List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court, in Princy N.V. v. Union of India (2026), declined to read an additional forum into Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869 that would allow a Christian wife to institute divorce proceedings at her place of residence, holding that such a change could only be brought about by Parliament and not by judicial interpretation. 

What was the Background of Princy N.V. v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Princy N.V., approached the Kerala High Court after the Family Court at Kalpetta returned her divorce petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. 
• The petitioner had allegedly suffered domestic violence and had fled her matrimonial home in Kasaragod — the place of solemnisation of marriage and last residence of the couple — to her parents' home in Wayanad. 
• Under Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869, she could not institute divorce proceedings at her current place of residence, a facility available to wives under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• The petitioner contended that this omission amounted to discrimination on grounds of religion and sex, violating her right to equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, and urged the Court to interpret Section 3(3) to include the forum of the wife's residence. 
• The Union of India opposed the plea, contending that territorial jurisdiction is a matter of statute, that courts cannot legislate from the bench, and that Parliament had consciously left the Divorce Act untouched during the 2003 matrimonial law amendments.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On judicial restraint and legislative function: The Court held that adding words to a statute is a legislative function which courts are not permitted to perform, and found that the language of Section 3(3) was plain and unambiguous, leaving no scope for judicial construction. 
• On the rule of plain meaning: The Court reiterated the elementary principle of interpretation that where the words of a statute are clear and susceptible of only one meaning, courts are bound to give effect to that meaning regardless of the consequences that may follow. 
• On the available remedy: The Court observed that the petitioner was not without recourse, as Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a party to seek transfer of a case from one court to another, and such a transfer could be allowed if the transferee court is satisfied. 
• On the legislative gap: While dismissing the petition, the Court acknowledged the structural imbalance in matrimonial law and, in a parting observation to the legislature, termed it "strange" and "unfortunate" that the Divorce Act remains unaligned with more progressive personal law statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. 
• On relief and reference to the legislature: The Court found no justifiable reason for the absence of a provision enabling wives to file for divorce at their place of residence and urged Parliament to consider an amendment. The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Ministry of Law and Justice for consideration. The petition was accordingly dismissed. 

What is the Divorce Act, 1869? 

About the Act: 

• The Act lays down the divorce law applicable to persons professing Christianity in India, covering matters such as separation, divorce, and the rights of husband and wife. 
• It was enacted under British rule and came into force on 1st April 1869, and has since been amended to bring it closer to modern standards of fairness. 
• It extends to Christians across India (Jammu and Kashmir was earlier excluded). 
• Different religious communities in India are governed by separate marriage and divorce statutes — Hindus by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Muslims by Muslim personal law; Parsis by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936; and inter-faith couples by the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Divorce Act, 1869 occupies this space for Christians. 
• Its overarching objective is to secure justice and safeguard the rights of spouses when a marriage breaks down.

Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869: 

Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869 – Territorial Jurisdiction for Matrimonial Petitions: 

• The Act governs divorce and matrimonial relief among persons professing the Christian religion in India. 
• Under Section 3(3), a matrimonial petition may be presented to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised, or within whose jurisdiction the husband and wife reside or last resided together. 
• Unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Divorce Act does not presently permit a petition to be filed at the place where the wife alone resides at the time of filing. 
• Any addition of a further forum, such as the wife's current place of residence, would require a legislative amendment to the provision.

What is Section 24 of the CPC? 

Section 24 CPC – General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal: 

• Sub-section (1): On application of any party (after notice and hearing those who wish to be heard), or on its own motion without notice, the High Court or District Court may, at any stage — 
  (a) transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending before it to any subordinate court competent to try or dispose of it; or 
  (b) withdraw any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending in any subordinate court, and either try/dispose of it itself, transfer it to a competent subordinate court, or retransfer it to the court from which it was withdrawn. 
• Sub-section (2): Where a suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the court thereafter trying or disposing of it may, subject to any special directions given in the transfer order, either retry it or continue from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. 
• Sub-section (3): For the purposes of this section — 
  (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed subordinate to the District Court; 
  (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for execution of a decree or order. 
• Sub-section (4): A court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn from a Court of Small Causes shall, for that suit, be deemed a Court of Small Causes. 
• Sub-section (5): A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section even from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, in Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy v. Google LLC (2026), held that the Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to hear a plea seeking de-indexing of online reports and videos relating to a settled matrimonial dispute, reaffirming that the right to be forgotten is a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21. 

