List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice MB Snehalatha held that even after the death of husband the wife has a right to reside in shared household.  

• The Kerala High Court held this in the case of Chenthamara @ Kannan and others v. Meena (2025). 

What was the Background of Chenthamara @ Kannan and others v. Meena (2025) Case?   

• The revision petition challenges the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 183/2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Palakkad. 
• The revision petitioners were the respondents in M.C. No. 39/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Palakkad, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). 
• The M.C. was filed by the petitioner (wife) alleging that her in-laws (respondents 1 to 5) attempted to oust her and her children from the shared household and obstructed their peaceful residence. 
• The respondents in the M.C. denied the allegations of domestic violence and contended that after the death of her husband, the petitioner resided at her parental home and did not visit the matrimonial home. 
• They also argued that since the petitioner was not residing in the shared household, there was no domestic relationship and hence she was not an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act. 
• The Magistrate dismissed the M.C., holding that the petitioner failed to prove a domestic relationship or that she was an aggrieved person under the DV Act. 
• The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 183/2015 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, challenging the dismissal of her M.C. 
• The Sessions Court allowed the appeal, restrained the respondents from committing acts of domestic violence, and prohibited them from obstructing the petitioner and her children from entering and residing peacefully in the shared household. 
• The respondents (now revision petitioners) challenged the appellate judgment on the grounds that the petitioner had no domestic relationship with them, was not an aggrieved person, and had not lived in the matrimonial home after her husband's death. 
• They also argued that the petitioner owns her own property and thus is not entitled to relief under the DV Act. 
• The revision petition raises the point of whether the Sessions Court judgment warrants interference by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Before deciding on the petitioner’s entitlement to a protection and residence order under the DV Act, the Court examined key definitions under the Act, including domestic violence, aggrieved person, shared household, and domestic relationship. 
• Under Section 3, domestic violence includes physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and economic abuse, as well as any act that harms or endangers a woman’s well-being. 
• Section 2(a) defines an aggrieved person as any woman in a domestic relationship who alleges she has been subjected to domestic violence. 
• Section 2(s) defines a shared household as one where the woman has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or title. 
• Section 2(f) defines a domestic relationship as one where individuals live or have lived together in a shared household, being related by consanguinity, marriage, or other recognized familial ties. 
• The petitioner is the wife of deceased Gopi and lived in the shared household after marriage; the respondents are her in-laws. 
• The petitioner alleged that after her husband’s death in 2009, her in-laws tried to evict her and obstructed her peaceful residence in the shared household. 
• Evidence confirmed the petitioner lived in the shared household and faced attempts of eviction and harassment from the respondents after her husband’s death. 
• The Court found that the petitioner qualifies as an aggrieved person in a domestic relationship and the house is a shared household under the DV Act. 
• The DV Act is a beneficial and progressive legislation aimed at protecting women from domestic violence and upholding their constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and shelter. 
• The Court emphasized that the right to reside in a shared household exists irrespective of ownership, as per Section 17 of the DV Act. 
• The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022), affirming that actual residence with the abuser is not mandatory for seeking relief under the DV Act. 
• The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the petitioner has no right to reside in the shared household because she owns another property and lives at her parental home. 
• The respondents’ denial of a domestic relationship and claim that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person were found to be without merit. 
• The Court concluded that the respondents did commit acts of domestic violence and attempted to evict the petitioner and her children. 
• The Sessions Judge rightly restrained the respondents from committing further domestic violence or obstructing the petitioner’s peaceful residence in the shared household. 
• The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court’s judgment, and the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed as meritless. 

What is Right to Live in Shared Household? 

