List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar in the case of PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan (2025) granted relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, while rejecting the Vadagalai sect's (Northern cult) argument that this would infringe their rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan (2025) Case? 

About the Sects: 

• Both the Thengalai and Vadagalai sects are worshippers of Ramanujacharya, a Hindu philosopher, guru, and social reformer who was an important exponent of Vaishnavism in Hinduism. 
• The Thengalai sect follows the teachings of Manavala Mamunigal, while the Vadagalai sect follows the teachings of Vedanta Desikan, who were two different disciples of Ramanuja. 

History of the Dispute: 

• The dispute between the two sects concerned reciting verses praising their respective Gurus during ceremonial worship of God. 
• Litigations in 1882, 1915, 1939, and 1970 ended in favor of the Thengalai sect, allowing them to recite their Manthram and Prabandham during pooja services. 
• As per earlier litigations dating back to the 18th century, the southern cult was given rights of official performance of certain services to the deity. 

Present Litigation: 

• The present litigation was initiated by the Vadagalai sect, challenging a notice issued by the Executive Trustee of the temple. 
• The notice informed that only manthram of the Thengalai sect would be recited during pooja and that Vadagalai sect members could not occupy the first two rows in prayer recitation. 
• A single judge had allowed the Vadagalai sect to recite their prayer, noting that freedom of religion extended to rites and ceremonies associated with religion. 
• This order was later kept in abeyance by a division bench. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Office Holders vs. Ordinary Worshippers: 

• The Court noted that an ordinary worshipper who is not an office holder is not entitled to perform official services which are to be performed by office holders. 
• Ordinary devotees are entitled to worship God without interfering with the performance of official duties by office holders. 

On Fundamental Rights and Public Order: 

• The Court observed that allowing the northern cult to recite their manthra would affect public order, which was a reasonable restriction that could be imposed on the right to freedom of religion. 
• The Court noted that even in earlier litigations, the Vadagalai sect's right to religion was recognized and they were allowed to participate in pooja ceremonies as ordinary devotees. 
• The restriction imposed on members of the Vadagalai sect was only against chanting of manthra, which would come under the exception under Article 25(1) of the Constitution in view of public order. 

On Temple Atmosphere: 

• The Court emphasized that if individual worshippers were allowed to recite their own holy songs and poems loudly during ceremonial worship time, the conducive atmosphere in the temple would get vitiated and people would not be in a position to have peaceful worship. 
• The right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of office holders and to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the temple. 
• If such things are permitted, it will certainly affect the right to worship available to other devotees. 

On Maintaining Order During Ceremonial Worship: 

• The Court stated that to maintain public order during ceremonial worship of God in temple, only office holders shall be allowed to perform their duties and services. 
• Ordinary worshippers can only have glimpses of God, and if at all they can recite their holy verses within their mind without making any noise so as to affect the official service by office holders. 

Final Decision: 

• The Court set aside the single judge's order, as it interfered with the rights granted by way of earlier litigation. 
• The Court allowed the petitions filed by Thengalai sect seeking protection to perform the ceremonial functions. 

What are Articles 25 and 26 of the COI? 

Article 25 of COI: 

• This Article deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It states that-  

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law. 

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. 

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus  

Explanation I - The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion  

Explanation II - In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 

• It covers not only religious beliefs but also religious practices. 
• These rights are available to all persons—citizens as well as non-citizens.

Article 26 of COI: 

• Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. It states that subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- 

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; 

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; 

(c)  to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and 

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law 

• This Article protects collective freedom of religion.  
• The right guaranteed by Article 26 is the right of an organized body like the religious denomination or their sections.  
• The Supreme Court held that a religious denomination must satisfy the following three conditions:  
  • It should be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. 
  • It should have a common organization. 
  • It should be designated by a distinctive name. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa and Ors. (2025) addressed the custody dispute of a minor son between working parents, emphasizing that employment patterns, work-from-home arrangements, and minor travel distances to school should not be primary considerations in determining child custody. 

