List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court decided Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (2026). The Court dismissed the cooperative bank’s appeal and upheld a member’s right to obtain the bank’s records through the Registrar under the RTI Act, holding that such information cannot be denied as personal when the Registrar has power to access it under another law. 

What was the Background of Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v. State Chief Information Commissioner (2026) Case? 

• The respondent, a member of the appellant cooperative bank, sought two documents under the RTI Act from the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies:  
  • Details of a contract entered into by the bank; and 
  • Minutes of the bank’s General Body Meeting. 
• His request was initially rejected. 
• In the second round of proceedings, the State Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court upheld his right to access the records. 

Contentions of the bank: 

• The bank was not a “public authority” under the RTI Act. 
• The Registrar could access its records under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 only after deciding to initiate an inquiry. 
• The information was exempt under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, relating to commercial confidence and personal information. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the bank approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 2(f) of the RTI Act: 

• Section 2(f) covers information relating to a private body that a public authority can access under any other law in force. 
• The Registrar need not already possess the documents, nor decide to initiate an inquiry, before accessing them. 
• Once the Registrar has the power to access the documents held by the cooperative bank, the bank is obliged to provide the information to its member by virtue of Section 2(f). 

On the Registrar’s powers: 

• Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act confers supervisory and inspection powers on the Registrar or a person authorised by him. 
• Such supervision may be carried out as often as the Registrar considers necessary and includes inspection of the society’s books. 

On the exemption for commercial confidence (Section 8(1)(d)): 

• The documents did not involve any trade secret, intellectual property or commercial confidence affecting a competitive position. 
• The bidding process was already over and a Labour Contract Society had obtained the contract, the terms of which any member would be concerned with. 

On the exemption for personal information (Section 8(1)(j)): 

• The contract details and General Body Meeting minutes, sought by a member of the society, could not be treated as personal information. 
• The absence of any connection to public activity or interest was not a sufficient ground to refuse the request, where the documents were otherwise accessible. 
• A member cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the society or does not involve public activity or interest. 

On requests by unconnected third parties: 

• The position would differ if an identical request were made by a person unconnected with the society. 
• The concept of personal information is not limited to natural persons and extends to private entities, whose affairs every citizen cannot claim an interest in unless there is a link to public activity. 

Directions: 

• The appeal was dismissed and the High Court Division Bench’s judgment was upheld. 
• The Registrar was directed to call for the two documents immediately, and in any event within two weeks, and supply them to the member. 

What are the Relevant Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005? 

Section 2(f) – Information: 

• Means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models and data in electronic form. 
• It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. 

Section 2(h) – Public Authority: 

• Includes any authority, body or institution of self-government established or constituted:  
  • By or under the Constitution; 
  • By any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature; or 
  • By a notification or order of the appropriate Government. 
• It also includes bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government, and non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the Government. 

Section 8(1)(d) – Commercial Confidence: 

• Exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless larger public interest warrants disclosure. 

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information: 

• Exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. 

What was Held in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013)? 

• Cooperative societies registered under State cooperative laws are not public authorities under Section 2(h) merely because they are subject to supervision and control by the Registrar. 
• A society would be a public authority only if it is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government. 
• However, information relating to such societies may still be accessed through the Registrar under Section 2(f), to the extent the Registrar can lawfully access it under the relevant cooperative law, subject to the exemptions under Section 8. 

Source: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court decided Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi (2026). The Court partly allowed a petition against a Family Court order permitting the wife to recall witnesses and lead additional evidence after closure of evidence, explaining the distinct scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the CPC. 

What was the Background of Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion, non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed against the wife under Section 9, and cruelty. 
• The respondent (wife) contested the petition, and the trial court framed issues on cruelty, desertion and the relief to be granted. 
• Both parties led evidence, examining themselves and three witnesses each. 