• Section 2 (s) defines “shared household”. 
• The definition of “shared household” is as follows: 
  • A shared household is any residence where the aggrieved person lives or has lived at any point in a domestic relationship. 
  • It includes properties that are owned or rented: 
    • Jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or 
    • By either of them individually. 
  • The aggrieved person or respondent may have any right, title, interest, or equity in the household, whether jointly or separately. 
  • It also includes households that belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member. 
  • The definition applies even if neither the respondent nor the aggrieved person has legal ownership or title in the household. 
  • In essence, the law ensures that a woman cannot be dispossessed from her marital or shared home merely on technical grounds of ownership or title. 
• Section 17 of DV Act provides for right to reside in a shared household. 
  • Section 17 (1) of DV Act is a non obstante clause which provides: 
    • Every woman who is in a domestic relationship has a legal right to reside in the shared household. 
    • This right exists regardless of her ownership, title, or any beneficial interest in the property. 
    • The provision applies notwithstanding any other law, meaning it overrides conflicting provisions in other laws. 
    • The law ensures that a woman cannot be evicted or excluded from her shared household solely because she does not own or have a share in the property. 
  • Section 17 (2) of DV Act provides that the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law. 
• Section 17 of DV Act provides that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. 
  • This provision was introduced to prevent a common form of abuse that is, displacement and dispossession of women from her marital home 
  • The right to residence recognise the importance of shelter and security as fundamental to a woman's dignity. 
  • This right is crucial for a woman's safety and dignity ensuring that she is not forcibly removed or homeless due to domestic abuse. 
  • This provision is crucial for the empowerment and protection of women and reflects this law's commitment to gender justice and human dignity.

What is the Landmark Judgment on Right to Live in Shared Household? 

• SR Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007, SC) 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that a wife does not have the right to reside in a property that exclusively belongs to her in-laws and in which her husband has no legal interest.  
  • The Court adopted a narrow interpretation of the term "shared household" under Section 17 of the DV Act and concluded that unless the property is either owned or rented by the husband, or jointly by the husband and wife, the wife cannot claim a right to reside there. 
• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021, SC) 
  • The Supreme Court overruled the earlier decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) and held that a wife can exercise her right to reside in the shared household even if the property is solely owned by her in-laws. 
  • The Court interpreted "shared household" under Section 17 to mean any household where the woman has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of whether she has any legal title or ownership interest in the premises. 
  • However, the Court clarified that the woman's residence must have some element of permanency and cannot be based on casual or temporary stays. 
• Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022, SC) 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the right to reside in a shared household by introducing the concept of “constructive residence.” 
  • The Court held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved woman to have actually lived with the respondents at the time of the alleged domestic violence.  
  • Even if the woman was forced out or excluded from the shared household, she still retains the right to reside there under Section 17 of the DV Act.  
  • The Court emphasized that the protection extends to widows, women separated judicially, divorced women, and even those with no ongoing marital relationship, thereby broadening the protective scope of the DV Act. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that enactment of a law by the Parliament or State Legislature does not amount to contempt of court unless it is declared unconstitutional. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh,(2025) Case ? 

