Polity and Governance Current Affairs for UPSC 2023 I PART -1
NEWS RELATED TO CONSTITUTION
1. ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS (EWS) QUOTA
The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota is a reservation quota introduced by the Indian government in 2019, aimed at providing reservation to economically weaker sections of the society who were not covered under any existing reservation scheme. Here are some important points related to the EWS quota:
- Eligibility criteria: Individuals with an annual family income of less than Rs. 8 lakhs, and possessing less than 5 acres of agricultural land, are eligible for the EWS quota.
- Reservation percentage: The EWS quota provides for a 10% reservation in jobs and educational institutions for individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.
- Implementation: The EWS quota has been implemented in all Central Government jobs, as well as in higher education institutions such as the IITs, IIMs, and Central Universities. However, the implementation in state government jobs and institutions is left to the discretion of the respective state governments.
- Impact on existing reservation schemes: The EWS quota has been implemented without affecting the existing reservation schemes for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Hence, the overall reservation percentage has been increased to 60% in central educational institutions and government jobs.
- Constitutional Amendment: The EWS quota was introduced through a 103 rd constitutional amendment, which required amending Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.
- Criticisms: The EWS quota has been criticized for being implemented without any data on the number of eligible individuals and the impact it would have on the existing reservation schemes. Additionally, there are concerns that the EWS quota may further increase the competition for limited job and educational opportunities, and may not effectively address the issue of economic inequality.
Overall, the EWS quota is a significant policy measure aimed at providing reservation benefits to economically weaker sections of the society. However, its effectiveness in addressing the issue of economic inequality and its impact on existing reservation schemes remains a matter of debate.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria | Annual family income less than Rs. 8 lakhs and less than 5 acres of agricultural land |
| Reservation percentage | 10% in jobs and educational institutions |
| Implementation | All Central Government jobs and higher education institutions funded by the Central Government; left to the discretion of state governments for state government jobs and institutions |
| Constitutional Amendment | Amending Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution |
| Impact on existing reservation schemes | Implemented without affecting existing reservation schemes for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes; overall reservation percentage increased to 60% |
| Challenges in implementation | Identifying eligible candidates; misuse of self-declaration of income |
| Criticisms | Lack of data on number of eligible individuals and impact on existing reservation schemes; may increase competition for limited job and educational opportunities |
Key points of SC verdict (Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India case, 2022)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Constitutional validity of EWS quota | Reservation on economic criteria alone did not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution |
| EWS as a separate category | EWS is deemed a separate and distinct category for the purpose of reservation |
| Exclusion of SC/ST and SEBC | Exclusion of SC/ST and SEBC from EWS quota was a part of reasonable classification and necessary to avoid double benefits |
| Reservation in private institutions | Reservations as a concept cannot be ruled out in private institutions where education is imparted |
| 50% reservation rule | 50% rule formed in Indira Sawhney judgment in 1992 has not been held to be inflexible and inviolable for all times to come; applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category |
2. SUB-CATEGORISATION OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES (OBC)
The Union Cabinet has granted the 14th extension to the Justice Rohini Commission, which was formed in 2017 under Article 340 to investigate issues related to the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Commission has been given time until July 31, 2023, to submit its report. The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) had earlier proposed sub-categorisation of OBCs into three groups, namely
- Extremely Backward Classes facing social, educational and economic backwardness even within the OBCs, consisting of aboriginal tribes, nomadic and seminomadic tribes who have been carrying on with their traditional occupations.
- More Backward Classes consisting of vocational groups carrying on with their traditional occupations.
- Backward Classes comprising of those comparatively more forward.
According to NCBC, 11 states/UTs have already subcategorized OBCs for reservations in state-government-owned institutions.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Full form | National Commission for Backward Classes |
| Establishment | 1993 |
| Purpose | To examine requests for inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any community in the list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) |
| Constitutional basis | Article 338B |
| Powers and functions | * Investigate complaints regarding over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any community in the list of OBCs * Monitor and evaluate the implementation of reservation in employment and education for OBCs * Advise the Central government on matters related to the welfare of OBCs |
| NCBC report on sub-categorisation of OBCs | In 2015, NCBC had proposed that OBCs be divided into three categories: Extremely Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, and Backward Classes, with the aim of ensuring equitable distribution of reservation benefits among all OBCs. |
Reservation for OBCs in Local Bodies
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Objective | To ensure fair representation of OBCs in the decision-making bodies of their respective areas |
| Percentage of reservation | Varies from state to state, some examples are: Tamil Nadu and Kerala: 50% Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra: 27% Rajasthan and Gujarat: lower than the reservation provided for OBCs in state government jobs and educational institutions |
| Criteria for defining OBCs | May differ from state to state |
| Opposition to reservation | Often faced opposition from dominant castes and communities who fear reduction in their political power and influence |
| Supporters of reservation | Argue that it is a necessary step towards ensuring social justice and equal representation of all sections of society in the decision-making process |
3. Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
Recently a Private Member Bill titled UCC in India Bill, 2020 was introduced in Rajya Sabha.
