Supreme Court stays Andhra HC order to study ‘constitutional breakdown’ in State - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court stays Andhra HC order to study ‘constitutional breakdown’ in State.

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order intending to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State machinery under the Jagan Mohan Reddy government, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.

“It is Article 356 that deals with failure of constitutional machinery in a State... This is a power [to impose President’s rule] exclusively vests in the Executive. The power in this regard, like sending a report either to the Hon’ble President or to the Hon’ble Governor or to record a finding in that regard, cannot be exercised by the judiciary,”.

The “unprecedented” order of the High Court, on October 1, came while deciding habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of persons remanded in judicial custody or on bail.

The High Court had suo motu summoned the State counsel to assist it in deciding “whether in circumstances prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the court can record a finding that there is constitutional breakdown in the State or not”.

‘HC did not take up application’

The State said an application to recall the October 1 order was not taken up by the High Court, compelling the government to move the apex court.

The government said the High Court’s observation violated the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution.

“Under the constitutional framework, it is not for the courts to decide as to whether there is a constitutional breakdown in a State. The said power has been specifically conferred upon a different constitutional authority – and rightly so. It is needless to mention that the constitutional courts do not have any judicially discoverable and manageable standards to determine if there has been a constitutional breakdown,” the petition contended. (Source: The hindu)

The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court stays Andhra HC order to study ‘constitutional breakdown’ in State.

Centre not required to take prior environmental clearance for NH projects: Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Centre not required to take prior environmental clearance for NH projects: Supreme Court.

The Centre has framed rules under the 1956 Act and even they do not “remotely suggest” that the government is obliged to obtain prior permission under environmental or forest laws.

The central government is not required to obtain “prior environmental or forest clearance” under the laws before declaring a stretch as national highway (NH) and expressing its intention to acquire the land for building, maintenance or operating such roads, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday.

This significant observation was made by the top court in its judgement upholding the notification for acquisition of land for the Rs 10,000-crore Chennai-Salem eight-lane green corridor project.

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari dealt with relevant provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the National Highways Rules, 1957 and the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 while examining the Madras High Court’s decision that a prior environmental clearance was needed for the project.

The High Court verdict on April 8, 2019 had held as “illegal and bad in law” the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act for acquisition of specified lands for construction of the new highway which was part of the larger “Bharatmala Pariyojna– Phase I5″ project.

Justice Khanwilkar, in the 140-judgement, said: “There is nothing in the 1956 Act, which impels the Central Government to obtain prior environment clearance before exercise of that power and in issuing notification under Section 2(2), much less Section 3A expressing its intention to acquire the designated land.

“None of these enactments/rules specify any express condition requiring Central Government to obtain prior environmental/forest clearance before issuing notification under Section 2(2) declaring the stretch/ section to be a national highway or Section 3A of the 1956 Act to express intention to acquire land for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway, as the case may be.”

The Centre has framed rules under the 1956 Act and even they do not “remotely suggest” that the government is obliged to obtain prior permission under environmental or forest laws.

“Reverting to the notification issued by the MoEF dated September 14, 2006, even this notification does not constrict the power of Central Government to issue notification under Section… There is nothing to suggest that before expressing intention to acquire any land for the purpose of the 1956 Act, prior environmental/forest clearance is required,” it said.

The environmental or forest clearance, however, is, required to be obtained by the executing agency in terms of this notification ”before commencing the actual work or executing the proposed project, it said.

The top court, however, said that it has not expressed any opinion either way on the correctness and validity of the permissions or clearances accorded by the competent authorities under the environment and forest laws.

It said that the orders granting permissions under the environment and forest laws were not the subject matter or the issues before the High Court and hence, it would be open to the affected persons to question the validity before the appropriate forum.

“We have not examined the efficacy of the permissions/clearances granted by the competent authority under the environment or forest laws, as the case may be. If those permissions/clearances are assailed, only then the decisions (previous judgements)…may be looked at,” it said.

Referring to judgements referred on legality of grant of environmental clearance to projects, the top court said that in those cases it was called upon to “examine the challenge in the context of permissions given by the competent authority under the environment laws.”

The ambitious 277.3-km-long eight-lane green field project connecting Salem and Chennai under the Centre’s “Bharatmala Pariyojana” scheme aims to cut travel time between the two cities by half to about two hours and 15 minutes.

However, it has been facing opposition from a section of locals, including farmers, over fears of losing their land, besides environmentalists who are against felling trees for it.

The project runs through reserve forest and water bodies. (Source: The Indian Express)

The above Article can also be readusing the link below:

Centre not required to take prior environmental clearance for NH projects: Supreme Court.

Supreme Court sets aside RBI ban on cryptocurrency transactions - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court sets aside RBI ban on cryptocurrency transactions.

Top court finds prohibitive circular too disproportionate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an April 6, 2018, circular of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) prohibiting banks and financial institutions from providing services in relation to cryptocurrencies.

In a judgment globally significant for online financial transactions, the top court found the prohibitive circular too disproportionate. The central bank should have opted for a less invasive mechanism to control the pitfalls of cryptocurrency transactions, the court has indicated.
The Bench led by Justices Rohinton Nariman allowed the petition filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which had contended that the RBI circular was “arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional”.
According to the April 6 circular, the entities regulated by the RBI were prohibited from providing any service, including transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies”.
Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of the currency units and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court sets aside RBI ban on cryptocurrency transactions.

