💥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

  • Copyright Protection for Religious Texts

    copyright

    Central Idea

    • The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court has brought attention to copyright infringement concerning religious texts, particularly the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust’s works on Indian religious philosophy and spiritualism.
    • This landmark case addresses copyright protection for sacred texts and the implications for digital platforms.
    • Let’s explore the details of the case and its broader implications.

    Are Religious Texts Copyright-Protected?

    • Public Domain: Most religious scriptures, such as the Old Testament and New Testament, are in the public domain. Copyright law does not apply to works in the public domain.
    • Exceptions: Modern translations of religious texts, like the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, may enjoy copyright protection as they represent new creative works by translators.
    • Protections: Additionally, transformative works, like television adaptations of epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, are protected.

    Understanding Copyright Law in India

    • Scope of Protection: The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 safeguards “original work,” creative expressions independently created and fixed in a tangible medium.
    • Exclusive Rights: It grants exclusive rights to creators/authors, including the right to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, and display their work.
    • Transformative Works: The Act also protects transformative works, which creatively modify, reinterpret, or build upon existing material to create something distinct.

    Duration of Copyright Protection

    Literary, Dramatic, Musical, Artistic Works Lifetime of the author plus 60 years from the year following the author’s death or last surviving author’s death.
    Cinematographic Films 60 years from the year of publication or creation.
    Sound Recordings 60 years from the year of first publication.
    Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works 60 years from the year of publication, or lifetime of the author plus 60 years if the author’s identity is disclosed during this period.

    Bhaktivedanta Book Trust’s Case

    • Founder’s Works: The trust claimed copyright ownership of its founder’s works, which had simplified religious books and scriptures, making them accessible to the common man.
    • Infringement Allegation: The trust alleged that various websites, mobile apps, and Instagram handles were reproducing a significant number of its copyrighted works almost verbatim on their online platforms without authorization, constituting infringement.

    Delhi High Court’s Ruling

    • Copyright Protection: The court ruled that adaptations of sacred scriptures, including explanations, meanings, interpretations, and audio-visual works, are entitled to copyright protection because they represent original works by authors themselves.
    • Reproduction Clarification: While the reproduction of the actual text of sacred texts, such as the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, is permissible, the court emphasized that copyright protection applies to the original parts of literary works that preach, teach, or explain the scripture.
    • Trust’s Rights: Given that Srila Prabhupada had entrusted the copyrights to be administered by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, the court emphasized that the works cannot be reproduced without the trust’s authorization, license, or permission.
    • Preventing Piracy: The court acknowledged that unauthorized reproduction, including shlokas (verses), translations, and interpretations, by defendant entities would result in immense revenue loss for the trust.

    Conclusion

    • The Delhi High Court’s ruling on copyright protection for religious texts has far-reaching implications for safeguarding the originality and rights associated with sacred scriptures.
    • While religious texts themselves may not be copyright-protected, creative adaptations, explanations, and interpretations enjoy legal protection.
    • This decision serves as a precedent for preserving the intellectual property rights of organizations involved in disseminating spiritual knowledge while discouraging unauthorized reproduction and piracy.

  • CJI lists measures against LGBTQI Discrimination

    Central Idea

    • In a significant ruling, CJI D Y Chandrachud made a series of directions to address discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community and underscored the need for legislative action to recognize same-sex marriages.
    • This decision reflects a pivotal moment in India’s LGBTQ+ rights movement, emphasizing the intersection of legal and societal norms.

