List of Current Affairs

Source: Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in the case of X & Anr. v. Union of India and Others (2025) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021 (ART Act, 2021) which prescribes age limits for accessing ART services in India. 

What was the Background of X & Anr. v/s Union of India and Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners were a married couple who sought to challenge the age restrictions under the ART Act 2021. 
• After being unable to conceive naturally, the petitioners commenced medical consultations for an Assisted Reproductive procedure in 2020. 
• The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted their course of treatment, causing delays in their ART journey. 
• After the procedure did not yield a successful outcome in one hospital, the petitioners approached another hospital in 2024 to avail ART services. 
• On March 13, 2024, the hospital declined to treat the petitioners on the ground that they did not meet the age-eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act 2021. 
• The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21(g), arguing it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petitioners contended that the rigid age-based exclusion failed to account for individual medical assessments and was arbitrary and disproportionate. 
• The petitioners argued that since they had commenced treatment prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act, the subsequent statutory restriction ought not to be applied to them. 
• The respondents contended that the ART Act 2021 constitutes a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing ethical, medical, and societal concerns related to assisted reproduction. 
• The respondents argued that age limits are founded on scientific evidence relating to maternal health risks, foetal outcomes, and child welfare. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench observed that while the right to make reproductive choices forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), this protection does not render every personal choice immune from regulation. 
• The Court stated that constitutional rights, particularly in the domain of social welfare and public health, operate within a framework of permissible regulation. 
• The Court held that Section 21(g) prescribes an upper age limit based on considerations of medical science, ethical standards, and the welfare of both the woman undergoing treatment and the child to be born, which fall squarely within the legislative domain. 
• The Court noted that a statute enacted by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality and the burden of establishing unconstitutionality lies heavily upon the challenger. 
• The Court held that economic and social welfare legislations are entitled to judicial deference, particularly where the classification adopted has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 
• The bench found that the age-based classification under Section 21(g) applies uniformly to all intending couples, is founded on an intelligible differential, and bears a direct nexus to the regulation of ART services in a safe, ethical, and socially responsible manner. 
• The Court held that the law applicable on the date when eligibility is considered must govern access to statutory benefits, even if earlier attempts failed prior to the enactment of the Act. 
• The bench stated that carving out individual exemptions on grounds of hardship or medical fitness would amount to substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy, which would traverse beyond the permissible limit of constitutional adjudication. 
• The Court concluded that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 withstands constitutional scrutiny and does not infringe Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petition was dismissed. 

What is the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021? 

About: 

• The ART Act 2021 is a comprehensive regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive technology services in India. 
• The Act was enacted to address ethical, medical, and societal concerns related to ART practices. 
• It aims to regulate and supervise ART clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse, and protect the rights of parties involved in ART procedures. 

Section 21(g) – Age Eligibility Criteria: 

• Under Section 21(g) of the ART Act 2021, ART services can be provided to women who are above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years. 
• For men, ART services are available to those above the age of 21 years and below the age of 55 years. 
• This provision was enacted to ensure the well-being of both the mother and the child. 
• The age limits are founded on scientific evidence relating to maternal health risks, foetal outcomes, and child welfare. 
• The provision reflects considerations of medical science, ethical standards, and social responsibility in the delivery of ART services. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2025) set aside a Bombay High Court order and restored an eviction decree, holding that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which accommodation should be treated as suitable for the landlord's bona fide requirement. 

What was the Background of Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2025) Case? 

• The eviction suit concerned a commercial premises located on the ground floor of a property at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. 
• The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a business for his daughter-in-law. 
• The Trial Court accepted the landlord's case and decreed eviction in favor of the landlord. 
• The First Appellate Court also upheld the Trial Court's decision and affirmed the eviction decree. 
• The tenant approached the Bombay High Court, which exercised its revisional jurisdiction to review the matter. 
• The Bombay High Court reversed the concurrent findings of both lower courts after undertaking detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence. 
• The High Court held that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and set aside the eviction decree. 
• The tenant had been in occupation of the premises for nearly five decades at the time of the Supreme Court judgment. 
• The tenant argued that the landlord had other space available in the building and had obtained a commercial electricity connection for another room during the pendency of proceedings. 
• The upper floors of the building were residential in nature, while the ground floor was commercial. 
• The landlord specifically sought the ground-floor commercial premises for his daughter-in-law's business venture. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by engaging in microscopic reappreciation of evidence in revisional proceedings. 
• The bench observed that the landlord had specifically sought the ground-floor premises, which was commercial in nature, for his daughter-in-law's business, while the upper floors were residential and therefore not suitable alternatives. 
• The Court rejected the tenant's contention that the landlord had other available space, holding that such factors could not nullify the landlord's bona fide requirement. 
• The Court reiterated the principle that a tenant cannot propose alternative accommodation and compel the landlord to accept the tenant's assessment of suitability. 
• Relying on its earlier precedent in Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi (2016), the Court underscored that it is the landlord's prerogative to decide where and how he or his family members should conduct business. 
• The bench stated "The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein." 
• The Court concluded that the High Court's approach of re-examining evidence in minute detail was "ex facie without jurisdiction" in revisional proceedings. 
• The Court held that since the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were neither perverse nor without authority of law, the High Court's interference was unwarranted. 
• The Supreme Court restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 
• The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the landlord to execute the decree forthwith. 

What is an Eviction Decree? 

About: 

• An eviction decree is a court order that directs a tenant or occupant to vacate the premises and restore possession to the landlord or rightful owner. 
• It is a judicial remedy available to landlords under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) when a tenant refuses to vacate the property despite valid grounds for eviction. 
• The decree is passed after the court is satisfied that the landlord has established legal grounds for eviction, such as non-payment of rent, bona fide requirement, unauthorized subletting, or misuse of premises. 
• An eviction decree is enforceable through the execution proceedings of the civil court, ensuring the landlord regains lawful possession of the property. 

Execution of Eviction Decree: 

• The execution of an eviction decree is governed by Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• Order XXI, Rule 35 of the CPC specifically deals with the delivery of possession of immovable property to the decree holder (landlord). 
• Under Rule 35, the court may, if necessary, remove any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate, and may also break open any lock or bolt for delivering possession. 
• The executing court has the power to use reasonable force to ensure that the decree holder obtains vacant possession of the premises. 
• The eviction decree must be executed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, which is generally 12 years from the date of the decree.