Private property is a human right: Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Private property is a human right: Supreme Court.

‘Grabbing private land and claiming it as its own makes the State an encroacher’

A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.

The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said.
Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.
In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.
Adverse possession
“A welfare state cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.
Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.
Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.
“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.
Moves HC
Ms. Devi first learnt about her right for compensation in 2010 from her neighbours who had also lost their property to the road. Then, in her 70s, she did not lose time to march straight to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, accompanied by her daughter, to join her neighbours in their fight against the state. But the High Court asked her to file a civil suit in the lower court. Disappointed, Ms. Devi moved the Supreme Court.
Ordering the state to pay her ₹1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a fundamental right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Property ceased to be a fundamental right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Private property is a human right: Supreme Court.

Signed carbon copy is a permissible evidence: Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Signed carbon copy is a permissible evidence: Supreme Court.

A previous order had declared it invalid.

A signed carbon copy of a document prepared in the same process as the original is admissible as primary evidence, the Supreme Court has held in a recent order.
A Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose clarified the law while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision of January 15 that a carbon copy signed by the parties in a dispute cannot be treated as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Section says “primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court.”

Second explanation
The apex court has applied the second explanation in Section 62 in this case.
“Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest,” the section states.
The Evidence Act also gives an illustration: “a person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.”
The High Court had dismissed the case, saying there was no substantial question of law involved.
“The High Court held that a carbon copy of a document which is signed by both the parties cannot be termed an original document under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This finding is absolutely incorrect and against the provision of Section 62. This carbon copy was prepared in the same process as the original document and once it is signed by both the parties, it assumes the character of the original document,” the Supreme Court held.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court disposed of the case, which is a civil appeal between two private parties, and remitted it back to the High Court and said it would not express any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
“It is for the High Court to decide whether any substantial question(s) of law arises and the appellant before us is entitled to any relief or not. With these observations, the civil appeal is disposed of,” the apex court ordered. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Signed carbon copy is a permissible evidence: Supreme Court.

Government has failed to bring in Uniform Civil Code, says Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Government has failed to bring in Uniform Civil Code, says Supreme Court.

Constitution framers had hoped for uniform set of rules.

The Supreme Court said the nation has still not endeavoured to secure for its citizens a Uniform Civil Code. The government has till date taken no action, a Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose observed in a judgment delivered on Friday.

Justice Gupta, who wrote the 31-page judgment, said the founders of the Constitution had expressed their hope that one day the State would fulfil expectations of a Uniform Civil Code.
Hopes of founders
The founders had penned their hope that a uniform set of rules would replace the distinct personal laws of marriage, divorce, etc. based on customs of each religion.
“Whereas the founders of the Constitution in Article 44 in Part IV dealing with the Directive Principles of State Policy had hoped and expected that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territories of India, till date no action has been taken in this regard,” the Supreme Court wrote.
The court said though the “Hindu laws were codified in the year 1956, there has been no attempt to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country”.
The judgment said, “Despite exhortations of this Court in the case of Shah Bano in 1985, the government has done nothing to bring the Uniform Civil Code...”
The Supreme Court hailed the State of Goa as a “shining example” where “uniform civil code applicable to all, regardless of religion except while protecting certain limited rights”.
Under this Code practised in Goa, a Muslim man whose marriage is registered in the State cannot practice polygamy, a married couple share property equally, pre-nuptial agreements are the order of the day and assets are divided equally between the man and woman on divorce.
The judgment came in a case concerning the question whether succession and inheritance of a Goan domicile is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 or the Indian Succession Act of 1925.
Goa was once a Portuguese colony until it was made part of India. “Portuguese law, which may have had foreign origin, became a part of the India laws, and in sum and substance, is an Indian law,” the court held.
Law panel’s stand
In 2018, a Law Commission of India consultation paper had however said the Uniform Civil Code is “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” in the country. The Commission said secularism cannot contradict the plurality prevalent in the country. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Government has failed to bring in Uniform Civil Code, says Supreme Court.

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed? - Pragnya IAS Academy - News analysis.

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed?.

What is the mechanism in place to examine allegations of misconduct against members of the higher judiciary?.

The allegations made by a former Supreme Court employee against the Chief Justice of India have brought the focus on the mechanism that exists to examine charges of misconduct against members of the higher judiciary. What exactly is the procedure involved and how was it devised?

