💥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

  • One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC)

    The Supreme Court directed all states and UTs to implement the One Nation, One Ration Card (ONORC) system, which allows for inter-and intra-state portability, by July 31.

    ONORC Scheme

    • The ONORC scheme is aimed at enabling migrant workers and their family members to buy subsidized ration from any fair price shop anywhere in the country under the National Food Security Act, 2013.
    • For instance, a migrant worker from will be able to access PDS benefits elsewhere in India, where he or she may have gone in search of work.
    • While the person can buy food grains as per his or her entitlement under the NFSA at the place where he or she is based, members of his or her family can still go to their ration dealer back home.
    • To promote this reform in the archaic Public Distribution System (PDS), the government has provided incentives to states.

    How does ONORC work?

    • ONORC is based on technology that involves details of beneficiaries’ ration card, Aadhaar number, and electronic Points of Sale (ePoS).
    • The system identifies a beneficiary through biometric authentication on ePoS devices at fair price shops.
    • The system runs with the support of two portals —Integrated Management of Public Distribution System (IM-PDS) (impds.nic.in) and Annavitran (annavitran.nic.in), which host all the relevant data.
    • When a ration card holder goes to a fair price shop, he or she identifies himself or herself through biometric authentication on ePoS, which is matched real time with details on the Annavitaran portal.
    • Once the ration card details are verified, the dealer hands out the beneficiary’s entitlements.
    • While the Annavitaran portal maintains a record of intra-state transactions — inter-district and intra-district — the IM-PDS portal records the inter-state transactions.

    How many people will it benefit?

    • Under the National Food Security Act, 2013, about 81 crore people are entitled to buy subsidised foodgrains — rice at Rs 3/kg, wheat at Rs 2/kg, and coarse grains at Re 1/kg – from designated fair price shops.
    • As on 28 June 2021, there are about 5.46 lakh fair price shops and 23.63 crore ration cardholders across the country.
    • Each NFSA ration cardholder is assigned to a fair price shop near the place where his ration card is registered.

    What factors led to the launch of ONORC?

    • Earlier, NFSA beneficiaries were not able to access their PDS benefits outside the jurisdiction of the specific fair price shop to which they have been assigned.
    • The government envisioned the ONORC to give them access to benefits from any fair price shop.
    • The idea was to reform the PDS, which has been historically marred by inefficiency and leakages.
    • ONORC was initially launched as an inter-state pilot.
    • When the Covid-19 pandemic forced thousands of migrant workers to return to their villages last year, a need was felt to expedite the rollout.

    What has been the coverage so far?

    • Till date, 32 states and Union Territories have joined the ONORC, covering about 69 crore NFSA beneficiaries.
    • About 1.35 crore portability transactions every month are being recorded under ONORC on an average.
    • While inter-state ration card portability is available in 32 states, the number of such transactions is much lower than that of intra-district and inter-district transactions.

    States not joining

    • Four states are yet to join the scheme — Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and West Bengal. There are various reasons.
    • For instance, Delhi is yet to start the use of ePoS in fair price shops, which is a prerequisite for the implementation of ONORC.
    • In the case of West Bengal, the state government has demanded that the non-NFSA ration cardholders — ration cards issued by the state government — should also be covered under the ONORC.

  • Supreme Court struck down law for reservation to Maratha community

    About the judgment

    • The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the provisions of a Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community.
    • It rejected demands to revisit the verdict or to refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

    What the Supreme Court said

    • The Bench said that “providing reservation for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving the welfare of backward class”
    • The 50% rule is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets.
    • To change the 50% limit is to have a society that is not founded on equality but based on caste rule.
    • If the reservation goes above the 50% limit, it will be a slippery slope, the political pressure, make it hard to reduce the same.
    • It added that “the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 by which sub-clause (4B) was inserted in Article 16 makes it clear that ceiling of 50% “has now received constitutional recognition”
    • The Supreme Court disapproved the findings of the Justice M G Gaikwad Commission on the basis of which Marathas were classified as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class.
    • It said that “the data collected and tabled by the Commission as noted in the report clearly proves that Marathas are not socially and educationally backward class”.

    SC upheld 102nd Constitution amendment

    • The SC also upheld the 102nd Constitution amendment, saying it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The bench, by 3:2 majority, held that after the amendment, only the President will have the power to identify backward classes in a state or Union Territory.
    • The amendment inserted Articles 338B and 342A in the Constitution.
    • Article 338B deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Classes.
    • Article 342A speaks about the power of the President to notify a class as Socially and Educationally Backward (SEBC) and the power of Parliament to alter the Central SEBC list. He can do this in consultation with Governor of the concerned State. However, law enacted by Parliament will be required if the list of backward classes is to be amended.