    Preventing LGBTQI Discrimination: Key Directions by CJI

    • Creation of Safe Houses: The ruling called for the establishment of “Garima Grehs” or safe houses in all districts to provide shelter to LGBTQ+ individuals facing violence or discrimination. These safe houses aim to offer refuge and support to those in need.
    • Anti-Discrimination Measures: The Centre, States, and Union Territories were urged to ensure that LGBTQ+ community members are not subjected to discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. This includes equal access to goods and services available to the public.
    • Public Awareness: The ruling emphasized the need to sensitize the public about queer identity, affirming that it is natural and not a mental disorder. It encourages educational efforts to promote understanding and acceptance.
    • Hotline Numbers: The authorities were directed to establish hotline numbers that LGBTQ+ individuals can contact when facing harassment or violence. This initiative aims to provide immediate assistance and support.
    • End of Harmful “Treatments”: The ruling called for an immediate cessation of any “treatments” offered by doctors or others that attempt to change gender identity or sexual orientation. It prioritizes the well-being and autonomy of LGBTQ+ individuals.
    • Protection from Family Pressure: Police were advised not to force LGBTQ+ persons to return to their natal families if they choose not to do so. Furthermore, the ruling emphasized the importance of verifying the claims of LGBTQ+ individuals when they file complaints against their families, ensuring their freedom is not curtailed.
    • Fair Preliminary Investigation: Before registering an FIR against a queer couple or one of the parties involved, a preliminary investigation should be conducted. This step ensures that the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, preventing unnecessary legal action against LGBTQ+ individuals.

    Historical Context

    • The ruling underscored that India has a rich history of LGBTQ+ lives, encompassing various identities and communities.
    • It emphasized that queerness is not limited to urban settings or privileged classes but exists across different regions, castes, and economic backgrounds.

    Future Steps

    • The ruling has set a precedent for addressing discrimination and ensuring the protection of LGBTQ+ rights.
    • Justice S K Kaul expressed the need for a comprehensive anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    • State governments have also been prompted to create guidelines and committees to address LGBTQ+ issues, demonstrating the broader impact of this ruling beyond the courtroom.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s ruling on LGBTQ+ rights signifies a significant milestone in the ongoing struggle for equal rights and acceptance.
    • While legislative recognition of same-sex marriages remains pending, the directions provided by the CJI emphasize the importance of dismantling discriminatory practices and promoting inclusivity in Indian society.
    • The ruling paves the way for a more equitable future for LGBTQ+ individuals in the country.

  • Judicial Perspectives on LGBTQI Marriage and Adoption Issues

    Central Idea

    • In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, deliberated on granting legal status to same-sex marriages.
    • This case has sparked significant interest as it explores the intersection of individual rights and societal norms.

    Judicial Perspectives on Various Issues:

    [A] Fundamental Right to Marry

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Petitioner Argument
    • Marriage is not fundamentally important;
    • It gained significance through state regulation as Civil Union.
    • Marriage’s importance is personal preference and social status.
    • It is necessarily NOT a fundamental right.

     

    [B] Interpretation of Special Marriage Act

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Framing the Issue
    • Cautioned against expansive interpretations;
    • Suggested encroachment on the legislature’s domain.
    • Concurred with the minority view.
    • Emphasized the SMA’s purpose for facilitating civil marriages between heterosexual couples.

     

    [C] Queer Couples’ Right to Adopt a Child

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Discriminatory Regulations
    • Struck down certain CARA regulations, asserting that they do not serve the child’s best interests.
    • Highlighted the discriminatory impact on the queer community based on their sexuality.
    • Acknowledged the discriminatory aspect.
    • But believed legislative action, rather than judicial imposition, should bring about this change.

     

    [D] Civil Unions for Queer Couples

    Argument Minority View (CJI Chandrachud) Majority View
    Recognition of Civil Unions
    • Connected the right to form intimate associations with freedom of speech and expression.
    • Proposed that the state should acknowledge various entitlements for such relationships.
    • Disagreed with prescribing a “choice” of civil unions.
    • Suggested that the state should facilitate this choice for those who opt for it.

     Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage reflects a complex interplay of legal, social, and legislative factors.
    • While the minority view leans towards immediate recognition of civil unions and highlights the importance of individual rights, the majority opinion emphasizes the legislative role in bringing about changes in societal norms.
    • The verdict underscores the evolving landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in India and the ongoing dialogue surrounding equal rights and inclusivity.

  • Supreme Court declines to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court of India has declined to approve same-sex marriages in a blow to LGBTQ rights.
    • CJI said that it was outside the court’s remit to decide the issue and that parliament should write the laws governing marriage.

