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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • Supreme Court’s guidelines for deserted Wives and Children

    The Supreme Court has laid down uniform and comprehensive guidelines for family courts, magistrates and lower courts to follow while hearing the applications filed by women seeking maintenance from their estranged husbands’.

    Debate: Alimony as a right of women or a feminist taboo

    Why such a judgement?

    • Usually, maintenance cases have to be settled in 60 days, but they take years, in reality, owing to legal loopholes.
    • The top court said women deserted by husbands are left in dire straits, often reduced to destitution, for lack of means to sustain themselves and their children.
    • Despite a plethora of maintenance laws, women were left empty-handed for years, struggling to make ends meet after a bad marriage.

    What did the Court say?

    • The Supreme Court has held that deserted wives and children are entitled to alimony/maintenance from the husbands from the date they apply for it in a court of law.
    • To ensure that judicial orders for grant of maintenance are duly enforced by husbands, the court said a violation would lead to punishments such as civil detention and even attachment of the property of the latter.
    • The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife, if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications, the court declared.
    • Both the applicant wife and the respondent-husband have to disclose their assets and liabilities in a maintenance case.
    • Other factors such as “spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living” should be considered, but the wife should receive alimony which fit the standard of life she was used to in the matrimonial home.

    Covering expenses

    • The expenses of the children, including their education, basic needs and other vocational activities, should be factored in by courts while calculating the alimony.
    • Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.

    Permanent alimony

    • The court opined it would not be equitable to order a husband to pay his wife permanent alimony for the rest of her life, considering the fact that in contemporary society marriages do not last for a reasonable length of time.
    • Anyway, the court said, the duration of marriage should be accounted for while determining the permanent alimony.

  • Right to Protest

    The Supreme Court has found the indefinite “occupation” of a public road by the Shaheen Bagh protestors unacceptable.

    Right to Protest

    • 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.
    • The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in Article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution.
    • The Right to protest peacefully is enshrined in Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1) (b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    • Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

    What did the Court say?

    • The court said the protest, considered an iconic dissent mounted by mothers, children and senior citizens of Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, became inconvenient to commuters.
    • The judgment upheld the right to peaceful protest against the law but made it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied, and that too indefinitely.
    • Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
    • The present case was not even one of the protests taking place in an undesignated area but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters.

    Reasonable restrictions do exist in practice

    • Fundamental rights do not live in isolation. The right of the protester has to be balanced with the right of the commuter. They have to co-exist in mutual respect.
    • The court held it was entirely the responsibility of the administration to prevent encroachments in public spaces.

  • States can have sub-groups among SCs/STs: Supreme Court

    A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Central List to provide preferential treatment to the “weakest out of the weak”.

    Try this question for mains;

    Q.Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. Discuss this in light of the quest for sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes/Tribes.

    What is the sub-categorisation of SCs?

    • States have argued that among the SCs, there are some that remain grossly under-represented despite reservation in comparison to other SCs.
    • This inequality within the SCs is underlined in several reports, and special quotas have been framed to address it.
    • For example, in AP, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Bihar, special quotas were introduced for the most vulnerable Dalits.
    • In 2007, Bihar set up the Mahadalit Commission to identify the castes within SCs that were left behind.

    About the Judgement

    • The judgment is based on a reference to the Constitution Bench the question of law involving Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.
    • The legal provision allows 50% of the reserved Scheduled Castes seats in the State to be allotted to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.

    There lies struggle within castes: SC

    • There is a “caste struggle” within the reserved class as a benefit of reservation is being usurped by a few, the court pointed out.
    • The million-dollar question is how to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung.
    • It is clear that caste, occupation, and poverty are interwoven.
    • The State cannot be deprived of the power to take care of the qualitative and quantitative difference between different classes… to take ameliorative measures, said the judgment.

    Overruling the old judgment

    • With this, the Bench took a contrary view to a 2004 judgment delivered by another Coordinate Bench of five judges in the E.V. Chinnaiah case.
    • The judgment had held that allowing States to unilaterally “make a class within a class of members of the Scheduled Castes” would amount to tinkering with the Presidential list.
    • The judgment is significant as it fully endorses the push to extend the creamy layer concept to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    • Citizens cannot be treated to be socially and educationally backwards till perpetuity; those who have come up must be excluded like the creamy layer, the judgment said.

