💥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

  • Right to Govt. Aid is not a Fundamental Right: SC

    The right of an institution, whether run by a majority or minority community, to get government aid is not a fundamental right.  Both have to equally follow the rules and conditions of the aid, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.

    What is the case about?

    • The judgment came in an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to declare a provision of the Intermediate Education Act of 1921 unconstitutional.

    Key takeaways from the Judgment

    • The SC has clarified that if the government made a policy call to withdraw aid, an institution cannot question the decision as a “matter of right”.
    • Whether it is an institution run by the majority or the minority, all conditions that have relevance to the proper utilisation of the grant-in-aid by an educational institution can be imposed.
    • All that Article 30(2) states is that on the ground that an institution is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
    • The grant of aid to that educational institution cannot be discriminated against, if other educational institutions are entitled to receive aid.

    Basis of the Judgment

    • A grant of government aid comes with accompanying conditions.
    • An institution is free to choose to accept the grant with the conditions or go its own way.
    • If an institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid, it is well open to it to decline the grant and move in its own way.
    • On the contrary, an institution can never be allowed to say that the grant of aid should be on its own terms, the Bench observed.

    Various grounds discussed

    The court explained why institutions cannot view government aid as a “matter of right”.

    • Government aid is a policy decision: It depends on various factors including the interests of the institution itself and the ability of the government to understand the exercise. Therefore, even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid, an institution cannot question it as a matter of right.
    • Financial constraints and deficiencies: These are the factors which are considered relevant in taking any decision qua aid, including both the decision to grant aid and the manner of disbursement of an aid.
    • Not arbitrary decision: The bench said that a policy decision is presumed to be in public interest, and such a decision once made is not amenable to challenge, until and unless there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness, a Constitutional court is expected to keep its hands off.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

    Back2Basics: Minority Rights in India

    • Article 15: prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion race cast sex or place of birth
    • Article 17: prohibits untouchability
    • Article 25 provides the right to practice any religion.
    • Article 26 allows religious institutions to be opened.
    • Article 27 provides that no person shall be forced to pay any taxes which is not mandatory.
    • Article 28 provides that there shall be no religious instruction to be followed in any particular educational institutions.
    • Article 29 provides that no citizen shall be denied admission in any educational institution on grounds of religion race caste.
    • Article 30 provides that minority shall not be prohibited from any educational institutions.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What is Vishnuonyx?

    Between 12.5 million and 14 million years ago, members of a genus of otters called Vishnuonyx lived in the major rivers of southern Asia.

    Vishnuonyx neptuni

    • Vishnuonyx were mid-sized predators that weighed, on average, 10-15 kg.
    • Before this, the genus was known only in Asia and Africa (recent findings show that Vishnuonyx reached East Africa about 12 million years ago, according to the release).
    • Vishnuonyx depended on water and could not travel long distances over land.

    Why in news?

    • German researchers have discovered the fossil of a previously unknown species, which they have named Vishnuonyx neptuni, meaning ‘Neptune’s Vishnu’.
    • Fossils of these now extinct otters were first discovered in sediments found in the foothills of the Himalayas.
    • Now, a newly found fossil indicates it had travelled as far as Germany. ‘
    • The dispersal of Vishnuonyx otters from the Indian subcontinent to Africa and Europe about 13 million years ago. ‘
    • This is the first discovery of any member of the Vishnuonyx genus in Europe; it is also its most northern and western record till date.

    How did it travel as far as Europe?

    • According to the researchers, its travels over 6,000 km were probably made possible by the geography of 12 million years ago, when the Alps were recently formed.
    • These Alps and the Iranian Elbrus Mountains were separated by a large ocean basin, which would have made it easier for the otters to cross it.
    • Researchers believe ‘Neptune’s Vishnu’ first reached southern Germany, followed by Ancient Guenz and eventually, the Hammerschmiede.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Need for ‘Indianization’ of Legal System: CJI

    Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has asserted the need for the “Indianisation of our legal system”, pointing out that the colonial system being followed currently may not be best suited to the complexities of India.