    Same-Sex Marriage Demand

    • Petitioners are urging for the reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, by replacing “man and woman” with “spouses” to accommodate LGBTQIA+ couples.
    • Such right to marry not only symbolizes equality but also grants access to numerous legal benefits, including insurance, adoption, and inheritance.

    Petitioners’ Demands

    Arguments Summary
    Constitutional Basis Asserted that the right to marry for non-heterosexual couples is implicit in various constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21.
    Previous Landmark Judgments Referenced key Supreme Court judgments such as ‘Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India’ (2018) and ‘KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India’ (2017) to support their case.
    Benefits and Rights Emphasized the importance of equal access to marriage-related benefits and rights, such as pensions and provident funds.
    Minimum Marriageable Age Suggested different minimum marriageable ages for lesbian, gay, and transgender couples based on gender identity.
    Recognition of Fundamental Rights Cited the Transgender Persons Protection Act, 2019, as a precedent recognizing the right to marry for all queer identities.

    Respondent’s Arguments

    Arguments Summary
    Maintainability and Jurisdiction Questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and raised concerns about the maintainability of the petitions.
    Impact on Existing Laws Argued that introducing marriage equality would impact 160 existing laws, making it the prerogative of Parliament to enact such changes.
    SMA Character and Intent Emphasized that the Special Marriage Act (SMA) was intentionally designed for heterosexual marriages, and changing its character and intent would require legislative action.
    Legitimate State Interest Contended that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriages, addressing aspects such as age of consent, bigamy, and prohibited degrees of marriage.
    Welfare of Children Advocated for prioritizing the welfare of children born to heterosexual parents, leading to differential treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples.
    Public Perception Expressed concerns about societal acceptance and potential collateral damage to various legal provisions if same-sex marriage were declared a fundamental right.

    States Responses

    • Rajasthan, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh opposed the plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
    • Sikkim, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Manipur sought more time to respond.
    • Also, many fundamentalist religious organizations are opposed to such marriages.

    Conclusion

    • It must be noted that only Taiwan and Nepal allow same-sex unions in Asia, where largely conservative values still dominate politics and society.
    • The Supreme Court’s verdict on marriage equality in India is poised to shape the country’s LGBTQIA+ rights landscape profoundly.

    Also read:

    [Sansad TV] Perspective: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

  • Minority Institutions need NOT provide Reservations: Madras HC

    Central Idea

    • Reservation exemption: The Madras High HC ruled that the concept of communal reservation for SC/ST/OBC citizens does not apply to minority institutions.
    • No government constraint: The judges held that the government cannot compel minority institutions to implement such reservation policies.

    Key Highlights by Madras HC

    • Continued Status: The court emphasized that once minority status is granted to an institution, it will persist until the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) cancels it for valid reasons, such as a shift in its educational objectives.
    • Merit-Based Admissions: The court upheld the government’s right to stipulate that minority institutions can admit students from the respective religious and linguistic minorities up to 50% of the sanctioned intake based on merit.
    • Exclusion Clause: The judges clarified that students admitted on merit should not be counted within the first 50% of admissions allocated for minorities.

    Case Background

    • Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner challenged a Govt Order (GO) issued in November 2021. The GO denied the extension of religious minority status to the college due to its admission of 52% minority students in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
    • Advocate General’s Stand: Advocate General argued that such admissions violated a 1998 GO that restricted minority admissions to 50%.
    • College’s Position: It contended that minority educational institutions should receive permanent status without the need for periodic extensions. It also asserted that the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private Educational Institutions) Act, 2006, should not apply to minority institutions.

    Legal Analyis

    • Constitutional Provisions: The judges found support in Article 15(5) of the Constitution, introduced through the 93rd amendment in 2005, which specifically excludes minority institutions from the State Government’s authority to provide special provisions for reservations.
    • Definition of Private Educational Institution: They pointed out that Section 2(d) of the 2006 Act also excludes minority institutions established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution from its definition of ‘private educational institution.’ Thus, the State cannot impose reservation provisions on minority educational institutions.
    • Permanent Status: The court stated that the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutes Act, 2004, does not envision granting minority status for a temporary or restricted period. Instead, it continues until the Commission cancels it.

