List of Current Affairs

Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (Dead) Through LR v. M/s. Burmah Shell Co-operative Respondents Housing Society (Regd.) & Ors. (2026), dismissed an appeal against a Delhi High Court order which had exercised certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside a Tribunal's award, holding that interference is warranted where a finding is recorded without any supporting evidence. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The original claimant asserted that he continued to be a member of the Respondent-cooperative housing society and was entitled to allotment of a plot. 
• The Society's records showed that the claimant had resigned from the Society in 1951, his share had been transferred to another member, and his subsequent membership application was rejected in 1952. 
• Despite this, the Registrar, acting as Arbitrator, presumed that the claimant had continued as a member and awarded the plot to his legal heir. 
• The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal upheld the arbitrator's award. 
• The Delhi High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, set aside both the arbitrator's award and the Tribunal's order, finding that crucial documentary evidence had been ignored. 
• Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the original claimant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction: 
  The Court held that while the scope for interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction remains limited, an error of law evident from the record is open to correction by the High Court, and a finding recorded without any evidence or supporting document amounts to such an error of law. 
• On the Arbitrator's Finding: 
  The Court observed that the arbitrator's conclusion that the claimant continued as a member of the Society was founded purely on assumption, with no supporting documentary basis, and held that a finding of fact based on no evidence or on mere surmise or conjecture is liable to be treated as an error of law. 
• On the Delhi High Court's Interference: 
  The Court affirmed that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the Tribunal's order, since consideration of the relevant documents would have resulted in a decision favouring the Society, and found no fault with the High Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 
• On Equitable Considerations: 
  The Court noted that since the original claimant was never validly admitted as a member of the Society, he was not entitled to seek allotment of a plot, and that the High Court had rightly taken equitable considerations into account, particularly given that four prior claimants were also seeking allotment of the same plot. 
• Conclusion: 
  The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Delhi High Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. 

What is Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Every High Court has the power, throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including any Government, directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. 
• This power may be exercised notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority, or the residence of such person, is not within those territories, provided the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. 
• Unlike Article 32, the power under Article 226 is not confined to Fundamental Rights alone and extends to enforcement of legal rights generally. 

Types of Writs Under Article 226: 

• Habeas Corpus — "You shall have the body"; safeguards personal liberty against unlawful detention. 
• Mandamus — "We command"; directs a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to discharge. 
• Certiorari — "To be certified"; quashes an order of a subordinate court, tribunal, or authority vitiated by jurisdictional error or error of law apparent on the record — the writ at issue in the present case. 
• Prohibition — Preventive in nature; restrains a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction before a final order is passed. 
• Quo Warranto — "By what authority"; questions the legal authority of a person holding a public office. 

Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Harisankar V. Menon, in Rakesh Kallampadath v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026), disposed of a writ petition by directing the Sub-Registrar/Marriage Officer to permit solemnisation of the petitioner's marriage with a Nepali national, holding that an expired "single status certificate" could not be a valid ground for refusal under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 

What was the Background of Rakesh Kallampadath v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner submitted a notice of intended marriage with a woman who was a Nepali citizen, enclosing a "single status certificate" issued by the Nepal Embassy along with the notice. 
• The Marriage Officer subsequently passed an order refusing to solemnise the marriage on the ground that the single status certificate had expired. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court challenging the Marriage Officer's refusal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Requirement of a Single Status Certificate: The Court relied on the petitioner's submissions, supported by two prior decisions (W.P.(C) No. 15665 of 2026 and W.P.(C) No. 249 of 2019), holding that a "single status certificate" could not be insisted upon for registering a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• On the State's Position: The Court noted that the Government Pleader representing the State conceded that there exists no statutory mandate requiring a single status certificate for solemnisation of marriage under the Act. 
• On the Relief Granted: The Court directed the Sub-Registrar/Marriage Officer to act on the basis of the notice of intended marriage already published on the notice board and to permit the petitioner to solemnise the marriage as applied for. 
• Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Marriage Officer to permit solemnisation of the marriage without insisting on a valid single status certificate. 

What is the Special Marriage Act, 1954? 

Background & Purpose: 

• The Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a legal framework for the marriage of persons belonging to different religions or castes, governing a civil marriage sanctioned by the State rather than by religion. 
• It reflects a secular approach to marriage, enabling inter-faith and inter-caste couples to marry without either party converting to the other's religion or renouncing their individual religious identity — a key distinction from personal laws. 

Applicability and Recognition of Marriage: 

• The Act applies to persons of all faiths, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Buddhists, across India, providing a uniform framework for civil marriage regardless of religious background. 
• It provides for registration of marriage, granting legal recognition along with benefits such as inheritance rights, succession rights, and social security protections. 
• The Act forbids polygamy, declaring a marriage void if either party has a spouse living at the time of marriage, and also void where either party is incapable of giving valid consent due to unsoundness of mind. 

Notice Requirement Under Sections 5 and 7: 

• Section 5 requires the parties to give written notice of the intended marriage to the Marriage Officer of the district, with at least one party having resided in that district for a minimum of 30 days immediately preceding the notice. 
• Section 7 permits any person to object to the marriage within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice — a provision intended to prevent fraudulent or illegal marriages, though it has also been a source of misuse and harassment of consenting couples. 
• The Act does not statutorily mandate production of a "single status certificate" as a precondition for solemnisation, and Marriage Officers cannot import such a requirement absent express statutory backing — the precise issue addressed in the present case. 

Age Requirement: 

• The minimum age for marriage under the SMA is 21 years for males and 18 years for females, and these requirements are mandatory for a valid marriage. 

Implications for Inheritance Rights: 

• A person marrying under the SMA is deemed severed from their family for purposes of inheritance rights under personal law, a consequence that has deterred some couples from opting for marriage under the Act. 

Key Issues Associated with the Act: 

• The 30-day objection window under Section 7 is often used to harass couples and delay or obstruct marriages against family wishes. 
• Mandatory publication of notices raises privacy concerns, exposing couples' personal information and marriage plans to unwanted scrutiny. 
• Inter-caste and inter-religious couples marrying under the SMA continue to face social stigma, discrimination, and in extreme cases, harassment or violence.