💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • Supreme Court clarifies Enforcement Directorate’s Arrest Procedures

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court ruled on the procedures for arrests made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

    About Enforcement Directorate (ED)

    Details
    Establishment May 1, 1956

    Initially set up as an ‘Enforcement Unit’
    Mandate Enforces economic and financial regulations
    Jurisdiction Nationwide
    Legal Authority – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

    – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
    Functional Focus Economic and financial offenses including money laundering, foreign exchange irregularities
    Investigative Powers – Attachment, confiscation, and arrest

    – Conduct raids and searches

    – Summon and question individuals
    Collaboration Coordinates with various agencies (CBI, local police) and banks
    Reporting Authority Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
    Corruption Investigations Has a separate Economic Offenses Division
    Notable Cases – Vijay Mallya extradition

    – PNB fraud case

    – Augusta Westland VVIP chopper scam
    International Cooperation Works with international law enforcement for cross-border investigations (Interpol, FATF)
    Public Interface Accepts complaints and information regarding economic offenses
    Transparency and Accountability Regular reports to the Ministry of Finance; subject to oversight by judiciary and government bodies

    Issue: Revision of ED Arrest Norms

    • Supreme Court Ruling: On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) needs only to orally inform an accused of the grounds of their arrest at the time of arrest.
    • Requirement for Written Grounds: The court also specified that the written grounds of arrest must be supplied to the accused within 24 hours of their arrest.

    Modification of Previous Supreme Court Ruling

    • Earlier Mandate: A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on October 3 had mandated the ED to provide the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of custody.
    • Current Ruling: The latest ruling by Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma modified this requirement.

    Legal Framework: Section 19 of PMLA

    • ED’s Arrest Power: Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) authorizes the ED to arrest individuals based on material evidence.
    • Notification Requirement: The law requires that the reasons for such belief must be recorded in writing, and the grounds of arrest be informed to the accused “as soon as may be.”
    • Understanding ‘As Soon As May Be’: The court interpreted the phrase to mean “as early as possible”, “without avoidable delay”, “within reasonably convenient” or a “reasonably requisite” period.

    Case Background: Supertech Limited’s Founder’s Challenge

    • Delhi High Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court had dismissed a petition by a person to declare his arrest illegal.
    • Argument: He contended that his arrest violated Section 19(1) of the PMLA and his fundamental rights, as he was not supplied with written grounds for arrest.

    Supreme Court’s December 15 Ruling

    • Non-Retrospective Application: The court stated that the October 3 ruling in Pankaj Bansal vs. UOI cannot be applied retrospectively to cases before that date.
    • Reference to Vijay Madanlal’s Case: The court relied on its July 27 decision in Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary vs. UOI, by a three-judge Bench, to support its ruling.
    • Upholding PMLA Provisions: The validity of Section 19 was upheld, affirming its reasonable nexus with the PMLA’s objectives.

    Resolving Bench Discrepancies

    • 2002 Ruling: In “Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik,” a Constitution Bench ruled that if two Benches of equal strength arrive at different conclusions on the same question of law, the matter must be referred to a higher Bench.
    • Implications for Current Case: This precedent is relevant in resolving discrepancies when two Benches of equal strength, like in the current scenario, differ in their rulings.

    Conclusion

    • Legal Clarity: The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on the procedures for arrests made by the ED, balancing prompt enforcement action with the rights of the accused.
    • Impact on Future Cases: This decision sets a precedent for how the ED’s arrests are to be conducted, influencing future cases involving the agency.

  • Explained: SC Verdict on Abrogation of Article 370

    Article 370

    Central Idea

    • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, leading to the reorganisation of the full-fledged State of Jammu and Kashmir to two Union Territories and denuding it of its special privileges.

