List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court, in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Suhas Shankar Pagare & Anr. (2026) quashed the Part I Award passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, which had declared the domestic inquiry against a respondent employee illegal and non-compliant with the Vishaka guidelines.  

• The Court held that the validity of a sexual misconduct inquiry must be assessed on the basis of fairness of the procedure actually followed, not merely on the formal absence of a Complaints Committee.

What was the Background of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Suhas Shankar Pagare & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from allegations of sexual misconduct made by a lady employee against the respondent employee at GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited. 
• Following the allegations, the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Model Standing Orders, conducted an inquiry, and ultimately terminated the respondent. 
• The Industrial Court, Nashik, by its Part I Award dated 09.12.2025, held that: 
• The domestic inquiry was not legal, fair, or in compliance with the Vishaka guidelines. 
• The findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. 
• The primary ground was the absence of a Complaints Committee as contemplated under the Vishaka guidelines. 
• GlaxoSmithKline challenged this Award before the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

• Legal Framework Before the POSH Act: The Court examined the legal position governing workplace sexual misconduct prior to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. It noted that the Vishaka guidelines operated as binding law in the absence of legislation. However, certified Standing Orders also carry statutory force and provide a legally recognised framework for regulating misconduct and conducting disciplinary proceedings. 
• Limits of Formal Non-Compliance: The Industrial Tribunal had erred in treating the absence of a Complaints Committee in the precise format contemplated under Vishaka as sufficient by itself to invalidate the inquiry, without examining how the inquiry was actually conducted. 
• Test for Validity of Inquiry: The focus of the Tribunal ought to have been on whether the employee was informed of the charges, supplied relevant material, given an opportunity to participate, and allowed to defend himself. 
• Purpose of Vishaka Guidelines: The purpose of the Vishaka guidelines was to ensure fairness and protection against arbitrary action. Such purpose may be achieved through a fair disciplinary process even if conducted under Standing Orders. 
• What the Employer Did: The employer had issued a charge sheet, conducted inquiry proceedings, allowed representation to the employee, and provided an opportunity to lead evidence and defend himself. This demonstrated procedural fairness. 
• The Court held that the Tribunal's approach was legally unsustainable and quashed the Part I Award to the extent it declared the inquiry illegal and the findings perverse. The matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration of the validity of the inquiry in accordance with law.

What are the Vishaka Guidelines? 

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 

Case Background: 

• Bhanwari Devi worked as a village-level social worker under the Women's Development Project, Rajasthan Government, since 1985. 
• Program objective included curbing child marriages. 
• She attempted to stop a child marriage in the family of Ramakant Gujjar. 
• Despite police visit, the marriage was solemnized. 
• In September 1992, Ramakant Gujjar along with 5 men gangraped her in front of her husband. 
• Police initially dissuaded her from filing a complaint; she later managed to lodge one. 
• Trial court acquitted the accused. 
• Bhanwari Devi filed a writ petition along with other social workers under the name 'Vishakha'.

Judgment: 

• Sexual harassment violates fundamental rights of Gender Equality and Right to Life and Liberty. 
• Such incidents violate the victim's right under Article 19(1)(g) — right to practise any profession, occupation, trade or business. 
• This right depends on the availability of a safe working environment. 
• Primary responsibility lies with the Legislature and Executive to ensure safety and dignity through legislation and enforcement.

Vishakha Guidelines: 

Employer's Duty: 

• Prevent/deter acts of sexual harassment at the workplace. 
• Provide procedures for resolution, settlement, or prosecution of such acts. 

Definition — Sexual Harassment Includes: 

• Physical contact and advances. 
• Demand or request for sexual favours. 
• Sexually coloured remarks. 
• Showing pornography. 
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. 

Obligations on Employers (Public & Private Both): 

• Take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. 
• If offence falls under IPC or any other law, employer must initiate a complaint. 
• Ensure victims/witnesses are not victimized or discriminated against. 
• Create an appropriate complaint mechanism within the organisation. 
• Set up a complaints committee headed by a woman with at least 50% women members. 
• Allow employees to raise issues of sexual harassment at workers' meetings 
• Generate awareness of rights of female employees.

