π―π₯There were four judgements/orders of the Constitution Bench in the year 2022. Last year this number was three (3) and in the year before that this number was eleven (11).
π₯ Supreme Court upholds 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (as he then was) Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
π₯ Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009
π₯ A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority
The Constitution bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
Case Title: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Lts. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
π₯ Section 319 CrPC Power has to be exercised before pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction.
The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab 2019
@CurrentLegalGK
π₯ Supreme Court upholds 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (as he then was) Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
π₯ Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009
π₯ A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority
The Constitution bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
Case Title: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Lts. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
π₯ Section 319 CrPC Power has to be exercised before pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction.
The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab 2019
@CurrentLegalGK
π21π1
π₯ State Emergency/ President rule
βοΈStatic Provisions - Article 356, 355, 365, Quasi- Federal.
βοΈCurrent Topic - Suo Motu by S.C. in Manipur Tribal Conflict
βοΈOther Case laws -
- State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977)
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980)
- Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India and Another (2006) etc
βοΈMore Important for prelims.
#constitution
βοΈStatic Provisions - Article 356, 355, 365, Quasi- Federal.
βοΈCurrent Topic - Suo Motu by S.C. in Manipur Tribal Conflict
βοΈOther Case laws -
- State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977)
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980)
- Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India and Another (2006) etc
βοΈMore Important for prelims.
#constitution
π7β2π₯1
Here is a Recent constitution Bench Judgement delivered by 5 Judges Bench Headed by Justice SK Kaul .
It can dissolve a marriage on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' of relations w/o refering to family court. Excercise its power U/A-142 COI which empowers the top court to pass any order that it deems neccesary for 'complete Justice' in any matter pending before it .
One Set of Question - what could be the broad parameters for the excercise of power U/A -142 COI to dissolve a marriage b/w consenting parties w/o refering them to family court to wait for mandatory period prescribed U/S - 13(B) of HMA 1955 ?
Whether the excercise of such jurisdiction by apex court U/A 142 should not be made at all ?
Whether such excercise should be left to be determined in facts of every case , use earlier refered to constitution bench ?
It held that the period of 6 months can be dispensed with subject to the requirements & conditions as specified in 2 judgements of this court . (Justice Khanna).
The bench also considering whether its 'sweeping power' U/A - 142 are inhibited in any manner in a scenerio where a marriage has irretrievably broken down in opinion of court but one of the parties is sesisting divorce .
it observed that social changes takes a 'little time' & sometimes it was eaiser to bring a law but difficult to persude society to change with it .
#irretrievable_breakdown - due to failure of the matrimonial relationship and the couple can no longer live together as man & wife .
Case - shilpa sailesh vs varun sreenivasan 2023
#family_law #complete_justice
It can dissolve a marriage on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' of relations w/o refering to family court. Excercise its power U/A-142 COI which empowers the top court to pass any order that it deems neccesary for 'complete Justice' in any matter pending before it .
One Set of Question - what could be the broad parameters for the excercise of power U/A -142 COI to dissolve a marriage b/w consenting parties w/o refering them to family court to wait for mandatory period prescribed U/S - 13(B) of HMA 1955 ?
Whether the excercise of such jurisdiction by apex court U/A 142 should not be made at all ?
Whether such excercise should be left to be determined in facts of every case , use earlier refered to constitution bench ?
It held that the period of 6 months can be dispensed with subject to the requirements & conditions as specified in 2 judgements of this court . (Justice Khanna).
The bench also considering whether its 'sweeping power' U/A - 142 are inhibited in any manner in a scenerio where a marriage has irretrievably broken down in opinion of court but one of the parties is sesisting divorce .
it observed that social changes takes a 'little time' & sometimes it was eaiser to bring a law but difficult to persude society to change with it .
#irretrievable_breakdown - due to failure of the matrimonial relationship and the couple can no longer live together as man & wife .
Case - shilpa sailesh vs varun sreenivasan 2023
#family_law #complete_justice
π8β‘1β€1
'Dissents that Shaped Our Constitution'
Important 6 judgements.
You can mention this as the chief result in Article 19(1)(a) that is freedom of speech as every voice should be heard.