    Prospects of Indianization by CJI

    • CJI meant that the need to adapt to the practical realities of our society and localize our justice delivery systems.
    • For example, parties from a rural place fighting a family dispute are usually made to feel out of place in the court.
    • They do not understand the arguments or pleadings which are mostly in English, a language alien to them.
    • These days judgments have become lengthy, which further complicates the position of litigants.
    • For the parties to understand the implications of a judgment, they are forced to spend more money.
    • For whom do the court’s function, the CJI asked. For the litigants, who are the “justice seekers”. They are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    What did CJI say?

    • CJI has said the ordinary Indian feels out of place in our courts where proceedings are lengthy, expensive and in English.
    • Besides, judgments are either too long or technical or manage to be both.
    • It is time for courts to wake up from their colonial stupor and face the practical realities of Indian society.
    • Rules and procedures of justice delivery should be made simple.
    • The ordinary, poor and rural Indian should not be scared of judges or the courts.

    Reasons for Indianization

    • Multiple barriers continue to thwart the citizen’s way to the courts.
    • The working and the style of courts do not sit well with the complexities of India.
    • The systems, practices and rules of courts are foreign and sourced from our colonial days. They do not take care of the practical realities of India.

    Major suggestions by CJI:

    (A) Simplification

    • The simplification of justice delivery should be our pressing concern.
    • It is crucial to make justice delivery more transparent, accessible and effective.
    • Procedural barriers often undermine access to justice.
    • The Chief Justice said both judges and lawyers have to create an environment which is comforting for the litigants and other stakeholders.

    (B) Alternate dispute mechanisms

    • The CJI said alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation would go a long way in reducing pendency, unnecessary litigation and save resources.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Allahabad HC verdict disqualifying then PM

    The 1975 verdict of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad high court, disqualifying then PM Indira Gandhi on charges of electoral malpractices was a judgment of “great courage” that “shook” the nation, said CJI in his speech.

    What was the case?

    • It all started with the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where the Congress (R), which was the newly formed faction of the Congress party floated by Indira Gandhi after her expulsion from the party in 1969, won a landslide victory securing 352 out of the 518 seats in the lower house.
    • An election petition was filed directly before a High Court challenging the election of Indira Gandhi.

    What is an Election Petition?

    • Election Petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election results.
    • The Representation of People (RP) Act of 1951 lists out the grounds on which the election of a candidate can be called into question.
    • Section 123 of the RP Act lists certain corrupt practices which, if proved successful, can be grounds to declare the election of a candidate void.
    • While hearing an election petition, the High Court being the court of first instance, exercises powers similar to a trial court.
    • Thus, there is cross-examination of witnesses and detailed examination of evidence which is normally employed in trial courts and not High Courts.

    Findings against Gandhi

    • Use of government machinery to set up stage, loudspeakers
    • Use of gazetted officer as an election agent

    A case that led to the promulgation of National Emergency

    The verdict is widely believed to have led to the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

    • A vacation bench of the Supreme Court allowed a partial stay of the judgment after Gandhi had appealed against the High Court verdict.
    • Then Justice VR Krishna Iyer, said that she could continue as Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha and could attend the House, but could not participate in its proceedings or vote as MP.
    • She also could not draw any remuneration as an MP.
    • Importantly, the apex court allowed her to continue as Prime Minister and allowed her to speak and participate in the proceedings of the House and to draw salary in her capacity as Prime Minister.
    • The order by the apex court, while not completely against Gandhi, did not satisfy her.
    • She wanted a blanket stay on the Allahabad High Court judgment.
    • Since the Supreme Court did not grant her that, National Emergency was proclaimed the very next day, June 25.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

    Back2Basics: National Emergency

    • The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote National Emergency under Article 352.
    • Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.
    • The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion or external aggression
    • When a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’, it is known as ‘External Emergency’.
    • On the other hand, when it is declared on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal Emergency’.
    • The term ‘armed rebellion is inserted from the 44th amendment. Before this term, it was known as an internal disturbance.

     

  • Delhi HC observations on Right to be Forgotten

    The Delhi High Court upheld the view that the “Right to Privacy” includes the “Right to be Forgotten” and the “Right to be Left Alone”.

    Right to be Forgotten in India

    • The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.
    • The court said at the time that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.

    What was the recent case?

    • The TV celebrity had moved Delhi High Court with the plea that orders be issued to Google and relevant entities to facilitate the removal of posts, videos, articles and any information related to incidents that he was involved.
    • His plea cited that his presence on the internet is a source of “utmost psychological pain” to him.