    Key Issues and Court’s Findings

    [A] On the Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:

    • Petitioners’ Claim: They argued that J&K retained an element of sovereignty when it acceded to India in 1947, different from other princely states.
    • Court’s Examination: The Court noted that J&K was listed as a Part III state in the Indian Constitution and Section 3 of J&K’s Constitution declared it an integral part of India.
    • Final Ruling: The Court held that J&K did not retain sovereignty, and the process of integration was ongoing, culminating in the Presidential declaration under Article 370(3).

    [B] Whether Article 370 is Temporary or Permanent:

    • Arguments Presented: Petitioners argued for Article 370’s permanence, while others viewed it as temporary.
    • Court’s Opinion: Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul concurred that Article 370 was a temporary provision.

    [C] Legality of Abrogating Article 370:

    • Abrogation Process: On August 5, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind issued CO 272, amending Article 367 and redefining “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” as the “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”
    • Court’s Upholding: The Court upheld this process, with CJI Chandrachud stating that post-dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly, the President could have unilaterally abrogated Article 370.

    [D] Actions Under President’s Rule:

    • Challenge to Union’s Actions: The challenge was to the extent of powers appropriated under Article 356 (President’s rule).
    • Reference to Bommai Ruling: The Court, citing the 1994 Bommai ruling, stated that actions under the President’s rule must not be mala fide or irrational.

    Upholding Centre’s (Union) Supremacy

    • Parliament’s Unilateral Actions: The Court’s interpretation suggests Parliament can change a state’s status under the President’s rule.
    • Article 3 Reference: The President referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to Parliament for its views, as the state was under President’s rule.
    • Validity of Executive Orders: The Court applied Bommai ruling standards to validate the executive orders, emphasizing the need for proof of mala fides to challenge the actions.

    Conclusion

    • J&K’s Integral Status Affirmed: The Court conclusively ruled that J&K has always been an integral part of India.
    • Temporary Nature of Article 370: The ruling clarifies that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
    • Expansion of Union Powers: The judgment potentially expands the Union’s powers under President’s rule, affecting the federal balance.
    • Constitutional Precedent: This ruling sets a significant precedent in interpreting Union and state powers, reflecting on the dynamics of Indian federalism.

  • SR Bommai Judgment and its Relevance in Article 370 Verdict

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court’s reliance on the 1994 SR Bommai judgment was pivotal in upholding the abrogation of Article 370.
    • The SR Bommai case is a landmark judgment interpreting Article 356 of the Constitution, which deals with President’s rule in states.

    SR Bommai Case: An Overview

    • Origin of the Case: The case arose from the dismissal of the Janata Dal-led Karnataka government in 1989 by the Congress-led central government.
    • Governor’s Recommendation: Karnataka Governor P Venkatasubbaiah recommended President’s rule citing the loss of majority by Chief Minister SR SR Bommai and the inability of other parties to form a government.
    • Controversy: The move was controversial, especially as some MLAs later retracted their withdrawal of support, claiming their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation.

    Supreme Court’s Verdict in the Case

    • Judicial Review of President’s Proclamation: The Court unanimously held that the President’s proclamation is subject to judicial review on several grounds, including illegality, malafide, and abuse of power.
    • Parliamentary Approval Requirement: The verdict mandated Parliamentary approval for imposing President’s rule. Without this approval, the dismissed government would automatically be revived after two months.
    • Centre-State Relationship: The ruling emphasized the autonomy of states, stating that greater power at the Centre does not reduce states to mere appendages.

    Impact of the Ruling

    • Scrutiny of Governor’s Conduct: This was one of the first judgments to scrutinize the Governor’s role, especially in the context of frequent impositions of President’s rule.
    • Decrease in President’s Rule Impositions: Research indicates a significant decrease in the frequency of President’s rule post-SR Bommai , from an average of 2.5 times a year (1950-1994) to just over once a year (1995-2021).

    Kashmir Reference in the Article 370 Ruling

    • Key Question: The central question was whether Article 370 could be abrogated while J&K was under President’s rule, which had been in place since 2018.
    • Supreme Court’s Reliance on SR Bommai: The Court used the SR Bommai ruling to validate the President’s actions in J&K, applying the standards set by Justices PB Sawant and Jeevan Reddy for testing the validity of executive orders.