What was the Background of  Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy v. Google LLC (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a serving IPS officer, had been the subject of widely circulated online content arising from a matrimonial dispute with his wife. 
• An FIR had initially been registered pursuant to his wife's complaint, but the dispute was later amicably settled, following which the Telangana High Court quashed the criminal proceedings in 2024. 
• Despite the settlement and quashing, several news outlets and digital platforms continued to host and circulate content identifying him as an IPS trainee, which he contended damaged his professional standing and personal privacy. 
• The petitioner sought directions to Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and other platforms to remove, delete, and de-index the impugned URLs, and also proposed use of hash-matching technology to prevent future re-publication of the same content. 
• Google LLC objected to the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court, contending that since the petitioner resided in Telangana and much of the content was in Telugu, the Telangana High Court alone had jurisdiction.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the objection to territorial jurisdiction: The Court rejected the contention that the dispute was confined to Telugu-language publications, noting that several English-language reports by national media outlets — including The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV, and News18 — were accessible across the country, including within the NCT of Delhi, where the respondent intermediary platforms also have their presence. 
• On the cause of action arising within Delhi: The Court held that since the impugned content was accessible and the respondent platforms operated within Delhi's territorial limits, it could not be said that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. 
• On the right to be forgotten as part of Article 21: The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, reiterating that the right to be forgotten flows from the right to privacy under Article 21, and that individuals who have been acquitted, discharged, or whose disputes have been settled are entitled to seek removal, masking, or de-indexing of their names from digitised court records and search engine results. 
• On the relief granted: The Court issued notice to the respondents, including Google LLC and YouTube LLC, and directed them to file counter-affidavits. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 21, 2026. 

What is the Right to be Forgotten? 

• Definition: The right to be forgotten allows individuals to seek removal of their personal data from digital platforms when such data is outdated, irrelevant, or harmful to their privacy. 
• European Origin: The right was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2014 in the Google Spain case, which required search engines to remove inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive personal data upon request, particularly where information is no longer relevant with the passage of time. 
• GDPR Recognition: In the EU, the right is codified under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), grounded in the principle of informational self-determination and control over one's personal data. 
• Global Adoption: Similar protections have been adopted in Canada, the United Kingdom, Argentina, and Japan; a 2023 Canadian court ruling upheld the right to demand search-result blocking of personal data. 
• California Model: The 2015 Online Eraser law allows minors to remove posted information, while the 2023 DELETE Act extends a similar right to adults against data brokers. 
• Position in India — No Standalone Statute: India currently has no dedicated legislative framework for the right to be forgotten, though the concept finds reference through privacy and digital rights jurisprudence. 
• Puttaswamy Recognition (2017): In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, implicitly encompassing the right to be forgotten, while clarifying that the right is not absolute and would not apply where public interest, public health, archiving, research, or legal claims are involved. 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Recognises a right to "erasure," though its applicability to court records and other public data remains legally unsettled. 
• IT Rules, 2021: Require intermediaries to remove or disable access to privacy-violating content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. 
• Judicial Precedents:  
  • Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Recognised the "right to be let alone" but held that published court records remain a legitimate subject of public comment. 
  • Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat (2017) – Gujarat High Court declined to remove acquittal details from public records, holding that court orders must remain accessible. 
  • Orissa High Court (2020) – In a case involving "revenge porn," called for wider debate on the right, noting the complexity of implementing it. 
  • Delhi High Court (2021) – Extended the right in a criminal matter, permitting removal of search results to protect the petitioner's social and career prospects. 
  • Supreme Court (July 2022) – Directed the registry to devise a mechanism for removing personal details of a couple involved in a matrimonial dispute from search engines. 
  • Kerala High Court (December 2023) – Held that the right cannot be applied to ongoing proceedings, citing open justice concerns, while noting that legislative clarity is needed. 
  • Himachal Pradesh High Court (July 2024) – Directed redaction of both accused and victim names in a rape case following acquittal, holding that the stigma of accusation should not persist.