• The case originated from two writ petitions filed in 2007 challenging the activities of the Salwa Judum movement in Chhattisgarh. The petitioners alleged that the Salwa Judum, a state-sponsored vigilante group formed to counter Maoist insurgency, was involved in serious human rights violations including killings, abductions, rapes and arson in Dantewada district.  
• The movement recruited Special Police Officers (SPOs) from local tribal communities and armed them to fight against Naxalites. 
• In 2011, the Supreme Court passed a comprehensive order directing the Chhattisgarh government to immediately cease using SPOs in anti-Maoist operations and disband groups like Salwa Judum. 
• The Court had also ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate incidents of violence and directed the state to provide security to former SPOs and rehabilitate affected persons. 
• Despite these directions, the Chhattisgarh government subsequently enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011. 
• The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging that this new legislation violated the Supreme Court's 2011 order and constituted contempt of court. 
• They argued that the Act essentially continued the same practices that the Court had prohibited, merely under a different name. 
• The petitioners also complained that the National Human Rights Commission had failed to comply with the Court's directions and that proper rehabilitation of victims had not been undertaken.  
• They sought enforcement of the Court's earlier orders and initiation of contempt proceedings against the state government for enacting the new law. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court firmly rejected the contention that enacting legislation could constitute contempt of court, emphasizing the fundamental principle of separation of powers.  
• The Court observed that every State Legislature possesses plenary powers to pass enactments, and such laws retain legal force unless declared unconstitutional by a competent court. 
• The bench clarified that while courts have interpretative powers to resolve doubts about legislative validity, this authority does not extend to treating the exercise of legislative functions as contempt of court. 
• The Court stressed that the core of legislative function includes the power to enact, amend, or even validate laws that have been struck down by constitutional courts. 
• Highlighting the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court noted that legislatures can pass laws to remove the basis of judicial decisions or modify struck-down enactments to comply with constitutional requirements. The bench emphasised that any legislative enactment can only be challenged on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not through contempt proceedings. 
• The Court disposed of both the writ petitions and contempt petition, finding that the original prayers had been crystallised in the 2011 order and compliance reports had been filed. 
• It concluded that the matters no longer survived for further judicial consideration, while maintaining that constitutional challenges to legislation must follow established legal procedures rather than contempt proceedings. 

What is Salwa Judum ? 

• Salwa Judum was formed in 2005 as a state-sponsored vigilante movement against the Naxalites, a far-left movement with Maoist ideology in some states in rural India that is designated by the government as a terrorist organisation on account of its violent activities. 
• Meaning "Peace March" or "Purification Hunt" in the language of the Gonds, the Salwa Judum was a militia specifically mobilised with the intention of countering the Naxalite violence in the Chhattisgarh region. 
• The militia consisted of local tribal youth, who received support and training from the Government of Chhattisgarh. Naxalite. 
• When the corporations Tata and Essar began their projects in 2005 to mine iron ore, the state launched Salwa Judum, evacuating 644 villages under the pretext of Maoist fear. At least 350,000 people were displaced.  
• The movement recruited Special Police Officers (SPOs) from local tribal communities and armed them to fight against Naxalites in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. However, the initiative was highly controversial due to allegations of human rights violations, including killings, abductions, rapes, and arson committed by Salwa Judum activists against local tribal populations. 

Supreme Court's Directions on Salwa Judum (2011) 

• Immediate Cessation of SPO Operations: The State of Chhattisgarh was directed to immediately cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any manner or form in activities aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities. 
• Ban on Central Funding: The Union of India was ordered to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/Naxalite groups. 
• Recovery of Firearms: The State was directed to make every effort to recall all firearms issued to any SPOs, whether current or former, along with all accessories and accoutrements, including guns, rifles, launchers of whatever calibre. 
• Protection of Former SPOs: Chhattisgarh was ordered to provide appropriate security and undertake necessary measures within constitutional bounds to protect the lives of those who had been employed as SPOs or given initial orders of selection or appointment from all forces, including Maoists/Naxalites. 
• Prevention of Vigilante Groups: The State was directed to take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, that seek to take law into private hands, act unconstitutionally or violate human rights, including investigation of all previously inappropriately investigated instances of alleged criminal activities and filing appropriate FIRs with diligent prosecution. 
• CBI Investigation: The Central Bureau of Investigation was ordered to immediately take over investigation of incidents of violence in March 2011 in villages Morpalli, Tadmetla and Timmapuram in Dantewada District, and incidents of violence against Swami Agnivesh and his companions during their visit to Chhattisgarh in March 2011. 

Constitutional Doctrines and Principles Applied 

• Doctrine of Separation of Powers  
  • Extensively discussed as the core principle governing legislative functions 
  • Applied to establish that legislatures have plenary powers to enact laws 
  • Used to demonstrate the principle of checks and balances under the Constitution 
• Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity  
  • Identified as the "twin prongs" for challenging any legislative enactment 
  • Established as the only permissible grounds for assailing the validity of legislation 
  • Distinguished from contempt proceedings as the appropriate legal remedy