💥UPSC 2026, 2027, 2028 UAP Mentorship (March Batch) + Access XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

  • Women Safety Issues – Marital Rape, Domestic Violence, Swadhar, Nirbhaya Fund, etc.

    Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Executive & Judiciary

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Remission of Sentences

    Mains level: Bilkis Bano Verdict

    bilkis bano

    Introduction

    • Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the remission granted to 11 men convicted in the 2002 Bilkis Bano Gangrape Case.
    • Gujarat Government’s Action Deemed Illegal: The court declared the Gujarat government’s decision to release the convicts as illegal, citing jurisdictional issues.

    Remission of Sentences: Constitutional Analysis

    Details
    What is Remission? Complete ending of a sentence at a reduced point;

    Nature of the sentence remains unchanged, but the duration is reduced;

    Conditional release; breach of conditions leads to cancellation.
    Constitutional Provisions Article 72: President’s pardoning powers

    Article 161: Governor’s pardoning powers

    President’s pardoning power >>> Governor’s
    Statutory Power of Remission Provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

    Sections 432 and 433 allow suspension, remission, or commutation of sentences
    Background of Remission System Defined under the Prison Act, 1894;

    Observed in Kehar Singh vs. Union of India (1989) and

    State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh (2007) cases
    Latest MHA Guidelines Special Remission Guidelines to commemorate 75th year of Independence as part of the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav celebrations.
    Eligibility for Special Remission Women and transgender convicts aged 50+

    Male convicts aged 60+, having completed 50% of their sentence

    Physically challenged convicts with 70% + disability, having completed 50% of their sentence

    Terminally ill convicts who have completed 66% of their sentence

    Poor prisoners detained due to non-payment of fines

    Young offenders aged 18-21 with no other criminal involvement, having completed 50% of their sentence
    Exclusions from the Scheme Convicts with death sentences or life imprisonment;

    Convicts involved in terrorist activities or convicted under specific acts like TADA, POTA, UAPA, etc.

    Convicts of offences like dowry death, counterfeiting, rape, human trafficking, POCSO Act violations, etc.

    Core Issue before the Court

    • Question of Authority: The central issue was whether the Gujarat government had the authority to issue remission orders for the convicts.
    • Jurisdictional Clarification: The crime occurred in Gujarat, but the trial was held in Mumbai. The Supreme Court clarified that the appropriate government for remission decisions is where the sentencing occurred, not where the crime was committed.

    Understanding Remission of Sentences

    • Constitutional and Legal Provisions: Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the CrPC empower the President, Governors, and state governments to remit sentences.
    • Restrictions Under Section 433A of the CrPC: This section imposes limitations on remission for life imprisonment cases, requiring a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment.

    Grounds for Remission

    • Sentence Review Board’s Role: States have a Sentence Review Board to exercise powers under Section 432 of the CrPC.
    • Supreme Court Guidelines: The court mandates due process in remission decisions, considering factors like the crime’s seriousness, co-accused status, and jail conduct.
    • Criteria Established in ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000): The Supreme Court outlined five specific grounds for considering remission:

    (a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect society.

    (b) The likelihood of the crime being repeated in the future.

    (c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit a crime.

    (d) The purpose served by keeping the convict in prison.

    (e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.

    The Bilkis Bano Case Specifics

    • Convict’s Appeal for Remission: A convict appealed to the Supreme Court for premature release under Gujarat’s 1992 remission policy.
    • Supreme Court’s Initial Directive: The court initially directed the Gujarat government to consider Shah’s application as per the 1992 policy.

    Gujarat’s Remission Policy and Its Implications

    • 1992 Policy vs. 2014 Policy: The 1992 policy, under which remission was sought, was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2012.
    • Gujarat Government’s Argument: The state argued that the 1992 policy was applicable as the conviction occurred in 2008, before the 2014 policy with stricter guidelines was formulated.

    Aftermath of the Remission Grant

    • Public Outrage: The release of the convicts sparked widespread outrage and was perceived as a miscarriage of justice.
    • Bilkis Bano’s Appeal: Bilkis Bano challenged the remission in the Supreme Court, highlighting the heinous nature of the crime and its impact on society.