    Conclusion

    • Influence on Federal Dynamics: The SR Bommai judgment continues to influence the balance of power between the Centre and states, ensuring judicial oversight over central interventions in state governance.
    • Relevance in Contemporary Rulings: Its principles, particularly regarding judicial review and the autonomy of states, remain crucial in contemporary constitutional interpretations, as seen in the Article 370 ruling.

  • Supreme Court questions Governor’s Discretion on TN Bills

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has taken notice of the Tamil Nadu government’s assertion that Governor R.N. Ravi lacks the “discretion” to withhold approval for the ten Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly.
    • This legal matter revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature.

    Article 200 of the Indian Constitution

     

    • It pertains to the “Assent to Bills.”
    • It outlines the procedure for the Governor of a state in India to give their assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
    • Article 200 states that when a bill is passed by the legislative assembly of a state (or in the case of a bicameral legislature, by the legislative assembly and legislative council), it shall be presented to the Governor for their assent.

    Governor’s Discretion: The Governor has the discretion to either:

    1. Give their assent to the bill, after which it becomes a law.
    2. Withhold their assent to the bill, in which case the bill does not become law.
    3. Return the bill (if it is not a money bill) to the legislature with a request for reconsideration, along with a specific message explaining the reasons for withholding assent.

    Reconsideration by the Legislature: If the Governor returns a bill for reconsideration, the legislature can then reconsider the bill, taking into account the Governor’s message. They may choose to make amendments to the bill or pass it again without any changes.

    Assent after Reconsideration: If the bill is passed again by the legislature, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor, the Governor is bound to give their assent to it. In other words, the Governor cannot withhold assent a second time.

     

    Governor’s Discretion

    • Article 200 Interpretation: The Tamil Nadu government argued that once Bills have been re-passed by the Assembly, they are treated similarly to Money Bills and cannot be rejected by the Governor.
    • Questioning the Process: The CJI questioned whether the Governor must send the Bills back to the Assembly for reconsideration after withholding assent.
    • Limiting Presidential Referral: The State also emphasized that the Governor cannot refer the reiterated Bills to the President after withholding assent.

    Background and Delay

    • Delayed Bills: The Bills in question were sent to the Governor’s office between January 2020 and April 2023, and the State accused the Governor of holding them indefinitely.
    • Special Session: The TN Assembly convened a special session to re-pass the Bills after the Governor withheld assent.
    • Governor’s Statement: The Governor returned the Bills with a simple statement: “I withhold consent,” prompting the Assembly to take action.

    Legal Perspectives

    • Governor’s Ceremonial Role: The State contends that the Governor’s role is primarily ceremonial and that he must act within the State Legislature’s framework.
    • Will of the People: The Bills passed by the Assembly represent the will of the people and should not be delayed or rejected without valid reasons.

    Supreme Court’s Response

    • Addressing Delay: The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to address whether there has been a delay in the Governor’s constitutional function.
    • Bill Status: The Attorney General mentioned that 182 Bills were presented to the Governor, with 152 approved, five withdrawn, and nine reserved for referral to the President.
    • Key Issue: The real issue in this case involves amendments to State universities’ legislations that affect the Governor’s powers to select Vice-Chancellors.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s hearing on this matter raises critical questions about the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills and the need to ensure timely decision-making in the best interest of the people and governance of the State.
    • The interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution will play a pivotal role in this legal dispute.

  • Reviving Adultery as a Criminal Offense

    Adultery

    Central Idea

    • The Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs has proposed the reintroduction of adultery as a criminal offense in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a law designed to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
    • The committee’s recommendations have sparked a debate on the legal position of adultery and its implications on constitutional rights and gender equality.

