List of Current Affairs

Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Jain (2026), set aside an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Merta, Nagaur, holding that the PLA lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning grant of service benefits, as such a dispute did not fall within the meaning of "public utility services" under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 

What was the Background of State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Jain (2026) Case? 

• The respondent was appointed as a Helper on a temporary basis in 1978, and was declared a semi-permanent employee in 1980. 
• However, for the purpose of all service benefits, his services were counted only from September 1981. 
• Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, Nagaur, seeking service benefits from the initial date of his appointment. 
• The PLA allowed the application and decided the matter in the respondent's favour, directing the Public Health Engineering Department to grant service benefits from 1978. 
• The petitioner-department challenged the maintainability of the application before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that since the issue related to grant of service benefits, it could not have been adjudicated by the PLA. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Limited Jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat: 
  The Court observed that the purpose of establishing a Permanent Lok Adalat is to exercise limited jurisdiction over one or more public utility services, and not otherwise.
• On the Scope of "Public Utility Services" under Section 22A(b): 
  The Court noted that the categories of public utility services have been specifically enumerated under the Act, with power vested in the Central or State Government to expand the definition to include any other service, indicating a deliberately confined jurisdiction.
• On the Interpretation of "Any Party to a Dispute" under Section 22C: 
  The Court held that this phrase must be read in the context of the jurisdiction for which the Permanent Lok Adalat has been established, and cannot be read to extend the PLA's authority beyond public utility service disputes. 
• On Service Benefit Disputes Falling Outside PLA's Purview: 
  The Court held that since the matter pertained to grant of service benefits to the respondent, it did not fall under the purview of "public utility services" as defined under Section 22A(b), and the PLA had therefore exercised power not vested in it. 
• In view of the above, the Court quashed the award passed by the PLA, granting the respondent liberty to file a representation before the petitioner-department, which was directed to hear and decide the matter sympathetically and expeditiously, preferably within two months. 

What are Permanent Lok Adalats? 

About Lok Adalats: 

Permanent Lok Adalats: 

About: 

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was amended in 2002 to provide for the establishment of the Permanent Lok Adalats to deal with cases pertaining to the public utility services like transport, postal, telegraph etc. 

Essential Features: 

• These have been set up as permanent bodies under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 
• It shall consist of a Chairman who is or has been a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of the district judge and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility services. 
• It shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalats is upto Rs. 1 Crore. 
• The award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding upon the parties. 
• Before the dispute is brought before any court, any party to the dispute may make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute. After an application is made to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. 

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Arun Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, in Nanhki @ Naimunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), held that conversion to another religion does not automatically terminate a person's Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, and that continuance of such status must be determined as a question of fact with reference to tribal traits, customs, and a continuing connection with the tribal community, relying extensively on the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. 

What was the Background of Nanhki @ Naimunnisha v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, claiming to belong to the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe community, challenged three orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Duddhi, Sonbhadra, declaring three land transfers in her favour as void. 
• The transfers were found to be in violation of Section 157-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and Section 99 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, both of which restrict transfer of Scheduled Tribe land to persons who are not members of a Scheduled Tribe, and the land was accordingly directed to vest in the State Government. 
• The petitioner asserted that she was born into the Bhuiyan ST community and held a valid ST certificate issued by the Tehsildar, and that the vendors also belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Gour), making the transactions valid. 
• The State disputed her continued ST status, relying on material showing that she had married a Muslim man according to Islamic rites, come to be known as Naimunnisha, lived with him for several decades, had two children with Muslim names, and was recorded as Muslim in the family register. 
• The petitioner countered that she had not abandoned her original religion or tribal identity, continued to live in her village, followed Bhuiyan customs, and that no reliable evidence showed her severance from the community. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Automatic Exclusion upon Conversion: 
  The Court held that there is no broad proposition of law that a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe merely by reason of change of religion, and that a person can continue to be a tribal member even after conversion. 
• On Continuance of ST Status Being a Question of Fact: 
  The Court held that whether a person continues to belong to a Scheduled Tribe must be determined with reference to tribal traits, customs, traditions, and a continuing connection with the tribal community, relying on the Supreme Court's clarification in Chinthada Anand that the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 prescribes no religion-based exclusion. 
• On the Cumulative Assessment of Evidence: 
  The Court found an absence of convincing evidence from the petitioner showing continuity of her connection with the Bhuiyan community, and based its conclusion on the cumulative effect of the circumstances — her marriage, subsequent name, family life, children's names, and the family-register entry — rather than on any single factor. 
• On the Rejection of a Rigid Test: 
  The Court clarified that a claimant cannot be required to prove observance of every custom throughout her life, and that a single document describing a person as Muslim cannot by itself determine Scheduled Tribe status; the assessment must remain holistic. 
• On the Evidentiary Value of the ST Certificate: 
  The Court held that an ST certificate is undoubtedly a relevant piece of evidence, but its existence does not preclude authorities from examining whether the holder continues to possess the requisite ST status when subsequent material bearing on that status comes to light. 
• On the Basis of the Ultimate Finding: 
  The Court clarified that its conclusion was not founded merely on the petitioner's marriage, the allegation of conversion, or an isolated entry recording her religion as Muslim, but on the prolonged circumstances on record and the absence of convincing material showing continued adherence to Bhuiyan customs, participation in community life, and acceptance by the community. 
• In view of the above, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish continuity of her Bhuiyan ST status on the dates the disputed sale deeds were executed, that the transactions were subject to the statutory prohibition on transfers to non-Scheduled Tribe persons, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the revenue authority's orders.

What are the Scheduled Tribes (STs)? 

Definition: 

• Communities recognized as indigenous or tribal populations. 
• Typically characterized by distinct culture, language, and social practices. 

Criteria for Classification: 

• Cultural Identity  
  • Unique cultural heritage and traditional practices. 
• Geographical Isolation  
  • Often found in remote or forested areas. 
• Economic Vulnerability  
  • Face economic disadvantages and lack access to basic amenities. 
• Significance: 
  • Recognition of STs is crucial for preserving cultural identity and ensuring rights over land and resources. 
  • Government provides schemes for education, health, and economic development specifically for STs.

What are the Basic Safeguards Provided by the Indian Constitution for Scheduled Tribes? 

Constitutional Basis: 

• The Constitution does not define the term "tribe" 
• The term "Scheduled Tribe" was inserted through Article 342(1)  
  • Empowers the President to specify, by public notification, the tribes or tribal communities (or parts/groups within them) deemed to be Scheduled Tribes 
• Fifth Schedule: Provides for setting up a Tribes' Advisory Council in each State having Scheduled Areas 

Educational & Cultural Safeguards: 

• Article 15(4): Special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (includes STs) 
• Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities (includes STs) 
• Article 46: State to promote, with special care, the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation 
• Article 350: Right to conserve distinct language, script, or culture 

Political Safeguards 

• Article 330: Reservation of seats for STs in the Lok Sabha 
• Article 332: Reservation of seats for STs in State Legislatures 
• Article 243: Reservation of seats in Panchayats 

Administrative Safeguard: 

• Article 275: Grant of special funds by the Union Government to State Governments for promoting ST welfare and providing better administration.