List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision in the landlord-tenant dispute, modifying only the interest rate from 8% to 6%, and directed the tenant to pay the dues within 3 months, while calling upon the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to address delays in similar pending cases. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Mohit Suresh Harchandrai V. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Mohit Suresh Harchandrai V. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (2025) Case? 

• Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (HOCL), a public sector undertaking, initially leased premises at 'Harchandrai House', 81/A Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai, comprising ground floor and second floor totalling 7,825 square feet built-up area. 
• The original lease agreement was executed for three years from 1st April 1962 to 31st March 1966, with monthly rent of Rs. 10,955 and administrative charges of Rs. 55,557 per month. 
• Upon expiry of the lease in March 1966, HOCL continued occupying the premises as a monthly tenant without executing a fresh lease agreement. 
• This landlord-tenant relationship persisted uninterrupted for 34 years until the landlords served a termination notice on 25th April 2000. 
• HOCL lost its statutory protection under rent control laws due to provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which removed special protection for public sector undertakings. 
• Following the termination notice, landlords Mohit Suresh Harchandrai and others filed an eviction suit on 2nd September 2000 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai (T.E & R Suit No. 122/152 of 2000). 
• The Small Causes Court decreed eviction in April 2009, directing HOCL to vacate within three months and pay mesne profits from 1st June 2000 until possession restoration. 
• HOCL's appeal against the eviction order was dismissed in August 2012, and their subsequent revision petition was rejected by the High Court in May 2013. 
• HOCL finally vacated the premises and handed over possession to the landlords on 23rd April 2014, ending over five decades of occupation. 
• The primary dispute centred on determining the appropriate per square foot rate for calculating mesne profits during the period of unauthorised occupation from June 2000 to April 2014. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court expressed deep concern that the landlord-tenant dispute had remained in judicial forums for over two-and-a-half decades, with landlords receiving monetary benefits only after a quarter-century had passed since initiating termination proceedings in 2000. 
• The Court observed that in landlord-tenant disputes, there exists a dual dimension of deprivation - landlords suffer from loss of property enjoyment and monetary benefits, while tenants face the burden of paying substantial accumulated amounts within short timeframes when matters are finally decreed. 
• The Court emphasised that being a government entity or public sector undertaking does not entitle a tenant to any special consideration or extra treatment, and such entities stand on equal footing with private tenants in legal proceedings. 
• The Court noted that while litigation delays are sometimes attributable to the parties themselves, judicial forums also bear responsibility for prolonged dispute resolution, and courts of law and justice are duty-bound to ensure no party suffers due to systemic delays. 
• The Court acknowledged that delayed adjudication in such disputes creates a lose-lose situation where both landlords and tenants bear the brunt - landlords through deprivation of property rights and monetary dues, and tenants through accumulated financial obligations. 
• The Court directed the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to investigate pendency periods in landlord-tenant disputes across concerned courts and issue appropriate directions for expeditious disposal if similar instances of inordinate delay are identified. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Decree for Possession and Mesne Profits 

• Sub-rule (1) empowers courts in suits for recovery of possession of immovable property and rent or mesne profits to pass comprehensive decrees covering multiple aspects of the dispute. 
• Clause (a) permits courts to decree possession of the property itself, establishing the primary relief sought in eviction proceedings. 
• Clause (b) enables courts to decree payment of rents accrued prior to suit institution or direct enquiry into such rents, covering pre-litigation monetary claims. 
• Clause (ba) specifically addresses mesne profits by allowing courts to either decree fixed amounts or direct enquiry proceedings to determine compensation for unauthorised occupation. 
• Clause (c) provides for ongoing enquiry into rent or mesne profits from suit institution until one of three specified events occurs - delivery of possession to decree-holder, relinquishment by judgment-debtor with court notice, or expiration of three years from decree date. 
• Sub-rule (2) mandates that where enquiry is directed under clauses (b) or (c), a final decree regarding rent or mesne profits must be passed based on enquiry results, ensuring comprehensive resolution of monetary claims. 

Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Power of Superintendence over Courts by High Court 

• Clause (1) vests every High Court with superintendence authority over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, establishing hierarchical judicial oversight. 
• Clause (2)(a) empowers High Courts to call for returns from subordinate courts, enabling monitoring of judicial administration and case management. 
• Clause (2)(b) grants High Courts authority to make general rules and prescribe forms for regulating practice and proceedings in subordinate courts, ensuring uniformity in judicial processes. 
• Clause (2)(c) permits High Courts to prescribe formats for maintaining books, entries and accounts by court officers, standardising administrative procedures. 
• Clause (3) allows High Courts to settle fee tables for sheriffs, clerks, officers, attorneys, advocates and pleaders, subject to consistency with existing laws and Governor's approval. 
• Clause (4) specifically excludes Armed Forces courts and tribunals from High Court superintendence, recognising military justice system's autonomous character. 

Case Law Precedents: 

• Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar (HUF) v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai, (2024) This Supreme Court decision was extensively relied upon for principles governing payment of mesne profits in landlord-tenant disputes. 
• Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh, (2005) This precedent established that tenants are liable to pay rent equivalent to mesne profits from the date they cease to be entitled to retain possession, and such entitlement cannot be pegged to standard rent. 
• Achal Misra (2) v. Rama Shanker Singh, (2006) - This subsequent decision reiterated the legal position regarding mesne profits liability for unauthorised occupation. 
• Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005)  This case was referenced to support the principle that landlords' entitlement to mesne profits is not restricted to standard rent rates when tenants have ceased to have legal right to possession. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that birth certificate should be issued with a modification by removing the columns set apart for the names of Father and Mother and by incorporating the names of the petitioners as the parents, without referring to the gender of the petitioners. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the case of Zahhad and others v. State of Kerala and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Zahhad and others v. State of Kerala and others (2025) Case?   

