💥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

  • SC upholds NCLAT order setting aside CCI’s ₹301.6-crore penalty on Grasim Industries

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s appeal against an NCLAT order that set aside a Rs 301.6 crore penalty on Grasim Industries, holding that the regulator breached natural justice by not giving the company a hearing after departing from its own investigative findings. The ruling exposes the boundary between a regulator’s power to penalise dominant firms and the procedural fairness it owes them before doing so.

    What did the CCI originally rule and why was it set aside?

    1. Original penalty: The Competition Commission of India imposed the Rs 301.6 crore penalty on Grasim Industries in March 2020 for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the supply of viscose staple fibre to spinners.
    2. Departure from the Director General’s findings: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal found that the CCI had departed from the findings of its own Director General, the regulator’s investigative arm, without giving Grasim a chance to respond to that departure.
    3. NCLAT’s order: The NCLAT set aside the CCI’s order and remanded the matter back to the Commission for a fresh hearing that accounts for this procedural gap.

    Why did the Supreme Court agree with the natural justice finding?

    1. Hearing before departure: A bench of the Supreme Court held that once the CCI decided to differ from the Director General’s conclusions, natural justice required that Grasim be given an opportunity to present its arguments against that specific departure.
    2. Procedural fairness as a substantive check: The ruling confirms that a regulator’s substantive finding of market dominance abuse can be undone purely on procedural grounds, regardless of the underlying merits of the dominance allegation.

    What are the challenges this ruling poses for competition regulation?

    1. Delay in enforcement: The case now returns to the CCI for a fresh hearing, meaning a matter that began with a 2020 penalty order will take years longer to resolve, weakening the deterrent effect of competition enforcement.
    2. Procedural burden on the regulator: The CCI will need to build an additional hearing step into its process whenever it departs from Director General findings, adding to its administrative workload in future dominance cases.
    3. Precedent for future appeals: Companies facing CCI penalties now have a clearer procedural ground to challenge orders that diverge from investigative findings without an intervening hearing.
    4. Market conduct still unresolved: Whether Grasim actually abused its dominant position in the viscose staple fibre market remains unresolved and will only be settled after the CCI re-examines the case.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling turns on procedure, not on whether Grasim actually abused its market position. The Competition Commission of India must now rehear the case with Grasim given the opportunity it was earlier denied, leaving the substantive dominance question open until that fresh hearing concludes.

    Back2Basics:

    Competition Commission of India (CCI)

    1. The CCI is India’s cross-sectoral competition regulator, governed by the Competition Act, 2002, covering anti-competitive agreements, mergers and combinations, and abuse of dominance across all sectors.
    2. It is not a price control body; it intervenes only where conduct is anti-competitive, a distinction commonly tested since CCI does not regulate prices directly.
    3. The CCI acts as the first-instance adjudicator across all sectors, since there is no separate technical regulator performing a parallel function within its domain.
    4. Appeals against CCI orders lie with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), as in the Grasim case, with further appeal lying with the Supreme Court.

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):

    1. It serves as the direct appellate authority for orders, directions, and decisions passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). When the CCI rules on anti-competitive agreements, cartels, or abuse of dominant market positions, aggrieved parties challenge those decisions before the NCLAT

    Key Aspects of the Relationship

    1. Appellate Jurisdiction: Empowered under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013, NCLAT hears and disposes of all appeals arising from CCI rulings (replacing the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal or COMPAT).
    2. Judicial Review: NCLAT evaluates whether CCI orders follow principles of natural justice, properly weigh market evidence, or stay within regulatory jurisdiction

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Discuss the role of the Competition Commission of India in containing the abuse of dominant position by the Multi-National Corporations in India. Refer to the recent decisions.

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the role of the CCI in preventing abuse of dominant position and promoting fair competition. The article highlights the CCI’s enforcement powers and the need to uphold natural justice while regulating dominant firms.

  • SC sets ‘public interest’ test on retrospective green nod

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on 29 July, quashed the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that had allowed projects built without prior approval to seek regularisation. It also held that a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme may still be permitted through a statutory notification if justified by public interest. This reopens the question of whether this closes the door on regularising environmental violations or gives them a narrower but still real legal opening.

    What is a post facto environmental clearance?

    1. Definition: A post facto, or ex post facto, environmental clearance (EC) is an approval granted after a project has already commenced construction or operations, reversing the sequence the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime otherwise requires.
    2. Underlying principle: India’s EIA regime rests on the precautionary principle, which requires ecological appraisal before construction begins rather than after damage may already be irreversible.

    What is the difference between an Office Memorandum and a statutory notification?

    1. Office Memorandum: An OM is an administrative instruction issued by a ministry or department. It does not carry the force of law.
    2. Statutory notification: A notification is issued under authority granted by a statute, in this case the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and is published in the official Gazette, giving it legal force an OM lacks.