    ————————————//————————————————-

    BACK2BASICS

    • 102nd Constitution Amendment Act, 2018 provides constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
    • The Commission consists of five members including a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three other Members appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal. It has the authority to examine complaints and welfare measures regarding socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Previously NCBC was a statutory body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

     

  • SC paves way for appointment of ad-hoc judges in HCs

    Appointment of retired judges under Article 224A

    • The Supreme Court cleared the way for appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution.
    • The court ruled that the Chief Justice of a High Court may initiate the process of recommending a name if the number of judges’ vacancies is more than 20 per cent of the sanctioned strength.
    • The court said the appointments can follow the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges.
    • The move will help to deal with mounting backlog of cases.
    • Since the nominees have been judges before, the need to refer the matter to the IB or other agencies would not arise, shortening the time period.

    Back2Basics: About Article 224A

    • It allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to allow a retired judge of any High Court to sit and act as the judge of the High Court for that State.
    • Previous consent of the President is necessary.
    • The acting retired judge would be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court.
    • This Article was not part of the Constitution of India, 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.

  • Supreme Court sets timeline for Govt to clear judges’ names

    Why the timeline

    • The Supreme Court laid down a timeline for the Centre to clear names recommended by the High Court Collegiums.
    • The Bench noted that there are almost 40% vacancies in the High Courts, with many of the larger High Courts working under 50% of their sanctioned strength.
    • Against the sanctioned strength of 1,080 High Court Judges, 664 have been appointed but 416 vacancies remain. 
    • The Bench rejected the contention that laying down a timeline “would be contrary to” certain “observations made in the Third Judges case”, saying the “observations” referred to “deal with the judicial review of a particular appointment and not such aspects of the appointment process like delay”.

    The timeline

    • The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/ inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government.
    • It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/ recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/ input from the IB.
    • It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly, if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest, within the same period of time it may be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium with the specific reasons for reservation recorded.
    • If the Supreme Court Collegium, after consideration of the aforesaid inputs, still reiterates the recommendation(s) unanimously…, such appointment should be processed and appointment should be made within 3 to 4 weeks.

  • Prakash Singh Judgment on Police Reforms, 2006

    Political interference in police postings continues despite the landmark Prakash Singh judgment nearly a decade-and-a-half ago that addressed the issue and was pegged to be a watershed moment in police reforms.

    Politics is a perplexing, but fascinating game. It takes ages to unravel the intricate secrets that shroud the kernel of closed room politics. But contrary has happened with the Maharashtra Police.

    What is the SC’s Prakash Singh judgment on police reforms?

    • Prakash Singh, who served as DGP of UP Police and Assam Police besides other postings, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court post-retirement, in 1996, seeking police reforms.
    • In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in September 2006 had directed all states and Union Territories to bring in police reforms.
    • The ruling issued a series of measures that were to be undertaken by the governments to ensure the police could do their work without worrying about any political interference.

    What measures were suggested by the Supreme Court?

    • The seven main directives from the Supreme Court in the verdict were fixing the tenure and selection of the DGP to avoid situations where officers about to retire in a few months are given the post.
    • In order to ensure no political interference, a minimum tenure was sought for the Inspector General of Police so that they are not transferred mid-term by politicians.
    • The SC further directed postings of officers being done by Police Establishment Boards (PEB) comprising police officers and senior bureaucrats to insulate powers of postings and transfers from political leaders.
    • Further, there was a recommendation of setting up the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) to give a platform where common people aggrieved by police action could approach.
    • Apart from this, the SC directed the separation of investigation and law and order functions to better improve policing, setting up State Security Commissions (SSC) that would have members from civil society and forming a National Security Commission.

    How did states respond to these directives?

    • The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), in its report of 2020 has some useful data.
    • It tracked changes made in the police force following the 2006 judgment.
    • It has found that not even one state was fully compliant with the apex court directives and that while 18 states passed or amended their Police Acts in this time, not one fully matches legislative models.

    What has been the response of the Supreme Court to these issues?

    • Prakash Singh said that he has followed up on these issues and has had nearly five contempt petitions issued in the past decades to states found to be non-compliant.
    • Singh said that bigger states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and UP have been the worst when it comes to bringing about systemic changes in line with the judgment and that it is only the North-Eastern states that have followed the suggested changes in spirit.
    • Singh said states like Maharashtra make their own laws that are not effective.
    • The need of the hour is an all-India Act that all states have to follow and small changes can be made in exceptional cases relating to the situation in a particular state.

  • SC bats for women officers in Army

    The Supreme Court has held that the Army’s “selective” evaluation process discriminates against and disproportionately affects women short service commission officers seeking a permanent commission.

    Must read

    [Burning Issue] Women in Armed Forces

    What did the Court say?

    • The Court held the view that the evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners (women officers).
    • The evaluation pattern of women officers has caused them economic and psychological harm.
    • In a series of directions, the court ordered that the cases of women officers who have applied for the permanent commission should be reconsidered in a month and the decision on them should be given in two months.

