List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026), dismissed the appeal of a Maharashtra doctor challenging criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).  

• The Court held that deficiencies in mandatory statutory records maintained at a sonography centre are not mere technical or inadvertent lapses, and that welfare legislation such as the PCPNDT Act must continue to be enforced strictly, given the persistence of sex-selection practices and patriarchal preferences for a male child across India.

What was the Background of Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was a doctor running a sonography centre in Maharashtra. 
• Authorities found alleged deficiencies in records maintained under the PCPNDT Act at his centre, including errors and blank entries in Form F — the statutory record prescribed under the PCPNDT Rules for every prenatal diagnostic procedure and ultrasound examination, which records patient details, pregnancy details, medical indications, and declarations regarding non-disclosure of foetal sex. 
• A Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognisance of offences under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, and 29 of the Act along with the relevant Rules. 
• Before the Bombay High Court, the doctor contended that the Civil Surgeon who initiated proceedings was not the competent "Appropriate Authority" under the Act, and that the deficiencies in Form F were merely technical and inadvertent. 
• The High Court rejected both submissions, holding that the State Government had by notification designated the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority, and that record-keeping deficiencies were substantive offences under the proviso to Section 4(3) whose extent and nature would be examined at trial. 
• The doctor then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On persistence of sex-selection practices: The Court observed that while several indicators, including the overall sex ratio, have improved over the years, the country's progress remains incomplete and uneven. It noted that the sex ratio at birth stood at only 929 females per 1,000 males as against an overall sex ratio of 1,020 females per 1,000 males recorded in NFHS-5. Several States continue to report sex ratios at birth below the national average, reflecting the continuing presence of deep-seated patriarchal preferences towards a male child. 
• On historical trend of declining sex ratio: The Court referred to census data showing a fall from 945 girls per 1,000 boys in 1991 to 927 in 2001, and further to 919 in 2011. While the sex ratio at birth improved from 896 females per 1,000 males during 2015–17 to 918 females per 1,000 males during 2022–24, the Court emphasised that this remained below the biologically expected level of around 950 or higher. 
• On India's global gender parity standing: The Court referred to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2025, which recorded a fall in India's overall gender parity ranking from 129 to 131 among 148 countries, reinforcing that the battle for gender equality remained far from complete. 
• On government schemes and continuing necessity of enforcement: The Court acknowledged Central and State government initiatives such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, and Janani Suraksha Yojana as reflections of sustained efforts to eradicate systemic bias against the girl child. However, it held that the available data did not support any relaxation in enforcement of the PCPNDT Act. 
• On the legal position regarding record maintenance: The Court reiterated the settled legal position from its earlier decision in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, wherein it was held that non-maintenance of records is not a mere clerical lapse but a springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide. Proper records are often the only means by which authorities can ensure that diagnostic facilities are not being used for illegal sex determination. 
• On strict enforcement of welfare legislation: The Court held that even though the sex ratio has shown improvement, diluting the provisions of the PCPNDT Act or allowing infractions to go unpunished cannot be countenanced. It observed that the Act must remain strictly enforced until there is a widespread change in mentality and true equality is achieved. 
• Finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

What is the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994? 

About: 

• An Act of the Parliament of India enacted to stop female foeticides and arrest the declining sex ratio in India. 
• The Act bans prenatal sex determination.

Objectives: 

• To ban the use of sex selection techniques before or after conception. 
• To prevent the misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex-selective abortion.

Provisions: 

• Regulates the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as ultrasound, permitting their use only to detect genetic abnormalities, metabolic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities, certain congenital malformations, haemoglobinopathies, and sex-linked disorders. 
• No laboratory, centre, or clinic shall conduct any test including ultrasonography for the purpose of determining the sex of the foetus. 
• No person shall communicate the sex of the foetus to the pregnant woman or her relatives by words, signs, or any other method. 
• Advertisement of pre-natal and pre-conception sex determination facilities through any medium — print, electronic, hoarding, wall painting, or otherwise — is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and a fine of ₹10,000.

Offences Under the Act: 

• Conducting or aiding prenatal diagnostic techniques in unregistered facilities. 
• Sex selection on a man or woman. 
• Performing prenatal diagnostic techniques for any purpose other than those specified under the Act. 
• Sale, distribution, supply, renting, or otherwise making available any ultrasound machine or equipment capable of detecting the sex of the foetus. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors. (2026), held that since the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) does not prescribe any limitation period either for seeking probate of a Will or for filing an application to revoke a probate already granted, such proceedings are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a residual three-year limitation period.  

• The Court further held that constructive notice of mutation proceedings arising from a probate is sufficient to commence the running of limitation, and that a party who had such notice cannot claim ignorance to bring the application within time.

