List of Current Affairs

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in the matter of Reginamary CHELLAMANI v. STATE REP by SUPERINTENDENT of CUSTOMS (2026) directed all Trial Courts to inform accused persons of their right to free legal aid and record their response before examination of witnesses, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of fair trial. 

What was the Background of Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs (2026) Case? 

• The appellant-accused was denied regular bail by the Madras High Court in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of contraband in commercial quantity. 
• Charges were framed under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 
• The accused had undergone prolonged incarceration of over four years. 
• He contended that: 
  • He was denied legal representation during trial 
  • He was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses 

Issues Before the Court: 

• Whether failure of the Trial Court to provide legal representation to an indigent accused vitiates the fairness of trial. 
• Whether Trial Courts are duty-bound to formally inform and record the accused’s right to free legal aid. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the accused did not cross-examine witnesses initially due to lack of legal representation. Cross-examination was allowed only after he later engaged private counsel.  
• The Court held that, “It is incumbent upon the trial courts to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and entitlement to legal aid where they cannot afford a counsel.” 
• The Court emphasized that: 
  • Mere availability of legal aid is insufficient. 
  • The offer and response must be recorded in writing. 
• The omission to provide legal aid was held to be a serious procedural lapse affecting the right to fair trial. 

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court: 

• Trial Courts must: 
  • Inform the accused of the right to free legal aid.  
  • Record: 
    • The offer made 
    • The response of the accused 
    • The action taken 
  • Do so before commencing examination of witnesses.  
• High Courts were directed to: 
  • Issue binding instructions to all Trial Courts within their jurisdiction 
• The order was directed to be: 
  • Communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts.  

What is Legal Aid? 

About: 

• Legal aid represents one of the fundamental pillars of a fair and equitable justice system, providing legal assistance to individuals who cannot afford private legal representation.  
• Legal aid encompasses a range of free or subsidized legal services provided to people who lack the financial means to hire private attorneys.  
• These services typically include legal advice, representation in court, assistance with legal documents, and help navigating complex legal procedures.  
• The concept rests on the principle that access to justice should not depend on one's ability to pay, and that legal representation is necessary for a fair trial and the protection of fundamental rights. 

Constitutional Provisions for Legal Aid: 

• The Indian Constitution contains explicit provisions mandating legal aid as a fundamental aspect of the justice system.  
• Article 39A, added by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, states that "the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities." 
• This directive principle of state policy makes it a constitutional obligation for the state to provide free legal services to the poor and marginalized. The provision recognizes that economic barriers should not prevent anyone from accessing justice. 
• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to legal aid. The courts have held that equal protection cannot be meaningful without ensuring equal access to the justice system. 
• Article 22(1) specifically provides that no person who is arrested shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. This provision has been interpreted to include the right to free legal aid for those who cannot afford a lawyer. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, in the case of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (2026) observed that once the existence of an ancestral, income-yielding property is established, any subsequent acquisition made by the Karta during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family is presumed to be joint family property, unless the person claiming self-acquisition discharges the burden of proof with cogent evidence. 

What was the Background of Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The litigation stemmed from a partition suit filed in 1987 by Duraisamy against his father Sengan and brother Dorairaj, relating to 79 items of immovable properties. 
• The properties were largely agricultural lands situated in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. 
• The plaintiff claimed that the properties were joint Hindu family properties traceable to ancestral lands and income generated therefrom. 
• Dorairaj, the appellant before the Supreme Court, asserted that several properties were either the self-acquisitions of his father Sengan or purchases made by him from his own independent income earned as a contractor and businessman. 
• The Appellant relied on multiple sale deeds executed in his favour by Sengan and an unregistered Will dated November 24, 1989, allegedly executed shortly before Sengan's death. 
• The Appellant, one of the brothers/coparceners in the joint Hindu family property, resisted another brother-plaintiff's suit for partition seeking his share in the joint property. 
• It was pleaded in the plaint that the family remained joint in residence, cultivation, enjoyment, and management, and that there had never been any partition, either oral or written. 
• As per the plaint, properties purchased in Karta's name or in the names of other family members were, in substance, acquisitions made for and on behalf of the family, thereby constituting joint family property. 
• The Appellant opposed the plaintiff's claim of partition, contending that several properties were his self-acquired property and acquired by their father from his non-ancestral income. 
• The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 
• The First Appellate Court and High Court decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 5/16th share in the joint property that was inducted by the Karta, while excluding only Items 66, 74, and part of Item 36. 
• The excluded items were proved to be the Appellant's self-acquisitions from third parties. 
• Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and First Appellate Court. 
• The Court observed that once the existence of ancestral properties capable of yielding income is established, the onus shifted to the Appellant to prove that subsequent acquisitions were made from independent sources. 
• The Court stated, "Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved." 
• The High Court recognized that separate enjoyment of portions, installation of irrigation facilities, or even obtaining borrowings individually, do not by themselves establish partition in law. 
• What is required is a clear and unequivocal intention to sever the joint status. 
• The High Court correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances described the interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there was no mutation evidencing division, and that there was no separate payment towards borrowings. 
• In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status was inevitable. 
• The Court noted that the High Court had already granted limited relief to Dorairaj by excluding specific properties that were demonstrably purchased from non-coparceners. 
• Barring these exclusions, the Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. 
• The appeal was dismissed. 