    Conclusion

    • Ultimately, the court quashed the 2021 GO and directed the government to allow the petitioner institution to maintain its status as a minority institution, provided it complies with other requirements.

  • Debate over Temple Priest Appointments in Tamil Nadu

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has issued an order for maintaining the current state of affairs regarding the appointment of archakas (priests) in Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu.
    • The reforms introduced by the ruling government, aiming to change the hereditary system of appointing archakas, have faced opposition from the association of archakas.

    Why discuss this?

    • Such appointments violated religious rights protected under the Constitution, emphasizing the need for rigorous training under experienced Gurus to comprehend the significant religious practices of the Agamas.

    Government and Judicial Actions

    The debate over temple priest appointments in Tamil Nadu has evolved over the years, with several key actions shaping its course:

    • 1971 Amendment: In 1971, the DMK government, led by Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, amended the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Act. This amendment abolished hereditary priest appointments and allowed individuals from all castes to become priests.
    • 2006 Declaration: In 2006, the government declared all qualified individuals eligible to be priests. However, this move was challenged in the Supreme Court, which, in 2015, emphasized the importance of adhering to Agama Sastras while safeguarding constitutional rights.
    • Gender Equality: In a landmark ruling in 2009, the Madras High Court favored a woman priest from Usilampatti, Madurai, who faced opposition from male priests regarding her inherited right to conduct puja at a temple. The court underscored the need to eliminate gender bias from temples to fulfill constitutional mandates.
    • Inclusivity: The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Case (2004) and the N Adithayan case (2002) upheld the appointment of non-believers and non-Brahmins as temple priests, emphasizing inclusivity and non-discrimination.

    Complex Divine Contradictions

    Despite the legal framework and the abolition of hereditary priest appointments, the Agama tradition continues to influence temple administrations in Tamil Nadu. This persistence has given rise to debates and challenges:

    • Regional Variations: Similar debates have emerged in Kerala, where questions have been raised about why only Hindu temples are under government control, while churches and mosques are not. Tamil Nadu has also witnessed campaigns for temple “reclamation.”
    • Historical Shift: During the colonial era, British officials’ involvement in Hindu rituals raised concerns among Christian establishments in India. This led to the transfer of temple control to local communities. In 1951, the HR & CE Act limited government involvement to administration and finance.
    • Friction between Tradition and Modernity: The ongoing tensions between traditional practices and modern principles are exemplified by debates over hereditary priest rights and resistance to the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. These issues defy simple solutions.

    What about Religious Freedom?

    • Complexity of Hinduism: A prominent temple priest in Chennai argued that rules applied to other faiths may not directly apply to Hinduism. Hinduism is characterized by its diversity of traditions, contradictions, and numerous deities. Temples are perceived as centers of “soul energy” with unique purposes and practices.
    • Role of Empathy: The priest emphasized the importance of empathy when dealing with matters of faith. Logic and reasoning cannot always apply to beliefs deeply rooted in tradition and spirituality. He highlighted the significance of experiential concepts, dedication, and the unique nature of temple administration.
    • Agama Sastra Expertise: The priest pointed out that learning Agama Sastra in a year does not equip an individual to manage a temple. Temple administration is a combination of experiential concepts, ideas, and dedication, distinct from running a company. Agama Sastra is not a simple manual but a profound tradition.

    Conclusion

    • The debate surrounding temple priest appointments in Tamil Nadu remains complex, reflecting the ongoing struggle to balance tradition with modern principles.
    • It highlights the challenges in applying uniform rules to diverse faiths and underscores the profound significance of temples in Hinduism.

  • Interim Stay on Taxation of Online Games

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on the Karnataka High Court’s ruling that online games, such as rummy, should not be taxed as ‘betting’ and ‘gambling’ under the Central Goods and Services (GST) Act, 2017.
    • This decision follows the Union Cabinet’s approval to increase the GST rate for online games from 18% to 28%.
    • The interim stay aligns online skill games played for stakes with online gambling for taxation purposes.

    Why discuss this?