    Conclusion

    • Restoration of Legal Integrity: The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the remission restores faith in the legal system’s commitment to justice.
    • Reaffirmation of Jurisdictional Authority: The ruling clarifies the jurisdictional authority in remission cases, reinforcing the importance of due process and legal consistency.
    • Broader Implications: This judgment sets a precedent for future remission cases, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the crime’s nature and societal impact in such decisions.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Capital Markets: Challenges and Developments

    Decoding the Adani-Hindenburg Judgment

    Prelims OnlySC Judgements | Economics | Mains Paper 3: Indian Economy

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: NA

    Mains level: Adani-Hindenburg Judgment

    Introduction

    • Recent Order: The Supreme Court’s recent order on the Adani-Hindenburg matter focused on the inquiries conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
    • No Regulatory Failure Found: The apex court concluded that there was no regulatory failure on SEBI’s part, negating the need for a Special Investigating Team (SIT).

    SEBI’s Investigations and the Supreme Court’s Stance

    • Status of Investigations: Out of 24 investigations related to the Adani-Hindenburg matter, SEBI has completed 22.
    • Supreme Court’s Trust in SEBI: The court accepted SEBI’s status report without delving into the details of the investigations, trusting SEBI to bring them to a logical conclusion.

    Concerns and Criticisms of the Supreme Court Judgment

    • Lack of Transparency: The findings of the completed SEBI investigations have not been made public, raising questions about the transparency and accountability of the process.
    • ‘Chicken-and-Egg’ Inquiry: The Supreme Court did not address the “chicken-and-egg situation” where SEBI’s inability to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of certain overseas entities has stalled the investigation.
    • Overlooked Statutory Violations: The judgment did not consider the alleged dilution of regulations that could facilitate the concealment of beneficial ownership, which might be violative of the SEBI Act.

    Implications of the Judgment

    • Continued SEBI Investigation: SEBI has been given an additional three months to conclude its inquiry into the alleged violation of minimum shareholding norms by the Adani group companies.
    • Potential Subversion of Ongoing Investigations: The deficiencies in the Supreme Court judgment could potentially undermine the ongoing investigations into the Adani group.
    • Hindenburg and OCCRP Reports: The judgment has seemingly dismissed the reports by Hindenburg and OCCRP as unrelated or inconclusive, despite their revelations about the Adani group’s financial dealings.

    Historical Context and Ongoing Concerns

    • Past Allegations: The Adani group has faced similar allegations of share price manipulation and round-tripping in the past, with SEBI itself filing a criminal complaint 15 years ago.
    • Current Investigations: Despite ongoing investigations for over three years, no criminal complaint has been registered against the Adani promoters for the recent allegations.

    Conclusion

    • Need for Reevaluation: The deficiencies in the Supreme Court judgment warrant a reconsideration in the interest of justice and transparency.
    • Public Interest and Justice: Ensuring that the findings of SEBI’s investigations are made public and acted upon is crucial for upholding regulatory integrity and public trust.
    • Future of Adani Investigations: The outcome of the ongoing SEBI investigations and the handling of the Hindenburg and OCCRP reports will be pivotal in determining the course of justice in this high-profile case.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Judicial Reforms

    Tribunals cannot direct Government to frame policy: SC

    Prelims OnlySC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Statutory, Regulatory & Various Quasi-Judicial Bodies

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Tribunals

    Mains level: Read the attached story

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court clarified that tribunals, bound by their governing legislations, cannot compel the government to formulate policy.
    • It emphasized the separation of powers, stating that policy-making is outside the judiciary’s domain, including quasi-judicial bodies like tribunals.

    What are Tribunals?

    Details
    Nature Judicial or quasi-judicial institutions established by law
    Purpose Provide faster adjudication compared to traditional courts

    Offer expertise on specific subject matters
    Functions Adjudicating disputes

    Determining rights between parties

    Making administrative decisions

    Reviewing existing administrative decisions
    Constitutional Recognition 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 introduced Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution
    Article 323A Empowers Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals for public service matters
    Article 323B Allows Parliament or state legislatures to constitute tribunals for specific subjects like taxation, land reforms
    Composition Comprises expert (technical) members and judicial members
    Expert Members Selected from various fields, including central government departments
    Judicial Members Persons with a judicial background, such as High Court judges or eligible lawyers
    Supreme Court’s Stance Technical members not required if tribunal’s aim is expeditious disposal of matters

    Case in Focus: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and Policy Direction

    • Specific Case Reviewed: The Bench addressed whether the AFT could direct the government to create a policy for appointing the Judge Advocate General (Air).
    • General Observation: It has been consistently observed that courts cannot mandate the government to enact legislation or develop a policy.

    Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

    • Justice Karol’s Observations: Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the AFT, with powers akin to a civil court, lacks the authority of the Supreme Court or High Courts.
    • High Courts’ Limitations: Even High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot order the government or its departments to establish specific policies.
    • Government’s Prerogative: The judgment reinforced that policy creation, especially concerning defense personnel services or their regularization, is exclusively the government’s responsibility.

    Implications of the Judgment

    • Tribunals’ Restricted Powers: Tribunals must operate within the confines of their governing legislation and lack the jurisdiction to influence policy formation.
    • Judiciary’s Role in Policy Matters: The judgment highlights the judiciary’s limited role in policy-making, even in cases where fundamental rights might be at stake.
    • Separation of Powers: This ruling underscores the principle of separation of powers, delineating the distinct functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

    Conclusion

    • Respecting Institutional Boundaries: The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting the boundaries and roles of different government institutions in a democratic setup.
    • Broader Implications: This decision has significant implications for how tribunals and courts interact with policy-making processes, emphasizing judicial restraint and adherence to the constitutional framework.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Police Reforms – SC directives, NPC, other committees reports

    Supreme Court clarifies Enforcement Directorate’s Arrest Procedures

    Prelims OnlySC Judgements | Governance | Mains Paper 2: Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Enforcement Directorate (ED)

    Mains level: Read the attached story

    Central Idea

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

    About Enforcement Directorate (ED)

    Details
    Establishment May 1, 1956

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

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

    – Conduct raids and searches

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

    – PNB fraud case

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

    Issue: Revision of ED Arrest Norms

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

    Modification of Previous Supreme Court Ruling

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

    Legal Framework: Section 19 of PMLA

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

    Case Background: Supertech Limited’s Founder’s Challenge

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

    Supreme Court’s December 15 Ruling

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

    Resolving Bench Discrepancies

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • J&K – The issues around the state

    Explained: SC Verdict on Abrogation of Article 370

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Federalism

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Article 370, SR Bommai Verdict

    Mains level: Read the attached story

    Article 370

    Central Idea

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

    Key Issues and Court’s Findings

    [A] On the Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:

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

    [B] Whether Article 370 is Temporary or Permanent:

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

    [C] Legality of Abrogating Article 370:

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

    [D] Actions Under President’s Rule:

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

    Upholding Centre’s (Union) Supremacy

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • President’s Rule

    SR Bommai Judgment and its Relevance in Article 370 Verdict

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution – historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: SR Bommai Case

    Mains level: NA

    Central Idea

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

    SR Bommai Case: An Overview

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

    Supreme Court’s Verdict in the Case

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

    Impact of the Ruling

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

    Kashmir Reference in the Article 370 Ruling

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Parliament – Sessions, Procedures, Motions, Committees etc

    Supreme Court questions Governor’s Discretion on TN Bills

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Parliament & State Legislatures

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Article 200

    Mains level: Read the attached story

    Central Idea

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

    Article 200 of the Indian Constitution

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Governor’s Discretion

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

    Background and Delay

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

    Legal Perspectives

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

    Supreme Court’s Response

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Women empowerment issues – Jobs,Reservation and education

    Reviving Adultery as a Criminal Offense

    SC Judgements | Indian Society | Mains Paper 1: Role Of Women & Women Organization

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Read the attached story

    Mains level: Adultery De-Criminalization

    Adultery

    Central Idea

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

    Adultery De-Criminalization in India

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

    Parliamentary Committee’s Recommendations

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

    Legal and Constitutional Implications

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

    Can the Supreme Court’s Decision Be Overturned?

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Parliament – Sessions, Procedures, Motions, Committees etc

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

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Parliament & State Legislatures

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: NA

    Mains level: State vs . Governor Row

    governor

    Central Idea

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

    SC Ruling on Governors Bill Withholding

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

    Governor’s Grounds for Delay

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

    Court’s Disagreement with the Governor

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

    Governor’s Role Defined

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now

  • Electoral Reforms In India

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

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Executive & Judiciary

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: NA

    Mains level: Guidelines for Speedy Disposal of Cases against Lawmakers

    Central Idea

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

    Background

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

    Understanding the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951

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

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

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

    Conclusion

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

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

    Attend Now