List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 

Why in News? 

Justice Rajnesh Oswal of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in the case of Dr. Posh Charak and Others v. UT of J&K (2026), held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be denied merely by raising a plea of "disputed facts" when the State's own official records and admissions establish illegality 

What was the Background of Dr. Posh Charak and Others v. UT of J&K (2026) Case? 

• The writ petition was filed by Dr. Posh Charak and others, the legal heirs of late Thakur Lakshman Singh Charak, seeking restoration or lawful acquisition of their ancestral land. 
• The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was the recorded owner and cultivator of the land. After his death in 1983, the land lawfully devolved upon his legal heirs. 
• Without any acquisition proceedings, award, or payment of compensation, the land came under the physical occupation of SICOP/SIDCO — instrumentalities of the State — which even constructed a road over the private land. 
• Revenue records including Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari (2018–2024) consistently reflected the petitioners' title and cultivation, with no entry whatsoever in favour of SICOP or SIDCO. 
• For years, the petitioners were unable to access their revenue records due to their seizure in connection with the Birpur land scam. 
• In 2021, upon demarcation conducted by revenue authorities, the shocking reality surfaced that the petitioners' land was under unauthorized occupation by SICOP. 
• Subsequent RTI replies from SICOP proved decisive — while SICOP admitted possession, it failed to disclose any acquisition award or proof of compensation paid. 
• The Tehsildar, Bari Brahmana, categorically confirmed that no right, title, or interest of SICOP or SIDCO was recorded in the revenue books. 
• Senior Advocate Mr. Ajay Sharma, along with Mr. Navneed Naik and Mr. Arjun Bharti, argued that the continued occupation of private land without acquisition amounted to a direct violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution and that delay and laches cannot legalise an ongoing constitutional wrong. 
• The State, represented by Ms. Monika Kohli (Senior AAG) and Mr. Ravinder Gupta (AAG), opposed the petition on grounds of delay, laches, and disputed questions of fact, claiming the land had been transferred decades ago for industrial purposes. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that when the State's own records confirm the illegality, the matter ceases to be a disputed factual controversy and squarely becomes a matter of constitutional enforcement, not merely factual adjudication. 
• Justice Rajnesh Oswal clarified that the principle against adjudicating disputed facts in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 applies only when facts genuinely cannot be resolved on the basis of existing material — not where official admissions and demarcation reports eliminate all ambiguity. 
• The Court rejected the State's plea of delay and laches, firmly ruling that this doctrine cannot be invoked to justify unlawful deprivation of property rights. 
• Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right deserving full judicial protection. 
• The Court advised that to dismiss a petition merely on the ground of delay would amount to condoning the State's illegalities, which no court of constitutional jurisdiction should permit. 
• The High Court concluded that the occupation of the petitioners' land by SICOP and SIDCO was nothing short of trespass, and that the State cannot seize private property through administrative muscle power or bureaucratic inertia. 
• The Court directed Respondents including SICOP and SIDCO to either restore possession of the land to the petitioners within three months, or initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within the same period. 

What is Article 226 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
  • Located within its jurisdiction or 
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights. 

Writs available under Article 226:  

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.  
  • This is the most often used writ.  
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released.   
• Writ of Mandamus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’ 
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to all public authorities to perform public duty.  
  • It is used to execute public duties by constitutional, statutory, non-statutory, universities, courts, and other bodies.  
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a public duty.  
• Writ of Certiorari: 
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’   
  • It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.  
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice.  
  • The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error.   
• Writ of prohibition:   
  • It simply means ‘to stop’. 
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Superior Court.   
• Writ of Quo warranto:  
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’. 
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right.  
  • By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled. 

Case Laws:  

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.  
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Bharata Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court, in the case of N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others (2026), observed that temple festivals conducted by the State through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department cannot be permitted to perpetuate caste by prominently advertising caste names in festival invitations. 

