List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, in Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (2026), held that State authorities cannot support a litigant by taking a stand contrary to law, and that it is "completely impermissible" for State officers to file affidavits before courts endorsing an unlawful position. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of officers who had filed such affidavits before the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

• The Court dismissed the appeal of a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Principal of Meerut College through a change in posting under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, holding that his deliberate failure to join the post recommended to him at Ballia could not entitle him to claim appointment at Meerut.

What was the Background of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, a waitlisted candidate, was recommended in 2022 for appointment as Principal of a PG College in Ballia under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.  
• He did not join, citing personal circumstances, and waited for a vacancy to arise at Meerut College. 
• After the vacancy arose at Meerut PG College, the appellant sought appointment thereto, claiming that his case fell within the third category of vacancies under the old Act, i.e., "otherwise during the period of validity of the list," since the vacancy had not arisen due to death or resignation. 
• The State authorities initially took the position that no change in place of posting was permissible after a candidate had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere.  
• However, following enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, the authorities reversed course and filed affidavits supporting the appellant's claim, despite having themselves concluded, just four days before the new law came into force, that no provision existed for changing his place of posting. 
• Both the Single Bench and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court denied the appellant the appointment. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Duty of State Officers in Litigation: The Court held that the duty of the State and its officials, while filing counter-affidavits and arguing before courts, is to provide real assistance grounded in facts and applicable law. It is not expected of State authorities to support any party contrary to law or by filing affidavits that do not disclose facts in conformity with law. The Court held it "completely impermissible" for State officers to take an unlawful stand before the High Court or the Supreme Court. 
• On the Conduct of UP Officials: The Court noted that just four days before the new Act came into force, the authorities had themselves concluded that no provision existed for changing the appellant's place of posting. Despite this, after the repeal of the old law, officials attempted to revive the old selection list and support the appellant's appointment. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of the officers who had filed affidavits taking such unlawful stands. However, since the officers were not parties to the proceedings, the Court stopped short of issuing adverse directions against them. 
• On the Appellant's Claim: The Court held that the appellant's deliberate failure to join the post of Principal at Ballia PG College for nearly ten months did not grant him an indefeasible right to claim appointment at Meerut PG College. Granting such a claim would frustrate the objective of the selection scheme. 
• On the Principle of Ejusdem Generis: The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting the expression "otherwise during the period of validity of the list." It held that the word "otherwise" must be read in the context of the preceding contingencies — death and resignation — and would therefore cover only similar unforeseen situations, not circumstances wholly unrelated to or disconnected from those preceding categories. The appellant's deliberate non-joining could not fall within this expression.

What is the Principle of Ejusdem Generis? 

The principle of ejusdem generis (Latin: "of the same kind") is a rule of statutory interpretation applied when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific words in a statute. 

• Where a general term follows an enumeration of specific terms, the general term is construed to include only things of the same nature, class, or kind as those specifically listed. 
• The principle prevents a general residuary expression from being given an unlimited or unrelated meaning inconsistent with the specific terms preceding it. 
• In the present case, the expression "otherwise during the period of validity of the list" followed "death" and "resignation." Applying ejusdem generis, the Court held that "otherwise" could cover only unforeseen contingencies similar in nature to death or resignation — not a candidate's conscious and deliberate choice not to join the recommended post.

What is an Affidavit? 

About: 

• An affidavit is a sworn written statement made under oath or affirmation before an authorised officer or Magistrate.  
• Though not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order XIX governs its provisions.  
• It must be drawn up in the first person and contain only facts, not inferences.

Essentials of Affidavit: 

• Declaration made by a person relating to facts. 
• Must be in writing and in the first person. 
• Must be sworn or affirmed before a Magistrate or authorised officer.

Key Provisions Under Order XIX CPC: 

• Contents (Rule 3): Confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge; on interlocutory applications, belief statements are permitted if grounds are stated. Costs of unnecessary hearsay or argumentative matter are borne by the filing party. 
• Verification: Essential to test the genuineness and authenticity of the deponent's averments. 
• Power to Prove by Affidavit (Rule 1): Court may order any fact to be proved by affidavit, unless a party bona fide desires cross-examination of the witness and such witness can be produced. 
• Evidence on Affidavit (Rule 2): Court may order attendance of the deponent for cross-examination; such attendance shall ordinarily be in Court.

Affidavit by State: 

• State affidavits must be filed with responsibility. Contradictory affidavits by the same officer show utter disregard for veracity and are unworthy of a government spokesman. 

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in KK Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (2026), held that a holder of a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) cannot claim royalty or damages from a defendant merely by asserting that its patent is essential to a product standard. The Court held that the patent owner must first establish that the patent qualifies as an SEP and must thereafter prove, with evidence, that the defendant's specific product actually infringes that patent. 