    • The GST department had issued a show-cause notice to a company for dues worth Rs 21,000 crore, which was quashed by the Karnataka High Court.
    • The Karnataka HC had ruled that online rummy is a game of skill and should not be taxed as gambling.

    Taxing Online Games

    • Karnataka High Court Ruling: The Karnataka HC had determined that online rummy is substantially a game of skill, not chance, and should not be considered gambling. This ruling was based on the Goods and Services Act, which taxes games of skill at 19% and games of chance at 28%.
    • GST Department’s Notice: The GST department had issued a notice to GamesKraft under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, demanding a substantial sum to be deposited along with interest and penalty by September 16, 2022. This notice was challenged in the Karnataka HC and led to an interim stay.
    • Show-Cause Notice: Following the interim stay, the GST department issued a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act to GamesKraft and its founders, CEOs, and CFOs. This notice sought an explanation regarding the tax evasion and penalties.
    • Distinction between Skill and Chance: The Karnataka HC emphasized the distinction between games of skill and games of chance, citing relevant legal precedents. It noted that the question of whether a game of skill could still be classified as gambling remained to be seen.

    Key takeaways

    • The Supreme Court’s interim stay temporarily taxes online skill games played for stakes on par with online gambling.
    • The Karnataka High Court’s ruling that online rummy is a game of skill and not gambling has been challenged by the GST department.
    • Legal distinctions between games of skill and games of chance remain a subject of debate and legal scrutiny in India’s taxation system.

    Prospects of online gaming

    • State List Subject:  The state legislators are, vide Entry No. 34 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule, given exclusive power to make laws relating to betting and gambling.
    • Distinction in laws: Most Indian states regulate gaming on the basis of a distinction in law between ‘games of skill’ and ‘games of chance’.
    • Classification of the dominant element: As such, a ‘dominant element’ test is utilized to determine whether chance or skill is the dominating element in determining the result of the game.
    • Linked economic activity: Staking money or property on the outcome of a ‘game of chance’ is prohibited and subjects the guilty parties to criminal sanctions.
    • ‘Game of Skill’ debate: Placing any stakes on the outcome of a ‘game of skill’ is not illegal per se and may be permissible. It is important to note that the Supreme Court recognized that no game is purely a ‘game of skill’ and almost all games have an element of chance.

    Conclusion

    • This case reflects the need for a nuanced approach in crafting tax policies that adapt to the evolving landscape of online entertainment and gaming.
    • Further legal proceedings will likely shed more light on the classification of such games and their tax implications.

  • Debate around Article 370 in Supreme Court

    article 370

    Central Idea

    • There are ongoing Supreme Court deliberations regarding the abrogation of Article 370.
    • This article delves into the historical context, legal intricacies, and broader socio-political implications of this pivotal constitutional provision.

    Historical Context of Accession

    • Geo-Political Situation: Jammu and Kashmir’s unique special status originated from the tumultuous geo-political circumstances following India’s Independence and Partition.
    • Standstill Agreements: Maharaja Hari Singh’s decision to enter into “Standstill Agreements” with both India and Pakistan highlighted the State’s strategic positioning and economic interests.
    • Instrument of Accession: Faced with internal turmoil and external aggression, Maharaja Hari Singh’s Instrument of Accession sought India’s military assistance while retaining significant autonomy in internal matters.

    Evolution of Article 370

    • Instrument of Accession’s Reflection: Article 370 was crafted in line with the Instrument of Accession’s principles, preserving the unique terms of Jammu and Kashmir’s association with India.
    • Autonomy Preserved: This provision aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding the State’s autonomy and integrating it into the larger Indian Union.
    • Limited Legislative Authority: Article 370 outlined a limited scope for Parliament to legislate on certain subjects, primarily defense, foreign affairs, and communications, with consultation and concurrence requirements.
    • Special Relationship: This provision established Jammu and Kashmir’s distinct relationship with India, emphasizing that its integration would be contingent on mutual consent.

    Abrogation of Article 370

    • Long-Standing Opposition: The abrogation of Article 370 was a persistent demand of the mainstream political party and its precursor.
    • Multistage Process: The process of abrogation involved presidential orders, amendments, and parliamentary resolutions, culminating in its nullification.

