List of Current Affairs

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta, in Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026), dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition seeking implementation of an ex parte custody order, holding that such a writ cannot be used to enforce a custody order obtained without notice to the mother. 

What was the Background of Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner-father filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his six-year-old son, based on an order passed by the Family Court appointing him guardian and directing the mother to hand over custody within 60 days. 
• He contended that once the Family Court passed the custody order, the mother's continued custody became illegal, entitling him to seek restoration of custody through a writ of habeas corpus. 
• The mother opposed the petition, submitting that the custody order had been obtained ex parte after the petitioner deliberately furnished an incorrect address, depriving her of notice in the Family Court proceedings. 
• She informed the High Court that applications to set aside the ex parte custody order, along with an application to condone delay in filing them, were already pending before the Family Court. 
• She further argued that Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 provides a statutory mechanism for enforcement of custody orders, and therefore a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the maintainability of habeas corpus: The Court reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy and cannot be used merely to enforce a custody order. 
• On the manner in which the custody order was obtained: The Bench found prima facie that the petitioner had obtained both the ex parte divorce decree and the custody order by furnishing his own address as that of the mother. Although the petitioner had himself pleaded in the divorce proceedings that the mother had left the matrimonial home in 2022 and was residing at her parents' house, he neither disclosed her parental address nor the Bengaluru addresses later mentioned in his own legal notice while instituting the Family Court proceedings. 
• On the finality of the custody order: The Court held that the custody order had been passed behind the mother's back, without notice to her. Since her applications to set aside the ex parte order were pending, the order had not attained finality and could not form the basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 
• On the availability of statutory remedy: The Bench held that Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 provides a statutory mechanism for enforcing custody orders in cases of disobedience, and therefore rejected the petitioner's contention that habeas corpus was the only available remedy. It further held that where such a statutory remedy exists, the writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into that of an executing court. 
• On the relief granted: Holding that the writ of habeas corpus deserved not to be issued on the basis of an ex parte and non-final order, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition. 

What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Habeas corpus is a Latin term meaning "you may have the body." 
• It is a legal procedure that acts as a remedial measure for persons who are illegally detained. 
• The basic purpose is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. 
• It is an order issued by the court to present the detenu before the court and check whether the arrest was lawful or not. 
• The writ determines a person's right to freedom and personal liberty. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• The Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue writs. 
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court issues writs for violation of fundamental rights. 
• Under Article 226, High Courts have wider jurisdiction to issue writs for both violation of legal as well as fundamental rights. 
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all authorities within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. 
• High Courts deal with matters when they have control over that authority and the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction. 

Who May Apply: 

• The person confined or detained illegally. 
• Any person who is aware of the benefit of the case. 
• Any person familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case who willingly files an application under Article 32 or 226. 
• As held in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), if a detained person cannot file an application, some other person can file it on his behalf. 

When the Writ is Refused: 

• When the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the detainer. 
• When detention is connected with the order of a competent court. 
• When the person detained is already set free. 
• When confinement has been legitimised by removal of defects. 
• When a competent court dismisses the petition on grounds of merits. 

Nature and Scope: 

• It is a procedural writ, not a substantive writ, as held in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling (1974). 
• The focus is on the legality of detention by examining facts and circumstances, rather than merely producing the body before the court. 
• The writ can be filed not only for wrongful confinement but also for protection from ill-treatment and discrimination by the detaining authority, as held in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980). 
• The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to illegal confinement cases; successive petitions can be filed with fresh grounds. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden lies on the detaining person or authority to satisfy the court that detention was on legal grounds. 
• If the detenu alleges malicious confinement outside the authority's jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the detenu. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that while assessing an employee's suitability for retention in service, the employer is not confined to the employee's recent service record but must be guided by the entire service record, and that the "washed-off theory" applicable to promotions has no bearing on compulsory retirement decisions, while upholding the compulsory retirement of an ex-CISF personnel in Sushil Sharma v. Union of India and Others (2026). 

What was the Background of Sushil Sharma v. Union of India and Others (2026) Case? 

• The appellant joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in 1982. 
• He was promoted twice during his service, first to Sub-Inspector in 1990, and later to Inspector in 2003. 
• Upon attaining the age of 50 years, his case was placed before the Internal Screening Committee for assessment of his suitability for retention in service. 
• The Committee found him unfit for retention, a view subsequently affirmed by the Review Committee, leading to an order of compulsory retirement. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court, which upheld the order of compulsory retirement, noting that his efficiency had slackened in the last two years of the period under review. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, contending that the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated because the authority had considered his entire service record, which he argued was impermissible after promotion under the washed-off theory, and that adverse material preceding his promotion could not be considered while assessing his suitability for retention. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the applicability of the washed-off theory: The Court held that the washed-off theory operates only in matters relating to promotion, where adverse entries prior to a promotion lose relevance once the employee is considered for a further promotion. It clarified that this doctrine has no application where the competent authority is assessing an employee's suitability for continued retention in service, relying on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013).    
• On the relevance of the entire service record: The Court held that consideration of an employee's entire service record is essential while assessing suitability for retention, and that the Internal Screening Committee was justified in taking into account the appellant's entire service record, including adverse material that preceded his promotion. 
• On the outcome: Applying these principles, the Court found no infirmity in the compulsory retirement order and dismissed the appeal. 

What is the "Washed-Off Theory"? 

• The washed-off theory is a service law doctrine under which adverse entries in an employee's service record, made prior to a promotion, are treated as wiped off once the employee is promoted. 
• Its rationale is that promotion itself reflects a fresh assessment of merit, so entries predating that assessment should not continue to be held against the employee for future promotions. 
• The doctrine applies specifically to decisions relating to further promotion of an employee. 
• It does not extend to decisions concerning compulsory retirement or continued retention in service, where the employer is entitled to examine the employee's complete service record, including material predating any promotion. 
• The distinction rests on the different purposes served by promotion assessments (forward-looking merit evaluation) and retention assessments (an overall review of suitability to continue in service).