How are allegations of misconduct against judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court dealt with?
Allegations of misconduct against serving judges of the superior judiciary, that is, the various high courts and the Supreme Court, are dealt with through an ‘in-house procedure’. Most complaints may pertain to judicial conduct, and may be at the behest of parties aggrieved by the outcome of their cases. However, some may concern the personal conduct of judges. Two purposes are served by the adoption of an internal procedure to deal with such complaints: when the allegations are examined by the judge’s peers, outside agencies are kept out, and the independence of the judiciary is maintained. Second, awareness about the existence of a mechanism to examine such complaints will preserve the faith of the people in the impartiality and independence of the judicial process. The in-house procedure envisages that false and frivolous allegations can be rejected at an early stage and only those that are not baseless, and may require a deeper probe, are taken up for inquiry.
What is the origin of the ‘in-house’ procedure?
The idea of self-regulation as a method by which allegations of misconduct against judges can be approached came up first in a 1995 case concerning the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The Chief Justice resigned amidst an uproar caused by reports that he had been paid unjustifiably high amounts by a publisher. In a case relating to this allegation, the Supreme Court outlined the procedure that may be adopted in such situations. Until then, misconduct on the part of superior court judges was perceived as something that only Parliament could deal with through the procedure for removal of judges given in the Constitution. However, the court made a distinction between ‘impeachable behaviour’ and bad behaviour. Later, in 1997, when Justice J.S. Verma took over as Chief Justice of India, he took up the issue. He circulated a document titled ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, a guide containing the essential elements of ideal behaviour for judges so that their independence and impartiality are beyond reproach. The Full Court passed a resolution that an ‘in-house procedure’ would be adopted for action against judges for acts of commission or omission that go against accepted values of judicial life.
When was the in-house procedure adopted?
A five-judge committee was formed to devise the procedure. The report of the committee was adopted by a resolution of the Full Court on December 15, 1999. This procedure has been adhered to since then. However, the in-house procedure was not in the public domain for many years. In 2014, a Supreme Court Bench directed the court’s registry to make the in-house procedure public for the sake of transparency. The court was then dealing with a serious allegation made by a woman district and sessions court judge that she faced harassment from a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
How does the in-house procedure work? What are the various steps?
When a complaint is received against a High Court judge, the Chief Justice concerned has to examine it. If it is frivolous or concerns a judicial matter, she may just file the complaint and inform the Chief Justice of India. If she considers it serious, she should get a response from the judge concerned. If she is satisfied with the response and feels no further action is required, she may close the matter and keep the CJI informed. However, if the CJI feels a deeper probe is needed, she should send the complaint as well as the judge’s response to the CJI, with her own comments, for further action.
The procedure is the same if the CJI receives the complaint directly. The comments of the high court Chief Justice, the judge concerned and the complaint would be considered by the CJI. If a deeper probe is required, a three-member committee, comprising two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge, has to be formed. The committee will hold a fact-finding inquiry at which the judge concerned would be entitled to appear. It is not a formal judicial proceeding and does not involve lawyers or examination or cross-examination of witnesses.
If the charge is against a high court Chief Justice, the same procedure of getting the person’s response is followed by the CJI. If a deeper probe is deemed necessary, a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices of other High Courts will be formed.
If the charge is against a Supreme Court judge, the committee would comprise three Supreme Court judges. There is no separate provision in the in-house procedure to deal with complaints against the CJI.
What are the possible outcomes from the inquiry committee?
If it finds that there is substance in the allegations, the committee can either hold that the misconduct is serious enough to warrant removal from office, or that it is not so serious as to warrant removal. In the former case, it will call for initiation of proceedings to remove the judge. The judge concerned would be advised to resign or take voluntary retirement. If the judge is unwilling to quit, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned would be advised to withdraw judicial work from him, and the President of India and the Prime Minister would be informed of the situation. Such an action may clear the way for Parliament to begin the political process for impeachment. In case, the committee finds substance in the allegation, but it is not grave enough to warrant removal from office, the judge concerned would be advised accordingly, and the committee’s report will be placed on record. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed?.

Political parties must disclose details of donations received through electoral bonds to EC: Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Political parties must disclose details of donations received through electoral bonds to EC: Supreme Court.

• 'The electoral bonds have tremendous baring to the electoral sanctity of India', Chief Justice Gogoi said
• EC had openly voiced out that it shall support the electoral bond scheme provided the donor's name is revealed
The Supreme court on Friday issued an interim order directing all political parties to disclose to the Election Commission details of donations received through electoral bonds till 15 May.
Names and details of donors also need to be disclosed. All the information has to be provided to the Election Commission by 31 May.

Supreme court also directed the finance ministry to make amendments with respect to the extra five days provided in the months of April and May for issuance of electoral bonds by the State Bank of India. The law allows only a 50-day spread in the months of January, April, July and October during which the bonds can be bought.
"Electoral bonds have tremendous baring to the electoral sanctity of India," Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.
Critics of the electoral bond scheme have contended that since the donor’s name is not known, any shell company can make a donation.
Attorney General K K Venugopal had submitted before the court that a know-your-customer or KYC procedure is carried before issuance of these bonds. The Supreme Court bench had made an observation yesterday that the KYC just verified the donor, not the source of money from which donations are made.
The Election Commission has stated it will support the electoral bond scheme if the donor's name is revealed.
The petition against the electoral bonds was filed by the NGO, Association of Democratic Reforms, through lawyer Prashant Bhushan. He has argued against amendments to various laws made in order to pave a smooth path for the implementation of the scheme. (Source: Livemint)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Political parties must disclose details of donations received through electoral bonds to EC: Supreme Court.

Govt has to frame schemes; courts should stay out of governance, says Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Govt has to frame schemes; courts should stay out of governance, says Supreme Court.

Such directions to the government to “consider” framing a scheme should be with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

It is the sole prerogative of the government to frame schemes, courts should stay out of governance, the Supreme Court has said in a judgment.
A Bench led by Justice A.M. Sapre criticised the Uttarakhand High Court for framing a scheme to regularise hundreds of casual workers engaged by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) under the Ministry of Defence in the construction of roads for going to pilgrimage of Char Dham Yatra.

