List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kogga & Ors. (2025) dismissed the appeal but referred the matter to the Law Commission of India for suitable amendment of the definition of 'dependent' under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. 

What was the Background of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kogga & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appeal arose from a judgment dated October 5, 2009, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No.7194 of 2005 (WC). 
• The deceased employee was survived by two widowed sisters (respondent Nos. 3 and 4), who were not minors at the time of his demise but were dependent on him. 
• The Commissioner had treated the widowed sisters of the deceased employee as his dependents under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and awarded compensation in their favour. 
• The appellant-Insurance Company challenged this decision, arguing that the two widowed sisters did not qualify as dependents of the deceased employee as contemplated under the Statute. 
• The Insurance Company contended that according to Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, only "a minor brother, or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor" could be treated as dependents. 
• Since the widowed sisters were not minors at the time of the deceased's demise, the appellant argued they should not be entitled to compensation. 
• The High Court of Karnataka had upheld the Commissioner's decision to award compensation to the widowed sisters despite them not being minors. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court initially reserved judgment on August 17, 2023, but re-listed the matter on August 24, 2023, deciding that appropriate assistance would be required from the Union of India regarding the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d). 
• The appeal was dismissed, however, leaving the question of law open for future consideration. 
• The Court observed that the Employee's Compensation Act was enacted in 1923, and the definition of 'dependent' in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) means "a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor". 
• The Court noted that "in the present time, no one will normally find a widowed sister who is a minor, especially after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." 
• The Court was of the view that the matter needs to be considered by the Law Commission of India for suitable amendment of the aforesaid provision or any other in the 1923 Act. 
• The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, who may further refer the same to the Chairperson, Law Commission of India. 
• The Court also directed the Registry to send intimation about the dismissal of the appeal to the respondents to enable them to withdraw the amount lying deposited in the Karnataka High Court. 
• In case any of the respondents had expired, their legal heirs were permitted to withdraw the amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any. 

What is the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923? 

About: 

• The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) is a social security legislation designed to provide compensation to employees and their dependents in case of accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. 
• The Act was enacted to provide financial protection to workers and their families in case of work-related injuries, disabilities, or death. 
• The Act defines 'dependent' to include certain relatives of the deceased employee who were wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the worker at the time of death. 

Definition of 'Dependent' under Section 2(1)(d): 

• Section 2(1)(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 defines who qualifies as a 'dependent' of a deceased employee for the purpose of claiming compensation. 
• The definition includes various categories of relatives such as widow, minor legitimate or adopted son, unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, and widowed mother. 
• Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) specifically mentions "a minor brother, or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor" as dependents. 
• This provision requires that a widowed sister must be a minor to qualify as a dependent, which creates practical difficulties in modern times. 

Practical Challenges with Current Definition: 

• After the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the minimum age for marriage was regulated, making child marriages illegal. 
• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initially prescribed the minimum age of marriage as 15 years for girls (later raised to 18 years in 1978). 
• Given these legal restrictions on child marriage, the scenario of a "widowed sister who is a minor" has become practically impossible or extremely rare. 
• The outdated provision in the Employee's Compensation Act fails to account for social changes and legal reforms that have occurred since 1923. 

Need for Amendment: 

• The Supreme Court's reference to the Law Commission acknowledges that the law needs to be updated to reflect contemporary social realities. 
• The amendment would ensure that widowed sisters who are genuinely dependent on their deceased brother can receive compensation, regardless of whether they are minors. 
• Such reform would align the Employee's Compensation Act with principles of social justice and the welfare objectives of labour legislation. 
• The Law Commission may consider expanding the definition to include all dependent widowed sisters or revising the criteria for determining dependency.

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice M. Dhandapani of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Kannan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.  (2025) set aside an order that rejected the petitioner's request to modify a birth certificate to reflect the names of adoptive parents, clarifying the applicability of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956(HAM Act) versus the Juvenile Justice Act. 

