List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court of India upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.  

• The Court simultaneously struck down a 2011 State Government notification that had purported to exempt the SPE from the RTI regime, holding that the SPE does not perform intelligence or security functions and therefore cannot claim exemption under Section 24(4) of the Act. 

What was the Background of Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector posted in Katni, was implicated in a corruption trap case registered against him by the SPE in 2017.  
• The State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020. Following this, Mishra filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications.  
• The authorities rejected his request, and the State Information Commission upheld the rejection by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information likely to impede the process of investigation or prosecution.  
• Mishra then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which ruled in his favour on the ground that the investigation had already concluded and a chargesheet had been filed, and directed the authorities to furnish the requested information.  
• The SPE challenged this direction before the Supreme Court, relying on a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department on August 25, 2011 under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which sought to exclude both the SPE and the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the Act's purview. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Section 24(4): The Court held that Section 24(4) of the RTI Act permits exemption from the Act's disclosure obligations only for organisations that genuinely function as "intelligence and security organisations" established by a State Government, and that this exemption cannot be extended to bodies performing ordinary investigative or law-enforcement functions. 
• On the nature of the SPE's functions: Examining the statutory framework governing the Lokayukta and the SPE, the Bench found that the SPE's jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption-related offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain offences under the Penal Code involving public servants. The Court held that these functions are investigative in character and do not amount to intelligence-gathering or security operations of the kind contemplated under Section 24(4). 
• On the validity of the 2011 notification: The Court held that the 2011 notification, to the extent it excluded the SPE from the RTI Act, exceeded the authority granted under the parent statute and was therefore invalid. The notification was found to be an impermissible attempt to extend a statutory exemption beyond what the legislature had intended. 
• On the limited scope of its ruling: The Court clarified that it had examined the notification only insofar as it concerned the SPE, and had not adjudicated upon its validity in relation to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences. The notification was held to continue operating with respect to that body. 
• On the disposal of the appeal: While dismissing the SPE's appeal, the Court upheld the High Court's direction to furnish the information sought by Mishra, having found no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning that the completion of investigation and filing of a chargesheet removed any justification for withholding the information under Section 8(1)(h).

What is Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005? 

Section 24 – Act Not to Apply to Certain Organisations 

• Sub-section (1): The Act does not apply to intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government, nor to any information furnished by such organisations to the Central Government. 
• First proviso to sub-section (1): This exclusion does not extend to information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violations; such information remains disclosable. 
• Second proviso to sub-section (1): Where information is sought regarding allegations of human rights violations, it may only be provided after approval of the Central Information Commission, and must be furnished within forty-five days of the request, notwithstanding the time limits prescribed under Section 7. 
• Sub-section (2): The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule by adding or removing any intelligence or security organisation established by it; such addition or removal takes effect upon publication of the notification. 
• Sub-section (3): Every notification issued under sub-section (2) must be laid before each House of Parliament. 
• Sub-section (4): The Act similarly does not apply to intelligence and security organisations established by a State Government, where that Government specifies such organisations by notification in the Official Gazette. 
• First proviso to sub-section (4): As with the Central exclusion, information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violations is not excluded from disclosure. 
• Second proviso to sub-section (4): Information sought in respect of human rights violation allegations may only be released after approval of the State Information Commission, within forty-five days of the request, notwithstanding Section 7. 
• Sub-section (5): Every notification issued under sub-section (4) must be laid before the State Legislature.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana of the Supreme Court of India issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to restrict the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address, and date of birth, and to ensure that it is used only as proof of identity. 

• The petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, raises concerns that the continued acceptance of Aadhaar for purposes beyond identity proof enables illegal immigrants and infiltrators to secure other official documents, including voter identity cards. 

What was the Background of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner contended that Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 expressly clarifies that an Aadhaar number does not confer any right to, or serve as proof of, citizenship or domicile. 
• The petition relied on a UIDAI notification dated August 22, 2023, which similarly clarifies that Aadhaar is proof of identity alone and not proof of citizenship, address, or date of birth. 
• Despite these statutory and administrative clarifications, the petitioner pointed out that Aadhaar continues to be accepted as proof of age, citizenship, and domicile for purposes such as school admissions, property transactions, and the issuance of birth certificates, ration cards, and driving licences. 
• The petition also challenged the use of Aadhaar in Form-6, the application form for new voter registration, where it is accepted as proof of date of birth and residence.  
• The petitioner argued that Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 permits Aadhaar to be used only to establish identity, and not to prove age or residence. 
• It was further submitted that any person residing in India for 182 days in a year becomes eligible to obtain Aadhaar, including through documents such as rent agreements and recommendations from local authorities, making it possible for illegal immigrants to acquire Aadhaar and subsequently other identity documents. 
• The petitioner sought directions to the Union Government, State Governments, and the Election Commission of India to restrict Aadhaar's use strictly to proof of identity, along with a declaration that its use as proof of date of birth and residence in Form-6 is contrary to Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, and Article 14 of the Constitution, and is therefore void and inoperative. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, issued notice to the Union of India and other concerned authorities, calling for their response to the petitioner's contentions without recording any findings on the merits of the case at this stage. 

What is Aadhaar? 

• Aadhaar is a 12-digit individual identification number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on behalf of the Government of India, serving as proof of identity and address anywhere in India. 
• It is a biometric document that stores an individual's personal information on a government database. 
• Eligibility: Any individual, including foreign nationals, who has resided in India for 182 days or more in the 12 months preceding the enrolment application is eligible, subject to submission of one of the 18 notified identity and address documents. 
• Aadhaar is issued by UIDAI, a statutory authority constituted under the Aadhaar Act, 2016. 
• Utility: Aadhaar facilitates access to Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), banking services, mobile connections, and various government and non-government services. 
• Legal status: Aadhaar is proof of identity and address only — it is not proof of citizenship, domicile, or date of birth, and cannot be used to establish nationality. 
• Judicial stand: In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar's constitutional validity while clarifying that, under Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, an Aadhaar number does not confer or prove citizenship or domicile. 
• UIDAI has introduced "Udai," a resident-friendly mascot (launched January 2026), as a communication tool to make Aadhaar services on updates, authentication, offline verification, and selective information-sharing more accessible to the public.