“The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the courts to frame any scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the government to do it… All the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the government to consider for framing an appropriate scheme,” Justice Sapre, who wrote the judgment for the Bench, observed in the judgment dated March 15.
Such directions to the government to “consider” framing a scheme should be with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
“It is only in exceptional cases when the court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions,” Supreme Court held.
Instead, in the present, a Single Judge of the High Court framed “a scheme itself to regularise the services of the casual paid labourers and granted them the benefits similar to those of the regular employees under the labour law.”
When the Centre appealed to the Division Bench, the latter dismissed the appeal and went a step further to direct the government to frame a scheme to provide specific facilities to the workers.
The case was filed in the High Court by trade unions representing the casual workers, including the All India Trade Union Congress. It was their case that the Centre had regularised these labourers though they had been working for the BRO for years together.
They argued that the workers were neither paid regular salary/perks/facilities nor given any protection due to a government employee.
In its judgment, the court recorded that the government has “now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers” during the pendency of the case. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Govt has to frame schemes; courts should stay out of governance, says Supreme Court.

Supreme Court reinstates Alok Verma as CBI Director - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court reinstates Alok Verma as CBI Director.

However, it restrains him from taking any major policy decision till the Central Vigilance Commission inquiry is over.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday “re-instated” exiled CBI Director Alok Verma, but ordered him to “cease and desist” from taking any major policy decisions till a high-powered committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi decides afresh the question of his divestment.
Now, with just a few days left before retirement, Mr. Verma’s fate hinges on the decision of this committee comprising the Prime Minister (PM), the Chief Justice of India and the Opposition Leader.
Asthana’s complaint
Their call would be based on allegations levelled against him. These allegations, based on a complaint filed by rival CBI officer R.K. Asthana, had led to a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) inquiry and his divestment from office. The court itself has not commented on the merits of these allegations.
The judgment, delivered by a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however concluded that the CVC and the government acted outside their authority to unilaterally divest Mr. Verma and appoint M. Nageshwar Rao as the interim CBI Director in back-to-back decisions taken overnight on October 23 last year. The court set aside both the orders.
The judgment was written by Chief Justice Gogoi, who was on leave. The puisne judges on the Bench, Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, presided over the pronouncement of judgment in open court. Justice Kaul read out excerpts from the judgment.
‘Only routine works’
Thus the court, though placing Mr. Verma back on the saddle, has effectively clipped his wings. His authority as a CBI Director would be confined to “ongoing routine functions” till the PM Committee decides. The court specifically ordered him not to undertake “any fresh initiative” with major policy or institutional implications in the interregnum.
The court asked the committee of Prime Minister Modi, Chief Justice Gogoi and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, as Opposition leader, to consider Mr. Verma’s case within a week.
The judgment said the pivotal question in the Verma controversy was whether government and CVC should have obtained prior consent of the PM committee, set up under Section 4A (1) of the Delhi Special Police Act (DSPE) Act, before divesting him as CBI Director on October 23.
Responding to this, the court dismissed the claims of superintendence over the CBI made by the government and the CVC. The judgment reasoned that the legislative intent had been all along to completely insulate the CBI Director from extraneous influences.
It termed the requirement to get the prior approval of the high-powered committee to either transfer or even to divest a sitting CBI Director as a “compelling necessity”. The prior approval of the PM committee provided “an adequate safeguard to ensure the independence of the office” of the CBI Director. This legislative intent was apparent from the fact that the Parliament, on its own volition, amended the DSPE Act through the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013.
These amendments had included Section 4A, which set up the PM Committee, and Section 4B. Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act required the government to take the prior consent of the PM Committee before transferring a CBI Director mid-tenure.
Another question answered by the court was whether the divestment of Mr. Verma amounted to a ‘transfer’ under Section 4B (2). The judgment expanded the term ‘transfer’ to include divestment, and thus, made prior consent of the PM panel a must.
“If the word ‘transferred’ has to be understood in its ordinary parlance and limited to a change from one post to another... such an interpretation would be self-defeating… In such an event it will be free for the State to effectively disengage the CBI Director from functioning by adopting various modes, known and unknown, which may not amount to transfer but would still have the same effect as a transfer, namely, cessation of exercise of powers and functions,” it explained. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court reinstates Alok Verma as CBI Director.

Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitution dangerous: Attorney General - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitution dangerous: Attorney General.

The use of constitutional morality can be 'very, very dangerous,' says Attorney General K K Venugopal.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of a constitutional concept “can be very, very dangerous” Attorney General K K Venugopal has said, warning the court was granting itself vast power.

