List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Pushpa Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026), ruled that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has no jurisdiction to direct eviction of children from property in proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Court partly modified the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer acting as the Maintenance Tribunal, setting aside the eviction direction while upholding the maintenance component.

What was the Background of Pushpa Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose between an elderly mother, Pushpa Sharma, and her two sons over the occupation of a three-storied residential house at Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal. 
• Following her husband's death, the mother alleged that her sons had driven her out of the house and failed to provide her financial support. 
• She approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 along with reimbursement of medical expenses. 
• By orders dated September 6 and December 6, 2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer (acting as Maintenance Tribunal) directed the sons to pay monthly maintenance and further ordered them to vacate the premises within three months. 
• One of the sons challenged the eviction direction before the Calcutta High Court, while the mother simultaneously sought enforcement of the eviction order. 
• The Court also clarified that orders of the Maintenance Tribunal are amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the Tribunal discharges quasi-judicial functions.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that Chapter II of the 2007 Act deals strictly with maintenance of parents and senior citizens and empowers the Tribunal only to determine and award monthly allowances. 
• It observed that Sections 4 and 5 contain no direct or indirect reference to eviction, and therefore the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the statutory mandate to pass eviction orders. 
• The Court noted that the Act prescribes a summary mechanism designed to ensure speedy and inexpensive maintenance relief and was never intended to serve as a substitute for civil remedies in property disputes. 
• Accordingly, the portion of the Tribunal's order directing the son to vacate the building was set aside, while the maintenance award was upheld.

What is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

About: 

• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens in India. The Act defines a "senior citizen" as any person who is a citizen of India and has attained the age of 60 years or above. 

Key Provisions: 

• Maintenance Obligation (Sections 4-18): Children have a legal obligation to maintain their parents, and relatives have an obligation to maintain childless senior citizens. 
• Establishment of Tribunals (Section 7): State governments must establish Maintenance Tribunals to adjudicate maintenance claims. 
• Old Age Homes (Section 19): State governments are required to establish old age homes in each district. 
• Medical Support (Section 20): Provisions for medical care for senior citizens. 
• Protection of Life and Property (Sections 21-23): Measures to protect senior citizens' lives and property. 

What is a Tribunal? 

About:  

A tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal with problems such as resolving administrative or tax-related disputes. The original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added a new Part XIV-A.    

• Part XIV-A is entitled as Tribunals and consists of two Articles namely Article 323A and 323B. 

Difference between Court and Tribunal: 

• The Tribunals and Courts both deal with the disputes between the parties which affect the rights of the subjects. But there exists some difference between the two which are as follows:  
•  

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News? 

The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar, sitting at the Aurangabad seat of the Bombay High Court, in the case of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2026) held that recognising a single mother as a complete parent for a child's civic identity reflects the movement from patriarchal compulsion to constitutional choice.

What was the Background of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by a single mother who exclusively raised her minor daughter without any involvement from the child's father.  
• The child's school records carried the father's name and his caste — 'Maratha' — as the child's caste identity, despite the father being entirely absent from the child's life and upbringing.  
• The mother sought modification of these records to reflect her own name and her caste — 'Mahar' — under the Scheduled Castes.  
• The case raised fundamental questions about whether administrative formats rooted in patriarchal assumptions could continue to determine a child's civic and educational identity when the lived reality of guardianship was exclusively maternal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench made several significant constitutional observations while deciding the matter. 
• On the question of civic identity, the Court held that a society claiming to be developing cannot insist that a child's public identity must be anchored to a father who is absent from the child's life, while the mother — who bears the entire burden of upbringing — remains administratively secondary. 
• Regarding the nature of school records, the bench observed that a school record is not a private note; it is a public document that follows a child across years, institutions, and sometimes into the professional domain.  
• A child raised exclusively by her mother cannot be compelled to carry the father's name and surname merely because the format once demanded it. 
• On Article 21, the Court reaffirmed that the right to life protects not merely existence but life with dignity, and dignity includes the right to an identity that is not forcibly tethered to an absent parent where such tethering serves no welfare purpose and causes avoidable social harm. 
• On Article 14 and structural inequality, the bench, in the judgment authored by Justice Venegavkar, held that the assumption that identity must flow through the father is not a neutral administrative default but a social presumption inherited from a patriarchal structure.  
• The Court found that making the mother fully visible for responsibility and accountability, while rendering her insufficiently visible for purposes of identity, constitutes an asymmetry that violates the equality principle. 
• On the State's duty, the bench held that the Directive Principles under Articles 39(f) and 46 cast a duty on the State to ensure that educational records do not become documents of stigma or injury. The Court stated that the question is not whether the State can accommodate the mother's identity, but whether the State can refuse to do so when refusal harms the child and is justified only by bureaucratic habit.

What are the Key Constitutional Provisions Involved? 

Article 14 of the COI:  

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons.  
• The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution.  
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as its primary objective.  
• It is a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality.  
• It also establishes a system of non-discrimination based on grounds mentioned in Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

Article 21 of the COI:  

• Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right provided under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigner and it is also considered as the “Heart of Fundamental Rights”. 
• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. the Administrator (1981), the Supreme Court through Hon’ble P. Bhagwati, Justice held that Article 21 “embodies constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.”

Article 39(f) of the COI:  

• Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution, under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), directs the State to ensure children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy, free, and dignified manner.  
• It mandates protecting children and youth against exploitation and moral/material abandonment.   

Article 46 of the COI:  

• Article 46 of the Indian Constitution, under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, specifically Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), with special care. It mandates protection against social injustice and exploitation.