• The writ petition raises an important issue regarding the rights of transgender parents and the gender identity information recorded on their child’s birth certificate. 
• The 1st petitioner was born female but later identified as male and obtained a transgender identity card and Aadhar card reflecting the change in gender. 
• The 2nd petitioner was born male but later identified as female and also obtained a transgender identity card and an Aadhar card reflecting the gender transition. 
• The 1st petitioner, who is a trans-man, gave birth to a baby boy on 08.02.2023 at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. 
• The child’s birth was registered with the Kozhikode Corporation, and the birth certificate listed the 1st petitioner as the mother and the 2nd petitioner as the father. 
• The petitioners are concerned that the birth certificate misrepresents their current gender identities and that this could lead to problems for their child in future areas like education or employment. 
• They requested the Kozhikode Corporation to issue a new birth certificate showing both parents simply as "parents" without mentioning gender. 
• The Corporation rejected the request, stating that under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Kerala Rules, 1999, the certificate must follow Form 5, which includes fields for “mother” and “father.” 
• The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Forms 1, 3, 5, and 7 and relevant rules be read down to allow for changes in name and gender identity on birth certificates. 
• Respondents 2 and 3 argued that the petitioners cannot claim protection under the Transgender Persons Act since the child is not transgender. 
• Respondents 5 and 6 maintained that they are bound by the existing legal framework and cannot issue certificates in any format other than what is prescribed. 
• The central legal issue is the tension between the statutory form of birth registration and the constitutional and statutory recognition of self-identified gender under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (TP Act).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Respondents opposed the reliefs on the ground that the existing legal framework under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Kerala Rules, 1999 requires mandatory mention of "father" and "mother" in the birth certificate. 
• The petitioners argued that recording them as mother and father contradicts their legally recognized gender identities and would likely cause future prejudice to their child. 
• The Court accepted that the apprehensions raised by the petitioners are genuine and cannot be disregarded, especially because their current gender identity is legally recognized under the TP Act. 
• The Court noted that the identity of the child is inherently linked to that of the parents, and although the child is not a transgender person, the protections of the Transgender Persons Act have relevance in this case. 
• The Court emphasized that law must evolve with society, and since the 1969 Act was enacted in a binary gender framework, it did not foresee issues arising from transgender parenthood, which have gained legal recognition post the NALSA judgment and the 2019 Act. 
• The Court observed that despite the constitutional and statutory recognition of transgender persons, no corresponding updates have been made in the 1969 Act or Rules to reflect these developments. 
• The Court invoked the doctrine of "social context adjudication" to interpret the law in a way that promotes social justice and protects the rights of transgender persons. 
• The Court held that since the matter involves a personal issue of birth certificate issuance and does not affect third parties or institutions, a rigid technical interpretation of the law is unwarranted. 
• The Court clarified that the purpose of maintaining birth records is to preserve accurate and essential identity documents, not to impose outdated gender classifications. 
• The Court found that recording both petitioners simply as "parents" on the child’s birth certificate would not defeat the purpose of the Act and is a necessary modification in the interest of justice. 
• The Court directed the Kozhikode Corporation to issue a new birth certificate in Form 5, replacing the "father" and "mother" columns with a single column listing both petitioners as "parents," without indicating gender. 
• The Court clarified that this modification applies only to the birth certificate and not to the official register entries, which need not be altered.

What are the Rights of Transgender Persons?

• The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) recognized hijras and transgender persons as the “third gender” under the Constitution. 
  • The Court upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as male, female, or third gender. 
  • The Court directed governments to provide legal recognition, reservation, healthcare, public facilities, and social welfare schemes for transgender persons. 
  • The judgment emphasized that insisting on sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for gender recognition is illegal and immoral. 
  • The Court urged awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and ensure transgender persons are treated with dignity and respect. 
• Following this, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted to prohibit discrimination and ensure rights of transgender individuals.

What are the Landmark Judgments Discussed in the Case?

• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others (2013) 
  • The traditional notion of a family as a fixed unit with a mother, father, and children is outdated and narrow. 
  • Families can change due to circumstances like death, divorce, separation, remarriage, adoption, or fostering. 
  • Family structures may include single parents, domestic partnerships, and queer relationships. 
  • These non-traditional families are equally real and valid as traditional ones. 
  • The law must protect and extend social welfare benefits to all family forms, not just conventional ones. 
  • Women who embrace motherhood in unconventional ways also deserve equal legal recognition and support. 
• ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 
  • The Supreme Court recognized the difficulties faced by a single parent in obtaining a birth certificate for her child without including the father's name. 
  • The Court emphasized that the absence of a birth certificate can cause serious problems for the child in the future. 
  • It observed that while courts have already ruled that the father’s name is not mandatory for school admission or obtaining a passport, a birth certificate is still often required in such cases. 
  • The Court stated that the law must evolve with changing societal realities and address new legal challenges accordingly. 
  • The identity of the mother is never in question, and therefore, requiring only an affidavit from a single or unwed mother should suffice for issuing a birth certificate. 
  • The authorities must issue the birth certificate based on such an affidavit unless a court has issued a contrary order. 
  • The Court reiterated that it is the State’s responsibility to ensure that no citizen faces hardship due to non-registration of birth by the parents. 
  • The ruling applies broadly and is not limited only to the facts or parties of the present case.