Venugopal, the government’s top legal officer, said on Saturday because of constitutional morality, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's fear that the Supreme Court will become the third chamber of Parliament might come true.
"The use of constitutional morality can be very, very dangerous and we can't be sure where it will lead us to. I hope Constitutional morality dies," Venugopal said at the second J Dadachanji Memorial Debate.
"As a powerful weapon which surpassed all the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, Article 142 merely permitted the Court to pass such decree or make such order as to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before the court. But the Article was treated as a Kamadhenu from which unlimited powers flowed to the apex court of the country."
Venugopal, while talking about the history of conflict between the judiciary and the legislature, underscored that in its early days, top court struck down land reform and nationalisation laws as the judges noted that it violates equality. "The laws were struck down on a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Criticising a recent judgment, he said: "In Sabarimala case, the dissenting judge said we can't interfere with a matter of faith. But other four judges dealt with constitutional morality. It's one thing for Supreme Court to deal with an individual, but here you're dealing with a whole population.
“What is this Constitutional morality? If a bench of the Supreme Court speaks in two different voices, one saying Constitutional morality will permit the entry of women and the other one which says no, it's prohibited because of Constitutional morality, which is a very dangerous weapon. You cannot use it. It can result in grave injury without anyone knowing where it's going to end," he said while referring to the Sabarimala case.
Recalling the statement made by then Chief Justice Hidayatullah on amendments in the Constitution, Venugopal said that the former stated that the only purpose of the amendments was "to neutralise the judgements of the Supreme Court." Venugopal added that given the circumstances it is "very difficult to say whether the court was right."
Expressing dissent over the interference of the top court, Venugopal said, "The Preamble of the Constitution reads, 'we, the people'. We gave to ourselves this Constitution. Are you going to treat the whole of the population as illiterate and not able to think for themselves? I say no. Maybe the illiteracy today is 26 per cent, but even those (people living in the villages and rural areas), they have basic wisdom and they know what is good for them. And therefore, for the court to believe that unless we interfere, the country is doomed, I say no, it can't. (Source: The Business Standard)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitution dangerous: Attorney General.

Clean Air Week from 1st November to control pollution in Delhi On firecrackers, directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be followed strictly - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Clean Air Week from 1st November to control pollution in Delhi On firecrackers, directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be followed strictly.

A Clean Air Week would be organised from 01 to05 November, 2018 in collaboration with the Government of Delhi and the four major NCR cities to control the air pollution. For this, 52 teams have been formedto ensure compliance and safety and take quick action. The teams will be jointly flagged off byUnion Minister forEnvironment, Forest &Climate Change and the Minister from Government of Delhi.

This decision was taken in a meeting held here today under the Chairmanship of Shri C.K. Mishra, Secretary, EF&CC to discuss the urgent steps for air pollution mitigation and regulating fire crackers in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order. In the meeting, it was emphasized that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that air quality levels are not allowed to go into the severe category in the next one week.

Teams for Clean Air Week compriseof the local SDM as the team leader, senior official from MoEFCC and representatives from CPCB, MCD and DPCC. Delhi will have 44 teams and the cities in NCR region namely Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad shall have two teams each. Field Teams will be supported by the local police to ensure compliance and safety. All the DMs and MCD commissioners shall be involved in the campaign and ensure that quick action is taken on the cases of violations reported by the field teams. In case of repeat violations, criminal proceedings against defaulters will be initiated.

On the issue of firecrackers, it was decided thatthe directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Order dated 23.10.2018 shall be followed strictly in Delhi and NCR.Timings and locations as envisaged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order for bursting of firecrackers would be strictly adhered to. Further only eco friendly fire crackers would be sold after proper authorization has been obtained from PESO. Any other kind of firecrackers would not be permitted to be sold in the NCR region as per the order of the Supreme Court. Delhi Police and the DMs of Gurugram, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad were requested to ensure that these measures were strictly implemented by them in their respective areas.

Secretary conveyed his serious concern over the fact that there is no significant improvement in the air quality in spite of the concerted efforts being made by the Ministry and all the stakeholders. He emphasized the need for taking action which can lead to local containment of pollution and which is visible to the people.

In addition to the above it was also directed that Government of Delhi shall immediately deploy 400 water sprinklers/ tankers as already committed. Construction sites will be closed temporarily for a few days to improve air quality. No distinction be made between Governmental or private agencies for this purpose. Further all agencies should ensure no local biomass and industrial waste burning. The industry should be closed if found violating the instructions.No truck should be allowed to move uncovered while carrying C&D waste. In case of violation, the truck should be confiscated. Delhi Traffic Police should launch a special drive for Lane driving.

The meeting was attended by Chief Secretary Delhi, Special Commissioner, Delhi Police, Commissioners of MCDs, DMs of the various districts of Delhi and DMs of Gurugram, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad. (Source: pib)

The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Clean Air Week from 1st November to control pollution in Delhi On firecrackers, directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be followed strictly.

Supreme Court Orders Govt to Impound 15-year-old Petrol, 10-year-old Diesel Vehicles in NCR - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court Orders Govt to Impound 15-year-old Petrol, 10-year-old Diesel Vehicles in NCR.

The CPCB will immediately make social media account on which citizens can complain about pollution, the top court ordered.

The Supreme Court on Monday prohibited the plying of 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles in the national capital region (NCR) and directed the transport department to announce that such vehicles would be impounded if found plying.
Terming as "very critical" the prevailing situation of pollution in Delhi-NCR region, the apex court directed that a list of 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles be published on the web site of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and transport department.
A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta said that advertisement on this should also be published in the newspapers. Taking note of news reports of severe air pollution, the bench said, "If you take a walk in the evening to the Old Delhi railway station, you will see poor people on cycle rickshaws. They have no option but to work outside to earn a living. Hundreds of people are earning their livelihood outside... how do you tell them? Will you tell them to kill themselves by working in all this pollution?"
The bench directed the CPCB to immediately create a social media account on which citizens could lodge their complaints directly about pollution on which appropriate action could be taken by the authorities concerned.
It permitted the court-mandated Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) to take pre-emptive steps under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) without strict adherence to pollution stages delineated in the plan.
GRAP is aimed at tackling air pollution in Delhi-NCR and adjoining areas and it is designed to take urgent remedial action when air quality deteriorates.
The apex court passed these directions on a note placed before it by advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the air pollution matter, seeking urgent directions to correct the prevailing situation of pollution.
Earlier, the National Green Tribunal had also banned the plying of 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles in the Delhi-NCR. The apex court had rejected a plea against the NGT's order banning plying of 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles on Delhi roads.
The top court is seized of matters in which several issues related to air pollution in the Delhi-NCR have been raised.