    Adultery De-Criminalization in India

    • Adultery in IPC (1860): Until 2018, Section 497 of the IPC defined adultery as a criminal offense, penalizing only men for engaging in adulterous relationships.
    • Supreme Court’s Verdict (Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, 2018): The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497, citing discrimination and violations of fundamental rights.

    Parliamentary Committee’s Recommendations

    • Gender-Neutral Adultery: The Committee suggests reinstating adultery as a criminal offense but making it gender-neutral, applicable to both men and women.
    • Safeguarding Marriage Sanctity: The Committee argues that safeguarding the sanctity of marriage is crucial and justifies criminalizing adultery.

    Legal and Constitutional Implications

    • Discrimination and Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court’s verdict in Joseph Shine case highlighted the discriminatory nature of Section 497 and its violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
    • Autonomy of Women: The judgment emphasized women’s autonomy and dignity, asserting that husbands do not possess legal sovereignty over their wives.
    • Privacy and Matrimonial Sphere: Adultery as a criminal offense intrudes into the privacy of the matrimonial sphere, which is better left as a ground for divorce.
    • Relic of Victorian Morality: The Court deemed Section 497 as a relic of Victorian morality that treats women as chattels and property of their husbands.

    Can the Supreme Court’s Decision Be Overturned?

    • Parliament’s Authority: While Parliament cannot directly overturn a Supreme Court ruling, it can pass legislation that addresses the basis of the court’s judgment.
    • Validating Legislation: Parliament can enact validating legislation that changes the circumstances under which the court’s judgment was rendered, effectively altering the legal landscape.

    Conclusion

    • The debate surrounding the reintroduction of adultery as a criminal offence is fraught with legal, constitutional, and societal implications.
    • It calls for a nuanced examination of individual rights, gender equality, and the sanctity of marriage within the framework of Indian law and society.

  • Governors can’t sit on Bills passed by Assembly: Supreme Court

    governor

    Central Idea

    • In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that a State Governor cannot obstruct crucial bills passed by a State Legislature.
    • The court delivered this verdict in response to a writ petition filed by the Punjab government.
    • The Punjab government approached the Supreme Court, challenging Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s decision to withhold some bills, alleging the legislative session’s illegitimacy.

    SC Ruling on Governors Bill Withholding

    • Court’s Warning: The court sternly warned the Governor that he was “playing with fire” and directed him to make a decision regarding these pending bills presented to him for assent.
    • Power of Elected Representatives: Emphasizing the supremacy of elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy, the court highlighted that real power resides with them.
    • Governor’s actual Role: The court underscored that the Governor’s role is that of a constitutional statesman guiding the government on constitutional matters.

    Governor’s Grounds for Delay

    • Governor’s Grounds: Governor Purohit contended that the Assembly session was “patently illegal” because the Speaker had adjourned the Budget Session sine die in March without proroguing it.
    • Special Assembly Sitting: He refused to consider the proposed laws passed in a special June sitting, arguing that they were in breach of Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules.
    • Court’s Disagreement: The court disagreed with the Governor’s claims, stating that the Speaker acted within his rights in adjourning the House sine die.
    • Constitutional Validity: The court upheld the Speaker’s authority and stressed that it was not constitutionally valid for the Governor to question how the Speaker conducted the House’s affairs.

    Court’s Disagreement with the Governor

    • House’s Autonomy: The court affirmed that each legislative house has the right to be the sole judge of the legality of its own proceedings.
    • Legitimate Session: It found that the June 19-20 legislative session adhered to Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules, rejecting any doubts cast on its legitimacy.
    • Democratic Peril Warning: The court cautioned that any attempts to challenge the legislative session could pose a grave peril to democracy.

    Governor’s Role Defined

    • No Judgment on Prorogation: The court questioned the Governor’s right to sit in judgment on whether the session was prorogued and emphasized that the Speaker’s decisions on adjournments governed the House.
    • Avoiding Perpetual Session: While acknowledging the Speaker’s authority, the court cautioned against exploiting the sine die adjournment to perpetually avoid prorogation.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s verdict reiterates the importance of upholding legislative proceedings and the authority of elected representatives.
    • It underscores that Governors should respect the autonomy of legislative houses and not obstruct the passage of bills based on perceived procedural violations.
    • This landmark decision ensures the preservation of democratic principles and the effective functioning of State Legislatures.

