List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, in State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s. Jai Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd. (2026), held that a clause in a commercial contract cannot be declared contrary to law and public policy merely because it does not provide for payment of interest on a security deposit, setting aside a contrary ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

What was the Background of State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s. Jai Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a mining contract awarded by the State of Haryana for extraction of Yamuna sand from the Bega Murthal Sand Zone. 
• M/s. Jai Durgaa Finvest Pvt. Ltd. emerged as the highest bidder in an auction held in April 1998 and entered into a three-year agreement with the State on November 30, 1998. 
• Clause 19 of the statutory Form-L agreement provided that the security deposited by the contractor would not carry any interest and would be refunded within three months from the date of expiry or earlier determination of the contract. 
• The contractor subsequently defaulted in making monthly payments; following notices under the agreement, the Director of Mines and Geology terminated the contract on March 9, 2000, and ordered forfeiture of the security deposit. 
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared Clause 19 "unsustainable in law" and directed the State to refund the security amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit. 
• The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the validity of the "no interest" clause: The Court held that public policy cannot be invoked to nullify a commercial contract that expressly denies interest on a security deposit, since such a stipulation is neither immoral nor unlawful nor legally unsustainable. 
• On the conduct of the parties: The Court noted that the respondent, a commercial entity, had participated in the open auction, emerged as the highest bidder, and executed the standard statutory Form-L with full knowledge, furnishing an undertaking to abide by its terms. 
• On re-writing of contractual terms: The Court reiterated that courts are not empowered to re-write contractual terms contrary to what was agreed between the parties, and that awarding interest contrary to the agreement amounted to the High Court re-writing the contract. 
• On sanctity of commercial contracts: The Court observed that where parties to a commercial contract stand on equal footing and commit to unambiguous terms, they are bound by the plain language of the contract and cannot resile from it later merely because a stipulation proves onerous. 
• On harmonious construction of Clause 19: The Court clarified that Clause 19 had to be read as a whole — while it excluded interest on the security deposit, it also obliged the State to refund the amount within three months of termination, meaning the State could not retain the deposit indefinitely without consequence. 
• On relief granted: Since the contract was terminated on March 9, 2000, the Court held that the contractor would be entitled to simple interest at 9% per annum from June 9, 2000 (i.e., after the three-month refund period) until the deposit was adjusted or refunded, setting aside the High Court's direction awarding interest from the date of deposit itself. 

What is Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 

Section 23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not: 

• General rule: The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— 
• Forbidden by law: it is forbidden by law; or 
• Defeats provisions of law: is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or 
• Fraudulent: is fraudulent; or 
• Injury to person or property: involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or 
• Immoral or opposed to public policy: the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. 
• Effect: In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. 

Illustrations: 

• (a) A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here B's promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for A's promise to sell the house, and A's promise to sell the house is the consideration for B's promise to pay the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations. 
• (b) A promises to pay B 1,000 rupees at the end of six months, if C, who owes that sum to B, fails to pay it. B promises to grant time to C accordingly. Here, the promise of each party is the consideration for the promise of the other party, and they are lawful considerations. 

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, in Anshu Shukla And Another v. Union Of India (2026), held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enforcement of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, can proceed with surrogacy despite exceeding the statutory age limit prescribed under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I) of the Act. 

What was the Background of Anshu Shukla and Another v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners, a couple married for more than 17 years, were unable to conceive naturally despite undergoing extensive fertility treatment. 
• They underwent multiple IVF procedures, but successive embryo transfers failed to result in successful natural conception. 
• On medical advice, considering their precarious medical condition, they were directed to pursue surrogacy and approached the High Court. 
• The couple claimed to qualify as an "intending couple" under Section 2(r) of the Surrogacy Act. 
• However, since the wife was a little over 50 years of age, she exceeded the age limit prescribed under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I) of the Act, rendering her ineligible to avail surrogacy. 
• It was submitted that the couple had preserved three embryos on July 18, 2015, well before the Surrogacy Act came into force on January 25, 2022. 
• The petitioners relied on the Delhi High Court's order in Tapas Kumar Mallick v. Union of India (2026), the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order in Shobhini Mala v. Union of India (2026), and the Supreme Court's ruling in Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, (2025). 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On reproductive autonomy and Article 21: The Bench held that a rigid application of the age restriction under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I) infringes the fundamental right of reproductive autonomy, recognised as a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• On when the surrogacy process is deemed to commence: Relying on Arun Muthuvel (supra), the Court reiterated that for the limited purpose of determining age eligibility, the surrogacy process commences the moment an intending couple completes gamete extraction, fertilisation, and freezes the embryo with the clear intent of transferring it to a surrogate mother. 
• On non-retrospective application of the age bar: The Court held that the couple's right to surrogacy crystallised when their embryos were frozen under the law prevailing at the time, when no age limit existed, and that the age restriction under the 2021 Act could not be applied retrospectively to defeat this right. 
• On the constitutional basis for non-retrospectivity: The Bench further stressed that where no statutory age restriction existed at the stage of embryo creation, the Rules could not be permitted to operate retrospectively, as doing so would fail to uphold the intending couple's constitutional right to parenthood under Article 21. 
• On relief granted: Applying the Supreme Court's ruling, the Bench concluded that the statutory age bar under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I) could not be sustained against the petitioners and permitted the couple to proceed with the altruistic surrogacy process. 

What is Surrogacy? 

• About: Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a woman (the surrogate) agrees to carry and give birth to a child on behalf of another person or couple (the intended parent/s). A surrogate, also called a gestational carrier, is a woman who conceives, carries, and gives birth to a child for the intended parent/s. 
• Altruistic Surrogacy: Involves no monetary compensation to the surrogate mother other than medical expenses and insurance coverage during pregnancy. 
• Commercial Surrogacy: Includes surrogacy or related procedures undertaken for monetary benefit or reward (in cash or kind) exceeding basic medical expenses and insurance coverage. 

What is the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021? 

• Eligible Persons: A woman who is a widow or divorcee between 35 to 45 years of age, or a couple (defined as a legally married woman and man), can avail surrogacy if they have a medical condition necessitating this option. 
• Eligibility of Intending Couple: The intending couple must be a legally married Indian man and woman; the man must be between 26–55 years and the woman between 25–50 years, and neither must have any previous biological, adopted, or surrogate child. 
• Ban on Commercial Surrogacy: The Act bans commercial surrogacy, which is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine of up to Rs. 10 lakh. 
• Only Altruistic Surrogacy Permitted: The law permits only altruistic surrogacy, where no money exchanges hands and the surrogate mother must be genetically related to the intending couple.