Topic: Freedom of speech vs Hate speech ( An example under FOS)
π©ββοΈDon't forget justice B.V. NAGARATHNA
#constitution #judges
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/senior-advocate-arvind-datar-dissents-that-shaped-our-constitution-207652
Important 6 judgements.
You can mention this as the chief result in Article 19(1)(a) that is freedom of speech as every voice should be heard.
Topic: Freedom of speech vs Hate speech ( An example under FOS)
π©ββοΈDon't forget justice B.V. NAGARATHNA
#constitution #judges
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/senior-advocate-arvind-datar-dissents-that-shaped-our-constitution-207652
www.livelaw.in
'Dissents that Shaped Our Constitution'
"The law is shaped not merely by the majority rulings but sometimes it is shaped by the great dissenting judgments on our Constitution. What appears to be a dissenting view, a view contrary to...
β€4π―2π1
Important Judgement Delivered by Constitution bench 5 Judges bench
A Judgement Delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the no. Of judges constituting the majority .
In view of A.145(5) a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a Judgement or opinion of the court.
Case title M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. V/s Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 2022
Landmark
A Judgement Delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the no. Of judges constituting the majority .
In view of A.145(5) a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a Judgement or opinion of the court.
Case title M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. V/s Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 2022
Landmark
π6β€1
Supreme Court judgment on writ of certiorari.
The court summarizes two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
"In granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
"The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking."
"In a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not."
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs Bikartan Das | 2023 INSC 633
#constitution #certiorari #writ #case
The court summarizes two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
"In granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
"The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking."
"In a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not."
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs Bikartan Das | 2023 INSC 633
#constitution #certiorari #writ #case
π6
πFREE Premium Subscription Article
Explained | Why is Biharβs caste-based survey facing a challenge in the Supreme Court? - The Hindu
πSurvey of Salary and Caste by bihar GOVT.
βοΈCONSTITUTIONAL LENS
β’ Union List - Entry 69
β’ Ministry of Home Affairs.
β’ Article 246
Over All you can relate each provision of constitution with census as it is related to people of India which is a Democratic Country therefore whether it is Social Justice under DPSP or delimitation or Right to Equality from 14 to 18.
βοΈSurvey vs Census
The Court highlighted that a βcensusβ includes the collection of accurate facts and verifiable details, while a βsurveyβ is intended for the collection and analysis of opinions and perceptions of the general public, aimed at a specific community or group of people.
βοΈContentions by opposition
π₯State government competence-
π₯Data Privacy issue-
βοΈPATNA HIGH COURT affirmed:
β’ Appointment of commissions is not the only procedure for the identification of backwardness.
(Indra sawhney)
β’ K.S. Puttuswamy case - reasonable restrictions on data privacy.
β’ Executive authority is competent to frame a policy for better administration of the State.
THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED IN SC ON 18TH AUGUST
https://archive.fo/2023.08.17-131823/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-why-is-bihars-caste-based-survey-facing-a-challenge-in-the-supreme-court/article67167395.ece/amp/
Explained | Why is Biharβs caste-based survey facing a challenge in the Supreme Court? - The Hindu
πSurvey of Salary and Caste by bihar GOVT.
βοΈCONSTITUTIONAL LENS
β’ Union List - Entry 69
β’ Ministry of Home Affairs.
β’ Article 246
Over All you can relate each provision of constitution with census as it is related to people of India which is a Democratic Country therefore whether it is Social Justice under DPSP or delimitation or Right to Equality from 14 to 18.
βοΈSurvey vs Census
The Court highlighted that a βcensusβ includes the collection of accurate facts and verifiable details, while a βsurveyβ is intended for the collection and analysis of opinions and perceptions of the general public, aimed at a specific community or group of people.
βοΈContentions by opposition
π₯State government competence-
π₯Data Privacy issue-
βοΈPATNA HIGH COURT affirmed:
β’ Appointment of commissions is not the only procedure for the identification of backwardness.
(Indra sawhney)
β’ K.S. Puttuswamy case - reasonable restrictions on data privacy.
β’ Executive authority is competent to frame a policy for better administration of the State.
THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED IN SC ON 18TH AUGUST
https://archive.fo/2023.08.17-131823/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-why-is-bihars-caste-based-survey-facing-a-challenge-in-the-supreme-court/article67167395.ece/amp/
π₯4β2π2
[Affinity test cannot be the litmus test to decide a caste claim: SC]
πWHAT:::::An affinity test mandates the study and preparation of a report by authorities on caste/tribe claims based on the peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies, etc, of the particular caste or tribe and the applicants knowledge of them.