The UCC (Uniform Civil Code) refers to a single set of civil laws applicable to all citizens of India in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, custody, adoption and inheritance. Provisions for UCC come under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which is a non-justiciable directive principle of state policy. Personal laws in India are currently governed by different religious communities and have been codified over the years through various pieces of legislation. There are some secular laws as well, but Goa is the only state in India with a UCC, which is implemented through the Portuguese Civil Code,1867.
| Provisions for UCC | Article 44 (Directive Principles of State Policy) of Constitution |
|---|---|
| Status | Non-justiciable part of the constitution |
| Personal laws | Concurrent List |
| Personal Laws in India | Description |
|---|---|
| Hindu personal law | Codified in four bills: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The term ‘Hindu’ includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists for the purpose of these laws. |
| Muslim personal law | Certain aspects are expressly recognized in India in acts such as Shariat Application Act and Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act. |
| Secular laws | Special Marriage Act: under which Inter-religion marriages take place, and Guardians and Wards Act: which establishes the rights and duties of guardians. |
What is Private Member Bill ?
In India, a private member bill is a bill introduced by a Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a member of the government (i.e., not a minister). Private member bills are introduced on Fridays, which are private member days, during a session of parliament. These bills are meant to draw attention to specific issues and propose legislation that the MP believes is important. Private member bills have a lower chance of passing because they do not have the backing of the government, but they can still be influential in shaping public discourse and raising awareness about important issues.
4. HATE SPEECH
NCRB reported about 500% rise in cases under hate speech law in seven years.
Hate speech has not been explicitly defined in any law in India, but it is generally understood to refer to speech that incites hatred against a particular group of people. In India, hate speech is addressed under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as 153A and 295A. Hate speech can take various forms of expression, including images, memes, symbols, gestures, and objects, and it can be disseminated both offline and online.
| Law | Provisions |
|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code | Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. |
| Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. | |
| Information Technology Act,2000 | Section 69A: Power to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource. |
| Section 79(3)(b): Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. | |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 354A: Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. Section 498A: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Punishment for cruelty by husband or his relatives. |
| Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Code of Criminal Procedure | Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989: Punishment for hate speech against SC/ST community. Section 125: Wearing any garb or carrying any token, etc., to create disharmony, or feelings of enmity,hatred, or ill-will, or disrupting any assembly of religious worship or preaching. |
5. SEDITION
The Supreme Court of India has put the 152-year-old sedition law, which is defined as an offence committed when any person attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the government established by law in India by words or otherwise, in abeyance until the Union Government reconsiders the provision. Sedition is a non-bailable, non-compoundable offence that bars the accused from government jobs, requires them to produce themselves in court at all times, and prohibits them from using their passport. In 2018, the Law Commission of India recommended the repeal of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines sedition.
In India, the sedition law is primarily governed by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was introduced by the British in 1870 to quell dissent against their rule. The law defines sedition as any speech, writing, or other form of expression that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India.
Over the years, the sedition law has been used by successive governments to suppress dissent and curtail freedom of expression. Critics argue that the law is unconstitutional and violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Here is a table summarizing some key events in the history of the sedition law in India:
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1870 | Sedition law introduced by British in India |
| 1898 | Bal Gangadhar Tilak charged with sedition for his writings |
| 1922 | Mahatma Gandhi charged with sedition for his non-violent civil disobedience campaign |
| 1948 | Sedition law retained in independent India’s IPC |
| 1962 | Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case sets precedent that speech can only be considered seditious if it incites violence or public disorder |
| 2010 | Human Rights Watch calls for repeal of sedition law |
| 2016 | Student leader Kanhaiya Kumar charged with sedition for alleged anti-national slogans |
| 2018 | Law Commission of India recommends that sedition law be redefined and made more specific |
| 2021 | Several activists and journalists charged with sedition for criticizing government actions |
Overall, the sedition law has been a controversial issue in India, with many calling for its repeal or reform to ensure that it does not curtail freedom of expression and dissent.
Judicial Pronuncement in Context of Sedition Law
One of the most important judicial pronouncements in the context of the sedition law in India is the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case (1962).