    Asks for permanent commission

    • They would be considered for permanent commission subject to disciplinary and vigilance clearance.
    • The court said physical standards should be kept at a premium during selection.
    • The court highlighted how one of the Army’s “administrative requirements” was to benchmark women officers, under consideration for permanent commission, with male officers who are lowest in merit.
    • This is arbitrary and irrational, said Justice Chandrachud.

  • Corrective voice from Supreme Court against stereotyping of women

    A judgment by the Supreme Court forbidding judges from making gender-stereotypical comments came as a corrective voice from within the highest judiciary.

    Q.Discuss the need for gender sensitization of the judicial institutions.

    What is the news?

    • The judgment came days after the CJI, during a virtual hearing reportedly asked an alleged rapist’s lawyer to enquire whether his client would marry the survivor.
    • His statement coincided with International Women’s Day.
    • Days later, a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat urged courts to avoid using reasoning/language which diminished a sexual offence and tended to trivialize the survivor.

    What did the Court say?

    • The greatest extent of sensitivity is to be displayed in the judicial approach, language and reasoning adopted by the judge.
    • Even a solitary instance of such order or utterance in court, reflects adversely on the entire judicial system of the country, undermining the guarantee to fair justice to all, and especially to victims of sexual violence.
    • This judgment is one among a series of interventions with which the apex court has clamped down on abuse and sex stereotyping of women.

    No institution is mightier than the modesty of a woman.

    SC against stereotyping

    Some of the notable judgments which have lashed out at sex stereotyping include:

    1. The framing of the Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment of women in working places, and
    2. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s historic judgment giving women Armed Forces officers’ equal access to Permanent Commission while debunking the establishment’s claim that women were physiologically weaker than men
    3. In the Anuj Garg case, the Supreme Court had rebuked “the notion of romantic paternalism”, which, “in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage”

    Avoid gender stereotypes such as:

    The courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that

    • women are physically weak and need protection;
    • men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family;
    • women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture;
    • “good” women are sexually chaste;
    • motherhood is the duty and role of every woman and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother;
    • being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked;
    • lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.

    Conclusion

    • Stereotyping compromises the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, which can, in turn, lead to miscarriages of justice, including the re-victimization of complainants.
    • Often judges adopt rigid standards about what they consider to be appropriate behaviour for women and penalize those who do not conform to these stereotypes.

    There should be gender sensitization

    • The court-mandated that a module on gender sensitization is included, as part of the foundational training of every judge.
    • This module must aim at imparting techniques for judges to be more sensitive in hearing and deciding cases of sexual assault, and eliminating entrenched social bias, especially misogyny.

  • Bureaucrats cannot be State Election Commissioners: SC

    The Supreme Court gas held that independent persons and not bureaucrats should be appointed State Election Commissioners.

    No bureaucrats in SEC

    • The judgment came on an appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court which had set aside the election notification issued by the Goa State Election Commission in some municipalities.
    • Justice F. Nariman, in a judgment, said giving government employees the additional charge of State Election Commissioners is a “mockery of the Constitution”.
    • It said government employees holding the post of State Election Commissioners as additional charge should give up the post.
    • The Supreme Court said its direction should be followed strictly.

    Why such a move?

    • Under the constitutional mandate, it is the duty of the State to not interfere with the functioning of the State Election Commission.
    • The independence of Election Commissions cannot be compromised at any cost, the Bench said.

    State Election Commission

    • Under the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment acts, State Election Commissions were created for every state to conduct elections to panchayats and municipalities.
    • The SECs came into as envisaged in Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution of India.
    • The above Articles provide that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the Conduct of all elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities shall vest in the SEC.
    • The Constitution itself has facilitated provision for smooth, free and fair, regular elections to the Local bodies and has, therefore, entrusted the SEC with the responsibility for holding such elections.
    • In the domain of the elections to the local bodies, the SEC functions independently and has the same powers and duties as that of the Election Commission of India.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992, which aims at promoting the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the country, provides for which of the following?

    1. Constitution of District Planning Committees.
    2. State Election Commissions to conduct all panchayat elections.
    3. Establishment of State Finance Commissions.

    Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

    (a) Only 1

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    The Election Commissioner

    • The State Election Commissioner is appointed by the Governor.
    • It has the status, salary and allowance of a Judge of a High Court and cannot be removed from office except in the like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court.
    • The Election Commissioner is also the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission.

    Its duties

    • The first and foremost duty of the SEC is to prepare the elector rolls of Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporation and conduct their elections.