πS.C ruled :::::"affinity test can never be conclusiveβ to prove a caste/tribe claim.
πCase title:: PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBE VS MAHARASTRA STATE.
#AFFINITYTEST #NOTCONCLUSIVE
πWHAT:::::An affinity test mandates the study and preparation of a report by authorities on caste/tribe claims based on the peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies, etc, of the particular caste or tribe and the applicants knowledge of them.
πS.C ruled :::::"affinity test can never be conclusiveβ to prove a caste/tribe claim.
πCase title:: PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBE VS MAHARASTRA STATE.
#AFFINITYTEST #NOTCONCLUSIVE
π3π1
πJustice FATMIA M BEVI; the first women judge of the Supreme Court of India.(1989)
πJustice LEILA SETH;
First women judge of Delhi H.C.
She was also to become the first CJI of Himachal Pradesh H.C on 1991.
β¨In high courts, the percentage of women judges is a mere 11.5%, while in the Supreme Court there are three sitting women judges out of 34(including CJI) in office.
The situation of women lawyers in the country is not any better. Out of 1.7 million advocates registered, only 15% are women.
#MAINS #STATICGK #DATAWRAPPER #1st.
πJustice LEILA SETH;
First women judge of Delhi H.C.
She was also to become the first CJI of Himachal Pradesh H.C on 1991.
β¨In high courts, the percentage of women judges is a mere 11.5%, while in the Supreme Court there are three sitting women judges out of 34(including CJI) in office.
The situation of women lawyers in the country is not any better. Out of 1.7 million advocates registered, only 15% are women.
#MAINS #STATICGK #DATAWRAPPER #1st.
π₯4π1π1
βοΈLegal Attack on the Stereotypes on Women
1. Joseph shine vs UOI 2018
The role of law in confronting patriarchy and stereotypes.
2. Criminal Laws Amendment 2013
Rejection of pre vaginum test (or βtwo finger testβ) and irrelevance
of sexual history.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
there should be no presumption that the testimony of a survivor or victim of sexual violence is not credible, nor should courts display an inherent suspicion of testimony on the incorrect assumption that women as a class of individuals lie about sexual violence. Rather, the testimony of a survivor must be accorded due weight as the victim of any other crime.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey lal
An absence of injuries does not automatically lead to a presumption that the sexual intercourse was consensual or that the survivor or victimβs testimony is not credible. (Act can be on gun point to family members)
5. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand
Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not.
#Gender_Justice
1. Joseph shine vs UOI 2018
The role of law in confronting patriarchy and stereotypes.
2. Criminal Laws Amendment 2013
Rejection of pre vaginum test (or βtwo finger testβ) and irrelevance
of sexual history.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
there should be no presumption that the testimony of a survivor or victim of sexual violence is not credible, nor should courts display an inherent suspicion of testimony on the incorrect assumption that women as a class of individuals lie about sexual violence. Rather, the testimony of a survivor must be accorded due weight as the victim of any other crime.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey lal
An absence of injuries does not automatically lead to a presumption that the sexual intercourse was consensual or that the survivor or victimβs testimony is not credible. (Act can be on gun point to family members)
5. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand
Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not.
Topic: Role of Judiciary in empowering women.#Gender_Justice
π₯3β1π1
Important Judgement Given by Hon'ble SC by 3 Judges' Bench
Recognising sex work as profession
Every individual in this country has rt. to dignified life A.21
Prostitution is not illegal in India
Police cannot take criminal action against adult and consenting sex workers
Govt. should make schemes for sex workers Rehabilitation of sex workers
DIRECTION BY SC BY USING A.142
β’Equal protection of law
β’ Rt. against harrasment
β’ Non-disclosure of the identity
β’ Directs UIDAI to issue Aadharcard to sex workers w/o insisting on proof of residence
Note: Running a brothel is still illegal under PITA act.
