List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that res judicata is a matter for trial and not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC).  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and Another, (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant purchased disputed property from Mr. Hussain Babu in 1998, who had previously acquired it from Ms. Jayam Ammal in 1991. The appellant claimed to be in peaceful possession of the property when circumstances arose that led to the present litigation. 
• While in possession, the appellant discovered that an advocate-commissioner was seeking to inspect his property. Upon inquiry, he learned that defendant No. 1, claiming to be a co-owner, had filed a partition suit against Ms. Jayam Ammal and others in O.S. No. 298 of 1996 and had secured an ex parte decree dated 29.07.1997 in his favour. 
• The appellant alleged that Ms. Jayam Ammal died immediately after the suit was filed, and her daughter Selvi did not contest the proceedings, allowing the suit to proceed ex parte. Hussain Babu, who was the third defendant in the earlier suit, was reportedly in Abu Dhabi and believed that Selvi would defend the case and protect the purchaser's interests. 
• The appellant contended that the ex parte decree was obtained fraudulently and collusively. He specifically alleged that defendant No. 1 committed fraud by filing the suit in the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, which lacked territorial jurisdiction, when the suit should have been filed in the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, based on the location of the disputed properties. 
• Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted O.S. No. 60 of 2009 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming the ex parte decree was not binding on him. The defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the suit was barred by res judicata since the earlier ex parte decree had attained finality. 
• The appellant argued that he was not a party to the earlier suit and therefore the principle of res judicata would not apply to him. He maintained that the ex parte decree was collusive and that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act could not be attracted to his case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, courts can only examine plaint averments and accompanying documents, not defendant's defence or documents. 
•  The Court held that res judicata adjudication exceeds Order VII, Rule 11 scope as it requires examining pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits. 
• The Court noted that res judicata determination requires establishing: (i) previous suit decided, (ii) issues directly and substantially in issue in former suit, (iii) same parties or parties claiming through them under same title, and (iv) issues finally adjudicated by competent court. 
• The Court emphasised that allegations of collusive ex parte decree, jurisdictional fraud, or bonafide purchaser status require in-depth examination and detailed analysis of previous decree's impact. 
•  The Court observed that res judicata cannot be decided on mere assertions in plaint rejection applications and that cause of action similarity determination requires trial with first suit documents analysis, not speculation or inference. 
• The Supreme Court noted the Trial Court failed to consider or analyse appellant's plaint case and disagreed with its approach in rejecting the appellant's objection. 
• The Court held that res judicata objection cannot bar suits under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly given specific averments about ex parte decree, transaction circumstances, and declaration prayer. 
• Merits Reserved: The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on whether the ex parte decree would operate as res judicata, keeping all defendant grounds, including res judicata, open for final trial determination. 

Can the Plea of Res Judicata Be a Ground for Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 

• Res Judicata Principle: Section 11 of CPC establishes that no court shall try any suit where the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, in a competent court that heard and finally decided the matter. 
• Order VII Rule 11 Scope: Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances, including where the suit appears from the plaint's statement to be barred by any law, with the court limited to examining only plaint averments and accompanying documents. 
• Jurisdictional Conflict: While res judicata (Section 11) can bar suits as a matter of law under Order VII Rule 11(d), the Supreme Court held that determining res judicata requires examining pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits, which exceeds the limited scope of plaint rejection applications. 
• Procedural Limitation: The Court established that res judicata adjudication involves complex factual and legal analysis of previous litigation, party relationships, and issue identity, which cannot be conclusively determined merely from plaint statements without detailed examination of prior proceedings. 
• Judicial Precedent: Following precedents in Srihari Hanumandas Totala and Keshav Sood cases, the Supreme Court clarified that res judicata pleas should be decided during trial where complete documentation and evidence from former suits can be properly analysed, not summarily disposed of under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Practical Application: The Court emphasised that res judicata cannot be determined through speculation or inference but requires substantive trial examination, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in previous proceedings. 