What was the Background of N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by N Samaran seeking directions to the Commissioner HR&CE, the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Kandhasamy Thirukovil to prohibit the use of caste names in the invitation for the upcoming temple festival. 
• The petitioner additionally sought a direction permitting only persons authorised by the Executive Officer to participate as "Sri Padhamthangis" to carry the idol during the procession. 
• When the matter was taken up, the State informed the court that the temple itself was not using any caste name, but acknowledged that caste names of persons had been printed in the festival invitation. 
• The State submitted that since invitations had already been printed, no further directions could be issued for the present festival year. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The court observed that caste exists only in the minds of people and that the concept of caste is based solely on birth, which alone divides people. 
• Justice Chakravarthy emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrines the principle of equality and that the very purpose of India becoming a Republic was to treat everyone equally. 
• The court categorically held that if a festival in which a Government Department, namely the HR&CE Department, is involved is conducted so as to propagate caste and advertise or take pride in one's caste, the same cannot be permitted. 
• The court directed that from the ensuing festival onwards, if any person adds their caste name along with their name, the caste suffix alone shall be dropped and only the name shall be printed in the invitation. 
• The court rejected the State's prayer to leave the matter open to the temple and issued the aforesaid direction. 
• With respect to the prayer regarding appointment of persons for the procession, the court noted that volunteers usually carry the idol and it is typically managed on the spot by able-bodied devotees. 
• The court declined to frame any Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for temple processions, observing that such micromanagement would open a Pandora's box and should be left to the persons managing the temple on the ground. 

What is Article 14 of the COI? 

About:  

• 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. 

Concept:  

• The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the Rule of Law. 
• It was held in the matter of Rubinder Singh v. Union of India (1983) that, the rule of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even when the object is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law and order. 
• The purpose of Article 14 is to give similar treatment to similarly circumstanced persons, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. 
• Classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational. 
• It was held in the matter of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) that, the Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. 
• The protection of Article 14 extends to citizens and non-citizens both. 

Definitions 

• Article 14: Equality before law - “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” 
• Dr. Jennings - “Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.” 
• Chief Justice Pantanjali Shastri - “The second expression is corollary of the first and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of the equal protection of laws will not be the violation of the equality before law. Thus, in substance the two expressions mean one and the same thing.” 

Exceptions: 

• Article 361A provides special privileges to the Members of Parliament (MP) and Members of State Legislative Assembly (MLA) to not be present before any court during the session. 
• Articles 105 and 194 prevent the MLAs and MPs from being answerable before the court for their speeches and opinions. 
• President and Governors are privileged for not being answerable to any court with respect to the functioning of their duties and powers under Article 361. 
• The abovementioned authorities are immune from any arrest during their term under Article 361. 
• Any criminal case cannot be instituted against President and Governors of states. 
• Any civil proceeding against President and Governors can only be initiated after a prior notice of 2 months. 
• Article 31C is an exception to Article 14. It provides that the law made by the state for implementing the Directive Principles contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14. In the case of Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. (1982), it was held that, “where Article 31C comes in Article 14 goes out”. 
• The foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors and diplomats enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings. 
• The United Nations Organization and its agencies enjoy the diplomat’s immunity. 

Test for Reasonable Classification: 

• Article 14 forbids class legislation however, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. 
• Two conditions were demarcated in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 
• There must be a presence of intelligible differentia, where application of law must not be universal upon each human. 
• The differentia applied must align with the cardinal objective of the state. 

Doctrine of Arbitrariness:  

• Fairness and Arbitrariness are antithetical to each other, both concepts cannot be present in a single box. 
• Hence, the court of law attempted to bring an evolution in the list of reasonable classification by excluding the decision containing arbitrariness. 
• This doctrine was coined in the case of E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973), where the bench termed equality as a dynamic concept and the ambit of reasonable classification cannot be altered by the usage of arbitrariness. 
• The doctrine was later applied to the cases of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) into which courts opined that arbitrariness refers to deprivation of equality.