List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

The Karnataka High Court in Suhas L v. The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others. (2025) established that civil courts cannot entertain suits seeking correction of entries in birth and death certificates, ruling that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 

What was the Background of Suhas L v. The Chief Registrar Case (2025)? 

• The appellant, Suhas L, instituted a suit seeking correction of his mother's name in her death certificate from "Smt. Latha B" to the correct name "Smt. Mallika B.V." 
• The plaintiff filed the suit against the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Government of Karnataka, and other BBMP officials, seeking a declaration and direction for correction of the death certificate. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit on 1st October 2022, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce adequate evidence and examine competent official witnesses from the hospital. 
• The respondent-authorities raised a jurisdictional objection, contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) and the statutory remedy available under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 
• Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred Regular First Appeal No. 2454 of 2024 before the Karnataka High Court. 
• The case presented fundamental questions regarding civil court jurisdiction when specialized statutory remedies exist for administrative corrections. 

What were the Court's Observations 

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum made several critical observations while dismissing the appeal: 

• On Exclusive Statutory Authority: Justice Magadum held that "Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 confers exclusive authority on the Registrar to carry out inquiries and effect corrections or cancellations of entries relating to births and deaths." 
• On Civil Court Jurisdiction Exclusion: The Court ruled that "the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code can be expressly or impliedly excluded by the Legislature by enacting a special law that provides for a specific remedy before a designated authority." 
• On Legislative Intent: Justice Magadum observed that "upon a plain reading of Section 15, it is manifest that the Legislature intended to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to correction of birth and death records, which are purely administrative in nature." 
• On Circuitous Legal Route: The Court criticized the approach, stating that "the plaintiff has unfortunately chosen a circuitous and time-consuming legal route, by filing a civil suit, instead of invoking the efficacious and summary remedy provided under the special statute." 
• On Registrar's Powers: The Court clarified that "the Registrar's powers are not confined to clerical or typographical errors but extend to substantive corrections as well, provided adequate evidence is produced." 

What is the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969? 

About: 

• The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is a comprehensive central legislation that mandates the registration of all births and deaths occurring in India and provides the legal framework for maintaining accurate vital statistics. 
• The Act was enacted to replace the earlier colonial-era legislation and create a uniform system of birth and death registration across the country, ensuring reliable demographic data for administrative and statistical purposes. 
• The legislation establishes a three-tier registration system consisting of Registrars at different levels - local, sub-district, and district - to ensure comprehensive coverage and proper maintenance of vital records. 
• The Act empowers state governments to frame rules for implementation, leading to state-specific registration rules like the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. 

Section 15 – Correction or Cancellation of Entry in the Register of Births and Deaths: 

• If the Registrar is satisfied that a birth or death entry in the register is erroneous (in form or substance) or has been fraudulently/improperly made, he may, following State Government rules, correct or cancel it. 
• The correction or cancellation must be made as a marginal note without altering the original entry, and the Registrar must sign it and mention the date of correction or cancellation. 

What is Section 9 of CPC? 

• Section 9 of CPC establishes the fundamental principle that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. 
• The provision states: "The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." 
• This creates a presumption in favor of civil court jurisdiction, but this presumption can be rebutted when special legislation provides alternative remedies and forums. 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Shailesh P. Brahme  held that a claimant appealing under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act may restrict the claim amount for court fee purposes at the initial stage and pay the deficit court fee only if the appeal succeeds. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the matter of Shivshankar v. Sanjay & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of Shivshankar v. Sanjay & Ors Case (2025) ? 

