Court in 2024.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that decisions on awarding public contracts are subject to Article 14 of the Constitution, and the State is expected to act in a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner in order to secure public interest. Inviting competition through tenders is one of the safest means of fulfilling that obligation. 
• It firmly rejected the State's argument that the overall percentage of disputed awards was numerically small, observing that in cases involving allegations of conflict of interest or related party benefit, the State cannot shield itself behind statistics: "The Constitution does not tolerate a breach of public trust merely because the breach is numerically small when measured against the total universe of State expenditure." 
• The Court held that a low percentage cannot become a licence, cannot serve as a defence to nepotism, and cannot neutralise the illegality that attaches to an award not supported by a transparent process and contemporaneous records. 
• The Court accorded evidentiary value to the CAG's report, which recorded multiple instances of execution of works without a call for tender and non-availability of reasons recorded for the same. It rejected the State's contention that the CAG report was being examined by the Governor and the State legislature, holding that: "The proceedings before this Court are not rendered infructuous merely because an audit report is also capable of being examined in the legislative domain." 
• The Court, authored by Justice Vikram Nath, emphasised that a decision to depart from competitive tendering must be supported by reasons recorded by the competent authority, which must be rational and capable of objective scrutiny. In the present case, opting for non-competitive methods without a demonstrable record of reasons was evident. 
• On the question of missing records, the Court held that the State, as the custodian of public records, is expected to maintain them in a traceable and accountable manner. When material records that ought to exist are not produced, the Court is not required to treat that circumstance as innocuous, and the law permits drawing a presumption against the party that withholds evidence, applying with even greater force where that party is the State. 
• Considering that the allegations were made against an authority occupying a high constitutional and political office, the Court held that leaving the investigation to the State would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension about institutional independence. It accordingly ordered the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry and conduct the investigation in a time-bound manner. 

What is Article 14 of the COI? 

Article 14 – Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws: 

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of "equality before the law" and "equal protection of law" to all persons within the territory of India. 
• The first expression "equality before law" is of English origin, while the second expression "equal protection of law" has been borrowed from the American Constitution. 
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as one of its primary objectives. It establishes a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality, and is closely linked to the non-discrimination framework under Article 15. 

Exceptions to Article 14: 

The rule of equality under Article 14 is not absolute. Several exceptions exist — for instance, foreign diplomats enjoy immunity from the application of ordinary laws. Beyond this, the following principles govern the scope and limits of Article 14: 

• Constitutional validity can extend to laws applicable to a single individual or entity, if special circumstances warrant such classification. 
• There is a presumption of constitutionality for enacted laws; the burden of proving unconstitutionality lies with the challenger. However, this presumption may be rebutted if a law arbitrarily singles out an individual or class without rational differentiation. 
• Courts presume legislative understanding of societal needs and experience-based problem-solving, and may consider common knowledge, historical context, reports, and conceivable factual scenarios to uphold constitutionality. 
• Legislatures may address varying degrees of harm, focusing on the most pressing issues, and classification can be based on diverse factors such as geography, occupation, or objectives. Perfect scientific or mathematical equality is not required — similarity of treatment suffices. 
• While good faith is presumed, courts will not automatically assume that unknown reasons justify discriminatory legislation. 
• Article 14's equal protection applies to both substantive and procedural law. 

Reasonable Classification Under Article 14: 

• Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects, and transactions by the legislature to achieve specific ends. If the classification satisfies the required test, the law will be declared constitutional. 
• The question of whether a classification is reasonable must be judged more on common sense than on legal subtleties. The classification must not be arbitrary and must rest upon a real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the purpose for which the classification is made. 
• The two conditions for a valid reasonable classification were demarcated by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952):  
  • The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group; and 
  • The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 
• The differentia forming the basis of classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under which the classification is made.