    Legal issues

    • India does not have a law yet on right to be forgotten.
    • In the meantime, the Information Technology Rules, 2011 — which is the current regime governing digital data — does not have any provisions relating to the right to be forgotten.
    • The Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2019 and is being examined by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

    Key features of PDP Bill

    • Personal Data: Section 20 of the PDP Bill says that a ‘data principal’ — or the person who generates the data or to whom the information pertains — can rightfully ask a ‘data fiduciary’, which is any entity that stores or processes such data, to “restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data” in specific circumstances.
    • Purpose of data: To seek the erasure of data, it is necessary to establish that it “has served the purpose for which it was collected or is no longer necessary for the purpose; was made with the consent of the data principal.
    • Right to be forgotten: The Bill says that the right to be forgotten can be enforced only on an order of an adjudicating officer following an application filed by the data principal.
    • Contravention with Free Speech: However, the decision on whether the right to be forgotten can be granted with respect to any data will depend on whether it contravenes “the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to information of any other citizen”.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Protest should not hinder traffic: SC

    The Supreme Court took a nuanced stand saying farmers have the right to protest but the agitation should not hinder traffic or public movement.

    Right to Protest

    • When a group, community, or even a person goes up to protest, it is usually to showcase their disapproval or demur against any action, policy, statement, etc of state or government or any organization.
    • Mostly the flow of protest is driven through political waves that also demonstrate the collective organization of people to make the government or state address their issues and take steps to overcome them.
    • In India, the right to protest is the manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.

    Constitutional Backing

    • Article 19(1) states that All citizens shall have the right:

    (a) to freedom of speech and expression;

    (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

    (c) to form associations or unions;

    (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

    (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

    (f) omitted

    (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

    Reasonable restrictions on Protest

    • Article 51A makes it a fundamental duty for every person to safeguard public property and to avoid violence during the protests and resorting to violence during public protests results in infringement of key fundamental duty of citizens.
    • Article 19(1)(b) states about the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Thereby, the right to peaceful protest is bestowed to Indian citizens by our Constitution.
    • Article 19(2) imposes a restriction on a person to prevent him from making a defamatory statement which defames the reputation of another person.
    • Article 19(3): The reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • SC questions govt over Tribunal Reforms Bill

    The Supreme Court has challenged the government to produce material showing its reasons for introducing the Tribunal Reforms Bill of 2021, which abolishes nine appellate tribunals and revives provisions of an ordinance struck down by the Supreme Court, in the Parliament.

    What are Tribunals?

    • Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies that decide disputes in a particular area of law.
    • They are institutions established for discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties.
    • The objective may be to reduce the caseload of the judiciary or to bring in subject expertise for technical matters.

    Do you know?

    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established as the first Tribunal in India back in 1941.

    Creation of Tribunals

    In 1976, Articles 323A and 323B were inserted in the Constitution of India through the 42nd Amendment.

    • Article 323A: This empowered Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals (both at central and state level) for adjudication of matters related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.
    • Article 323B: This specified certain subjects (such as taxation and land reforms) for which Parliament or state legislatures may constitute tribunals by enacting a law.
    • In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that the subject matters under Article 323B are not exclusive, and legislatures are empowered to create tribunals on any subject matters under their purview as specified in the Seventh Schedule.

    SC stance on Tribunals

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, should have the same level of independence from the executive as the judiciary.
    • Key factors include the mode of selection of members, the composition of tribunals, and the terms and tenure of service.
    • In order to ensure that tribunals are independent of the executive, the Supreme Court had recommended that all administrative matters be managed by the law ministry rather than the ministry associated with the subject area.
    • Later, the Court recommended the creation of an independent National Tribunals Commission for the administration of tribunals.
    • These recommendations have not been implemented.

    Issues with tribunals

    • Pendency: Whereas the reasoning for setting up some tribunals was to reduce the pendency of cases in courts, several tribunals are facing the issue of a large caseload and pendency.
    • No appointment: With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals till date.

    Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021

     

    What is the recent news?

