List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others (2025) set aside the High Court's direction for DNA testing, holding that the statutory presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)  remained unrebutted and DNA testing was neither necessary nor proportionate to the criminal investigation. 

What was the Background of R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others (2025) Case? 

• Respondent No.1 (Kamar Nisha) married Abdul Latheef in 2001, who subsequently approached the appellant (Dr. R. Rajendran) for treatment of a skin ailment. 
• The appellant allegedly developed physical relations with Respondent No.1, resulting in the birth of a child on March 8, 2007, during the subsistence of her valid marriage with Abdul Latheef. 
• According to Respondent No.1, Abdul Latheef deserted her when the child was approximately one and a half years old after learning of the extramarital relationship. 
• Respondent No.1 appeared on a Tamil TV channel program publicly narrating her complaint, which led to registration of FIR No. 233/2014 against the appellant for offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. 
• The Police sought directions for DNA profiling of the appellant, Respondent No.1, and the child, but the appellant refused to comply. 
• Respondent No.1 filed multiple writ petitions seeking transfer of investigation and DNA testing, with the High Court ultimately directing the appellant to undergo DNA profiling. 
• The birth certificate, school transfer certificate, and school admission record all recorded Abdul Latheef as the father of the child. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Section 112: Conclusive Presumption of Legitimacy: 

• The Court emphasized that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during valid marriage, which can be rebutted only by strong evidence proving "non-access" (impossibility of sexual relations) between spouses during conception. 

DNA Testing Cannot Be Ordered as Matter of Course: 

The Court held that DNA testing requires satisfaction of "twin blockades": 

• Insufficiency of existing evidence to maintain presumption of legitimacy. 
• Positive finding that DNA test serves best interests of all parties. 

Respondent Failed to Establish Non-Access: 

• The Court found that the child was born during valid marriage, with statutory presumption operating in Abdul Latheef's favor as legitimate father. 
• No material established that Abdul Latheef was physically absent during the conception period, and there was complete absence of specific pleading establishing non-access between the spouses. 
• At most, this was a case of simultaneous access, which does not negate the husband's access or displace the presumption. 

Right to Privacy Under Article 21: 

• Forcefully subjecting individuals to DNA testing constitutes grave intrusion upon privacy protected under Article 21, which must satisfy the threefold test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. 
• Respondent No.1's willingness to waive her privacy does not extend to waiving the appellant's and child's independent privacy rights. 

Paternity Collateral to Criminal Charges: 

• The Court held that paternity is collateral to the primary allegations of cheating and harassment, and DNA testing must have direct nexus with offences under investigation. 
• The Court rejected drawing adverse inference under Section 114 for refusing DNA testing, as the statutory presumption under Section 112 remained unrebutted. 

What is DNA Testing? 

About:  

• DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) testing is a scientific method that analyzes genetic material to determine biological relationships, particularly paternity and maternity. 
• DNA testing involves comparing genetic markers between individuals to establish biological connections with over 99% accuracy in paternity cases. 
• The test can be conducted using various samples including blood, saliva, hair follicles, or cheek swabs. 

Types of DNA Tests: 

• Paternity Testing: Determines biological father of a child. 
• Maternity Testing: Establishes biological mother (rare cases). 
• Kinship Testing: Determines relationships between relatives. 
• Identity Testing: Used in criminal investigations and mass disasters.

What is Section 112 of IEA?

Section 112 - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.

• The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that s/he is the legitimate daughter/son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
• This provision is contained in Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others (2025) dismissed appeals challenging the High Court's decision to set aside an execution order, emphasizing that decree-holders must provide cogent proof of violation rather than relying on mere presumptions. 

What was the Background of Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others (2025) Case? 

• The dispute involved two sections of the Kuruba community in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh over custody of idols and performance of rituals related to Lord Sangalappa Swamy. 
• The litigation began nearly a century ago with O.S. No. 486 of 1927, seeking custody of religious articles including bronze horses and idols. 
• After initial dismissals, parties filed O.S. No. 15 of 1933 under Section 92 CPC for proper endowment management. 

The 1933 Compromise Decree: 

• On November 1, 1933, parties arrived at a compromise with two key clauses:  
  • Clause (1): Respondents would pay Rs. 2,000/- towards pooja expenses; failure would result in loss of pooja rights. 
  • Clause (2): Both groups would appoint two trustees each; idols would alternate between villages for six months each; pooja would rotate every three months. 

Revival and Execution 

• In 1999, appellants alleged respondents refused to rotate idols as per the decree. 
• Appellants filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000. 
• The Executing Court held the petition maintainable and on September 13, 2005, directed respondents to return idols within one month. 
• The High Court, through its judgment dated January 6, 2012, set aside the execution order, finding no proof of violation of the compromise decree despite the petition being maintainable and within limitation.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that in execution petitions, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to prove that the judgment debtor has wilfully disobeyed the decree conditions. 
• The appellants failed to establish violation through cogent evidence; findings based on presumption cannot replace proof. 
• The parties in the execution proceedings were not parties to the original 1933 suit, and their testimonies consisted of bare assertions without independent witnesses or documentary proof. 
• PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that there were no accounts of temple income, no sharing of income, and he was unaware of any Rs. 2,000/- payment to ancestors. 
• The Court noted that Clause (1) indicated appellants had possession in 1933, and no evidence showed possession ever passed to respondents. 
• The non-payment of Rs. 2,000/- by respondents supported the contention that the compromise was never acted upon. 
• No evidence showed compliance with Clause (2) requiring trustee appointments and account maintenance. 
• When facts are especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving those facts rests on them. 
• The Executing Court erred in allowing execution based on mere presumption without proof. 
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeals. 

Who is a Decree Holder? 

Decree Holder: 

• Section 2(3) of CPC defines the term decree holder.  
• Decree holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.  
• The term decree holder denotes a person: 
  • In whose favour a decree has been passed. 
  • In whose favour an order capable of execution has been made. 
  • Whose name appears in the decree, either as plaintiff or defendant and the following conditions are satisfied: 
    • The decree must be capable of execution.  
    • The said person, by the terms of the decree itself or from its nature, should be legally entitled to seek its execution. 
• In Ajudhia Prasad v. The UP Govt. through the Collector (1947), the Allahabad High Court considered the scope of the expression decree holder. The Court held that it is clear from this that a person in whose favour an order capable of execution has been made is also a decree holder.  
  • It is also evident from this definition that a decree-holder need not be a party to the suit.   

Holder of Decree and Decree Holder: 

• Though the terms of decree holder and holder of decree appear to be identical but there is a legal distinction between the two terms.  
  • The term holder of a decree used in Order XXI Rule 10 of CPC is very wide and it not only encompasses decree holder but also considers the transferee of a decree and the legal representative of the decree-holder. It takes into consideration the parties other than whose name appears on the decree. 
  • Whereas the term decree holder includes any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.