List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court heard the matter of Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. (2026). The Court expressed displeasure that States and Union Territories had not responded to the Union Government on the measures taken to implement its January 30, 2026 judgment, which recognised menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  

• The Court warned that contempt notices would be issued to the Chief Secretaries of defaulting States if the requisite information was not furnished before the next hearing. 

What was the Background of Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose from a public interest litigation seeking directions to ensure menstrual hygiene facilities for school-going girls across the country. 
• By its judgment dated January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court declared menstrual hygiene/menstrual health to be a facet of the right to life under Article 21. 
• The Court directed pan-India implementation of the Union Government's Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls for students of Classes 6 to 12, covering both government and privately managed schools in urban as well as rural areas. 
• Among other measures, the Court directed States and UTs to ensure:  
  • Functional gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity. 
  • Washing facilities with soap and water. 
  • Free access to sanitary napkins. 
  • Menstrual hygiene management corners in schools, equipped with spare innerwear, uniforms, disposable pads and other materials for menstrual emergencies. 
• By its order dated September 1, 2026, the Court required States and UTs to report the deficiencies identified in implementing the judgment. 
• In that order, the Court had:  
  • Flagged discrepancies in data relating to gender-segregated toilets, handwashing facilities, sanitary napkin vending machines and waste-disposal systems. 
  • Questioned whether the Union had adequately scrutinised the information submitted by the States. 
  • Stressed the need to address gaps in toilet maintenance and cleaning staff. 
  • Directed District Education Officers to constitute teams of teachers to carry out surprise inspections of schools. 
  • Directed that compliance reports focus on outstanding gaps, the reasons for them and the time needed to address them, rather than merely listing achievements. 
  • Called for a gradual shift towards biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable sanitary napkins. 
• At the subsequent hearing, the Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that although the Union had taken up the issue with all States and UTs, none of them had responded so far. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the non-response of States/UTs: 

• The Court stated that it failed to understand why States and UTs do not respond once the Union calls for the necessary information. 
• It observed that the Union, States and UTs must have realised the importance of the judgment declaring menstrual hygiene a part of the fundamental right under Article 21. 

On the risk of the judgment remaining on paper: 

• The Court cautioned that if the directions are not implemented, the judgment would remain only on paper, and questioned how the authorities would then give effect to the fundamental right it had recognised. 

On the object of the judgment: 

• The Court reiterated that the January judgment was meant to address the problem of young girls, particularly in remote parts of the country, giving up education owing to difficulties in managing menstruation. 

Directions issued: 

• The Union was directed to take up the issue seriously with every State and UT and obtain written information on the measures taken to give effect to the judgment. 
• The Union was directed to study the judgment again and seek information on every aspect of its implementation, with particular attention to paragraphs 11 and 13 to 23 of the September 1 order. 
• The Union was asked to prepare a questionnaire to elicit appropriate responses from each State and UT. 

Warning of contempt: 

• The Court granted the States and UTs "one last opportunity". 
• It warned that if, on the next date, the Union reports that any State or UT has not responded, the Court shall proceed to issue notice of contempt to the Chief Secretary of the concerned State. 

Conclusion: 

• The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 14, 2026 at 2:30 PM.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. 
• It provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• It is available to all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens. 

Expansive Interpretation: 

• Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court has held that the procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. 
• The right to life has been interpreted to mean the right to live with human dignity, and not mere animal existence (Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)). 
• Through judicial interpretation, Article 21 has been held to include the right to health, the right to privacy, the right to a clean environment, the right to shelter and the right to education, among others. 
• In Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India (2026), the Supreme Court added menstrual hygiene/menstrual health as a facet of Article 21. 

Related Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 15(3): Enables the State to make special provisions for women and children. 
• Article 21A: Guarantees free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years. 
• Article 39(e) and (f): Directs the State to ensure that the health of citizens is not abused and that children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. 
• Article 47: Places a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. 

What is the Power of the Supreme Court to Punish for Contempt? 

Constitutional Basis: 

• Article 129: The Supreme Court is a court of record and has all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 
• Article 142(2): Subject to law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court has the power to investigate and punish any contempt of itself. 

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 

• Section 2(b) – Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 
• Section 2(c) – Criminal Contempt: Publication or doing of any act which scandalises or lowers the authority of a court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. 
• Section 12 – Punishment: Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to ₹2,000, or both. The accused may be discharged or the punishment remitted on an apology made to the satisfaction of the court

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan of the Karnataka High Court decided B v. Smt. A (2026). The Court held that the remarriage of a divorced wife is a material factor in determining the quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), though it is not an automatic bar to her entitlement. The Court partly allowed the husband's appeal and reduced the permanent alimony from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh. 