    • A three-judge Bench led by CJI has put the government on the dock about the complete absence of material justifying the Bill and also the lack of proper debate in the Parliament.
    • The provisions regarding conditions of service and tenure of Tribunal Members and Chairpersons were struck down by the Supreme Court.
    • However, the same provisions re-appeared in the Tribunal Reforms Bill recently passed.
    • The court has also noted its reservations against the complete dissolution of some tribunals.

    What happens to cases pending before the tribunals are dissolved?

    • These cases will be transferred to High Courts or commercial civil courts immediately. Legal experts have been divided on the efficacy of the government’s move.
    • While on the one hand, the cases might get a faster hearing and disposal if taken to High Courts, experts fear that the lack of specialization in regular courts could be detrimental to the decision-making process.
    • For example, the FCAT exclusively heard decisions appealing against decisions of the censor board, which requires expertise in art and cinema.

    Observations made by the Court

    • With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals to date.
    • The CJI repeated his question of whether the government was moving towards closing down the tribunals.

    A new flashpoint between Executive and Judiciary

    • The verdict discussed the possibility of legislation overriding the court’s directions.
    • In other cases, too, the SC and Parliament have been at loggerheads on the issue of rationalization of tribunals.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Parties get 48 hours to publish candidates’ criminal records

    The Supreme Court has directed the political parties to publish the criminal history if any, of their election candidates on the homepage of their party websites under the caption ‘candidates with criminal antecedents’ within 48 hours of their selection.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
    2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2020)

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”89w3xkyopz” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here: [/wpdiscuz-feedback]

    Criminalization of politics: Indian Case

    • The criminalization of politics has become a headache for the Indian democracy and it is a harsh reality now.
    • Criminalization of politics in India includes political control of the police, state money, corruption, weak laws, lack of ethics, values, vote bank politics and loopholes in the function of the election commission.
    • Deep down, it’s a large nexus of police, money, corrupt bureaucracy, casteism, religion and the drawbacks of functioning in the election commission.

    On a serious note

    • The Supreme Court has warned Parliament that the nation is losing patience with the advent of criminals in politics even as it imposed fines on major political parties for covering up from voters the criminal past of the candidates.
    • Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government.
    • The court said it did not take political parties much time to flout its February 2020 judgment, which had directed them to prominently publish the criminal antecedents.

    What was the Feb 2020 Judgment?

    The Supreme Court earlier in Feb 2020 had ordered political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.

    • Reasons for nomination: It has also asked for the reasons that goaded them to field suspected criminals over decent people.
    • Publication of records: The information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as the parties’ social media handles.
    • 48hr time frame: It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
    • Contempt for non-compliance: It also ordered political parties to submit compliance reports with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours or risk contempt of court action.
    • No escape: The judgment is applicable to parties both at Central and State levels.

    Immediate Reason

    • The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of MPs have criminal records.
    • The number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences —“unlawful assembly” and “defamation”.
    • The real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors.

    Why are such tainted candidates inducted by political parties?

    • Popularity: Such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.
    • Vested interests: Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook.
    • Destabilizing other electors: Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records.

    A harsh reality

    • The NN Vohra committee’s report on the criminalization of politics discussed how criminal gangs flourish under the care and protection of politicians.
    • Many times the candidates themselves are the gang leaders.
    • This protection is paid back to them during elections through capital investment in election spending and voter support.

    Need for clean politics

    • Upholding morality: It is extremely important that the people who enter the field of politics have a clear image and high moral character.
    • Ensuring rule of law: A leader with criminal character undoubtedly tends to undermine the rule of law.

  • Preventive detention a necessary evil: Supreme Court

    Preventive detention, the dreaded power of the State to restrain a person without trial, could be used only to prevent public disorder, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    • Preventive detention means detaining a person so that to prevent that person from commenting on any possible crime.
    • In other words, preventive detention is an action taken by the administration on the grounds of the suspicion that some wrong actions may be done by the person concerned which will be prejudicial to the state.

    PD in India

    A police officer can arrest an individual without orders from a Magistrate and without any warrant if he gets any information that such an individual can commit any offense.

    • Preventive Detention Law, 1950: According to this law any person could be arrested and detained if his freedom would endanger the security of the country, foreign relations, public interests, or otherwise necessary for the country.
    • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1968: Within the ambit of UAPA law the Indian State could declare any organization illegal and could imprison anyone for interrogation if the said organization or person critiqued/questioned Indian sovereignty territorially.