In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law but also laid down important guidelines to prevent its abuse. The court held that the law can be used to penalize only those acts which involve intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.
The court further held that the law should not be used to stifle the freedom of speech and expression or to suppress legitimate dissent. The court also emphasized that criticism of the government or its policies is not seditious unless it incites violence or has the tendency to create public disorder.
The Kedar Nath Singh case remains an important landmark in the history of the sedition law in India and has been cited in many subsequent cases to protect the freedom of expression and prevent misuse of the law.
6. PREVENTIVE DETENTION
The Supreme Court has stated that preventive detention should only be used in exceptional circumstances as it is an exceptional power that affects individual liberty and must be used sparingly. The Court has made a distinction between law-and-order situations and public disorder, where preventive detention may apply only in the latter situation. Preventive detention is the confinement of an individual based on the reasonable apprehension of them committing a dangerous activity to public order and security without undergoing a trial. The Constitution provides protection against arrest and detention, but these protections are not available to a person detained under preventive detention laws. Multiple laws, including the Criminal Procedure Code and the NDPS Act, permit preventive detention. Section 151 of the CrPC empowers police to make preventive arrests to prevent the commission of any cognizable offense.
Constitutional safeguards against preventive detention
The Indian Constitution provides certain safeguards against preventive detention, which are as follows:
- Article 22(1): This article provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
- Article 22(2): This article provides that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest.
- Article 22(3): This article provides that if a person is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention, then the protection provided under Article 22(1) and 22(2) shall not be available to such person. However, the detained person must be informed of the grounds of detention and given the opportunity to make a representation against such detention.
- Judicial Review: The Constitution provides for judicial review of preventive detention orders. Any person who is detained under preventive detention laws can challenge the order of detention before a High Court or the Supreme Court.
- Period of Detention: The Constitution provides that a person cannot be detained for more than three months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board. The Board must consist of persons who are qualified to be appointed as High Court Judges.
- Right to Counsel: The Constitution provides that every person who is arrested and detained shall have the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
- Right to Information: The Constitution provides that every person who is arrested and detained shall have the right to be informed of the grounds of their arrest and detention.
Judicial Pronuncement in Context of Preventive Detention
| Topic | Judicial Pronouncement |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Safeguards | Article 22(1) and 22(2), Article 22(3), Judicial Review, Period of Detention, Right to Counsel, Right to Information |
| Landmark Judgments | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) |
| Affect on Personal Liberty | Preventive detention is an exceptional power of the state that affects the personal liberty of an individual and should be employed sparingly |
| Law-and-Order vs Public Disorder | Preventive detention may apply in cases of public disorder, but not for law-and-order situations |
| Definition of Preventive Detention | The detention of a person on a reasonable apprehension of them doing an activity dangerous to public order and security, without undergoing a trial |
| Laws Allowing Preventive Detention | Code of Criminal Procedure, Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) 1985, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, etc. |
| CrPC Provision for Preventive Detention | Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police to make preventive arrests if they believe it is necessary to prevent the commission of a cognisable offence |
7.UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was enacted in 1967 to prevent certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and deal with terrorist activities. The act defines “unlawful activity” as any action that questions the sovereignty of India, disrupts the integrity of India, or leads to the cession of a part of Indian territory. Cases under UAPA are investigated by both state police and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The act gives the central government the power to impose all-India bans on associations, and there are provisions for a tribunal to review or hear an appeal against the ban. The act can hold both Indian and foreign nationals accountable in the same manner if the crime is committed on foreign land outside India. The act has been amended several times, with the most recent amendment in 2019 to enhance its scope.