Aftermath — POSH Act, 2013: 

(Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace — Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act. 2013 (POSH Act)) 

• Defines sexual harassment at the workplace. 
• Creates a mechanism for redressal of complaints. 
• Provides safeguards against false or malicious charges. 
• Domestic workers are included under the Act. 
• Every employer must constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at each office/branch with 10 or more employees. 
• Complaints Committees have powers of civil courts. 
• Must provide for conciliation before inquiry if requested by complainant. 
• Penalties prescribed for employers for non-compliance. 
• State Government notifies a District Officer who constitutes a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) for women in the unorganised sector or small establishments. 

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, in the case of Mr. Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another  (2026), held that a Sub-Registrar is duty-bound to record the cancellation of a registered document upon production of a certified copy of the decree and judgment of the competent civil court, even in the absence of a formal communication under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court issued detailed guidelines to Sub-Registrars and civil courts across Karnataka to streamline the process of communicating and giving effect to such decrees.

What was the Background of Mr. Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and a Power of Attorney (PoA) executed between the original owner of a property and a developer. 
• The developer failed to commence construction work within the stipulated time. 
• The original owner filed a petition before the Commercial Court seeking cancellation of the JDA and PoA, which the Commercial Court allowed, declaring the documents void. 
• The owner then approached the Sub-Registrar (Mahadevapura) with a certified copy of the decree to have the cancellation recorded. 
• The Sub-Registrar declined, issuing an endorsement on three grounds: 
• The commercial court had not communicated the decree directly to his office. 
• A certified copy alone was insufficient. 
• Separate directions from the High Court were required. 
• The aggrieved decree-holder filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Certified Copy as Conclusive Proof: 

• Certified copies issued by courts carry statutory authenticity and must be treated as conclusive proof of the decree. 
• A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to act on such a copy merely because no direct communication was received from the court. 

Ministerial Nature of Sub-Registrar's Role: 

• The role of Sub-Registrars is ministerial in nature. 
• They are not entitled to inquire into the correctness of the decree, nor can they demand separate orders from the High Court once a competent civil court has declared a document void. 

Endorsement Amounted to Abdication of Duty: 

• The court characterised the Sub-Registrar's refusal as arbitrary and an abdication of statutory duty. 
• Public authorities entrusted with statutory functions are expected to act with due diligence and respect for judicial orders. 

Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act: 

• The court noted that Section 31(2) contemplates courts sending a copy of the decree to registering authorities. 
• However, the absence of such formal communication cannot justify delays, avoidable litigation, or the compulsion on parties to approach the High Court under Article 226 merely to give effect to decrees already in their favour.

Guidelines Issued by the Court: 

To Sub-Registrars: 

• Even where no formal communication is received from the court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring a registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon it. 
• The Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes. 

To Civil Courts: 

• Upon passing a decree cancelling a registered instrument, the court shall direct its office to transmit a copy of the decree to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar in whose office the document was registered. 
• Such communication shall ordinarily be sent within four weeks from the date of the decree. 
• The communication shall clearly mention the document number, date of registration, book and volume, and the nature of the document cancelled. 
• Transmitted copies shall be accompanied by a covering letter from the civil court directing the Sub-Registrar to make necessary entries.

What is Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

• Section 31 deals with when a court can order cancellation of a written instrument. 
• Who can sue: A person against whom an instrument is void or voidable, and who reasonably apprehends that if it remains outstanding, it may cause him serious injury. 
• Relief available: The court may, in its discretion, adjudge the instrument void or voidable and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. 
• Registered instruments: If the instrument was registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court must send a copy of its decree to the concerned registration officer, who shall then note the cancellation in his records against the copy of the instrument.
• Key points to remember: 
  • The apprehension of injury must be reasonable, not speculative. 
  • Relief is discretionary — the court is not bound to cancel even if the instrument is void/voidable. 
  • Covers both void and voidable instruments. 
  • The registration office must be notified to update official records and prevent future misuse.