  • Speedy Disposal of Cases against Lawmakers: What SC Guidelines on the matter say

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure the quick resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) across India.
    • These guidelines aim to address the long-pending issue of lawmakers facing criminal charges.

    Background

    • Advocate’s Plea: These directions were issued in response to a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in August 2016.
    • Key Demands: Upadhyay’s plea sought the swift handling of cases involving legislators and a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, including those currently in office, instead of the existing six-year disqualification mentioned in Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

    Understanding the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951

    • Purpose: The RPA, 1951, introduced by Dr. BR Ambedkar, governs the conduct of elections to India’s parliament and state legislatures.
    • Content: It covers various aspects, including qualifications and disqualifications for membership, corrupt practices, and offenses related to elections.
    • Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals specifically with the disqualification of legislators on conviction for certain offenses, such as promoting enmity between groups, bribery, undue influence, and offenses related to hoarding, profiteering, or adulteration of food or drugs.
    • Section 8(3): This subsection states that a person convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and continue to be disqualified for an additional six years after release. In essence, it imposes a six-year disqualification on individuals convicted of offenses with a minimum two-year prison sentence.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • Guidelines for Speedy Disposal: The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, laid down guidelines for the prompt resolution of pending criminal cases against lawmakers.
    • Suo Motu Cases: High courts across India are directed to establish a “special bench” to oversee criminal cases involving legislators. High courts can also register such cases on their own initiative.
    • Flexible Approach: The court allows the chief justices of high courts to hear these cases or designate specific benches for this purpose. These cases may be listed regularly if needed, and the special bench can seek assistance from the advocate general or prosecutor.
    • High Court Role: To efficiently manage these cases, the Supreme Court leaves it to high courts to devise suitable measures.
    • Priority Cases: The court emphasizes prioritizing cases against lawmakers that carry the possibility of death or life imprisonment. Cases with sentences of five years or more are also given priority.
    • HC’s Authority: High courts are empowered to issue similar orders and directions for effective case disposal. They can involve the Principal District and Sessions Judge in allocating cases to appropriate courts.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines are aimed at expediting the resolution of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs and ensuring justice is served promptly.
    • While these guidelines address the issue of speedy disposal, the larger question of replacing the six-year disqualification with a lifetime ban remains open for future consideration.

  • Advocate-on-Record (AoR) in Supreme Court

    advocate

    Central Idea

    • In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), emphasizing that an AoR cannot be a mere “signing authority.”
    • This incident has sparked discussions on the role and significance of AoRs in the Indian legal system.

    Who is an Advocate-on-Record (AoR)?

    • Historical Roots: The AoR system is influenced by British legal practices, distinguishing between barristers who argue cases and solicitors who handle client matters. In India, senior advocates are designated by the Court, akin to barristers, and cannot solicit clients but are briefed by other lawyers, including AoRs.
    • Exclusive Right to File Cases: Only an AoR is authorized to file cases before the Supreme Court of India. They serve as a vital link between litigants and the highest judicial authority in the country.
    • Elite Legal Practitioners: AoRs are a select group of elite lawyers, primarily based in Delhi, whose legal practice predominantly revolves around the Supreme Court. They may also represent clients in other courts.
    • Court of Last Opportunity: The concept behind the AoR system is to ensure that a litigant is represented by a highly qualified lawyer because the Supreme Court is often considered the last resort for legal remedies.

    Becoming an AoR

    • Eligibility Criteria: To qualify as an AoR, an advocate must meet specific criteria set by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
    • Examination: Aspiring AoRs must clear an examination conducted by the Supreme Court, which includes subjects like Practice and Procedure, Drafting, Professional Ethics, and Leading Cases.
    • Training Requirement: Before taking the exam, an advocate must undergo training with a court-approved AoR for at least one year. This training is preceded by a minimum of four years of legal practice.