Details of UAPA Act, 2019
| Specification | Details |
|---|---|
| Power to designate terrorist | The central government may designate an organisation or individual as a terrorist if they commit, participate in, prepare for, promote or are otherwise involved in acts of terrorism. |
| Approval for seizure of property by NIA | Prior approval of the Director General of Police is required for an investigating officer to seize properties connected with terrorism. |
| Investigation by NIA | Officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above may conduct investigations. Officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, may investigate cases. |
| Convention | The original act lists nine treaties, including the Convention for Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) and the Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979). The UAPA Act, 2019, added the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005) to the list. |
Law providing for Preventive Detention in India
| Law | Provision |
|---|---|
| Constitution of India (Article 22) | – No person can be detained without being informed of the grounds of detention.- The person detained must be allowed to consult and be represented by a lawyer of their choice.- The authority detaining the person must communicate the grounds of detention to them within 5 days. |
| Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) | – Allowed for detention without trial for up to 2 years.- No specific grounds needed for detention.- The detained person can be denied access to legal counsel.- The detention order cannot be challenged in a court of law. |
| National Security Act (NSA) | – Allows for preventive detention for up to 12 months.- Can be extended by 3 months at a time.- Allows for detention without a charge or trial.- Detention order cannot be challenged in a court of law. |
| Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (PBMMSEC) | – Allows for preventive detention for up to 6 months.- Can be extended by 3 months at a time.- Allows for detention without a charge or trial.- Detention order can be challenged in a court of law. |
| Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) | – Allows for preventive detention for up to 6 months.- Can be extended by 6 months at a time.- Allows for detention without a charge or trial.- Detention order can be challenged in a court of law. |
| Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) | – Allows for preventive detention for up to 1 year.- Allows for detention without a charge or trial.- Detention order cannot be challenged in a court of law.- AFSPA is in force in “disturbed areas” of the country. |
| Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) | – Allows for preventive detention for up to 180 days.- Can be extended by 90 days at a time.- Allows for detention without a charge or trial.- Detention order can be challenged in a court of law. |
8.PHONE TAPPING
Phone tapping refers to the secret monitoring of phone calls and internet-based communications by a third party. In India, both the central and state governments have the authority to tap phones. At the central level, 10 agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, CBI, and Enforcement Directorate, are authorized to do so, while in states, police have the power to tap phones. Orders for phone tapping can be issued only by the Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, or their state counterpart in writing, although in exceptional cases, lower authorities may issue the order. The order must be communicated to the competent authority within a specified time period. Any tapping by agencies other than those authorized is illegal.
Constitutional and legal safeguard on phone tapping in India.
| Constitutional/Legal Safeguard | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India | Protects the freedom of speech and expression of individuals, including their right to communicate through telephones or other forms of electronic communication. |
| Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 | Empowers the central or state governments to intercept messages for public safety or security reasons, subject to certain conditions. |
| Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 | Allows the government to intercept electronic communication in the interest of national security or to prevent a cognizable offense, subject to certain procedures and safeguards. |
| Rules for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information, 2009 | Provide detailed procedures and safeguards for interception, monitoring, and decryption of electronic communication, including obtaining prior written orders from designated authority, specifying the reasons for interception, and destruction of intercepted information after a specified period. |
| PUCL v. Union of India (1997) case | Laid down guidelines for lawful interception of telephonic conversations by the government, including limiting interception to cases of public emergency or in the interest of public safety, maintaining strict confidentiality, and ensuring judicial oversight. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case | Held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, and any interception of communication must be justified by a legitimate state interest and be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. |
9.RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
Recently, SC directed its registry to remove details of a couple from search engines and Internet.
- Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is the right to have publicly available personal information removed from the internet, search engines, databases, websites, or any other public platforms, once the personal information in question is no longer necessary.
- The origin of RTBF can be traced back to the ‘right to oblivion’ in French jurisprudence.
- RTBF is not an absolute right and has been recognized as a statutory right in the European Union under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- Article 17 of GDPR provides Right to Erasure (or RTBF), which permits a data subject to request a controller to delete personal data concerning him or her without undue delay.
- In India, there is no law that specifically provides for RTBF.
NOTE :- The Right to Privacy includes information that is not public whereas, the Right to be Forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information anymore.