    Petitioners’ Arguments against Revocation

    • Lack of Consultation: Senior litigant accused the Union government of ignoring the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir during the Article 370 abrogation process.
    • Series of Executive Acts: He highlighted that the abrogation was executed through a series of executive acts, starting from the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and state government.
    • Changing Provisions: He pointed out that the proviso to Article 370 (3) was altered to sidestep the need for the recommendation of the now-defunct Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before rendering Article 370 inoperative.

    Nature of Relationship

    • Federal vs. Quasi-Federal: Litigant underscored that the relationship between the Union government and Jammu and Kashmir was purely federal, distinct from other states’ quasi-federal relationships.
    • Consent of the State: He argued that such significant decisions should have required the consent of the state and its people, considering the unique federal structure.

    CJI’s Inquiries

    • Permanent Character of Article 370: The CJI raised a significant question about the permanence of Article 370 in the Constitution. He inquired whether a constitutional amendment was required to transform its temporary nature into permanence.
    • Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly: He asked whether the absence of abrogation by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before its dissolution in 1957 should be considered as deeming Article 370 permanent.

    Supreme Court’s Interpretation

    Ans. No Comparison with Brexit-Type Referendum

    • Brexit Referendum: The CJI referenced the Brexit referendum as a political decision taken in the U.K. which does not align with India’s constitutional framework.
    • Uniqueness of Constitutional Democracy: India’s democracy is grounded in the Constitution, and thus decisions like Article 370’s abrogation involve adherence to established legal procedures.

    Conclusion

    • The ongoing courtroom exchange underlines the essence of constitutional democracy in India, wherein the expression of public opinion occurs through established democratic mechanisms.
    • The Chief Justice’s observations and the petitioners’ arguments shed light on the intricate balance between executive actions, parliamentary representation, and the preservation of constitutional principles.

  • Supreme Court verdict on ECI appointments

    Central idea: The Supreme Court has directed the central government to form a permanent selection committee consisting of consist of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee to recommend the appointment of Election Commissioners.

    Supreme Court Ruling

    • The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of the CEC should be made through a transparent and participatory process.
    • It directed the government to set up a permanent selection committee to recommend names for the appointment of the CEC.
    • The committee will consist of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India or his nominee.
    • The court emphasized that the appointment process should ensure the independence of the Election Commission and be free from executive interference.

    Why such move?

    • The ruling will bring more transparency and accountability to the appointment process of the CEC.
    • It will prevent any undue influence by the ruling government in the appointment of the CEC.
    • The ruling also reinforces the importance of an independent Election Commission in ensuring the fairness of the democratic process in India.

    Why did the SC debate the issue?

    • In 2015, a PIL was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of the Centre appointing members of the Election Commission.
    • In October 2018, a two-judge bench of the SC referred the case to a larger bench since it would require a close examination of Article 324 of the Constitution.

    What is the challenge?

    Article 324(2) states that the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament.

    • Absence of law: The crux of the challenge is that since there is no law made by Parliament on this issue.
    • Urge for judicial intervention: The Court must step in to fill the constitutional vacuum, urges the PIL.
    • Question of executive non-interference: This examination also leads to the larger question of separation of powers and if the judiciary is overstepping its role in filling this gap in the law.

    About Election Commission of India

    • The ECI is a constitutional authority whose responsibilities and powers are prescribed in the Constitution of India under Article 324.
    • In the performance of its functions, the Election Commission is insulated from executive interference.
    • It is the Commission that decides the election schedules for the conduct of elections, whether general elections or by-elections.
    • ECI decides on the location of polling stations, assignment of voters to the polling stations, location of counting centres, arrangements to be made in and around polling stations and counting centres and all allied matters.

    Litigations against EC

    • The decisions of the Commission can be challenged in the High Court and the Supreme Court of India by appropriate petitions.
    • By long-standing convention and several judicial pronouncements, once the actual process of elections has started, the judiciary does not intervene in the actual conduct of the polls.