    What is the Presidential list?

    • The Constitution, while providing for special treatment of SCs and STs to achieve equality, does not specify the castes and tribes that are to be called SCs and STs.
    • This power is left to the central executive — the President. As per Article 341, those castes notified by the President are called SCs and STs.
    • A caste notified as SC in one state may not be an SC in another state. These vary from state to state to prevent disputes as to whether a particular caste is accorded reservation or not.
    • According to the annual report of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, there were 1,263 SCs in the country in 2018-19.
    • No community has been specified as SC in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep.
    • The Constitution treats all Schedule Castes as a single homogeneous group.

    Arguments against sub-categorisation

    • The argument is that the test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to SCs and STs.
    • The special treatment is given to the SCs due to untouchability with which they suffer.
    • In a 1976 case, State of Kerala v N M Thomas, the Supreme Court laid down that “Scheduled Castes are not castes, they are class.”
    • The petitioner’s argument against allowing states to change the proportion of reservation is also based on the perception that such decisions will be made to appease one vote-bank or the other.
    • A watertight President’s list was envisaged to protect from such potential arbitrary change.

    Way ahead with the Judgement

    • The judgement reasoned that sub-classifications within the Presidential/Central List do not amount to “tinkering” with it.
    • No caste is excluded from the list. The States only give preference to weakest of the lot in a pragmatic manner based on statistical data.
    • Preferential treatment to ensure even distribution of reservation benefits to the more backward is a facet of the right to equality, judgement observed.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] SC judgement on Reservation not being a Fundamental Right

  • PM CARES Fund is a “public charitable trust”: SC

    The Supreme Court has endorsed the PM CARES Fund as a “public charitable trust” to which donors contribute voluntarily.

    Try this question:

    Q. The creation of PM CARES fund is violative of the provision of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Analyse.

    What is the case?

    • The petition had argued that the PM-CARES Fund was not subject to CAG audit.
    • It was not under “public scrutiny”. Contributions to it were “100% tax-free”.
    • It was accused that there was statutory fund already in existence under the Disaster Management Act of 2005 to receive contributions to finance the fight against a calamity.

    About PM CARES Fund

    • The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) were 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 defence, home and finance ministers.
    • The fund will also enable micro-donations. The minimum donation accepted for the PM CARES Fund is ₹10 (14¢ US).
    • The donations will be tax-exempt and fall under corporate social responsibility.

    What did the Court rule?

    • There is “no occasion” for the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to audit a public charitable trust independent of budgetary support or government money.
    • 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).
    • The Bench also refused to direct the transfer of funds from the PM CARES Fund to the NDRF. It said they were two separate entities.

    Also read:

    PM-CARES Fund

  • Tweets against CJI amounts to Criminal Contempt

    A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has found a famous civil rights lawyer guilty of criminal contempt by ‘scandalizing the court’.

    Try this question for mains:

    Q.What is Contempt of Court? Discuss, how free speech can lead to the contempt of courts?

    Contempt of Court

    • According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt of court can either be civil contempt or criminal contempt.
    • Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or another process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
    • On the other hand, criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
    1. Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
    2. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
    3. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

    What did the court rule in this case?

    • The tweets had the effect of attempting to destabilize Indian democracy.
    • A defamatory publication concerning “the judge is a serious impediment to justice”.
    • The court could not ignore the disrespect and disaffection created by the “scurrilous” tweets.
    • If such an attack is not dealt with a requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations.

    A suo motu action

    • The prior consent of the Attorney General (AG) of India is not required to suo motu initiate the inherent contempt powers of the Supreme Court.
    • The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 cannot limit this power of the court. The statute only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated.
    • The suo motu contempt powers of the top court are drawn from Article 129 of the Constitution, which says the Supreme Court, as a court of record, has the power to punish for contempt of itself.

    What would be the penalty?

    • The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 punishes with imprisonment that may extend to six months or fine of ₹ 2,000 or both.
    • This is provided in case the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

    Also read:

    Explained: What is Contempt of Court?