The above Article can also be read full Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court Orders Govt to Impound 15-year-old Petrol, 10-year-old Diesel Vehicles in NCR.

Supreme Court allows sale of only 'green' firecrackers: Key highlights - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court allows sale of only 'green' firecrackers: Key highlights.

The Supreme Court has allowed use of fire crackers that are within permitted decibel limits and emission norms.

HIGHLIGHTS:
-SHO's will be held liable if banned crackers are sold in their area.
-Low polluting crackers with permitted decibel limits and emission norms allowed.
-Court bans sale of firecrackers on e-commerce websites.
The Supreme Court has refused to impose a nationwide blanket ban on sale of firecrackers. In its verdict today, the court said only 'green firecrackers' (which are less polluting) will be allowed to be sold.
In its order, the court banned the online sale of firecrackers and put a stay on e-commerce portals from selling them.
The court said only "low polluting" green crackers which are within permitted decibel limits and emission norms will be allowed.
The court also imposed timing restrictions on burning firecrackers on Diwali. The court said people will be allowed to burn crackers between 8pm and 10 pm on Diwali. On New Year and Christmas, the timing is from 11:45 pm to 12:15 am.
The court has also directed all states to explore feasibility of community cracker bursting during festivals.
The Supreme Court's verdict came in response to a plea seeking a ban on manufacturing and sale of firecrackers across the country to curb air pollution.
This comes 15 days ahead of Diwali (November 7).
The matter was heard by a bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. On August 28, the bench had reserved its verdict.
Here are 10 thing that you should know:
1) On October 9 last year, the Supreme Court temporarily banned the sale of firecrackers ahead of Diwali.
2) The court refused to relax its order and dismissed a plea moved by traders. In wake of the temporary ban, the traders were seeking permission to sell crackers for at least a day or two before Diwali last year.
3) The court had said that the limited ban on firecrackers during Diwali was an experiment to examine its effect on the pollution levels.
4) In the past, the Supreme Court had said that while deciding on a ban on firecrackers, it is important to take into account all aspects, including the fundamental right of livelihood of firecracker manufacturers and the right to health of over 1.3 billion people of the country.
5) The court had said that Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution applies to both segments of people (firecracker manufacturers and general public) and it needs to maintain a balance while considering a countrywide ban on firecrackers. For this, the court also asked the central government to suggest ways through which pollution can be curbed and what will be the effect of firecrackers on the public at large.
6) On August 8 this year, the court observed that a spike in PM 2.5 levels in the air is a severe problem as the particulate matter remains in people's lungs, leading to serious health implications.
7) In their contention, firecrackers manufacturers had argued that the use of firecrackers should not be completely banned. They said their use should rather be strictly regulated.
8) On whether firecrackers are the main contributors to air pollution in the national capital and adjoining areas during winter, the manufacturers contended that crackers are not the reason for increase in air pollution. They said there are other factors, like wind and temperature, which contribute to it.
9) They have said the firecracker manufacturers can be deprived of their right to do business based on statements which were not supported by facts.
10) Every year during winter, the air quality in Delhi worsens to alarming levels, turning the city into a gas chamber. Stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, along with firecrackers during Diwali, vehicular pollution and construction activities are the primary reasons for this.(Source: The India Today)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court allows sale of only 'green' firecrackers: Key highlights.

Adultery no longer a crime as Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Adultery no longer a crime as Supreme Court strikes down Section 497.

Declaring that adultery is not a crime, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a colonial-era anti-adultery law, saying it was unconstitutional, dented the individuality of women and treated them as “chattel of husbands”.

The judgment was welcomed by activists, who said the archaic law should have been dumped a long time ago to keep pace with the rest of world.
The apex court’s five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery, holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic and violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.
A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said that unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution.
The top court, which held adultery as a relic of the past, said the autonomy is intrinsic in dignified human existence and Section 497 denudes women from making choices.
The National Commission of Women chief Rekha Sharma welcomed the judgement saying it should have been removed long time ago.
“This is a law from the British era, although British had done away with it long back, we were still stuck with it,” she said. Her views were echoed by many lawyers and activists.
While adultery should not be a criminal offence, the bench held that adultery should continue to be treated as civil wrong, and can be grounds for dissolution of marriage or divorce. There can’t be any social licence which destroys a home, Justice Misra said.
Section 497 of the 158-year-old IPC says: “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery.”
Adultery was punishable by a maximum five years in jail or fine or both.
The apex court pronounced four sets of concurring judgements to declare penal provision on Adultery and section 198 of CrPC dealing with prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional.
Justice Misra noted that adultery dents the individuality of women and it is not a crime in countries like China, Japan and Australia.
“We declare Section 497 IPC and Section 198 of CrPC dealing with prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional,” said Justice Misra, who wrote the judgement for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, adding that any provision treating women with inequality is not constitutional and it’s time to say that “husband is not the master of woman”.
Justice Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the bench, said Section 497 is clear violation of fundamental rights granted in the Constitution and there is no justification for continuation of the provision.
Justice Nariman termed Section 497 as archaic law and concurred with the CJI and Justice Khanwilkar, saying that the penal provision is violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.
Justice Chandrachud said Section 497 destroys and deprives women of dignity and is destructive of women’s dignity, self-respect as it treats women as “chattel of husbands”.
Adultery might not be cause of unhappy marriage, it could be result of an unhappy marriage, Justice Misra said.
The CJI began reading the judgement by saying the beauty of the Constitution is that it includes “the I, me and you”.
He said equality is the governing parameter of the Constitution and section 497 of the IPC is manifestly arbitrary the way it deals with women.
Justice Chandrachud said autonomy is intrinsic in dignified human existence and Section 497 denudes women from making choices and held adultery as a relic of past.
Legislature has imposed a condition on sexuality of women by making adultery as offence, he said, adding that section 497 is denial of substance of equality.
The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar said mere adultery cannot be a crime, but if any aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of life partner’s adulterous relation, then if evidence is produced, it could be treated as an abetment to suicide.