    Responsibilities and Rules Governing AoRs

    • Geographical Presence: AoRs must maintain an office in Delhi within a 16-kilometer radius of the Supreme Court.
    • Employment of Registered Clerk: Upon registration as an AoR, an undertaking is required to employ a registered clerk within one month.
    • Regulatory Authority: While Section 30 of the Advocates Act grants lawyers the right to practice law nationwide, it explicitly acknowledges the Supreme Court’s authority to establish rules under Article 145 of the Constitution for regulating its own procedure.

     

  • SC flags Selective Confidentiality in Electoral Bonds

    Electoral Bonds

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the selective confidentiality of the electoral bonds scheme, which allows the ruling party to discover the identities of donors to opposition parties.
    • The court questioned the government’s presumption of confidentiality and explored the potential disadvantages faced by opposition parties in the electoral process.

    About Electoral Bond Scheme

    Definition Banking instruments for political party donations with donor anonymity.
    Purchase Method Available to Indian citizens and Indian-incorporated companies from select State Bank of India branches. Can be bought digitally or via cheque.
    Donation Process Purchasers can donate these bonds to eligible political parties of their choice.
    Denominations Available in multiples of ₹1,000, ₹10,000, ₹10 lakh, and ₹1 crore.
    KYC Requirements Purchasers must fulfill existing KYC norms and pay from a bank account.
    Lifespan of Bonds Bonds have a 15-day life to prevent them from becoming a parallel currency.
    Identity Disclosure Donors contributing less than ₹20,000 need not provide identity details like PAN.
    Redemption Electoral Bonds can be encashed only by eligible political parties through an Authorized Bank.
    Eligibility of Parties Only parties meeting specific criteria, including securing at least 1% of votes in the last General Election, can receive Electoral Bonds.
    Restrictions Lifted Foreign and Indian companies can now donate without disclosing contributions as per the Companies Act.
    Objective To enhance transparency in political funding and ensure funds collected by political parties are accounted or clean money.

    Selective Confidentiality Challenges

    • Justice Khanna’s Address: The Judge pointed out that the ruling party had easier access to information about contributions to opposition parties, creating an imbalance in transparency.
    • State Bank of India’s Role: CJI Chandrachud questioned whether the SBI, through which electoral bonds were purchased, had a statutory obligation to maintain confidentiality.

    Government’s Defense

    • Confidentiality Key: The solicitor-General argued that confidentiality regarding donor identities and contributions was crucial to the electoral bonds scheme. He contended that eliminating the scheme would revert the country to a period when political donations were made in unaccounted cash, leading to black money circulation.
    • Economic Impact: He emphasized that the scheme aimed to channel clean money into the electoral system, reducing the influence of black money. He referred to a report highlighting the increase in income from unknown sources to political parties and the discovery of shell companies during the previous donation regime.

    Concerns Raised by CJI

    • Information Blackhole: The CJI noted that while the scheme aimed to bring white money into the electoral process, it introduced opacity, creating an “information blackhole.” He emphasized the need for proportionality in achieving the scheme’s objectives.
    • Expectations of Donors: Chandrachud questioned how substantial donations were consistently made to the ruling party, implying certain expectations from donors.
    • Donations Not Charity: Solicitor-General Mehta clarified that donors were primarily motivated by their own interests, often related to business or market-driven factors. He argued that larger donations to a party did not necessarily indicate an issue with the scheme.
    • Right to Privacy: Mehta argued that revealing the political affiliations of donors would infringe on their right to privacy.