What was the Background of Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a custody dispute between Poonam Wadhwa (mother/appellant) and Ajay Wadhwa (father/respondent) concerning their minor son Arjun Wadhwa and daughter Arushi Wadhwa. 
• Initially, the lower court granted custody of Arjun to his mother when he was below 5 years of age through orders dated 30th July 2022 and 23rd September 2022. 
• The father filed a Revision Petition (CRR No.2069/2022) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the custody order. 
• On 1st July 2024, the High Court allowed the father's petition and set aside the lower court's orders, transferring Arjun's custody to his father. 
• The High Court based its decision on several factors including that the father (employed with Oracle) was working from home while the mother (Associate Manager at Virtusa, Gurugram) had long working hours at the office. 
• The High Court also considered the distance from Heritage School, Vasant Kunj to each parent's residence, suggesting the father's location was more convenient. 
• The High Court noted that the mother had traveled abroad during the peak Covid-19 period, terming it irresponsible conduct. 
• The custody of daughter Arushi remained with the mother as she preferred to stay with her. 
• The Supreme Court had attempted mediation under the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 25th November 2024, which proved unsuccessful. 
• On 21st August 2025, the Supreme Court interacted with both children and observed that Arjun and Arushi desperately wanted each other's company but did not want to separate from their respective parents. 
• The Court had stayed all proceedings between the parties for three months to allow reconciliation attempts, which ultimately failed. 
• The mother approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order, while the father filed an application seeking discharge of visitation rights that had been granted to the mother.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that working from home makes a parent better suited for custody, observing that both spouses often need to work to meet family aspirations and provide quality education for their children. 
• The Court held that employment patterns (work from home versus office work) and distance from home to school are not relevant considerations, particularly when both parents reside in the National Capital Region. 
• Despite finding errors in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court declined to interfere based on other considerations: Arjun was a male child now aged above 5 years who was not willing to part company with his father during interaction. 
• The Court noted that the father had elder family members at home, including Arjun's grandfather, providing additional support, and that Arjun's education at Heritage School continued undisturbed. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had not closed the custody issue permanently but left it open for the mother to seek custody through Family Court proceedings under relevant statutes. 
• The Court upheld the mother's visitation rights (12 noon Saturday to 6:00 PM Sunday) granted via earlier order dated 3rd May 2024 and rejected the father's application seeking discharge of these rights. 
• The appeal was dismissed while maintaining the mother's visitation rights, with the Court noting the child's welfare remained the paramount consideration. 

What is Child Custody? 

Definition and Concept: 

• The term 'custody' has not been defined in the Indian legal system. 
• The law governing custody of children is closely linked with guardianship. 
  • Guardianship refers to a bundle of rights and powers that an adult has concerning the person and property of a minor. 
  • Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, 'guardian' is defined as "a person having the care of the person of a minor or his property or of both his person and property" 
• Custody is a narrower concept relating to the upbringing and day-to-day care and control of the minor. 

Major Laws Governing Child Custody: 

Hindu Law: 

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 26):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders concerning custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
  • Courts must consider the wishes of the children. 
  • Courts can revoke, suspend, or modify any interim orders passed earlier. 
• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HAMA):  
  • Provides law relating to minorities and guardianship among Hindus. 
  • Provides for natural as well as testamentary guardians. 

Muslim Law: 

• Islamic law was the first law to differentiate between custody and guardianship. 
• The father is the natural guardian but custody vests with the mother until:  
  • Son reaches the age of seven. 
  • Daughter reaches puberty. 
• Concept of Hizanat: Mother is the most suited to have custody of children up to a certain age, both during marriage and after its dissolution. 

Parsi Law: 

• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Section 49):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders for custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
• Guardianship for Parsi children is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 

Christian Law: 

• Divorce Act, 1869 (Section 41):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders for custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
• Guardianship for Christian children is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 

Secular Laws: 

• Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Section 38):  
  • Provides for custody of children. 
  • Empowers district courts to pass interim orders concerning custody, maintenance, and education of minor children, considering their wishes. 
  • Courts can make, vary, revoke, or suspend earlier passed orders. 
• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA):  
  • A secular law applicable to all citizens regardless of religion. 
  • Before this Act, there was no all-India Act dealing with guardianship of minors. 
  • Comprehensive law laying down all rights and obligations of guardians. 
  • Provides procedure for removal and replacement of guardians. 
  • Provides remedies for misconduct by guardians.

Paramount Consideration: Welfare of Child 

• In all statutes (personal or secular), the principle of "welfare of the child" has been recognized except in Islamic law. 
• The judiciary considers welfare and wishes of child while granting custody. 
• There is no straitjacket formula for what constitutes welfare of child. 
• It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Courts must weigh all factors including:  
  • Financial condition 
  • Moral behaviour 
  • Mental stability 
  • Family support 
  • Surroundings 
  • Child's wish