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Adultery no longer a crime as Supreme Court strikes down Section 497.

Section 377 verdict: Supreme Court legalises homosexuality, partially strikes down Section 377 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Section 377 verdict: Supreme Court legalises homosexuality, partially strikes down Section 377.

Section 377: The Supreme Court reversed its own 2013 decision restoring Section 377, a controversial British-era ban on consensual gay sex (homosexuality)

Diluting Section 377 by unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday said LGBTQ community has the same fundamental rights as other citizens. This marks the end of a long legal battle supporting homosexuality.
Section 377 refers to ‘unnatural offences’. It states that whosoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
At least 32 individuals had filed petitions to scrap Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, including celebrities, IITians and LGBT activists. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had earlier reserved its verdict on July 17 after hearing several petitioners, including gay rights activists.
While reserving judgment, the bench made it clear that no one should be under the impression that it will scrap Section 377 altogether as it will lead to anarchy and rise in crimes relating to forced unnatural acts. The Centre initially had sought adjournment for filing its response to the petitions, but later left to the wisdom of the court the issue of legality of the penal provision with regard to aspects of criminalising consensual unnatural sex between two consenting adults.
The Centre had said that the other aspects of the penal provision dealing with minors and animals should be allowed to remain in the statute book.
The Supreme Court had in 2013 restored criminality of the sexual relationship between persons of the same sex, after the Delhi High Court’ had decriminalised it in 2009.
The five-judge bench on July 10 had made it clear that it was not going into the curative petitions and would adjudicate on fresh writ petitions in the matter. The writ petitions were opposed by the Apostolic Alliance of Churches, Utkal Christian Association and some other NGOs and individuals, including Suresh Kumar Kaushal, who had challenged the 2009 verdict of the high court in the apex court.
The issue of Section 377 raised by an NGO Naaz Foundation, which had in 2001 approached the Delhi High Court, seeking decriminalised sex between consenting adults of the same gender by holding the penal provision “illegal”. (Source: Livemint)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Section 377 verdict: Supreme Court legalises homosexuality, partially strikes down Section 377.

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on fate of Section 377 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on fate of Section 377.

The judgment comes on a batch of petitions, including the lead one filed by hotelier Keshav Suri, arguing that the right to sexual orientation is meaningless without the right to choose a partner.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will pronounce on September 6 its judgment on the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial era provision which criminalises private consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults.
The Bench is led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprises Justices Rohinton F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
There will be two opinions for the Constitution Bench. They will be authored by Chief Justice Misra and Justice Chandrachud.
The judgment would be first of the several major judgments, including Aadhaar, Sabarimala women entry ban, etc., waiting to be pronounced by various Constitution Benches led by Chief Justice Misra, who is retiring on October 2.
The Constitution Bench hearing in the Section 377 case began on July 10 with Justice Chandrachud orally observing that a person’s choice of a partner is a fundamental right to life, and a ‘partner’ includes same-sex partner.
The judgment comes on a batch of petitions, including the lead one filed by hotelier Keshav Suri, arguing that the right to sexual orientation is meaningless without the right to choose a partner. Section 377 criminalises a section of people for being a sexual minority.
The Constitution Bench judgment would decide whether the December 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court in the Suresh Koushal case, which had upheld Section 377 and dismissed the LGBT community as a negligible part of the population while virtually denying them the right of choice and sexual orientation, would prevail or not.
The initial days of the Constitution Bench hearings saw the Bench debating whether it should travel beyond the topic of sexual orientation and examine the wider concept of ‘’sexuality’ to include co-habitation, etc. But Chief Justice Misra had finally observed that the Bench should first decide the question of the constitutionality of Section 377.
The court had discussed whether what was perceived as against the “order of nature” in 1860 – the year the Indian Penal Code was framed – was still so in 2018. Justice Nariman had wondered whether LGBT itself was an “order of nature”.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Mr. Suri, had argued that “everything changes with the passage of time… Laws made 50 years can become invalid over time”. He had pointed out that Section 377 fell under the ‘Unnatural Offences’ chapter in the IPC. “What is unnatural? It can be between a man and man and also between a man and a woman. Sex done even between a man and woman, but not in the “conventional” way, also becomes unnatural under 377,” Mr. Rohatgi had interpreted.
The court heard arguments about how history has changed its view on homosexuality from pathological prejudice to a “normal and benign variation of human sexuality”.
Justice Malhotra, the woman judge on the Bench, had reacted that homosexuality was not confined to humans but extended to the animal kingdom.
In the hearing, the government chose to remain neutral on the legality of Section 377, leaving the decision entirely to the wisdom of the Supreme Court.
However, the government’s neutrality came with a rider that the court should clarify that the freedom to choose a partner does not extend to perversions like incest.
“My choice of partner should not be my sister... That is prohibited under the Hindu marriage law. Allowing the choice of a partner should not extend to incest... sado-masochism...,” Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta had voiced the government’s apprehensions to the Constitution Bench.
To this, Justice Chandrachud had replied that the Bench is not sitting to adjudicate over any “kinky notions” of sexual orientation. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on fate of Section 377.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, 6 states on violation of public advertisement guidelines - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, 6 states on violation of public advertisement guidelines.