  • Hindu Women’s Inheritance Rights

    The Supreme Court has expanded a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint legal heir and inherit ancestral property on terms equal to male heirs.

    What is the ruling?

    • The SC Bench ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005.
    • The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gave Hindu women the right to be coparceners or joint legal heirs in the same way a male heir does.
    • Since the coparcenary (heirship) is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005, the ruling said.

    What is the 2005 law?

    • The Mitakshara school of Hindu law codified as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governed succession and inheritance of property but only recognised males as legal heirs.
    • The law applied to everyone who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.
    • Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and followers of Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj are also considered Hindus for the purposes of this law.
    • In a Hindu Undivided Family, several legal heirs through generations can exist jointly.

    Background

    • Traditionally, only male descendants of a common ancestor along with their mothers, wives and unmarried daughters are considered a joint Hindu family.
    • The legal heirs hold the family property jointly.
    • Women were recognised as coparceners or joint legal heirs for partition arising from 2005.
    • The 174th Law Commission Report had also recommended this reform in Hindu succession law.
    • Even before the 2005 amendment, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu had made this change in the law, and Kerala had abolished the Hindu Joint Family System in 1975.

    What did the law bring in?

    • Section 6 of the Act was amended that year to make a daughter of a coparcener also a coparcener by birth “in her own right in the same manner as the son”.
    • The law also gave the daughter the same rights and liabilities “in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son”.
    • The law applies to ancestral property and to intestate succession in personal property — where succession happens as per law and not through a will.

    How did the case come about?

    • While the 2005 law granted equal rights to women, questions were raised whether the law applied retrospectively and if the rights of women depended on the living status of their father.
    • Different benches of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views on the issue. Different High Courts had also followed different views of the top court as binding precedents.
    • The Prakash v Phulwati (2015) case held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only to “living daughters of living coparceners” as on September 9, 2005 (the date when the amendment came to force).
    • In February 2018 a bench headed by Justice A K Sikri held that the share of a father who died in 2001 will also pass to his daughters as coparceners during the partition of the property as per the 2005 law.

    The present case

    • These conflicting views led to a reference to a three-judge Bench in the current case.
    • The ruling now overrules the verdicts from 2015 and April 2018.
    • It settles the law and expands on the intention of the 2005 legislation to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
    • It gave equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.

    What was the government’s stand?

    • The solicitor argued in favour of an expansive reading of the law to allow equal rights for women. He referred to the objects and reasons of the 2005 amendment.
    • The Mitakshara coparcenary law not only contributed to discrimination on the ground of gender but was oppressive and negated the fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • The Kihoto Hollohan Judgment and its Significance

    The 28 YO Kihoto Hollohan judgment has found its relevance in the case of ousted Rajasthan Dy. CM and some MLAs who were issued a notice under the anti-defection law.

    Try this question from CSP 2019:

    Q.The Ninth Schedule was introduced in the Constitution of India during the prime-ministership of:

    (a) Jawaharlal Nehru

    (b) Lal Bahadur Shastri

    (c) Indira Gandhi

    (d) Morarji Desai

    Under debate: Speaker’s power

    • The power for this disqualification is vested in the Speaker, who is usually a nominee of the ruling party.
    • Since no action was taken by the Speaker on the disqualification petitions, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Manipur in Imphal seeking directions to decide on the petition.
    • However, the court did not pass an order.
    • It said that the larger issue of whether a High Court can direct a Speaker to decide a disqualification petition within a certain timeframe is pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
    • The parties are left with the option to move the apex court or wait for the outcome of the cases pending before it.

    The Kihoto Hollohan Judgment

    • The 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillu and Others has said that “judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman.
    • Nor would interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings said the Supreme Court.
    • The only exception for any interlocutory interference can be cases of interlocutory disqualifications or suspensions which may have grave, immediate and irreversible repercussions and consequence.

    Free speech

    • The ruling party in Rajasthan has challenged the constitutionality of Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule which makes “voluntarily giving up membership of a political party” liable for disqualification.
    • The MLAs have said the provision infringes into their right to express dissent and is a violation of their fundamental right to free speech as a legislator.
    • The Rajasthan HC Bench explained that the reason for limiting the role of courts in ongoing defection proceedings is that the “office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions.