    Transparency and Quid Pro Quo Concerns

    • Justice Khanna’s Query: Justice Khanna raised concerns about how confidentiality in the electoral bonds scheme could prevent quid pro quo arrangements between political parties and donors.
    • Proxy Donations: The judge questioned the possibility of parties funneling unaccounted money back into the system through proxy political donations.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the electoral bonds scheme centers on issues of transparency, confidentiality, and potential imbalances in the electoral process.
    • The court’s questions and concerns highlight the importance of ensuring fairness and proportionality in political funding mechanisms.

  • Supreme Court upholds Woman’s Right to Parenthood in Surrogacy Case

    surrogacy

    Central Idea

    • In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has safeguarded a woman’s right to parenthood, particularly in cases of medical conditions, by suspending the enforcement of a law that jeopardized her aspiration to become a mother through surrogacy.
    • This significant ruling provides protection and empowerment for women facing unique medical challenges on their journey to parenthood.

    Case Details

    • Medical Condition: The woman suffers from the rare Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Medical records confirm her condition, which includes “absent ovaries and absent uterus,” rendering her unable to produce her own eggs.
    • Hope through Gestational Surrogacy: She and her husband embarked on the path of gestational surrogacy using a donor’s eggs (a process where one person, who did not provide the egg used in conception, carries a fetus through pregnancy and gives birth to a baby for another person or couple.).

    Threatening Amendment

    • No donor gamete use: A government notification dated March 14 of the current year introduced an amendment to the law, prohibiting the use of donor gametes in surrogacy. It mandated that “intending couples” must employ their own gametes for the surrogacy process.
    • A Violation of Parenthood Rights: This amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court, alleging a violation of a woman’s fundamental right to parenthood. The court found that the amendment contradicted the core provisions of the Surrogacy Act, both in form and substance.

    Gametes Regulation and ART Act, 2021

    • Gametes are reproductive cells. In animals, the male gametes are sperms and female gamete is the ovum or egg cells.
    • On March 14, 2023, the Health Ministry published Rules that said:
    1. A couple undergoing surrogacy must have both gametes from the intending couple and donor gametes are not allowed;
    2. Single women (widow/divorcee) undergoing surrogacy must use self-eggs and donor sperms to avail surrogacy procedure.
    • Section 2(h) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act, 2021 defines a “gamete donor” as a person who provides sperm or oocyte with the objective of enabling an infertile couple or woman to have a child.

    Court’s Ruling: Allows Donor’s Gametes

    • Prima Facie Contradiction: The SC Bench issued a decisive order, stating that the amendment obstructed the intending couple from achieving parenthood through surrogacy and was prima facie contrary to the Surrogacy Act’s intentions.
    • Petitioner’s Argument: Senior advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the petitioner, argued that the amendment invalidated the possibility of gestational surrogacy, which the Surrogacy Act, 2021, recognized as a valid option for couples facing medical conditions.
    • Rule 14(a) Clarification: Jain referred to Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy Rules, emphasizing that it explicitly listed medical or congenital conditions, such as the absence of a uterus, as valid reasons for gestational surrogacy. The rule affirmed that the choice was solely the woman’s.
    • Retrospective Implementation: The petitioner contended that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to her case.

    Court’s Ruling and Interpretation

    • Woman-Centric Perspective: The court concurred with Mr. Jain’s argument that gestational surrogacy was “woman-centric.” It recognized that the decision to opt for surrogacy was driven by the woman’s inability to become a mother due to her medical or congenital condition.
    • Validation of Rule 14(a): The court asserted that the amendment could not contradict Rule 14(a), which explicitly acknowledged medical conditions, including the absence of a uterus, as valid reasons necessitating gestational surrogacy.
    • Genetic Relation Interpretation: Addressing the government’s contention that the surrogate child must be “genetically related” to the couple, the court clarified that this related to the husband when Rule 14(a) applied.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s decision in favour of ‘Mrs. ABC’ not only upholds her right to parenthood but also reinforces the significance of gestational surrogacy as a woman-centric solution for individuals facing challenging medical conditions on their path to becoming parents.
    • This ruling sets a precedent for protecting the parenthood rights of women across India.