• Setting aside a 2018 single-judge ruling that had directed KK Bansal and Rajesh Bansal to pay royalty and punitive damages to Philips, the Division Bench further held that Philips had failed to prove that its claimed royalty rates were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND), and that the doctrine of patent exhaustion under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 extinguished Philips' exclusivity rights over the subject patent.

What was the Background of KK Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (2026) Case? 

• Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV held Indian Patent IN 184753, which related to a decoding device used inside a DVD player to read information stored on a DVD disc and convert it into playable audio and video — not to the DVD player as a whole. 
• Philips claimed that this was a Standard Essential Patent (SEP), meaning that any DVD player following the relevant DVD standard would necessarily use its patented decoding technology. 
• The Bansals — running Mangalam Technology and Bhagirathi Electronics — sold DVD players and were sued by Philips for allegedly using its patented technology without a licence. 
• A single-judge of the Delhi High Court accepted Philips' case in 2018. Since the patent had expired, no injunction was granted; however, the Bansals were directed to pay royalty at USD 3.175 per DVD player up to May 7, 2010, and USD 1.90 per unit thereafter until February 12, 2015, along with 10% interest, and ₹5 lakh in punitive damages against Rajesh Bansal. 
• The Bansals challenged this ruling before the Division Bench, contending that they had purchased printed circuit boards from Shuntak and Sheen Land — authorised dealers of MediaTek, which was itself an authorised dealer of the boards containing the patented invention — and that Philips had failed to prove infringement or establish FRAND royalty rates.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Burden of Proof for SEP Infringement: The Court held that a plaintiff claiming to be the holder of an SEP must first establish that its patent qualifies as an SEP, and must thereafter separately prove that the defendant's product infringes that specific patent. A bare assertion that the technology is essential to a standard, combined with proof that the defendant sold products conforming to that standard, is insufficient to establish infringement. 
• On Methods of Proving Infringement: The Court held that infringement could be proved either by directly comparing the claims of the patent with the defendant's product, or by demonstrating that the patent maps onto the relevant DVD standard and that the defendant's product conforms to that standard. Philips had failed to establish infringement by either route. 
• On the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: The Court held that the Bansals had purchased printed circuit boards from authorised dealers of MediaTek, which was itself an authorised dealer of boards containing the subject matter of Philips' patent. Accordingly, Philips' right to exclusivity stood extinguished by operation of the doctrine of patent exhaustion under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. 
• On FRAND Royalty Rates: The Court held that Philips had failed to place any evidence on record to demonstrate that its claimed royalty rates were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Despite its own witness deposing that licence agreements with third parties were available, not a single such agreement was produced before the Court. 
• On the Royalty Base: The Court rejected Philips' attempt to calculate royalty on the basis of the entire DVD player. Since the patent covered only a decoding device forming one component of a printed circuit board — itself only one part of a DVD player — Philips was not entitled to royalty on any item beyond that decoding device. Calculating royalty per DVD player would amount to claiming royalty for items over which Philips held no patent.

What is Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970? 

Section 107A — Certain Acts Not to be Considered as Infringement: 

Section 107A specifies two acts that shall not constitute infringement of patent rights: 

• Section 107A(a) — Regulatory Use Exception: Any act of making, constructing, using, selling, or importing a patented invention — solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law in force in India or any other country that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale, or import of any product — shall not amount to infringement. 
• Section 107A(b) — Exhaustion/Parallel Import Exception: Importation of patented products by any person from a person who is duly authorised under the law to produce, sell, or distribute the product shall not amount to infringement. This provision gives statutory recognition to the doctrine of international patent exhaustion — once a patented product is sold by or with the authorisation of the patent holder, the holder's exclusive rights over that product stand exhausted, and its importation through authorised channels cannot be treated as infringement. 

What is a Standard Essential Patent (SEP)? 

A Standard Essential Patent (SEP) is a patent that covers technology which is indispensable to implementing a particular industry standard. Key aspects include: 

• A product cannot comply with the standard without using the technology protected by the SEP. 
• SEPs commonly arise in sectors such as telecommunications, electronics, and multimedia technology, where uniform technical standards govern product design. 
• Holders of SEPs are typically required to license their patents on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms, to prevent abuse of the monopoly position that a standard-essential patent confers. 
• FRAND obligations ensure that patent holders do not charge excessive royalties or discriminate between similarly situated licensees. 
• Merely holding an SEP does not entitle the patent holder to automatic royalty from all manufacturers of standard-compliant products; infringement must be specifically established against each defendant.