Except Telangana, the other five states are ruled by the BJP.

The Supreme Court on Friday, August 31, 2018, sought responses from the Centre, six state governments and the BJP on a plea which has alleged that they have violated the apex court’s directions on issuance of public advertisements.

Besides the Centre and the BJP, the apex court issued notices to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chattishgarh and Telangana on a plea filed by an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA from Delhi.
Except Telangana, the other five states are ruled by the BJP.
A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked them to file their responses within four weeks on the plea by Sanjeev Jha, an MLA from Burari constituency here.
The petitioner has alleged that the Centre, BJP and these states have issued public advertisements in violation of the apex court’s directions given earlier.
He has sought a direction from the top court that a committee constituted on this issue by the Centre should be asked to take cognizance of these alleged violations and initiate appropriate proceedings against them.
On May 13, 2015 the apex court had passed a slew of directions including the order asking Centre to constitute a three-member committee “consisting of persons with unimpeachable neutrality and impartiality” to regulate the issue of public advertisements.
However, on March 18, 2016, the apex court modified its order and said the pictures of Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, Governors and State Ministers can appear in government advertisements.
That verdict came on pleas by Centre and states including the then poll-bound West Bengal and Tamil Nadu which had sought a review of the Supreme Court judgment barring publication of leaders’ photos in advertisements except those of the President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India, saying it infringed on fundamental rights and federal structure.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Common Cause which had filed the original PIL on review petitions filed by the States, had told the bench that certain state governments were violating the apex court’s orders.(Source: The Hindu)



The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, 6 states on violation of public advertisement guidelines.

Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Article 35A till next year - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Article 35A till next year.

The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A till January next year. The Jammu and Kashmir government had sought adjournment of the hearing Article 35A in the view of upcoming local body elections in the state.

The matter was listed before a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.
The Jammu and Kashmir government had written a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on August 29. Jammu and Kashmir government's standing counsel M Shoeb Alam had argued in the letter a hearing on Article 35A may impact holding of upcoming local body elections in the state.
The letter also stated that preparation for the upcoming panchayat and urban local body and municipal elections in Jammu and Kashmir was underway and in the view of the polls, hearing on Article 35A should be deferred to avoid inconvenience to the administration.
The dates for the local body elections in Jammu and Kashmir have not been declared yet. The elections are likely to be held by the end of September.
Article 35A was incorporated in Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954. Article 35A empowers the state assembly to define "permanent residents" for bestowing special rights and privileges to them.
NGOs - We the Citizens and Ikkjut Jammu - are among the five petitioners, who have sought quashing of Article 35-A on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Article 35A confers special status to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir. It also denies property rights to women, who marry those from outside the state. Article 35A also applies to the heirs of such women.
Political parties like the National Conference and the CPI (M) have also moved the Supreme Court in the matter. But these parties have entered the legal fray in support of Article 35A. (Source: The Indian Express)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Article 35A till next year.

Plea in Supreme Court against changes to amended SC/ST law - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Plea in Supreme Court against changes to amended SC/ST law.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the fresh amendments made to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as violative of the fundamental rights to equality, life and liberty.

The amendments had restored the legislative intent of the original Act of 1989, which barred anticipatory bail to a person accused of insulting or hurting a Dalit.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill of 2018 overrides a March 20 judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced by a Bench of Justices (now retired) A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit restricting the powers of the police under the Criminal Procedure Code to arrest a suspect. The verdict had also read down a specific bar in the original Atrocities Act of 1989 against anticipatory bail.
The judgment reasoned that many false cases are foisted on innocent persons under the 1989 Act. The fundamental right of an innocent to be protected from arbitrary arrest should be protected. For this, the court had ordered that a Deputy Superintendent of Police should conduct a “preliminary enquiry” into every complaint of atrocity committed against an SC/ST community member.
Subsequently, the arrest of the accused persons should be approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned. The judgment had led to widespread violence and loss of lives across the country, following which the government moved the Supreme Court for a review.
The 2018 Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha even as the review petition of the government is pending in the Supreme Court, overcomes the March 20 judgment by amending the 1989 Act to introduce Section 18A.
This provision does away with the need for a preliminary enquiry or requirement for an investigating officer to take prior approval from his superior before registering an FIR on a complaint under the Act. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Plea in Supreme Court against changes to amended SC/ST law.