    Exceptions to the Kihoto Judgment

    • The judgment had said that even the scope of judicial review against an order of a Speaker or Chairman in anti-defection proceedings would be confined to jurisdictional errors.
    • That is if its infirmities are based on a violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity.

    Back2Basics

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/explained-anti-defection-law-and-its-evolution/

  • Padmanabhaswamy Temple Verdict by the Supreme Court

    Reversing the 2011 Kerala High Court decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Travancore royal family to manage the property of deity at Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.

    Try this question from CSP 2016:

    Q.In the context of the history of India, consider the following pairs

    Term              Description
    1.  Eripatti Land, revenue from which was set apart for the maintenance of the village tank
    2. Taniyurs Villages donated to a single Brahmin or a group of Brahmins
    3. Ghatikas Colleges generally attached to the temples

    Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

    a) 1 and 2

    b) 3 only

    c) 2 and 3

    d) 1 and 3

    What did the apex Court say?

    • The court said that as per customary law, the shebait rights (right to manage the financial affairs of the deity) survive with the members of the family even after the death of the last ruler.
    • The ruling ends the legal battle the temple and members of the royal family have fought with the government for decades over control of one of the richest temples in the world.

    What is the case about?

    • The central legal question was whether the heirs of the last Ruler of Travancore could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” after the death of the ruler in 1991.
    • The court examined this claim within the limited meaning of that term according to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient Temple.

    Earlier cases of ownership: A background

    • All the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin were under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards before 1947.
    • However, as per the Instrument of Accession signed, since 1949, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was “vested in trust” in the Ruler of Travancore.
    • The state of Kerala was carved out in 1956 but the temple continued to be managed by the erstwhile royals.

    The legal battle

    • In 1971, privy purses to the former royals were abolished through a constitutional amendment stripping their entitlements and privileges.
    • The move was upheld in court in 1993 and the last ruler of Travancore who died during the pendency of this case continued to manage the affairs of the temple till then.
    • In 1991, when the last ruler’s brother took over the temple management, it created a furore among devotees who moved the courts leading to a long-drawn legal battle.

    Is the temple the property of the royal family?

    • The character of the temple was always recognised as a public institution governed by a statute.
    • The argument of the royal family is that the temple management would vest with them for perpetuity, as per custom.
    • Even though the last ruler executed a detailed will bequeathing his personal properties, he had not included the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as his personal property or dealt with it in his will.

    What about the treasure in the vaults?

    • A consequence of who has administrative rights over the temple is whether the vaults of the temple will be opened.
    • In 2007, the heir claimed that the treasures of the temple were the family property of the royals.
    • Several suits were filed objecting to this claim and a lower court in Kerala passed an injunction against the opening of the vaults.
    • The Kerala High Court in the 2011 ruling passed an order that a board be constituted to manage the affairs of the temple, ruling against the royal family.

    What impact would this ruling have?

    • Since 2011, the process of opening the vaults has led to the discovery of treasures within the Padmanabhaswamy temple, prompting a debate on who owns temple property and how it should be regulated.
    • Despite being a secular country that separates religion from the affairs of the state, Hindu temples, its assets are governed through statutory laws and boards heavily controlled by state governments.
    • This system came into being mainly through the development of a legal framework to outlaw untouchability by treating temples as public land; it has resulted in many legal battles.

  • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The judgment that upheld basic structure of India’s constitution

    Exactly 47 years ago, the Supreme Court passed its landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, considered among the most significant constitutional cases in India’s judicial history.

    Major judgments of the Supreme Court are mentioned in the newscard. Aspirants are advised to memorize them all with thier key features. UPSC may ask a prelim question mentioning all these judgements and asking which of them are related/not related to the Amendments in the Constitution.  Right from the Shankari Prasad Judgment (1951) to the Ayodhya Judgement (2019), note down all important judgements.