What was the Background of B v. Smt. A (2026) Case? 

• The parties were married in 2021. 
• The wife alleged that, from three months after the marriage, the husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, sexual abuse, arbitrary restrictions and denial of basic necessities, and that she was ousted from the matrimonial home in 2022. 
• The husband denied the allegations, claiming that he had met her needs, given her expensive gifts and made repeated attempts at reconciliation. He alleged that the wife insisted on a separate residence in Pune and refused to return of her own accord. 
• The Family Court, Mysuru dissolved the marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(2)(ii) of the HMA and awarded ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife. 
• The Family Court noted that the husband's annual salary was ₹25 lakh, as against the wife's annual salary of ₹7 lakh. 
• The husband appealed to the High Court, challenging only the quantum of permanent alimony and not the dissolution of marriage. 
• He contended that the Family Court had not considered his financial obligations towards his dependent parents. 
• During the pendency of the appeal, the wife's counsel filed a memo along with a marriage certificate stating that she had remarried on April 21, 2024. 
• The husband then argued that the wife's remarriage was a relevant factor in determining the quantum of alimony. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the power to vary alimony: 

• Section 25 of the HMA enables the court to vary, modify or rescind an order of permanent alimony upon a change in circumstances. 
• Section 25(3) specifically contemplates such variation where the party in whose favour the order was made has remarried. 

On the determination of permanent alimony: 

• There is no fixed formula for determining permanent alimony. 
• The court must consider the income and property of both parties, their respective means, status, earning capacity, future prospects, reasonable requirements and other circumstances of the case. 
• Subsequent events having a bearing on these circumstances must also be taken into account. 
• The Family Court had considered the husband's income and financial capacity, the wife's comparatively lower income and the circumstances in which she would have to live after the dissolution of marriage. 

On the effect of remarriage: 

• The wife's remarriage materially altered the circumstances relevant to assessing her future financial requirements as they stood when the Family Court passed the impugned judgment. 
• Once a divorced wife voluntarily remarries, the foundation for continuing maintenance may substantially change, particularly where the new marriage provides companionship, support and financial security. 
• A divorced spouse cannot treat alimony as an assured monetary benefit that survives irrespective of subsequent changes in marital and financial circumstances. 
• A matrimonial remedy intended to mitigate economic hardship cannot be converted into a windfall merely because the recipient has remarried. 

On remarriage not being an automatic bar: 

• Relying on Sharath Cariappa K.S. v. Smt. Sharin N.S. (2024), where a Division Bench reduced permanent alimony after the wife remarried during the pendency of the appeal, the Court held that remarriage does not by itself obliterate the circumstances giving rise to the entitlement to permanent alimony. 
• However, remarriage is a material change in circumstances that must be considered while determining the quantum payable. 

On the husband's other grounds: 

• The Court rejected the husband's contentions regarding non-disclosure of income by the wife and his financial obligations towards dependent parents, since no affidavit of assets and liabilities had been filed to support them. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court reduced the permanent alimony from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh. 
• The appeal was partly allowed, and the Family Court's judgment was modified to that extent.

What is Section 25 of the HMA? 

About: 

• Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. 
• It is gender-neutral and either spouse may claim permanent alimony under it. 

Provisions: 

• Section 25(1): Any court exercising jurisdiction under the HMA may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequently, on an application by either spouse, order the respondent to pay the applicant, for maintenance and support, a gross sum or a monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the applicant's life. In doing so, the court shall have regard to the respondent's income and property, the applicant's income and property, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. The payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the respondent's immovable property. 
• Section 25(2): If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party after the order is made, it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind the order as it deems just. 
• Section 25(3): If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour the order was made has remarried, or, in the case of the wife, has not remained chaste, or, in the case of the husband, has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may, at the instance of the other party, vary, modify or rescind the order as it deems just.

Factors for Determining Alimony: 

• In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on maintenance, holding that relevant factors include the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the claimant, the claimant's independent income and property, the standard of living enjoyed in the matrimonial home, and the financial capacity and liabilities of the paying spouse. 
• The Supreme Court also mandated the filing of an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties in maintenance proceedings, which is why the husband's unsupported claims in the present case could not be accepted.