List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe of the Supreme Court, in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026), overruled the contrary views taken by the Allahabad High Court and held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of "family" for the purpose of compassionate appointment or grant of a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds. The Court affirmed the views of the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, holding that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying welfare benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter.

What was the Background of Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, Kulsum Nisha, was a married daughter who sought a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds following the death of her mother.  
• Even after her marriage, the appellant continued to reside in the same village and actively assisted her mother in running the fair price shop.  
• She was also responsible for taking care of her family, including her physically impaired sister.  
• Following her mother's demise, the appellant applied for the grant of a fair price shop licence in her favour.  
• Her application was rejected on the basis of a 2019 Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which excluded married daughters from the definition of "family."  
• The appellant challenged the Government Order before the Allahabad High Court.  
• The Single Judge noted conflicting precedents on the issue:  
  • In Vimal Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), the Allahabad High Court had struck down the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as unconstitutional.  
  • However, in Kusumlata v. State of U.P. (2021) and Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023), the Allahabad High Court upheld the exclusion of married daughters under the 2019 Government Order.  
• The Single Judge also noted that the Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (2014) and other High Courts had held such exclusion unconstitutional.  
• In view of the conflicting judicial opinions, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Marital Status Cannot Be a Ground for Exclusion: 

• The Supreme Court held that exclusion of married daughters from welfare measures solely on the basis of marriage is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible.  
• The Court observed that no similar disability is attached to married sons.  
• Therefore, treating daughters differently after marriage amounts to gender-based discrimination and violates the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Approval of Bombay and Karnataka High Court Views: 

• The Court expressly approved the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court, which had held that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying compassionate benefits to daughters.  
• It held that the reasoning adopted by these High Courts correctly reflects the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Allahabad High Court's Contrary View Overruled: 

• The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023) does not lay down the correct law.  
• The Court overruled the contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family is constitutionally valid. 

Facts Demonstrated Continued Dependency and Responsibility: 

• The Court noted that the appellant continued to live in the same village even after marriage.  
• She actively assisted her mother in operating the fair price shop.  
• After her mother's death, she assumed responsibility for her family members, including her disabled sister.  
• These facts demonstrated that the rejection of her claim solely on the basis of her marital status was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Relief Granted: 

• The Supreme Court set aside the orders denying the appellant a fair price shop licence.  
• The Court directed the competent authorities to issue the licence in her favour within four weeks. 

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee or licence holder who dies in harness.  
• It is an exception to the general rule of public employment through open competition.  
• The object of compassionate appointment is to alleviate sudden financial hardship faced by the family due to the death of its breadwinner. 

Constitutional Principles Governing Compassionate Appointment: 

• Compassionate appointment schemes must comply with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.  
• Any classification excluding a daughter solely because she is married must satisfy the test of reasonable classification.  
• A distinction based only on marital status, when no such restriction exists for sons, is liable to be struck down as discriminatory.  
• Welfare schemes cannot perpetuate gender stereotypes that assume a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family after marriage. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court, in Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors. (2026), held that heirs succeeding to property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inherit it as tenants-in-common with distinct and definite shares. The Court clarified that such property does not acquire the character of coparcenary property and that a co-heir cannot alienate the shares of other heirs by claiming to act as a Karta on grounds of legal necessity.

What was the Background of Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute concerned properties belonging to Dajiba, a Hindu male who died intestate.  
• Upon his death, his second wife, Darubai, and his four daughters from his first wife became Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  
• Each heir became entitled to an equal one-fifth share in the suit properties, comprising agricultural lands and residential houses situated in Maharashtra.  
• In 1972, the four daughters instituted a partition suit seeking declaration and partition of their four-fifths share in the properties.  
• The daughters contended that they and the widow inherited the properties equally under the Hindu Succession Act.  
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the daughters.  
• The First Appellate Court partly accepted the widow's defence regarding a sale executed by her in favour of a third party, holding that the sale was justified on the ground of legal necessity.  
• The Bombay High Court restored the Trial Court's decree and rejected the widow's claim.  
• Aggrieved, the widow approached the Supreme Court.  