Supreme Court on right to be forgotten
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| SC judgment on RTBF | In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. However, the judgment did not explicitly mention the right to be forgotten. |
| Subsequent cases | In subsequent cases, Indian courts have directed Google to remove links to content deemed defamatory or objectionable. In one case, the Karnataka High Court directed Google to remove search results related to a company’s managing director, citing the right to be forgotten. However, this decision was later stayed by the Supreme Court. |
| Need for a law | In absence of a specific law on the right to be forgotten, Indian courts have relied on existing legal frameworks, such as the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Constitution, to address privacy concerns. However, there is a need for a comprehensive legal framework that specifically addresses the right to be forgotten. |
Important cases from 2022
| Case Name | Jarnail Singh Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Providing reservations in promotions |
| Supreme Court’s Decision | Collection of quantifiable data for determining inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs is a basic requirement for providing reservations in promotions. |
| Responsibility | States themselves are responsible for determining the criteria for the inadequacy of representation, as they would be better placed to account for local conditions. |
| Unit for Collecting Data | Cadre, referring to a grade or category of posts in the entire service. |
| Data Collection Requirement | Data must be collected according to these cadres and not the entire service. |
| Review of Data | Data collected must be reviewed periodically, and the period for review is left for the states to decide. |
| Issue/Topic | Janhit Abhiyan vs Union – Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections |
|---|---|
| Ruling by Supreme Court | EWS among upper castes can be promoted through various affirmative actions at the threshold level |
| Examples of affirmative actions | Giving scholarships instead of 10% quotas in government jobs and educational institutions |
| Court’s reasoning | Poverty is not a permanent thing and the term reservation has different connotations, such as social and financial empowerment |
| Intended beneficiaries of reservation | Classes that have been oppressed for centuries |
| Overall goal of reservation | Social and financial empowerment of oppressed classes |
| Issue/Topic | Satender Kumar Anil vs CBI – Bail should be decided in two weeks |
|---|---|
| Ruling by Supreme Court | Bail applications should be decided within two weeks |
| Urged passage of bail act | Directed Union government to consider introducing a separate bail act to streamline the process of granting bail |
| Reason for urgency | Many prisoners are awaiting trial, and 76% of all prisoners in Indian jails are awaiting trial |
| Relief for undertrials | Judgment provides relief for undertrials who have not received their bail petitions for years due to the backlog of cases |
| Overall goal | Streamline the process of granting bail and reduce the backlog of cases in the judicial system |
| Issue/Topic | Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab – Additional accused can be summoned during the course of the trial |
|---|---|
| Ruling by Supreme Court | A criminal trial is not complete with the pronouncement of judgment of conviction, but with sentencing |
| Implication for additional accused | Additional accused can be summoned during the course of the trial |
| Reasoning behind the ruling | Completion of a criminal trial requires sentencing, not just a judgment of conviction |
| Overall goal | Ensure that all relevant parties are given a fair trial and that justice is served in criminal cases |
| Issue/Context | Summary |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Manoj vs State |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Ruling | Psychiatric evaluation is needed before imposing the death penalty |
| Purpose of Evaluation | To provide a baseline for comparison and to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation achieved during the incarceration period. |
| Type of Evaluation | Psychiatric and psychological evaluation |
| Importance of Evaluation | Helps the court in making an informed decision about imposing the death penalty and also in monitoring the progress of the accused during incarceration. |
| Issue/Context | Summary |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Neeraj Datta vs State of NCT Delhi |
| Court | Five-judge Constitution Bench |
| Ruling | Public officials can be convicted on circumstantial evidence |
| Direct Evidence | Absence of direct evidence |
| Importance of Circumstantial Evidence | Government servants cannot escape prosecution even if witnesses turn hostile |
| Impact of Ruling | Helps in ensuring accountability and combating corruption in public offices by enabling prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence. |
| Case | Perarivalan vs State of Tamil Nadu |
|---|---|
| Issue | Remission of sentence |
| Decision | State cabinet’s remission binding on Governor |
| Supreme Court’s Action | Invoked powers under Article 142 of the Constitution |
| Parity with Earlier Case | Plea for relief moved by AG Perarivalan, another accused in the case, who had been in prison for 31 years |
| Topic | Information |
|---|---|
| Court Case | Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnuswamy |
| Rights | Daughters have equal rights in self-acquired as well as inherited property |
| Inheritance | Hindu daughters are entitled to inherit the property of their father in the absence of any other legal heir |
| Preference | Daughters would receive preference over other members of the family in inheriting the property, even if the father does not leave behind a will |
| Issue | Gujarat Government vs CISF |
|---|---|
| Court involved | Supreme Court |
| Ruling | Police officers are not required to do moral policing |
| Outcome | Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of CISF officer upheld |
| Incident | CISF officer harassed a young couple at night |
| Implication | Moral policing is not a part of a police officer’s duties |
| Issue | State of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai |
|---|---|
| Court involved | Supreme Court |
| Ruling | Conducting the “two-finger” test on sexual assault survivors is misconduct |
| Reasoning | The test has no scientific basis and re-victimizes and re-traumatizes survivors |
| Implication | The test cannot be used to prove or disprove allegations of rape |
| Issue | Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal and Ors. |
|---|---|
| Court involved | Supreme Court |
| Ruling | UIDAI directed to issue Aadhaar cards to sex workers |
| Reasoning | Fundamental rights are guaranteed to every citizen, regardless of their occupation |
| Implication | Government has a duty to provide basic amenities to all citizens |
| Issue | Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India |
|---|---|
| Court involved | Not specified |
| Ruling | No individual can be forced to be vaccinated |
| Reasoning | Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution |
| Implication | Forced COVID-19 vaccination is not permissible |
I really like looking through a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!