What was the Background of A. Kannan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner A. Kannan married K. Sheela on 27.1.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs but the couple was not blessed with a child from their matrimonial wedlock. 
• In 2022, they learned that Vijayalakshmi, an 18-year-old woman, had delivered a child on 26.4.2022 at Cluny Hospital, Puducherry, and was unable to care for the child due to penury. 
• The petitioner and his wife expressed their desire to adopt the child, to which Vijayalakshmi and her parents (the child's grandparents) P. Sakarapani and S. Sudha consented. 
• On 5.5.2022, a "Datta Homam" ceremony was performed by Dhandapani Sharma, a priest, according to Hindu rites and customs, formalizing the adoption. 
• The adoption was subsequently validated through a registered Adoption Deed dated 7.9.2022 (Doc. No.1595/2022) before the Sub Registrar, Puducherry. 
• A naming ceremony was performed on 2.10.2022, and the child was christened as 'K.S. Saatvika'. 
• The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.189 of 2023 before the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, seeking declaration that K.S. Saatvika was the lawfully adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife. 
• The suit was decreed in favor of the petitioner on 30.11.2023, with no appeal filed, making the decree final. 
• The petitioner then approached the 3rd respondent (Sub Registrar, Registrar of Birth & Death) to modify the birth certificate to include the child's adopted name and the names of the adoptive parents. 
• The 3rd respondent rejected the application vide proceedings No.348PM/RB&D/2024 dated 19.02.2024, stating that the petitioner should have approached the Juvenile Justice Authority for an adoption order from the District Magistrate. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Applicability of HAM Act vs Juvenile Justice Act: 

• The Court held that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act explicitly states: "Nothing in this Act shall apply to the adoption of children made under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956." 
• The HAM Act is a self-contained code that provides the manner in which adoption is to take place between two Hindus and determines who is eligible for entering into such adoption. 
• The Juvenile Justice Act would not have any overriding effect over Hindu Personal law in view of Section 56(3). 

On Child's Eligibility under Different Acts: 

• The Court noted that the child in question was neither an "abandoned child", "child in conflict with law", "orphan", nor "surrendered child" as defined under the Juvenile Justice Act. 
• Regulation 4 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 applies only to children governed by the Juvenile Justice Act, not to children adopted under personal laws like the HAM Act. 
• The child given for adoption to the petitioner does not fall under sub-sections (1), (13), (42), and (60) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 

 On Validity of Adoption in Present Case: 

• The Court acknowledged that both the petitioner and biological mother were eligible to give and take adoption under the HAM Act. 
• While Section 9 of the HAM Act requires consent of both parents, the Court noted that the biological father's identity was unknown, and no case was registered under the POCSO Act, making the requirement of father's consent inapplicable. 
• The biological mother had given the child in adoption, as evidenced by her deposition in O.S. No.189/2023, and the grandparents' execution of the adoption deed did not invalidate it when done with the mother's concurrence. 

On Civil Court Decree: 

• The civil court had decreed the suit granting declaration and injunction after trial and hearing witnesses, and this decree had attained finality. 
• The respondents are bound by the decree passed in the suit, which cannot be set at naught by an administrative order. 

On Purpose of Adoption Laws: 

• The Court emphasized that both the Juvenile Justice Act and HAM Act are benevolent legislations aimed at providing shelter and protection for children. 
• The adoption process should facilitate permanent care and protection of the child within a family, safeguarding the child's physical, emotional, relational, and educational needs. 

Final Direction: 

• The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh birth certificate incorporating the name of the child (K.S. Saatvika) and the names of the petitioner and his wife K. Sheela as adoptive parents within four weeks. 

What is the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956? 

About: 

• The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act) is a legislation that governs adoption and maintenance among Hindus in India. 
• It applies to persons who are Hindus by religion, including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. 
• The Act consolidates and amends the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. 

Section 6 - Requisites of a Valid Adoption: 

No adoption shall be valid unless: 

• The person adopting has the capacity and right to take in adoption 
• The person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so 
• The person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption 
• The adoption is made in compliance with other conditions mentioned in the Act 

Section 9 - Persons Capable of Giving in Adoption: 

• Only the father, mother, or guardian of a child can give the child in adoption. 

The father, if alive, has the primary right to give in adoption, but must have the mother's consent unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or been declared of unsound mind. 

The mother may give the child in adoption if the father is dead, has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or been declared of unsound mind. 

Where both parents are dead, have renounced the world, abandoned the child, or been declared of unsound mind, or where parentage is unknown, the guardian may give the child in adoption with court permission. 

The court must be satisfied that the adoption is for the child's welfare and no payment or reward has been made except as sanctioned by the court. 

Distinction from Juvenile Justice Act: 

The HAM Act is a self-contained code for adoptions within Hindu personal law. 

Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act explicitly exempts adoptions made under the HAM Act from its provisions. 

The HAM Act does not require involvement of Child Welfare Committees or District Magistrate's adoption orders.