Tag: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions in the graduate, post graduate medical and dental courses would also apply to minority, both aided and unaided and private educational institutions as there is no violations of their rights. The provisions of Indian Medical Council Act and regulations do not ultra vires or takes away the rights guaranteed to the aided and unaided minority institution under various provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has extended the transition from BS-IV to BS VI vehicles by 10 more days given the current 21-lockdown scenario to fight the COVID-19 virus. The initial deadline was March 31, 2020. However, it has been extended keeping in mind the centre’s order of a complete lockdown in the country for 21 days. The order comes after the Federation of Automobile Dealers Association had moved the apex court seeking a relaxation in the deadline to sell their BS-IV vehicle stock. There are currently around 7 lakh unsold two-wheelers, 12,000 commercial vehicles and 15,000 unsold cars of BS-IV standard.

The Supreme Court upheld a 2018 amendment which barred persons accused of committing atrocities against those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from getting anticipatory bail. The Bench, Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, held in their joint opinion that a High Court would also have an “inherent power” to grant anticipatory bail in cases in which prima facie an offence under the anti-atrocities law is not made out. Strengthening the law The SC, in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, held on March 20, 2018: No absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail under the anti-atrocities law if no prima facie case is made out or if judicial scrutiny reveals the complaint to be prima facie mala fide. Parliament introduces an amendment in 2018. Inserts Section 18A in the original scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ATricities) Act of 1989. Section 18A re-affirms the original legislative intention that Section 438 CrPC (pre-arrest bail) is not applicable to accused booked under the atrocities law. February 10, 2020 Judgement in Prathvi Raj Chouhancase: Justidces Arum Mishra and Vineet Saran uphold Section 18A. However, the judges add that the High Courts will have an “inherent power’ to grant anticipatory bail in cases in which prima facie an offence under the 1989 law is not made out.

Under Article 16, the state can make reservations in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in the services of the state. The Supreme Court has ruled that reservation in promotion is not a fundamental right and the states cannot be compelled to make laws in this regard for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In an order passed, justice L Nageswara Rao said that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are in the nature of enabling provisions, vesting a discretion on the State Government to consider providing reservations, if the circumstances so warrant. The judgement says that it is settled law that the state cannot be directed to give reservations for appointment in public posts. The order further adds that the state is not bound to make a reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotions. However, if the state wishes to exercise its discretion and make such provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing ‘inadequacy of representation of that class in public services. The decision of the state government to provide reservations in promotion is challenged then the state concerned will have to place before the court the quantifiable data that reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs without affecting general efficiency of administration as mandated by Article 335. Under Article 16, the state can make reservations in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in the services of the state. However, it is for the states to decide whether reservations are required in the matter of appointment and promotions to…

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain an appeal seeking protection for complainants and witnesses in sexual harassment-at- workplace cases from victimisation or retaliation by accused persons or organisations involved. A Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna disposed of the special leave petition filed by Sunita Thawani highlighting the issue that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 does not have any provision mandating protection for victims and witnesses in workplace sexual abuse cases.

The Supreme Court of India directed the states to establish “Gram Nyayalayas” within four weeks’ time span.The apex court has directed the corresponding state high courts to expedite the process of consultation with the state governments. Highlights The Gram Nyayalayas act, 2008was passed to provide establishment of Gram Nyayalayas at the grass root level. The main objective of the judicial body is to provide inexpensive justice in rural areas. The current scenario of the states with respect to the Gram Nyayalayas were submitted by the SC Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The Supreme Court lifted its seven-year stay on a proposal to introduce African cheetahs from Namibia into the Indian habitat on an experimental basis. The plan was to revive the Indian cheetah population. In May 2012, the top court had stalled the plan to initiate the foreign cheetahs into the Palpur Kuno sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh fearing they may come into conflict with a parallel and a much-delayed project to reintroduce lions into the same sanctuary. A Bench led by Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobdewas nudged by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to take the plunge and go ahead with its plans to bring the African cat to India.

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has granted relief to persons with disabilities across the country by allowing reservation in promotion in all groups for those employed in public sector jobs. The Bench led by Justice Rohinton F.Nariman confirmed that 3% reservation should be given to disabled persons both in direct recruitment and in promotions. Included under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995”, were eligible for reservation in promotion.