Case Laws 

• Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors.(2021): 
  • Establish guiding principles that res judicata adjudication is beyond Order VII, Rule 11 scope, requiring consideration of pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits. 
• V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava (2004): 
  • The Court held that identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed, emphasising that res judicata cannot be speculative. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) can be granted only upon the breach of an enforceable legal obligation, and not when the claimant has failed to comply with policy conditions.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi Case (2025). 

What was the Background of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (2025) Case ? 

• The case arose from land acquisition proceedings where the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) acquired lands from various landowners for the development of residential sectors. Under HUDA's 1992 policy, the displaced landowners (oustees) were entitled to rehabilitation through alternative plot allotments at 1992 rates, subject to compliance with specific procedural requirements. 
• The 1992 policy mandated that oustees must submit applications in the prescribed format and deposit 10% of the earnest money as mandatory conditions for claiming rehabilitation benefits. The policy specified that plots would be offered to oustees if 75% or more of their total land in that sector was acquired, with plot sizes determined based on the area of land acquired. 
• Multiple oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking mandatory injunctions to compel HUDA to allot plots under the 1992 policy. However, the respondent-oustees had failed to comply with the procedural requirements - they neither submitted applications in the prescribed format nor deposited the requisite 10% earnest money as mandated by the policy. 
• Some plaintiffs approached the courts approximately 15 years after the 1992 policy was announced, without having fulfilled the essential conditions of precedent. HUDA contested these suits, arguing that the oustees had no legal right to claim allotment since they had failed to comply with the mandatory policy conditions, thereby waiving their entitlement to rehabilitation benefits. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and can only be granted upon breach of an enforceable legal obligation. The Court cannot grant mandatory injunction unless there exists a legal right and there is a breach of that legal right. 
• The Court emphasized that mandatory injunction is a discretionary and exceptional remedy, which should only be granted when there is a clear breach of duty or obligation, the plaintiff has fully complied with necessary conditions to claim the benefit, and the equities of the case favour the plaintiff. 
• The Court established that breach of obligation and performance of compulsion must be specifically established before granting mandatory injunction. The plaintiff must satisfy the court through appropriate pleadings and cogent evidence that the defendant is committing breach of a particular obligation binding upon them. 
• The Court summarized six essential conditions for granting mandatory injunction: (i) clear obligation on defendant's part, (ii) breach of that obligation, (iii) necessity to compel performance, (iv) enforceability by court, (v) balance of convenience favouring the applicant, and (vi) irreparable injury not compensable monetarily. 
• Applying these principles, the Court found that respondents had no enforceable legal right since they failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements of submitting prescribed applications and depositing earnest money. Consequently, HUDA had no corresponding legal obligation to allot plots. 
• The Court observed that when a scheme specifically mandates filing applications in specified format with requisite earnest money deposit, compliance becomes part of the oustee's obligation before calling upon the State for plot allotment. 
• The Court noted this litigation serves as an eye-opener for all States, cautioning that rehabilitation schemes over and above monetary compensation should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity, and are not mandatory in all land acquisition cases.

What are the Conditions for Mandatory Injunction by Supreme Court? 

• Obligation: There must be a clear obligation on the part of the defendant. 
• Breach: A breach of that obligation must have occurred or be reasonably apprehended 
• Necessity: It must be necessary to compel the performance of specific acts to prevent or rectify the breach. 
• Enforceability: The court must be able to enforce the performance of those acts. 
• Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience must be in favour of the party seeking the injunction. 
• Irreparable Injury: The injury or damage caused by the breach must be irreparable or not adequately compensable in monetary terms. 

What is Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? 

Legal Provisions and Requirements: 

• Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers courts to grant mandatory injunctions to prevent breach of obligations and compel performance of requisite acts, subject to the court's discretion. 
• The provision requires the existence of a clear, specific, and legally binding obligation whose breach is to be prevented through judicial intervention. 
• There must be actual breach or reasonable apprehension of breach of the obligation, with the acts whose performance is sought being capable of enforcement by the court. 