Issues Before the Supreme Court: 

The Court considered the following questions: 

1. Whether heirs succeeding under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act inherit property as joint tenants or as tenants-in-common?  
2. Whether one co-heir can act as a Karta and alienate property belonging to other co-heirs on the ground of legal necessity?  
3. Whether property inherited under Section 8 automatically becomes coparcenary property?  

What were the Court's Observations? 

Heirs under Section 8 Hold Property as Tenants-in-Common: 

• The Court held that property inherited through intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act devolves upon heirs as tenants-in-common.  
• Each heir acquires a definite, separate and identifiable share in the inherited property.  
• Such shares are capable of further succession and devolution upon the respective heirs of each co-owner.  
• The Court emphasized that ownership is divided and individualized from the moment succession opens.

Difference Between Tenants-in-Common and Joint Tenants: 

The Court explained the distinction as follows: 

Tenants-in-Common 

• Every co-owner possesses a specific and identifiable share.  
• The share of a deceased co-owner devolves upon his or her own legal heirs.  
• There is no right of survivorship among co-owners.  
• Ownership is separate though possession may remain joint.

Illustration:

• If A dies intestate leaving behind B and C as heirs, both inherit definite shares.  
• If B subsequently dies, B's share passes to B's own heirs and does not automatically vest in C. 

Joint Tenancy 

• All co-owners collectively hold one unified interest.  
• The doctrine of survivorship applies.  
• Upon the death of one joint tenant, his interest automatically passes to the surviving joint tenant(s).  
• Individual inheritable shares do not exist during the subsistence of the joint tenancy.  

Illustration: 

• Under a traditional Mitakshara coparcenary, if A and B are joint holders and A dies, A's interest automatically accrues to B through survivorship rather than devolving upon A's widow or children.

Property Inherited under Section 8 Does Not Become Coparcenary Property: 

• The Court reiterated that property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property.  
• Such inheritance is statutory and individual in nature.  
• Descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in the property by birth.  
• The property devolves through succession and not through survivorship.  
• Therefore, the incidents of coparcenary ownership do not attach to such property merely because it originated from a paternal ancestor.

Concept of Kartaship Does Not Apply: 

• The Supreme Court held that the concept of a Karta ordinarily has no application to property inherited under Section 8.  
• Since heirs inherit separate and definite shares, no single heir can represent the entire body of co-heirs as a Karta.  
• The authority traditionally exercised by a Karta over coparcenary property cannot be extended to property held by tenants-in-common. 

Co-Heir Cannot Alienate Shares of Others: 

• The Court held that Darubai could not sell a portion of the entire property by claiming legal necessity.  
• Even if the sale was intended for a family purpose, such as the marriage of a relative, she lacked authority to alienate the shares belonging to the other co-heirs.  
• At best, she could deal only with her own one-fifth share in the property.  
• Consequently, the alienation made by her beyond her share was held to be invalid. 

Appeal Dismissed: 

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the rights of the daughters in the suit properties.  
• The Court expressed hope that the litigation, which had remained pending for more than five decades, would finally come to an end and enable the parties to move forward peacefully.

What is Intestate Succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

About: 

• Intestate succession occurs when a person dies without leaving a valid will.  
• Sections 8 to 13 of the Hindu Succession Act govern succession to the property of a Hindu male dying intestate.  
• Property first devolves upon Class I heirs specified in the Schedule to the Act. 

Section 8 – General Rules of Succession: 

When a Hindu male dies intestate, his property devolves: 

1. Firstly, upon the Class I heirs;  
2. Secondly, upon the Class II heirs;  
3. Thirdly, upon agnates;  
4. Lastly, upon cognates. 

Section 19 – Mode of Succession by Multiple Heirs: 

Where two or more heirs succeed together: 

• They inherit the property as tenants-in-common;  
• They take per capita and not per stirpes (unless otherwise provided);  
• Each heir obtains a distinct and separate share.