Case Budhadev Karmaskar vs st. Of west Bengal
#Constitution #Article_21
@CurrentLegalGK
Recognising sex work as profession
Every individual in this country has rt. to dignified life A.21
Prostitution is not illegal in India
Police cannot take criminal action against adult and consenting sex workers
Govt. should make schemes for sex workers Rehabilitation of sex workers
DIRECTION BY SC BY USING A.142
β’
β’ Rt. against harrasment
β’ Non-disclosure of the identity
β’ Directs UIDAI to issue Aadharcard to sex workers w/o insisting on proof of residence
Note: Running a brothel is still illegal under PITA act.
Case Budhadev Karmaskar vs st. Of west Bengal
#Constitution #Article_21
@CurrentLegalGK
π6β2
Why is it Important for Judges to Use the Right Words?
The language a judge uses reflects not only their interpretation of the law, but their perception of society as well.
Even when the use of stereotypes does not alter the outcome of a case, stereotypical language may reinforce ideas contrary to our constitutional ethos.
Language is critical to the life of the law. Words are the vehicle through which the values of the law are communicated.
Words transmit the ultimate intention of the lawmaker or the judge to the nation.
β EXCELLENT USE - While writing your Answer just mention one of the new term and in bracket use the old one.
#quote
#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK
The language a judge uses reflects not only their interpretation of the law, but their perception of society as well.
Even when the use of stereotypes does not alter the outcome of a case, stereotypical language may reinforce ideas contrary to our constitutional ethos.
Language is critical to the life of the law. Words are the vehicle through which the values of the law are communicated.
Words transmit the ultimate intention of the lawmaker or the judge to the nation.
β EXCELLENT USE - While writing your Answer just mention one of the new term and in bracket use the old one.
#quote
#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK
π7β€6π₯3π―2
π³οΈElection commission of IndiaIssue: Appointment procedure of CEC & ECs
πRECENT DEVELOPMENT
π Bill Introduced in parliamentβ
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023
β’To override the S.C. unanimous verdictβ
π [S.C. verdict] 2023
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
π¨ββοΈConstitutional bench comprising
β’ K.M. Joseph β’ Ajay Rastogi
β’ Aniruddha Bose β’ Hrishikesh Roy
β’ C.T. Ravikumar
π‘οΈIssues:
1. Does the current process for ECI appointments violate the right to equalityβ
2. Does the current process for ECI appointments violate the right to free and fair electionsβ
ππ’Contentions by Both the sides
β½Petitionerβ
β’ Article 14 - Arbitrary
β’ No law made under 326 till now
β’ Independence of ECI
β½Respondentβ
β’ Parliament not obliged to make law for appointment under 326.
β’ Article 50 - Separation of powers.
π₯Held- [Not a Mandamus writ but interim order untill law is enacted this is also known as Stop Gap Measures.]
β¦οΈHigh power committee comprising of (CJI, PM & leader of opposition) will make recommendations to president.
β¦οΈTerm of ECI is not 6 yrs currently due to erroneous appointments.
β¦οΈFreedom to vote (A.19)
Right to vote (A. 326
β¦οΈRight to vote is merely a
constitutional right by majority (but Dissent by justice rastogi cited Article 15, 17 ,19 and 21 Due to princely states it was not made F.R. at that time)
β Readings referred by Courtβ
βοΈ255th Law commission reports.
βοΈConstitutional debates.
βοΈ2nd Adminstrative reforms commission.
βοΈElectoral Reforms 1990 & 2010
β Extra readingsβ
βKesavanamd bharti - Rule of Law
βShamsher singh vs Punjab -
(Article 50)
βPeopleβs Union
for Civil Liberties v. Union of India -
βFree and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution.
β Vineet Narain & Ors. v. UOI
Court spelt out its obligation under Article 32 to protect and enhance fundamental rights even in the absence of legislation.
β 1992 cases on fair elections.
β’Kihoto hollohan
β’Common cause vs UOI
β Types of Voting Rights
β Election petition
β Role of judiciary and ECI in case of conflict/misconduct in election.
β Freebies, election manifesto etc..
π @CurrentLegalGK
#Case_brief
#Electoral_reforms #Judicial_activism
#Executive_vs_judiciary
β€βπ₯7π4
Important Judgement Given by Hon'ble SC 2 Judges Bench CJI DY CHANDRACHUD & HIMA KOHLI
Prohibiting 'Two-Finger Test' in rape cases
Two Finger test was conducting on the victim to determine whether she was raped (Hymen Checking)
Women can't be believed when she states that she was raped merely for the reason that she is actively active.
