List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Caste & Ors. (2026), held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) does not possess adjudicatory powers and can only investigate, record findings, and recommend action to the appropriate government, while setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld an NCSC order directing payment of arrears in a seniority-related service dispute. 

What was the Background of Mumbai Port Authority v. NCSC (2026) Case? 

• Respondent No. 3, a Scheduled Caste employee of the Mumbai Port Authority, was promoted pursuant to a 2002 Office Memorandum (OM) on seniority, which had superseded an earlier 1997 OM. 
• In 2016, the Bombay High Court quashed the 2002 OM, following which the Authority recast seniority in accordance with the 1997 OM and consequently demoted Respondent No. 3 in 2020. 
• Aggrieved, she approached the NCSC, which in 2024 directed her reinstatement along with payment of arrears. 
• The Authority's challenge to the NCSC order was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in a writ petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of NCSC's constitutional role: The Court observed that NCSC and other similar bodies under Articles 338A and 338B, though constitutional bodies with a socially beneficent purpose, have been assigned a role by the Legislature that is recommendatory and advisory, and not adjudicatory. 
• On the precedent governing NCSC's powers: The Court relied on All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606, where it had earlier been held that the powers flowing to the NCSC's predecessor body under Article 338 were confined to investigating and inquiring into matters concerning Scheduled Castes, and did not extend to passing adjudicatory orders. 
• On the limits of NCSC's fact-finding power: The Court clarified that while NCSC has the power to requisition documents and receive evidence, it does not have the corresponding power to pass an order giving effect to that evidence; it may only record a factual finding and thereafter call upon the concerned Central or State Government to act upon it. 
• On the meaning of "safeguards" under Article 338(5): Rejecting NCSC's contention that the term "safeguards" carries an enforcement function under sub-article (5), the Court held that the provision confers a power to inquire into deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes, which is recommendatory at best and does not confer adjudicatory authority. 
• On the validity of the impugned order: The Court held that the NCSC's direction for payment of arrears was contrary to the constitutional scheme and therefore non-est in law. 
• On relief granted: The appeal filed by the Mumbai Port Authority was allowed, and the NCSC order along with the Bombay High Court judgment upholding it were set aside. 

What is the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)? 

About: 

• The NCSC is a Constitutional Body established with a view to provide safeguards against the exploitation of Scheduled Castes and to promote and protect their social, educational, economic and cultural interests. 

History: 

• Special Officer:  
  • Initially, the Constitution provided for the appointment of a Special Officer under Article 338. The Special Officer was designated as the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
• 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990:  
  • It amended Article 338 of the Constitution and replaced the one-member system with a multi-member National Commission for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). 
• 89th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003:  
  • Article 338 was amended, and the erstwhile National Commission for SC and ST was replaced by two separate Commissions from the year 2004, which were:  
    • National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) under Article 338. 
    • National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) under Article 338A. 

Composition: 

• The NCSC comprises a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and three additional Members. 
• These positions are filled through the President's appointment, indicated by a warrant under his hand and seal.  
  • Their conditions of service and tenure of office are also determined by the President. 

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, in Lalmuni Devi v. Naresh Oraon (2026), enhanced the permanent alimony payable to a divorced wife to ₹30 lakh, holding that no arithmetic formula can govern the determination of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that courts must instead weigh the parties' status, the husband's financial capacity, the wife's future needs, inflation, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. 

What was the Background of Lalmuni Devi v. Naresh Oraon (2026) Case? 

• The Family Court, Latehar, had granted a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• The husband preferred an appeal against the decree, and during its pendency, he solemnised a second marriage. 
• Since reunion between the parties was no longer possible, the High Court confined the proceedings to determining the quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities in terms of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. 
• The wife disclosed that she was unemployed and assisted her mother at a roadside vegetable stall, earning around ₹200–300 a day. 
• The husband, employed as a Constable, stated that his gross monthly salary was ₹66,097 and his net salary ₹40,354, after deductions for a home loan, insurance, provident fund, and maintenance. 
• The husband pleaded financial incapacity to pay a substantial sum, while the wife was willing to consent to the dissolution of marriage provided she received adequate permanent alimony in full and final settlement. 
• No settlement could be reached between the parties before the Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the purpose of Section 25 HMA: The Bench observed that the provision exists to alleviate the hardship of a spouse who has no sufficient independent income to maintain themselves or bear litigation costs, noting that its underlying object is to sustain the life of a husband or wife lacking a sufficient source of income. 
• On the absence of a fixed formula: Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, the Court reiterated that no arithmetic formula can be applied to determine permanent alimony, and that the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the husband's financial capacity, and his other obligations must all be factored in. 
• On the wife's future security: Noting that the wife was only 28 years old, the Court held that her future financial security had to be factored into the quantum, particularly since she would have to rely primarily on the interest generated from the alimony amount, with the effect of future inflation also required to be kept in mind. 
• On balancing the equities: Weighing the husband's income and obligations against the wife's reasonable requirements, the Court held that a lump sum of ₹30,00,000 would be just, fair, and reasonable as permanent alimony, an enhancement over the ₹10,000 per month maintenance earlier awarded by the Family Court. 
• On the direction issued: The Court directed the husband to pay the enhanced amount of ₹30 lakh in four equal instalments within a period of twelve months. 

What is Alimony? 

Alimony is money one spouse pays to the other for their support and maintenance after separation or divorce, so that the financially weaker spouse isn't left without means to sustain themselves. 

• Purpose: It's meant to prevent hardship to a spouse (usually the wife, though the law is gender-neutral in wording) who doesn't have sufficient independent income to maintain herself or himself, or to meet litigation expenses. 
• Types: 
  • Interim/pendente lite alimony – paid during the pendency of divorce proceedings (e.g., under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act). 
  • Permanent alimony – granted at the time of, or after, the divorce decree, either as a one-time lump sum or as periodical (monthly/annual) payments, to provide for the spouse's future (e.g., under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was the provision discussed in the Jharkhand High Court article above). 
• How the amount is decided: Courts don't apply a fixed formula. They weigh factors like: 
  • The paying spouse's income and financial capacity 
  • The receiving spouse's needs and income (if any) 
  • The standard of living enjoyed during the marriage 
  • The parties' status and social standing 
  • Future needs, including the effect of inflation 
  • Conduct of the parties 
• Nature of payment: It can be a lump sum or periodic payments.

What is Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Permanent Alimony and Maintenance 

• Who can apply: Either the wife or the husband can apply to the court for maintenance and support. 
• When the application can be made: At the time of passing the decree, or at any time after the decree has been passed. 
• Nature of payment: The court may order the respondent to pay the applicant either: 
  • a gross (lump sum) amount, or 
  • a monthly or periodical sum, for a term not exceeding the applicant's lifetime. 
• Factors considered by the court: 
  • The respondent's own income and property 
  • The applicant's income and property 
  • The conduct of the parties 
  • Other circumstances of the case 
  • The overall test is what "seems just" to the court 
• Securing payment: The amount ordered may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the respondent's immovable property. 
• Variation on change of circumstances [Sub-section (2)]: If either party's circumstances change after the order is passed, the court may, on application by either party, vary, modify, or rescind the order as it deems just. 
• Variation on subsequent conduct [Sub-section (3)]: The court may similarly vary, modify, or rescind the order if it is satisfied that the party receiving the benefit: 
  • has remarried; or 
  • being the wife, has not remained chaste; or 
  • being the husband, has had sexual intercourse with a woman outside wedlock.