    What is the difference between preventive detention and an arrest?

    • An ‘arrest’ is done when a person is charged with a crime.
    • In the case of preventive detention, a person is detained as he/she is simply restricted from doing something that might deteriorate the law-and-order situation.
    • Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

    Rights of an Arrested Person in India

    A/c to Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Indian constitution:

    • A person cannot be arrested and detained without being informed why he is being arrested.
    • A person who is arrested cannot be denied to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. This means that the arrested person has right to hire a legal practitioner to defend himself/ herself.
    • Every person who has been arrested would be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours.
    • The custody of the detained person cannot be beyond the said period by the authority of magistrate.

    Exceptions for Preventive Detention

    Article 22(3) says that the above safeguards are not available to the following:

    • If the person is at the time being an enemy alien
    • If the person is arrested under certain law made for the purpose of “Preventive Detention”

    Constitutional provision

    • It is extraordinary that the framers of the Indian Constitution, who suffered most because of the Preventive Detention Laws, did not hesitate to give Constitutional sanctity.
    • B.R. Ambedkar was of the opinion that the freedom of the individual should not supersede the interests of the state.
    • He had also stated that the independence of the country was in a state of inflancy and in order to save it, preventive detention was essential.

    Issues with preventive detention

    • Arbitrariness: The police determinations of whether a person poses a threat are not tested at a trial by leading evidence or examined by legally trained persons.
    • Rights violation: Quiet often, there is no trial (upto 3 months), no periodic review, and no legal assistance for the detained person.
    • Abuse: It does not provide any procedural protections such as to reduce detainees’ vulnerability to torture and discriminatory treatment, and to prevent officials’ misusing preventive detention for subversive activities.
    • Tool for suppression: In the absence of proper safeguards, preventive detention has been misused, particularly against the Dalits and the minorities.

    What has the apex court recently rule?

    • Preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder.
    • The court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to harm, danger or alarm, or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large.
    • The State should not arbitrarily resort to “preventive detention” to deal with all and sundry “law and order” problems, which could be dealt with by the ordinary laws of the country.
    • Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged, one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation?
    • If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal.

    Upholding the Article 21

    • Preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 (due process of law) read with Article 22 (safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention) and the statute in question, Justice Nariman ruled.
    • The Liberty of a citizen is a most important right won by our forefathers after long, historical, and arduous struggles.

    Conclusion

    • The constitutional philosophy of personal liberty is an idealistic view, the curtailment of liberty for reasons of State’s security; public order, disruption of national economic discipline, etc.
    • They are envisaged as a necessary evil to be administered under strict constitutional restrictions.
    • India is a large country and many separatist tendencies against the national security and integrity existed and existing and a strict law is required to counter the subversive activities.
    • The number of persons detained in these acts is not a very large and due attention is made before preventive detention.
    • Having such kind of acts has a restraining influence on the anti-social and subversive elements.
    • The state should have very effective powers to deal with the acts in which the citizens involve in hostile activities, espionage, coercion, terrorism, etc.

  • PM-CARES Fund should cover COVID orphaned children: SC

    The Supreme Court has clarified that welfare schemes such as the PM CARES Fund should cover both children, who became orphans during the Covid-19 pandemic and those, who became orphans due to Covid-19.

    What is PM-CARES Fund?

    • The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) was created on 28 March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic in India.
    • The fund will be used for combat, containment, and relief efforts against the coronavirus outbreak and similar pandemic-like situations in the future.
    • The PM is the chairman of the trust. Members will include the defense, home, and finance ministers.
    • The fund will also enable micro-donations. The minimum donation accepted for the PM CARES Fund is ₹10.
    • The donations will be tax-exempt and fall under corporate social responsibility.

    Why cover orphaned children?

    • Over 75,000 children have been orphaned, abandoned, or have lost a parent during the COVID pandemic.
    • It is feared that many of them may become victims of human trafficking rackets or descend into crime.

    Under the scrutiny of the court

    • The Supreme Court has endorsed the PM CARES Fund as a “public charitable trust” to which donors contribute voluntarily.
    • The court said that PM-CARES is “not open” for a PIL petitioner to question the “wisdom” that created the fund in an hour of need.
    • The court dismissed the idea that the PM CARES was constituted to “circumvent” the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).