Incorrect assumption that a sexually active women can't be raped .
The Two finger test has no scientific basis, it instead re-victimises & re-traumatises woman.
Earlier a judgement was delivered by SC regarding prohibition on Two finger test
Lilu vs st.of Haryana 2013 held that two finger test violates the Rt.of privacy of a woman #Article21.
SC IF ANYONE CONDUCTS A TWO FINGER TEST ON A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM IT WILL BE CONSTRUED AS THE OFFENCE OF MISCONDUCT & WILL BE PENALIZED ACCORDING.
Also SC stated it's based on patriachal mindset that sexually active women can't be raped
A woman's sexual history is immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her .
CASE - ST. OF JHARKHAND VS SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI 2022
Prohibiting 'Two-Finger Test' in rape cases
Two Finger test was conducting on the victim to determine whether she was raped (Hymen Checking)
Women can't be believed when she states that she was raped merely for the reason that she is actively active.
Incorrect assumption that a sexually active women can't be raped .
The Two finger test has no scientific basis, it instead re-victimises & re-traumatises woman.
Earlier a judgement was delivered by SC regarding prohibition on Two finger test
Lilu vs st.of Haryana 2013 held that two finger test violates the Rt.of privacy of a woman #Article21.
SC IF ANYONE CONDUCTS A TWO FINGER TEST ON A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM IT WILL BE CONSTRUED AS THE OFFENCE OF MISCONDUCT & WILL BE PENALIZED ACCORDING.
Also SC stated it's based on patriachal mindset that sexually active women can't be raped
A woman's sexual history is immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her .
CASE - ST. OF JHARKHAND VS SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI 2022
#Sec_53(A)_IEA_1872 βevidence of a victimβs character or of her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offencesβ.π5β€2π1
Supreme Court Seeks Centreβs Response On Plea To Decriminalise Consensual Sex By 16-18 Year Olds
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-seeks-centres-response-on-plea-to-decriminalise-consensual-sex-by-16-18-year-olds-235623
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-seeks-centres-response-on-plea-to-decriminalise-consensual-sex-by-16-18-year-olds-235623
www.livelaw.in
Supreme Court Seeks Centreβs Response On Plea To Decriminalise Consensual Sex By 16-18 Year Olds
On Friday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)...
β‘π₯ Secunderabad Club vs CIT | 2023/ ARTICLE 141 EXPLANATION
Observations regarding the concept of ratio decidendi and binding.
1. What is binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution is the ratio of the judgment and as already noted, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the reason assigned in support of the conclusion.
2. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter.
3. The ratio of the case has to be deduced from the facts involved in the case and the particular provision(s) of law which the court has applied or interpreted and the decision has to be read in the context of the particular statutory provisions involved in the matter.
4.
5.
6. The decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.
7. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with.
8. Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court can be said to have been made only when it is contained in a speaking order, either expressly or by necessary implication and not by dismissal in limine.
9. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.
10. If an order of this Court is brief and meant only for the purpose of closure of the controversy involved in a particular case and with a view to conclude the case, undoubtedly, such an order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.
#Ratio_decidendi #stare_decisis
#Article_141 #Obiter_dicta
#concept
#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK
Observations regarding the concept of ratio decidendi and binding.
1. What is binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution is the ratio of the judgment and as already noted, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the reason assigned in support of the conclusion.
2. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter.
3. The ratio of the case has to be deduced from the facts involved in the case and the particular provision(s) of law which the court has applied or interpreted and the decision has to be read in the context of the particular statutory provisions involved in the matter.
4.
An order made merely to dispose of the case cannot have the value or effect of a binding precedent.5.
Although the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, it has only persuasive authority as far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned.6. The decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.
7. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with.
8. Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court can be said to have been made only when it is contained in a speaking order, either expressly or by necessary implication and not by dismissal in limine.
9. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.
10. If an order of this Court is brief and meant only for the purpose of closure of the controversy involved in a particular case and with a view to conclude the case, undoubtedly, such an order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.
#Ratio_decidendi #stare_decisis
#Article_141 #Obiter_dicta
#concept
#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK
π2β€1π1