List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria, in In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price' (2026), passed a significant order in the suo motu case taken over the stray dog menace, permitting authorities to carry out euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs in appropriate cases, strictly in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and other applicable statutory protocols. 

• The Court also issued a comprehensive set of additional directions to ensure effective implementation of its earlier orders, including infrastructure augmentation under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework, availability of anti-rabies vaccines, protection of compliant officers from prosecution, and monitoring by High Courts through suo motu writ petitions.

What was the Background of In Re: 'City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price' (2026) Case? 

• The Supreme Court had earlier taken suo motu cognisance of the alarming rise in stray dog-related incidents across the country, particularly dog bite attacks on children and elderly persons. 
• In its earlier directions, the Court had ordered the removal of stray dogs from the premises of educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations, sports complexes, hospitals, and similar public spaces. 
• The Court had further directed that dogs picked up from public places must not be returned to the same spot after vaccination or sterilisation. 
• The matter came up again before the bench on account of "deeply disturbing" reports of rising dog bite cases, prompting the Court to consider whether further directions were necessary to ensure public safety, including on the question of euthanasia of dogs posing a continuing threat. 
• The Court declined to modify its earlier directions and instead proceeded to issue additional directions to reinforce and expand the implementation framework.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Euthanasia of Dangerous Dogs: The Court held that in areas where the stray dog population has assumed alarming proportions and incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks pose a continuing threat to public safety, authorities may — subject to assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with applicable statutory protocols — take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs. 
• On Non-Return of Stray Dogs: The Court refused to modify its earlier direction that dogs picked up from public places must not be returned to the same spot after vaccination or sterilisation, holding that such directions must be implemented in letter and spirit without delay or dilution. 
• On the ABC Framework: The Court expressed concern over inadequate infrastructure under the Animal Birth Control framework and directed States and Union Territories to take decisive, coordinated, and time-bound steps to augment the necessary infrastructure, including establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in each district. 
• On Officer Protection: The Court held that officers implementing its directions in good faith shall be entitled to due protection, and that no FIR or criminal proceeding shall ordinarily be initiated against them for bonafide actions taken in furtherance of the Court's directions, except where a prima facie case of mala fide or gross abuse of authority is established. 
• On High Court Monitoring: The Court directed jurisdictional High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions for compliance with the Supreme Court's directions as a continuing mandamus, with liberty to expand or tailor directions to address local conditions, without diluting the tenor and intent of the Supreme Court's directions.

What Directions were Issued by the Supreme Court? 

The Court issued the following eleven directions: 

• States and Union Territories to take decisive and coordinated time-bound steps for enhancing and augmenting the necessary infrastructure for the ABC framework. 
• Establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in each district, duly equipped with requisite infrastructure, trained personnel, surgical facilities, and supporting logistics. 
• A decision to be taken, having regard to population density and territorial extent of each district, regarding expansion of the number of ABC centres. 
• States and Union Territories to implement the earlier directions for removal of dogs from public places in letter and spirit, without delay or dilution. 
• Authorities to take a decision on expanding the Court's directions to other high-footfall public spaces, including places of public congregation and transit, based on careful assessment of ground realities, risk to public safety, and functional nature of such places. 
• Comprehensive capacity building measures to be undertaken, including training of personnel, augmenting of veterinary services, strengthening of shelter facilities, and vaccination drives in coordination with the relevant departments. 
• States and Union Territories to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin in all government medical facilities, and to put in place an effective public health response mechanism for dog bite cases. 
• NHAI, in coordination with concerned States and Union Territories, to formulate and implement a comprehensive time-bound mechanism for addressing the presence of stray and other animals on national highways and expressways, including deployment of specialised transport vehicles, creation of holding and shelter facilities, and arrangements with animal welfare organisations. 
• Authorities may, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving incurably ill, rabid, or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs, to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety. 
• Officers entrusted with implementation of the Court's directions shall be entitled to due protection for acts performed in good faith in discharge of official duties. No FIR or criminal proceeding shall ordinarily be initiated against such officers except where a prima facie case of mala fide or gross abuse of authority is established. 
• High Courts are directed to register suo motu writ petitions for compliance with the Supreme Court's directions as a continuing mandamus. The concerned bench of each High Court shall be at liberty to expand or tailor the scope of such directions to address local conditions and exigencies, without diluting the tenor and intent of the Supreme Court's directions. Jurisdictional courts shall be empowered to take appropriate action, including contempt proceedings, against officers responsible for non-compliance, inaction, or wilful disregard of the Court's directions.

What is the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Framework? 

The Animal Birth Control framework is the primary statutory and regulatory mechanism in India for the management of stray dog populations. Its key components are: 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: 

• The parent legislation governing the treatment and welfare of animals in India. 
• Prohibits cruelty to animals and regulates the circumstances in which animals may be subjected to procedures including euthanasia. 
• Euthanasia is permissible only in cases of incurable illness, rabies, or demonstrable danger, and must be carried out humanely by a registered veterinary practitioner. 