    Background

    Amending  the Constitution

    • The Constitution of a country is the fundamental law of the land. It is based on this document that all other laws are made and enforced.
    • Under some Constitutions, certain parts are immune from amendments and are given a special status compared to other provisions.
    • Since the Indian Constitution was first adopted, debates have raged as to the extent of power that Parliament should have to amend key provisions.

    Early years of Absolute Power

    • In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965).
    • The reason for this is believed to be that in those initial years, the apex court had reposed faith in the wisdom of the then political leadership when leading freedom fighters were serving as Parliamentarians.
    • In subsequent years, as the Constitution kept being amended at will to suit the interests of the ruling dispensation, the Supreme Court in Golaknath (1967) held that Parliament’s amending power could not touch Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent Assembly.

    Parliament could make any amendment

    • Article 13(2) reads, “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part (Part-III) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”
    • In both the cases, the court had ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368.
    • This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution including Fundamental rights.

    The tussle between Parliament and the judiciary

    • In the early 1970s, the government of then PM Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th) to get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in RC Cooper (1970), Madhavrao Scindia (1970) and the earlier mentioned Golaknath.
    • In RC Cooper, the court had struck down Indira Gandhi’s bank nationalization policy, and in Madhavrao Scindia it had annulled the abolition of privy purses of former rulers.

    Background for the Kesavananda Bharati Case

    • All the four amendments, as well as the Golaknath judgment, came under challenge in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
    • Here, relief was sought by the religious figure Swami Kesavananda Bharati against the Kerala government vis-à-vis two state land reform laws.
    • Since Golaknath was decided by eleven judges, a larger bench was required to test its correctness, and thus 13 judges formed the Kesavananda bench.
    • Critics of the doctrine have called it undemocratic since unelected judges can strike down a constitutional amendment. At the same time, its proponents have hailed the concept as a safety valve against majoritarianism and authoritarianism.
    • Noted legal luminaries Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman, and Soli Sorabjee presented the case against the government.
    • The majority opinion was delivered by CJI S M Sikri, and Justices K S Hegde, A K Mukherjea, J M Shelat, A N Grover, P Jaganmohan Reddy, and H R Khanna. Justices A N Ray, D G Palekar, K K Mathew, M H Beg, S N Dwivedi, and Y V Chandrachud dissented.

    A closer win

    • By a 7-6 verdict, a 13-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution is inviolable, and could not be amended by Parliament.
    • The basic structure doctrine has since been regarded as a tenet of Indian constitutional law.

    The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati

    • The Constitutional Bench, whose members shared serious ideological differences, ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament should be restrained from altering the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
    • The court held that under Article 368, which provides Parliament amending powers, something must remain of the original Constitution that the new amendment would change.
    • The court did not define the ‘basic structure’, and only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
    • Since then, the court has been adding new features to this concept.

    ‘Basic structure’ since Kesavananda

    • The basic structure doctrine was first introduced by Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan Singh case (1965).
    • Major features were notably propounded by Justice Hans Raj Khanna in 1973.
    • The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, Independence of the judiciary, doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign democratic republic, the parliamentary system of government, the principle of free and fair elections, welfare state, etc.
    • An example of its application is SR Bommai (1994), when the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the governments by the President following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, invoking a threat to secularism by these governments.

  • No 100% quota for Scheduled Areas

    • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to provide 100% reservation for tribal teachers in schools located in Scheduled Areas across the country.
    • The Bench was answering a reference made to it in 2016 on whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution.

    Reservation in India is a system of affirmative action by the State that provides representation for historically and currently disadvantaged groups in Indian society in education, employment and politics. The 10% EWS quota this year has raised the inevitability for a possible mains question.

    No 100% quota

    • The apex court held that it is an obnoxious idea that tribals only should teach the tribals.
    • Merit cannot be denied in toto by providing reservation observed the judgement.
    • Citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for one class is not contemplated by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India.

    Invoking Indira Sawhney judgment

    • The court referred to the famous Indira Sawhney judgment (Mandal case- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992), which caps reservation at 50%.
    • The court held that 100% reservation is discriminatory and impermissible.
    • The opportunity of public employment is not the prerogative of few.
    • A 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribes has deprived SCs and OBCs also of their due representation.