    Why is EC under lens these days?

    • Executive interference: ECs are expected to maintain distance from the executive — a constitutional safeguard to insulate the commission from external pressure and allow it to continue as an independent authority.
    • Violating official channels: The EC’s communication with the Government on election matters is through the bureaucracy — either with its administrative ministry — the Law Ministry or the Home Ministry.
    • Breach of protocol: The Law Ministry spells the fine print on law for the country and is expected not to breach the constitutional safeguard provided to the commission to ensure its autonomy.

    Recent incidence of criticisms

    Ans. Partiality in Elections

    • Over the last couple of years, several actions and omissions of the commission have come in for criticism.
    • Nearly 66 former bureaucrats in a letter addressed to the President, expressed their concern over the working of the Election Commission.
    • They felt was suffering from a credibility crisis, citing various violations of the model code of conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections.

    Importance of ECI for India

    • Conduction of Election: The ECI has been successfully conducting national as well as state elections since 1952.
    • Electoral participation: In recent years, however, the Commission has started to play a more active role to ensure greater participation of people.
    • Discipline of political parties: It had gone to the extent of disciplining the political parties with a threat of derecognizing if the parties failed in maintaining inner-party democracy.
    • Upholds federalism: It upholds the values enshrined in the Constitution viz, equality,
      equity, impartiality, independence; and rule of law in superintendence, direction, and control over electoral governance.
    • Free and fair elections: It conducts elections with the highest standard of credibility, freeness, fairness, transparency, integrity, accountability, autonomy and professionalism.

    Issues with ECI

    • Flaws in the composition: The Constitution doesn’t prescribe qualifications for members of the EC. They are not debarred from future appointments after retiring or resigning.
    • No security of tenure: Election commissioners aren’t constitutionally protected with the security of tenure.
    • Partisan role: The EC has come under the scanner like never before, with increasing incidents of breach of the Model Code of Conduct in the 2019 general elections.
    • Political favor: The opposition alleged that the ECI was favoring the ruling party by giving a clean chit to the model code of conduct violations made by the PM.
    • Non-competence: Increased violence and electoral malpractices under influence of money have resulted in political criminalization, which ECI is unable to arrest.

     

    Attempt UPSC 2024 Smash Scholarship Test | FLAT* 100% OFF on UPSC Foundation & Mentorship programs

    Get your Rs 10,000 worth of UPSC Strategic Package for FREE | PDFs, Zoom sessions, Tests, & Mentorship

  • What is a Living Will?

    A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice K M Joseph agreed to significantly ease the procedure for passive euthanasia in the country by altering the existing guidelines for ‘living wills’.

    What is Living Will?

    • A living will is a legal document detailing the type and level of medical care one wants to receive if they are unable to make decisions or communicate their wishes when care is needed.
    • A living will addresses many life-threatening treatments and procedures, such as resuscitation, ventilation, and dialysis.
    • A person can appoint a healthcare proxy to make decisions regarding care when they are unable to do so.
    • A living trust is a legal document that addresses how the assets of the incapacitated person should be managed.
    • People can enlist the services of an estate planner or an attorney to help draft or review a living will.

    Living Will in India

    • It was first laid down in its 2018 judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India & Anr, which allowed passive euthanasia.
    • It was in response to the Aruna Shanbaug Case where protagonists were arguing in favor of mercy killing to Aruna.
    • The guidelines pertained to questions such as who would execute the living will, and the process by which approval could be granted by the medical board.
    • It declared that an adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life-saving devices.

    What is Euthanasia?

    • Euthanasia refers to the practice of an individual deliberately ending their life, oftentimes to get relief from an incurable condition, or intolerable pain and suffering.
    • Euthanasia, which can be administered only by a physician, can be either ‘active’ or ‘passive’.
    • Active euthanasia involves an active intervention to end a person’s life with substances or external force, such as administering a lethal injection.
    • Passive euthanasia refers to withdrawing life support or treatment that is essential to keep a terminally ill person alive.

    What is the legal history of this matter?