    In addition to the above functions, the State Election Commission has also the following functions:

    1. Conduct of elections to the offices of the Mayor/Chairman/President/Deputy Mayor/Vice Chairman/Vice President and the no-confidence motion against them.
    2. Conduct of the Elections to various Standing Committees and their Chairpersons
    3. Determination of disqualification of elected members/Councilors.
    4. Determination of disqualification of elected members on the ground of defection.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India (ECI)

    • ECI is an autonomous and permanent constitutional authority responsible for administering election processes in India at the national and state level.
    • The body administers elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, State Legislative Councils and the offices of the President and Vice President of the country.
    • The EC operates under the authority of the Constitution per Article 324 and subsequently enacted the Representation of the People Act.
    • The commission has the powers under the Constitution, to act in an appropriate manner when the enacted laws make insufficient provisions to deal with a given situation in the conduct of an election.
    • Being a constitutional authority, EC is amongst the few institutions which function with both autonomy and freedom, along with the country’s higher judiciary, the UPSC and the CAG.

  • Supreme Court directive on Quota in Promotions

    The Supreme Court has asked Attorney General to compile the various issues being raised by States with regard to the 2006 M. Nagaraj case, which had upheld the application of creamy layer principle to members of the SC/ST communities in promotions.

    Must read edition: Reservation not a Fundamental Right

    What is the case about?

    • The Centre’s plea came despite the Supreme Court, in September 2018, in Jarnail Singh case, reiterating the Nagaraj judgment of 2006.
    • The 2006 judgment required the States to show quantifiable data to prove the ‘backwardness’ of a community to provide quota in promotion in public employment,
    • The 2018 judgment, which was authored by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, had refused the government’s plea to refer the 2006 Nagaraj judgment to a seven-judge Bench.
    • It had while modifying the part of the Nagaraj verdict, rejected the Centre’s argument that Nagaraj misread the creamy layer concept by applying it to SC/ST.

    Nagaraj Case

    • In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the court dealt with a batch of appeals on the correctness of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India (2006).
    • The Nagaraj case, in turn, had arisen out of a challenge to the validity of four Constitution amendments, which the court eventually upheld.

    What were the amendments?

    • 77th Amendment: It introduced Clause 4A to the Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately represented.
    • 81st Amendment: It introduced Clause 4B, which says unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year, when carried forward to the next year, will be treated separately and not clubbed with the regular vacancies of that year to find out whether the total quota has breached the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court.
    • 82nd Amendment: It inserted a proviso at the end of Article 335 to enable the state to make any provision for SC/STs “for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.
    • 85th Amendment: It said reservation in the promotion can be applied with consequential seniority for the SC/ST employee.

    What is Art.335 about?

    • Article 335 of the Constitution relates to claims of SCs and STs to services and posts.
    • It reads: “The claims of the members of the SC’s and ST’s shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

  • Adultery Law and the Armed Forces

    The Supreme Court has admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgment of 2018 that decriminalized adultery.

    Q.  Personnels of the Indian Armed Forces constitute a ‘Distinct Class’.

    Discuss this statement in context to the extension of IPC section 497 to the Armed forces.

    What was the 2018 historic Judgment?

    • The Supreme Court had struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery.
    • It also declared Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code as unconstitutional, which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint about the offence of adultery.

    Important observations of the judgment

    • Section 497 was unconstitutional and is violative of Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (Right to equality).
    • The court observed that two individuals may part if one cheats, but to attach criminality to infidelity is going too far. How married couples deal with adultery is absolutely a matter of privacy.
    • Besides, there is no data to back claims that abolition of adultery as a crime would result in “chaos in sexual morality” or an increase of divorce.
    • Any provision of law affecting individual dignity and equality of women invites the wrath of the Constitution.
    • It’s time to say that a husband is not the master of the wife. Legal sovereignty of one sex over other sex is wrong, ruled the court.
    • Marriage does not mean ceding autonomy of one to the other. Ability to make sexual choices is essential to human liberty. Even within private zones, an individual should be allowed her choice.

    What about Armed forces?

    • The judgment of 2018 created “instability”. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgment.
    • The bench had then referred the case to the CJI to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgment on the armed forces.
    • This case is now being under the observation of the apex court.

    Govt. stance over this

    • The MoD has sought for an exemption to this decriminalization in the petition.
    • It said that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
    • The petition goes on to say that personnel of the Army, Navy and the Air Force were a “distinct class”. They were governed by special legislation, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
    • Adultery amounted to unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts.
    • Unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence.

    Constitutional backing for an exception

    • These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in a peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline.
    • The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.

    The core idea behind govt. proposition

    • One has to remember that the armed forces exist in an environment wholly different and distinct from civilians. Honour is a sine qua non of the service.
    • The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a “distinct class”, irrespective of the 2018 judgment.
    • This is because, the discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down.
    • It said the court would not, at the time, have been appraised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated.

    Back2Basics: Article 33 of the Indian Constitution

    • It deals with the power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part III in their application etc.
    • Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to-

    (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or

    (b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or

    (c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counterintelligence; or

    (d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them