Essential Conditions: 

• The performance of such acts must be necessary to prevent the complained breach, with direct nexus between the acts sought to be compelled and prevention of the obligation's breach. 
• A mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy granted only when ordinary legal remedies prove inadequate, and the plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with all condition's precedent. 
• The court exercises discretion based on established equitable principles including balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and adequacy of damages, making it not a matter of right but dependent upon judicial assessment of merits and equitable considerations.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that "Article 19 can't prevail over Article 21" while hearing cases involving comedians accused of making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities, emphasizing that the right to dignity cannot be compromised in the name of free speech. 

• The Supreme Court made this observation in consolidated matters including M/s SMA Cure Foundation v. Union of India & Others (2025) and related petitions. 

What was the Background of M/s SMA Cure Foundation v. Union of India & Others (2025) Case ? 

• The case originated from complaints against renowned comediana for making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities. 
• M/s SMA Cure Foundation filed a petition accusing the comedians of mocking persons with disabilities (PwDs) during their performances. 
• The controversy emerged from the "India's Got Latent" show, leading to multiple FIRs being lodged against the comedians and related YouTubers. 
• The two YouTubers filed separate petitions seeking clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with the controversy. 
• The Court had previously described some of the content as "dirty, perverted" and expressed concerns about regulating obscene content on social media platforms. 
• The case raised fundamental questions about the balance between free speech and dignity of vulnerable sections of society. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that "Article 19 can't overpower Article 21. Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place." 
• The Court stressed that the right to dignity emanates from Article 21 and cannot be compromised for the sake of free speech under Article 19. 
• Justice Kant observed that the Court was inviting all stakeholders for an "open debate" on guidelines to prevent abuse of free speech while maintaining constitutional balance. 
• The Court noted that "Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined" and described the Foundation's concerns as raising a "serious issue." 
• The bench emphasized that any guidelines must be "in conformity with constitutional principles" and should comprise both freedom and duties. 
• The Court warned that the framework being developed should not be misused by anyone in future, stating "What we are doing is for posterity." 
• The Court mandated personal appearance of the comedians, warning that their absence would be viewed seriously. 

What is Article 19 of the Constitution? 

About: 

• Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all citizens, including the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). 
• The Article provides that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. 
• Article 19(2) empowers the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 
• The freedom is not absolute and can be regulated by law, but any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonableness.

Landmark Cases: 

• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): 
  • First case to interpret Article 19(1)(a) and established that pre-censorship of newspapers violated freedom of speech. 
  • The Court held that freedom of speech is the foundation of democratic government and cannot be curtailed except under Article 19(2).
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 
  • Established the "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable. 
  • Connected with Article 19 and Article 21, showing they are not mutually exclusive but complementary. 
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): 
  • It is held that prior restraint on speech is presumptively unconstitutional. 
  • Established that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): 
  • Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 
  • Reinforced that online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

About:  

• Article 21 provides that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity as an integral part of the right to life. 
• The right to dignity has been recognized as a fundamental aspect of Article 21 in numerous judgments. 
• The Court has held that dignity is the core of human rights and forms the foundation of many other fundamental rights. 
• Article 21 has been interpreted to include various rights such as right to privacy, right to reputation, right to livelihood, and right to live in a pollution-free environment. 
• The provision applies to all persons (not just citizens) and cannot be suspended even during emergency.

Landmark Cases: 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): 
  • Initially gave a narrow interpretation to Article 21, limited to physical detention. 
  • Later overruled by Maneka Gandhi case for broader interpretation.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 
  • Revolutionary judgment that expanded Article 21 to include right to live with dignity. 
  • Established that "life" means more than mere animal existence and includes all facets that make life meaningful.
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): 
  • Further expanded Article 21 to include right to live with human dignity. 
  • It is held that right to life includes right to live with basic human dignity.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): 
  • Established that right to livelihood is part of right to life under Article 21. 
  • "No person can live without means of living, that is, means of livelihood."
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • Recognized workplace sexual harassment as violation of Article 21. 
  • Established that right to life includes right to live with dignity, especially for women.