List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (2026) held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude a consumer forum from adjudicating a dispute on merits. 

What was the Background of  T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (2026) Case? 

• The Appellant filed a consumer complaint alleging "deficiency in service" on account of delay in handing over possession of a residential flat unit. 
• The flat purchase agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. 
• The District Forum, despite admitting the complaint and issuing notice to the Respondent, referred the dispute to arbitration. 
• The District Forum's decision was subsequently affirmed by the State Commission and thereafter by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). 
• Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, made the following key observations: 

On the nature of the consumer adjudicatory mechanism: 

• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 creates a special adjudicatory mechanism for consumer disputes. 
• Once this mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause.

On the supremacy of statutory remedy over contractual clauses: 

• A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies.  
• The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, (2019).

On the effect of admission of complaint: 

• The mere presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement could not, by itself, be treated as sufficient ground to non-suit the Appellant before the consumer forum. 
• Once a complaint is admitted and allowed to be proceeded with, the forum is required to deal with it in the manner provided under the Act. 

Complaint to District Forum: 

• It provides that where a complaint has been admitted by the District Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court, tribunal, or authority set up by or under any other law for the time being in force.

What are Consumer Forums? 

• Consumer forums are quasi-judicial bodies set up under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (which replaced the 1986 Act) to provide a speedy, inexpensive redressal mechanism for grievances relating to defective goods, deficient services, unfair trade practices, and overcharging. They function as a three-tier hierarchy. 
• District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is the forum of first instance, established in each district, and entertains complaints where the value of goods or services paid does not exceed ₹50 lakh. 
• State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operates at the state level and hears complaints where the claim value exceeds ₹50 lakh but does not exceed ₹2 crore. It also functions as an appellate body for orders passed by District Commissions within that state. 
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is the apex consumer forum, with jurisdiction over complaints exceeding ₹2 crore, and hears appeals against State Commission orders. A further appeal from NCDRC orders lies to the Supreme Court of India. 
• Complaints can be filed by the affected consumer, a registered consumer association, the Central or State Government, or, in case of death, the legal heirs of the consumer. Filing is simple and largely free of heavy court fees, and proceedings are designed to be summary in nature so disputes are resolved faster than in regular civil courts. Remedies available include replacement of goods, refund, compensation for loss or injury, and removal of defects or deficiencies. 
• This structure ensures access to justice for consumers across varying claim sizes while keeping higher-value or more complex disputes within higher forums. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A Vacation Bench of Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), dismissed Telegram's challenge to the Central government's emergency order temporarily blocking the platform in India. The Court upheld the Centre's power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to block an entire intermediary platform, not just specific content hosted on it. 

What was the Background of Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an emergency order under Section 69A of the IT Act, blocking Telegram in India until 22 June, amid concerns over paper leaks ahead of the NEET re-exam. 
• Telegram contended that it had taken proactive measures to remove unlawful NEET-related content, including deployment of AI and machine learning tools to address such content on the platform. 
• Telegram argued that the blocking order suffered from non-application of mind, that no independent satisfaction had been recorded by the Centre, and that the designated officer had merely reiterated the allegations. 
• Telegram further contended that Section 69A was confined to blocking individual posts or messages, and could not be invoked to block an entire platform. 
• Aggrieved, Telegram approached the Delhi High Court challenging the blocking order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On scope of "information" under Section 69A: The Court held that the definition of "information" under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act is broad enough to include codes, computer programmes and software, and therefore covers an application or software platform. It accordingly rejected Telegram's contention that the blocking power was confined to specific content. 
• On application of mind: The Court held that the emergency blocking order did not suffer from non-application of mind, noting that the interim order disclosed sufficient reasons given its emergency nature, and that the statutory procedure under Section 69A read with the 2009 Blocking Rules had been duly followed. 
• On the final order supplementing reasons: The Court rejected Telegram's argument that the final order could not supplement the reasons recorded in the interim order, holding that the statutory scheme expressly contemplates an interim direction followed by a post-decisional hearing before a final order is passed confirming or revoking the block. 
• On proportionality: The Court held that the temporary platform-wide blocking satisfied the constitutional requirement of proportionality, noting that the government had first attempted less restrictive measures by directing takedown of individual channels and accounts, but offending content continued to re-emerge through mirror channels, backup channels, bots and rotated handles, rendering channel-specific enforcement ineffective. 
• On urgency: The Court took note of the fact that nearly 2.2 million candidates were scheduled to appear for the NEET re-exam, and held that the Centre's action was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

What is Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act? 

About: 

• It confers on the Central and State governments the power to issue directions “to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource”. 
• The grounds on which these powers may be exercised are: 
• In the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state. 
• Friendly relations with foreign states. 
• Public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to these. 
• For investigating any offence. 

Process of Blocking Internet Websites: 

• Section 69A, for similar reasons and grounds (as stated above), enables the Centre to ask any agency of the government, or any intermediary, to block access to the public of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored or hosted on any computer resource. 
• The term ‘intermediaries’ includes providers of telecom service, network service, Internet service and web hosting, besides search engines, online payment and auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes. 
• Any such request for blocking access must be based on reasons given in writing.