    • Passive euthanasia was legalized in India by the Supreme Court in 2018, contingent upon the person having a ‘living will’.
    • It must be a written document that specifies what actions should be taken if the person is unable to make their own medical decisions in the future.
    • In case a person does not have a living will, members of their family can make a plea before the High Court to seek permission for passive euthanasia.

    What did the SC rule in 2018?

    • The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia while recognising the living wills of terminally-ill patients who could go into a permanent vegetative state.
    • It was required to be signed by an executor (the individual seeking euthanasia) in the presence of two attesting witnesses and to be further countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC).
    • The court issued guidelines regulating this procedure until Parliament passed legislation on this.
    • However, this has not happened, and the absence of a law on this subject has rendered the 2018 judgment the last conclusive set of directions on euthanasia.

    What was the situation before 2018?

    • P Rathinam vs Union Of India, 1994: In a case challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the IPC — which mandates up to one year in prison for attempt to suicide the Supreme Court deemed the section to be a “cruel and irrational provision”.
    • Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab, 1996: Two years later, a five-judge Bench of the court overturned the decision in P Rathinam, saying that the right to life under Article 21 did not include the right to die, and only legislation could permit euthanasia.
    • Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors, 2011: SC allowed passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been sexually assaulted in Mumbai in 1973, and had been in a vegetative state since then. The court made a distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive’, and allowed the latter in “certain situations”.

    Key observations by Law Commission

    • Earlier, in 2006, the Law Commission of India in its 196th Report’ had said that a doctor who obeys the instructions of a competent patient to withhold or withdraw medical treatment does not commit a breach of professional duty and the omission to treat will not be an offence.
    • It had also recognised the patient’s decision to not receive medical treatment, and said it did not constitute an attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC.
    • Again, in 2008, the Law Commission’s ‘241st Report On Passive Euthanasia: A Relook’ proposed legislation on ‘passive euthanasia’, and also prepared a draft Bill.

    What was the old cumbersome process?

    • The treating physician was required to constitute a board comprising three expert medical practitioners from specific but varied fields of medicine, with at least 20 years of experience.
    • They would decide whether to carry out the living will or not.
    • If the medical board granted permission, the will had to be forwarded to the District Collector for his approval.
    • The Collector was to then form another medical board of three expert doctors, including the Chief District Medical Officer.
    • Only if this second board agreed with the hospital board’s findings would the decision be forwarded to the JMFC, who would then visit the patient and examine whether to accord approval.
    • This cumbersome process will now become easier.

    Recent changes after the SC’s order this week

    • Medical board: Instead of the hospital and Collector forming the two medical boards, both boards will now be formed by the hospital.
    • 5 year experienced doctor: The requirement of 20 years of experience for the doctors has been relaxed to five years.
    • Magistrate approval not required: The requirement for the Magistrate’s approval has been replaced by an intimation to the Magistrate.
    • No witness required: The 2018 guidelines required two witnesses and a signature by the Magistrate; now a notary or gazetted officer can sign the living will in the presence of two witnesses instead of the Magistrate’s countersign.
    • HC for appeal: In case the medical boards set up by the hospital refuses permission, it will now be open to the kin to approach the High Court which will form a fresh medical team.

    Different countries, different laws

    • NETHERLANDS, LUXEMBOURG, BELGIUM allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide for anyone who faces “unbearable suffering” that has no chance of improvement.
    • SWITZERLAND bans euthanasia but allows assisted dying in the presence of a doctor or physician.
    • CANADA had announced that euthanasia and assisted dying would be allowed for mentally ill patients by March 2023; however, the decision has been widely criticised, and the move may be delayed.
    • UNITED STATES has different laws in different states. Euthanasia is allowed in some states like Washington, Oregon, and Montana.
    • UNITED KINGDOM considers it illegal and equivalent to manslaughter.

    Justification for Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide

    • It provides a way to relieve extreme pain.
    • Euthanasia can save life of many other people by donation of vital organs.

    Conclusion

    • India officially recognizes that- “every single citizen is entitled to and reserves the right to die with dignity.”
    • Hon’ble Supreme Courts’ recent updated guidelines are a major move in this direction.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more