1. Bring law to recognise paternity leave: Supreme Court to Centre
The Supreme Court urged the Union government to introduce a legal framework recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. The Court emphasised that childcare responsibilities should not rest solely on mothers and that fathers must also be given institutional support. It noted that the absence of such provisions undermines gender equality and shared parenting. While not issuing binding directions, the Court strongly recommended legislative action to formally recognise paternity leave and integrate it within existing labour and welfare policies.
2. Air Force Group Insurance Society is a ‘State’ under Article 12: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court found that AFGIS performs public functions and operates under deep and pervasive control of the government. As a result, its actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny, including fundamental rights obligations. This ruling expands the accountability of such welfare bodies and ensures that personnel associated with them can seek constitutional remedies against arbitrary actions.
3. Supreme Court strikes down restriction on maternity benefits for adoptive mothers
The Supreme Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which limited maternity benefits only to adoptive mothers of children below three months. The Court held this classification to be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating equality principles. It recognised that adoptive mothers require similar support irrespective of the child’s age at adoption. The ruling reinforces reproductive and caregiving rights, ensuring that adoptive mothers are not unfairly excluded from statutory maternity benefits.
4. Vadodara car crash: Supreme Court upholds bail of the accused
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the bail granted to a 23-year-old accused in the Vadodara car crash case. The Court noted that although the accused was driving under the influence of drugs, the incident did not appear to be intentional or premeditated. Considering the circumstances and stage of the trial, the Court found no grounds to cancel bail. It emphasised that bail decisions must balance the seriousness of the offence with facts indicating intent and ongoing investigation.
5. Definition of ‘industry’: Supreme Court reserves verdict in 9-judge bench case
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on reconsidering the scope of “industry” under labour law. The reference challenges the correctness of the landmark Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa ruling, which adopted a broad interpretation. A nine-judge Bench heard arguments on whether such an expansive definition remains relevant under current statutory frameworks. The decision is expected to significantly impact labour relations and the applicability of industrial laws across various sectors.
6. Convicts must be informed before appointing amicus curiae: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court directed that High Courts must inform convicts before appointing an amicus curiae to represent them. The Court observed that failure to do so may affect the accused’s confidence in legal representation and the fairness of proceedings. This direction came after a convict expressed dissatisfaction with an amicus appointed without his knowledge. The ruling strengthens procedural fairness and ensures that even unrepresented accused persons are aware of and involved in decisions affecting their defence.
7. Supreme Court resolves ambiguity in law officer exam question
The Supreme Court intervened to resolve a disputed question from a Chandigarh law officer recruitment exam. The issue arose after two High Court judges gave conflicting answers to the same question. The Supreme Court examined the legal position and determined the correct answer to ensure fairness in the selection process. The case highlights the importance of clarity and accuracy in competitive examinations, especially where legal interpretation directly affects candidates’ results and career prospects.
8. Loan recovery calls not abetment of suicide: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that mere calls demanding repayment of a loan do not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court clarified that for liability to arise, there must be clear evidence of instigation, intention, or active participation in pushing the victim towards suicide. In the absence of such elements, routine recovery communication cannot be criminalised. This ruling narrows the scope of abetment under criminal law and prevents misuse of the provision in financial disputes.
9. “Wife is not a maid”: Supreme Court on household responsibilities
The Supreme Court held that a wife’s refusal to perform household chores cannot amount to cruelty for the purpose of divorce. The Court emphasised that marriage involves shared responsibilities and that domestic work cannot be imposed solely on the wife. It rejected the husband’s claim seeking divorce on this ground and underlined the need for equality within matrimonial relationships. The ruling reinforces evolving social standards regarding gender roles within a marriage.
10. Consumer forums cannot decide banking fraud disputes: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that consumer forums do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving allegations of fraud or forgery in banking transactions. The Court held that such matters require detailed examination of evidence and must be decided by civil or criminal courts. It noted that consumer fora are meant for summary proceedings and cannot handle complex fraud issues. This ruling clearly demarcates jurisdictional boundaries and ensures proper adjudication of serious financial disputes.