• Shivshankar, a 16-year-old minor son of Khandu Udtewar, met with a motor vehicle accident that resulted in injuries affecting his earning capacity. Through his father as guardian, he filed a compensation claim of Rs. 40,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal partially allowed his claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest. 
• Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred an appeal to the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. However, in the memorandum of appeal, he valued his claim at only Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of calculating court fees and paid Rs. 3,205/- as court fees accordingly. 
• The Registry raised an objection stating that the appellant was liable to pay court fees on the difference between the amount originally claimed (Rs. 40,00,000/-) and the amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs. 5,50,000/-). The Registry demanded an additional Rs. 24,410/- as deficit court fees, refusing to accept the restricted valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 
• Vilas Bayaji Thorve, a 69-year-old agriculturist, was involved in motor vehicle accident cases where he had purchased vehicles but had not registered them with the competent authority. The Claims Tribunal held him liable as the owner of the vehicles despite the lack of registration and passed awards against him. 
• Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision treating him as the owner when he was neither the registered owner nor the insurer, he preferred appeals. In the memorandum of appeal, he claimed the benefit of paying only half the ad valorem fees as provided under Section 7(2)(ii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, applicable to persons who are neither insurers nor owners. 
• The Registry objected to this claim and the Taxing Officer upheld the objection, directing him to pay full ad valorem fees instead of the concessional half fees. 
• All these cases involved a common legal question: whether appellants in motor vehicle accident cases can restrict the value of their claim in the memorandum of appeal for the purpose of calculating court fees, or whether they must pay court fees based on the full amount claimed or the difference between the original claim and the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 
• The matter was referred to the Taxing Officer who decided against the appellants, upholding the Registry's demand for full court fees. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants filed Civil Revision Applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act deliberately creates two categories - insurers/owners paying full fees versus accident victims paying half fees initially, reflecting compassionate legislative intent towards trauma victims. 
• The Court noted that the phrase "fee leviable on the amount at which the relief is valued" expressly permits appellants to restrict their claim value for court fees calculation, unlike provisions requiring payment on full difference amounts. 
• The Court observed that accident victims suffer immeasurable physical, mental, and financial trauma, with families facing additional emotional and social hardships when breadwinners die, justifying the concessional fee structure. 
• The Court noted that the concession is temporary - successful appellants must eventually pay deficit fees through the proviso mechanism, ensuring no permanent escape from full fee liability. 
• The Court observed that awarded compensation requires execution proceedings for realization, and claimants already bear full tribunal costs regardless of outcomes, supporting the need for initial relief. 
• The Court noted that Section 173(2) prevents frivolous appeals by barring disputes below Rs. 1,00,000/-, eliminating concerns about exploiting the fee concession. 
• The Court observed no legal distinction exists between appeals from complete versus partial claim rejections - both scenarios permit claim value restriction for fee purposes. 
• The Court concluded that both literal and purposive interpretation clearly permits claim restriction, finding no statutory prohibition and declaring the Taxing Officer's contrary approach legally unsustainable.

What is Section 166 of MVA ?

• Section 166 allows people to file applications seeking compensation for motor vehicle accidents. 
• Who can apply for compensation? 
  • Injured person - If you got hurt in an accident, you can apply yourself 
  • Property owner - If your property (like car, house, shop) got damaged, you can apply 
  • Family members - If someone died in the accident, their legal heirs (spouse, children, parents) can apply 
  • Authorized agent - Someone appointed by the injured person or family can apply on their behalf 
  • Special rule for death cases: If multiple family members exist but only some apply, they must include all other family members in the case as respondents (opposing parties). This ensures everyone's rights are protected. 
• Where to file the application?  
  • You have three options - file in any one of these places: 
    • Where accident happened - Claims Tribunal of that area 
    • Where you live - Claims Tribunal of your residence area 
    • Where defendant lives - Claims Tribunal where the person you're suing lives 
• What format to use? The application must be in the prescribed form with all required details as specified by rules. 
• If you're not claiming under Section 140 (no-fault liability), you must clearly state this in your application. 
• Automatic cases: When police send accident reports to Claims Tribunals, those reports are automatically treated as compensation applications. 
• Section 166 is the legal provision that allows accident victims or their families to formally ask for money compensation through the court system, with flexibility in choosing where to file and who can file the case.