Application to reopen evidence: 

• After evidence closed and the case was listed for final arguments, the wife filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 
• She sought to recall the husband and his witnesses for further cross-examination, and to examine two new witnesses. 
• She stated that she had recently learnt that the husband had, during the subsistence of their marriage, married another woman and had three children with her. 
• She came to know of this when she met the husband’s alleged son-in-law, married to the husband’s alleged daughter from the second marriage. 

Order of the Family Court: 

• The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu allowed the application. 
• It permitted recall of the husband and two of his witnesses, and examination of the two new witnesses. 
• It also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the husband. 

Challenge before the High Court: 

• The husband contended that:  
  • There was no need to reopen evidence; 
  • Costs could not be imposed without first deciding whether he had in fact entered into a second marriage; and 
  • The order was illegal and passed without application of mind. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC: 

• The Rule empowers the court to recall any witness already examined and put such questions as it thinks fit. 
• Its main purpose is to enable the court to clarify its own doubts about the evidence led by the parties. 
• It cannot be used to let parties recall witnesses for further examination-in-chief or cross-examination, or to bring in additional material that could not be produced earlier. 
• Relying on Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009), the Court noted that the power must be exercised sparingly and not merely to help a party fill gaps or omissions in its evidence. 
• In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011), the Supreme Court held that the power may be exercised suo motu or on application, but is discretionary and meant only for clarification. 

On Section 151 CPC: 

• Section 151 preserves the inherent power of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. 
• As held in K.K. Velusamy, where the Code has no provision for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses for purposes other than clarification, Section 151 may be invoked in appropriate cases. 
• The Court can therefore permit a party to lead additional evidence discovered after closure of evidence, if it is necessary in the interests of justice. 

Application to the facts: 

• The husband argued that the wife already knew of the second marriage, as she had filed a complaint under Section 494 of the Ranbir Penal Code, which was dismissed in 2014. 
• The Court noted that the earlier complaint concerned a different woman and that allegation was not proved, whereas the present allegation related to a different person. 
• The wife had placed on record documents, including an Aadhaar card, a matrimonial petition and a marriage agreement, which prima facie showed the husband as the father of the alleged daughter. 
• The evidence related to the husband’s conduct and was relevant and necessary in the interests of justice. 
• If a second marriage were proved, it would bear on whether the wife was justified in not living with the husband, and would be a defence against the allegation of cruelty. 

On recall of the husband: 

• Since important evidence was being introduced, it was necessary to recall the husband to clarify the resulting doubts under Order XVIII Rule 17. 

On recall of the husband’s other witnesses: 

• Recalling the husband’s two witnesses was unnecessary, as they had already stated in cross-examination that they were unaware of any second marriage. 

On imposition of costs: 

• Costs could not be imposed because the second marriage was yet to be established. 
• Without such a finding, it could not be said that the husband had concealed the fact. 

Directions: 

• The petition was partly allowed. 
• The Family Court’s order was set aside to the extent of imposing costs of ₹10,000 and directing recall of the husband’s two witnesses. 
• The order was upheld to the extent of recalling the husband and permitting the wife to examine the two new witnesses. 
• The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with the High Court’s observations. 

What is Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC? 

About: 

• Order XVIII deals with the hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses. 
• Rule 17 provides that the court may, at any stage of a suit, recall any witness who has been examined and put such questions to them as it thinks fit, subject to the law of evidence. 

Key principles: 

• The power is meant to enable the court to clarify doubts about the evidence. 
• It may be exercised by the court on its own motion or on an application by a party. 
• It is discretionary and must be used sparingly. 
• It cannot be used to fill lacunae or omissions in a party’s evidence. 

What is Section 151 of the CPC? 

About: 

• Section 151 provides that nothing in the Code limits or affects the inherent power of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 

Principles governing its exercise (K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011): 

• It is not a substantive provision that creates or confers jurisdiction. 
• It may be used only where the Code does not deal with a procedural aspect. 
• The court cannot use it to do what is prohibited by law. 
• It must be exercised with care and circumspection, and only where absolutely necessary. 
• The bona fides of the applicant must not be in doubt. 
• Its exercise must serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.