What is Joint Family Property? 

About: 

• Joint family property, also known as ancestral property under Hindu law, refers to property that has been inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father, or father's father's father. 
• Joint family property belongs collectively to all members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), rather than to any single individual. 
• Male members traditionally acquired an interest in joint family property by birth, giving them a birthright in the property. 
• Under traditional Hindu law, male descendants up to three generations from the original owner acquire a birthright in joint family property. 
• After the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters also acquire birthright in joint family property equal to sons. 
• No single coparcener (member with birthright) can claim a specific portion of joint family property until partition, as each has an undivided right in the whole property. 
• The property is managed by the Karta, usually the eldest male member of the family. 

Management and Alienation: 

• The Karta manages joint family property on behalf of all coparceners but has limited powers of alienation. 
• The Karta cannot alienate joint family property except for legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or with the consent of all coparceners. 
• This restriction exists to protect the interests of all family members who have a birthright in the property. 

Nature of Rights: 

• Each coparcener has an undivided interest in the entire joint family property, not in any specific portion. 
• The rights become definite only upon partition of the property among the coparceners. 
• Until partition occurs, the property remains joint and undivided among all members. 

Difference Between Joint Family Property and Self-Acquired Property: 

Source of Acquisition: 

• Joint family property is inherited property that devolves through three generations (father, father's father, father's father's father). 
• Self-acquired property is property that an individual has acquired through his own efforts, without using any joint family resources or nucleus. 
• Self-acquired property may be obtained through personal income, individual enterprise, or personal skill without drawing upon ancestral resources. 

Ownership Rights: 

• Joint family property belongs collectively to all coparceners, who acquire interest by birth. 
• Self-acquired property belongs exclusively to the individual who acquired it. 
• The owner of self-acquired property has absolute rights over it, including the right to sell, mortgage, gift, or bequeath it without requiring consent from other family members. 

Transmission: 

• Joint family property automatically devolves by survivorship among coparceners. 
• Self-acquired property does not automatically become joint family property merely because the owner has sons or daughters. 
• When joint family property is partitioned, the divided shares become self-acquired property of the respective recipients. 

Conversion: 

• A person can voluntarily convert his self-acquired property into joint family property through the doctrine of "blending." 
• Blending requires clear intention to abandon separate rights and merge the property with joint family property. 
• The mere fact that other family members used the property or benefited from it does not automatically convert self-acquired property into joint family property. 

Income Generation: 

• Income generated from joint family property forms part of the joint family property. 
• The income generated from self-acquired property remains self-acquired, unless specifically blended with joint family property. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden of proving that property is joint family property lies on the person making such a claim. 
• However, the burden shifts to the person claiming it as self-acquired if evidence of existing nucleus (ancestral property) is established. 
• Once ancestral, income-yielding property is proven to exist, subsequent acquisitions by the Karta are presumed to be joint family property unless proven otherwise. 

Rights of Disposal: 

• In joint family property, no individual member can unilaterally dispose of the property without consent or legal justification. 
• In self-acquired property, the owner has complete freedom to dispose of the property as he wishes.