What was the Background of Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen & Ors. (2026) Case? 

The dispute concerned properties inherited by Gouriprova Sen from her husband. 

• Before her death in October 1989, Gouriprova Sen executed a Will dated July 9, 1989, appointing her nephew Dhiraj Dutta as the sole executor and beneficiary. 
• Probate of the Will was granted in September 1995. 
• Thereafter, Dutta initiated mutation proceedings in respect of revenue records. Notices in those proceedings were served on the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents in 2013. 
• The respondents claimed they became aware of the probate only in 2019, and thereafter filed a suit concerning the property. 
• In 2022, the respondents moved an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of the probate. 
• A Single Judge dismissed the revocation application as time-barred. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this finding, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act: The Court held that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe any limitation period for seeking probate of a Will or for filing an application for revocation of a probate already granted. In the absence of any specific period prescribed under the ISA, recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a residual three-year limitation period for applications not covered elsewhere. 
• On constructive notice and the commencement of limitation: The Court held that a party who is deemed to have constructive notice of mutation proceedings arising from a probate cannot subsequently challenge the probate on the ground of lack of awareness. The respondents had been served notice in the mutation proceedings in 2013, and it was expected of them to at least enquire as to why such notice had been issued and what steps were required to be taken by them in that regard. 
• On the duty of inquiry upon receipt of notice: The Court observed that when a court of law sends a notice to a party, the minimum that can be expected is that the party makes attempts to find out why the notice was sent and what they are required to do in response. Failure to do so cannot be used to extend the period of limitation in the party's favour. 
• On the starting point of limitation: The Court held that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 would begin to run from the date on which the respondents would have discovered, upon reasonable inquiry, that the mutation proceedings rested on the probate of the Will granted to the appellant. At the very latest, this discovery ought to have occurred after service of notice in 2013, and not in 2019 as claimed by the respondents. Accordingly, the application for revocation of probate filed in 2022 was held to be hopelessly time-barred. 
• Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, the Division Bench's order was set aside, and the Single Judge's order dismissing the revocation application as time-barred was restored.

What is Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 

• Applies to any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Third Division of the Schedule. 
• Limitation period: 3 years. 
• Time begins to run: from the date when the right to apply accrues.

What is Indian Succession Act, 1925? 

About: 

• The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a comprehensive legislation governing inheritance and succession in India.  
• It applies to Christians, Parsis, Jews, and other communities, while Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists remain governed by their respective personal laws.  

Scope: 

The Act covers two forms of succession: 

• Testamentary succession — distribution of property through a valid Will. 
• Intestate succession — distribution where no Will exists, governed by predefined rules.

Key Objectives: 

• To provide a uniform legal framework for succession across applicable communities. 
• To ensure equitable distribution of property among legal heirs and beneficiaries. 
• To protect the rights of dependents and heirs.

Testamentary Succession: 

• A Will must be in writing, signed by the testator before at least two witnesses, who must attest it. 
• The testator must be of sound mind and at least 18 years old, and the Will must be free from fraud, coercion, or undue influence. 
• A Will may be revoked or modified during the testator's lifetime through a subsequent Will or formal declaration. 
• Executors administer the estate, settle liabilities, and distribute assets to beneficiaries.

Intestate Succession: 

• Spouse shares the estate with children or parents. 
• Children inherit equal shares; children of a predeceased heir inherit that heir's share. 
• Parents and siblings inherit in the absence of a spouse or children. 
• Adopted and illegitimate children are entitled to inheritance rights under the Act. 
• Under Christian succession, the spouse receives one-third and children share the remaining two-thirds equally. 
• Under Parsi succession, equal distribution occurs among spouse, children, and parents.

Probate: 

• Probate is the legal validation of a Will by a court to confirm its authenticity. 
• It is mandatory in certain jurisdictions such as Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. 
• Executors or administrators manage the estate under court oversight, pay debts, and distribute assets.

Comparison with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 

• The Indian Succession Act covers self-acquired property only, whereas the Hindu Succession Act also covers ancestral/coparcenary property. 
• Both Acts provide equal inheritance rights to sons and daughters. 
• Spousal rights differ: the Indian Succession Act grants the spouse a fixed share, while the Hindu Succession Act makes the widow's rights conditional on family structure.

Significance: 

• The Act promotes gender equality through equal inheritance rights, reduces family disputes by providing clear legal provisions, and balances traditional values with modern legal principles. Sound estate planning under the Act — through a valid Will, appointment of executors, and use of trusts or gift deeds — ensures clarity, protects dependants, and minimises legal complications for heirs.