Daily Legal Current Affairs 20 May 2024, Judiciary Exam Current Affairs

Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through LRS. And ORS.

• • BENCH : Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
  • FORUM : Supreme Court of India
  • PROVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION
    • Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act
    • SECTION 14 (1): Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

• Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act  Conditions to Claim Full Ownership Over Undivided HUF Property

• • • • The female Hindu shall be in possession of the property
      • She has acquired the property by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or by her skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.

• FACTS OF THE CASE

• • • The Hindu female was not in possession of the HUF property and her suit for claiming title and possession over the HUF property was rejected. No appeal was allowed against the judgment, and the decision became final.
    • The adopted son/respondent of the female (widow) claimed partition over the suit property on the ground that his widowed mother acquired the HUF property by way of inheritance after her husband's death.
    • The Suit for Partition came to be allowed by the High Court.
    • Against the High Court's decision, the parties approached the Supreme Court.

• COURT’S OBSERVATION

• • Since the Hindu female wasn't in possession of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, then merely acquiring a share in the HUF by way of inheritance wouldn't substantiate her claim to claim full ownership over the HUF property.
  • The essential ingredient of Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act is possession over the property since the deceased female widow was never in possession of the suit property, therefore, she can't claim ownership over the suit property as per Hindu Succession Act.
  • Since the female deceased widow was never in possession of the suit property, therefore the suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted son.
  • For a female Hindu to claim absolute ownership of an undivided property of a HUF , she should have been in possession of the property.
  • For establishing full ownership on the HUF estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.”

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

• BENCH: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

• FORUM: Supreme Court of India

• ISSUE: To consider the issue of the lack of guidelines for an inclusive digital KYC process for acid attack survivors and persons with permanent eye damage.

• FACTS OF THE CASE

• The main petitioner, an acid attack survivor, suffers from severe eye-disfigurement and facial damage. She cited the challenges that she faced while attempting to open a bank account. During the process of opening, she was deemed incapable of completing the digital KYC as she couldn't fulfill the requirement of a 'live photograph' taken by blinking her eyes.

• • • It was informed to the Petitioner that the mandatory requirement of proving a customer's 'liveness' under the RBI regulated KYC process can only be fulfilled upon a customer blinking his/her eyes before the camera such that the same could be matched with the customer's photograph. Unable to resolve the issue through traditional channels, Petitioner turned to social media to expose the difficulties faced by many survivors when attempting to open bank accounts.
    • Soon after, a senior executive from the bank reached out to her and informed that they could make an exception for her to open her account.
    • The senior executive did reach out to offer a solution for her individual situation (as an exception), the broader issue of similarly placed survivors remains unaddressed.

• The petitioners seeked directions to the Central authorities for framing appropriate guidelines providing for alternative methods to conduct the Digital KYC/e-KYC (Electronic Know Your Customer) process for acid attack survivors suffering from permanent eye-disfigurement or eye burns, with the view to make the Digital KYC/e-KYC process more accessible and inclusive towards all disabled persons, particularly acid attack survivors.

• • • It was prayed that the Centre clarifies the meaning and interpretation of 'Live Photograph' as mentioned in the RBI – KYC Master Directions, 2016 for conducting the Digital KYC/e-KYC and suitable alternatives be framed for this 'live photograph' considering the challenges faced by acid attack survivors and those with permanent eye disfigurement.

• COURT’S OBSERVATION

• • Bench issued a notice in the petition and termed it an 'important issue'.

Agnostos Theos v. Election Commission of India

• BENCH : Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta

• FORUM : Supreme Court of India

• FACTS OF THE CASE

• • • The Petitioner submitted that when a voter enters a polling station, the first polling officer takes the identity slip from the voter and puts it in a sequential order. Voter then approaches the second polling officer, who after marking his left index finger with ink, generates a second voter slip and also registers the details of the voter in Register 17A (also in sequential manner).
    • Thereafter, the voter approaches the third polling officer, who activates the EVM and the voter casts his vote.
    • The petitioner's concern related to the micro-controllers data chips inside EVMs.

• COURT’S OBSERVATION

• • Vote is cast in a chamber where nobody can see.
  • The polling officer in the booth is only able to ascertain as to what is the total number of votes cast. He does not know who has voted for whom.
  • After the result button is pressed, when the counting takes place, then the details come out. Not with regard to the breakup of the votes cast. And the parties in whose favor the vote's cast vis-a-vis the button number come up.
  • The Bench dismissed the petition filed against the Election Commission, Union of India and others, raising doubts about secrecy in the voting process.

Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

• BENCH : Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

• FORUM : Supreme Court of India

• PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

• • • Article 31-A of Constitution of India
    • Section 24 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (“Act”)

• COURT’S OBSERVATION

• • Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others (AIR 1967 SC 927) , Five Judge Constitution Bench observed that if there exists a surplus land after providing the land to the panchayat for the use of common purposes, then such land would have to be vested with the proprietor and not the state government or panchayat.
  • Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
  • Ignoring the judgment of the Constitution Bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness.
  • In Bhagat Ram , the Supreme Court opined that if the surplus land, being left land out after the land was utilized for the panchayat's common purposes, is vested with the state government (with an explanation that the land may be used to earn income for the panchayat) then the same would be nothing but compulsory acquisition of land within the ceiling limit of an individual without payment of compensation and would offend the second proviso to Article 31- A of the Constitution of India .
  • The court in Bhagat Ram clarified that until possession has changed under Section 24 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (“Act”) , the management and control does not vest in the Panchayat under Section 23-A of the Consolidation Act.
  • Unless the possession of the surplus land is shifted to the panchayat, the management and control of the surplus wouldn't be vested with the panchayat.

Y.S. Sharmila v. Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party

• BENCH : Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

• FORUM : Supreme Court of India

• PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION : Article 19 (1) (a) Freedom of Speech and Expression

• FACTS OF THE CASE

• A petition was filed by YS Sharmila challenging the refusal of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to interfere with the injunction order passed by the District Court.

• COURT’S OBSERVATION

• Supreme Court stayed the ex-parte injunction order passed by a District Court in Andhra Pradesh restraining YS Sharmila, the President of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, and others from speaking against the YSR Congress Party and the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy in connection with the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy.

• The Supreme Court in the Bloomberg case (Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd and others v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd) advised trial judges to not routinely pass pre-trial injunctions restraining freedom of speech and expression.