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023: 

• Framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, replacing the earlier ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2001. 
• Mandate the sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs as the primary method of population control. 
• Prohibit the relocation or killing of stray dogs except as permitted under the Rules. 
• Require every local body to establish and maintain ABC centres with trained staff, surgical facilities, and recovery areas. 
• Provide for the formation of Animal Birth Control Monitoring Committees at the district level. 
• Permit euthanasia strictly in cases of incurably ill, terminally injured, or rabid dogs, as certified by a qualified veterinary practitioner.

Significance of the Supreme Court's Direction: 

• The Court's order does not override the ABC framework but operates within it, permitting euthanasia only in the categories already recognised by law — rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs — subject to veterinary certification and compliance with statutory protocol. 
• The directions reinforce that sterilisation and vaccination remain the primary approach, while euthanasia is a last resort in defined circumstances. 
• The creation of district-level ABC centres and the monitoring role assigned to High Courts are aimed at ensuring institutional accountability in implementation. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar, in G Sridhar v. S Komala Kumari (2026), held that a wife secretly arranging the marriage of the couple's daughter without the knowledge of the husband amounts to marital cruelty justifying grant of divorce. The Court further held that continuous acts of mental cruelty — including public abuse, speaking disparagingly, and lodging complaints with the police and the husband's superior officers — individually and collectively caused sufficient mental agony to make continuation of the marriage impossible. 

• Setting aside the family court's order dismissing the divorce petition, the Court granted divorce to the husband and held that the trial court's approach of evaluating and weighing the acts of cruelty committed by the wife was inadequate.

What was the Background of G Sridhar v. S Komala Kumari (2026) Case? 

• The husband and wife had been married since 1997 and had a daughter and a son. 
• The wife secretly arranged the marriage of their 18-year-old daughter with the wife's own brother — the girl's maternal uncle — who was a 32-year-old divorcee. 
• The wife's brother had previously been married to the husband's niece; that marriage had broken down, and the niece had filed a police complaint against him. 
• The wife took the daughter to Bangalore for a week to conduct the marriage without informing either the husband or the son. 
• After returning, the wife informed the husband of the marriage as a fait accompli. 
• The husband filed a petition before the family court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. 
• The wife did not dispute the facts but contended that she arranged the marriage in the daughter's interest, as the daughter and her uncle had already entered into a relationship. 
• The wife further alleged that she was prevented from re-entering the matrimonial home after the wedding and that the husband had hidden her valuables and important documents, which prompted her to file a police complaint against the husband. 
• The family court dismissed the husband's divorce petition and allowed the wife's application for restitution of conjugal rights. 
• The husband challenged this order before the Madras High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Secret Arrangement of Daughter's Marriage as Cruelty: The Court held that the wife's act of secretly conducting the daughter's marriage without the husband's knowledge was an act of cruelty causing extreme mental agony to the husband as a father. The Court noted that once the marriage was performed, the husband was left with no recourse, and the pain and suffering he underwent could never be compensated. 
• On Irrelevance of Daughter's Welfare to the Cruelty Inquiry: The Court clarified that whether the marriage was beneficial to the daughter was not the issue. The matter had to be viewed purely from the perspective of the husband as a father — whose 18-year-old daughter was given in marriage to a 32-year-old divorcee against whom a police complaint had been lodged by his former wife. 
• On Continuous Acts of Mental Cruelty: The Court found that the wife had committed continuous acts of cruelty against the husband in public, spoken disparagingly about him, and lodged complaints against him with the police and his superior officers. These acts, individually and collectively, caused mental agony making it impossible for the husband to continue in the marriage. 
• On the Trial Court's Error: The Court held that the trial court's approach of evaluating and weighing the acts of cruelty was inadequate and that it had erred in dismissing the divorce petition and allowing the wife's application for restitution of conjugal rights.

What is Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?  

Section 13 HMA — Divorce: 

Section 13(1) — Grounds Available to Either Party: 

Either party to a marriage may present a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the following grounds: 

• The other party has, after solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than the spouse (adultery). 
• The other party has, after solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 
• The other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. 
• The other party has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. 
• The other party has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other party. 
• The other party has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy. 
• The other party has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form. 
• The other party has renounced the world by entering any religious order. 
• The other party has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those who would naturally have heard of the party.

Section 13(1A) — Additional Grounds (Either Party): 

• There has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of one year or more after the passing of a decree of judicial separation. 
• There has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for a period of one year or more after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Section 13(2) — Grounds Available Only to the Wife: 

• The husband had a wife living at the time of solemnisation of the marriage (bigamy), provided that the other wife was alive at the time of the petition. 
• The husband has been guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality since the solemnisation of the marriage. 
• A decree or order of maintenance has been passed against the husband under the relevant provisions, and cohabitation has not been resumed for one year or more since the passing of such decree. 
• The marriage was solemnised before the wife attained the age of fifteen years (whether or not consummated), and the wife has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining eighteen years.