    How has the Supreme Court’s position on retrospective clearances evolved?

    1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): The Court held that mining projects requiring clearance could not commence before appraisal, calling retrospective clearances completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
    2. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): The Court reiterated that ex post facto clearance undermines the precautionary principle by letting proponents commence activity first and seek approval later, though it imposed penalties instead of ordering closure for long operating units.
    3. Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021): The Court held that ex post facto clearances could be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect livelihoods and the economy, opening space for the OM that followed the same year.
    4. Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak (2022): The Court took a more pragmatic approach, holding that closure is not always the right remedy where regulatory uncertainty existed and compliance remained achievable.
    5. Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025 and November 2025): A Bench struck down both the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, ruling ex post facto clearances impermissible in any form. Following review petitions by the Centre and industry bodies, a three judge Bench recalled this ruling by a two to one majority six months later, holding it needed fresh adjudication.
    6. 29 July 2026 ruling: A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India quashed the 2021 OM but upheld the 2017 notification, holding that any future post facto clearance can only be granted through a statutory notification, not an administrative order.

    What does the 29 July ruling establish?

    1. Quashed instrument: The Court set aside the 2021 OM that had created a standing procedure for regularising violation cases, calling it a continuing or perpetual regime rather than a one time exception.
    2. Retained instrument: The March 2017 notification, offering a one time six month disclosure window, was not invalidated.
    3. Legal basis required: Any future post facto clearance mechanism must be issued as a statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not as an OM.
    4. Public interest test: The government must show that the public interest served is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that environmental costs have been weighed against anticipated benefits, converting open ended discretion into a narrowly circumscribed exception.

    Does the ruling protect the precautionary principle or launder violations into a fee?

    1. Fig leaf reading: One reading holds that the distinction between an OM and a statutory notification is a procedural label rather than a substantive safeguard. This is because the government can still notify the same regularisation scheme through the correct instrument.
    2. Amnesty analogy rejected: The Court reasoned that governments may frame environmental amnesty schemes the way they frame tax or building default amnesties. This is a comparison critics say cannot be transposed onto projects that cut into forests and floodplains. This is because ecological damage propagates through interconnected plant, animal, human and microbial systems rather than resetting to zero on payment of a fee.
    3. Decriminalisation overlap: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, and its 2026 amendments removed imprisonment for environmental violations. This leaves only monetary penalties. So, now a regularised violation now costs a well capitalised developer a budgeted fine rather than a criminal risk.
    4. Counter view: The opposing reading holds that the ruling is consistent with two decades of jurisprudence reading a healthy environment into the right to life, and that the recognised flexibility could legitimately apply to national defence projects, healthcare facilities in underserved areas, or connectivity in remote regions.
    5. Scale of existing exceptions: More than 100 projects, including coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, distilleries, steel and cement plants, and hospitals, had already received ex post facto clearance under the 2017 to 2021 regime. This shows how large scale the exception has become in practice.

    What are the challenges to enforcing the public interest test for post facto clearance?

    1. Definition creep: Public interest is not statutorily defined for this purpose, leaving room for the term to be stretched to cover commercially driven projects as much as genuinely urgent public needs.
    2. Monitoring capacity: State environmental authorities, expert appraisal committees and pollution boards have historically detected violations only after construction is complete, showing weak upfront monitoring that a narrower legal test alone will not fix.
    3. Litigation burden: Every future statutory amnesty scheme will likely face fresh litigation testing whether it is genuinely narrowly tailored, adding years of uncertainty for project proponents and affected communities alike.
    4. Weakened deterrence: With imprisonment removed under the Jan Vishwas amendments, monetary penalties alone may not deter developers who can treat the fine as a routine cost of doing business.
    5. Climate exposure: Infrastructure regularised without adequate ecological assessment faces greater exposure to extreme weather events, as seen in monsoon damage to projects built without proper environmental safeguards.

    Conclusion

    The ruling ends open ended administrative regularisation under the 2021 OM, restoring the requirement that any future post facto clearance carry the force of a statutory notification tested against public interest, necessity and proportionality. It does not resolve whether that test can hold against a decriminalised penalty regime in which environmental violation carries only a monetary cost. The government’s next statutory amnesty scheme, if it frames one, will show whether this order narrows the exception in practice or simply relabels the same regularisation regime in more careful legal language.

    Back2Basics:

    EIA Notification, 2006

    1. Issuing authority: Notified in 2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Core requirement: Mandates prior environmental clearance before construction or expansion begins for listed categories of projects such as mining, thermal power and infrastructure.
    3. Categorisation: Projects fall into Category A, needing central level clearance, and Category B, needing state level clearance through State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
    4. Process stages: Screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal precede the grant of clearance.
    5. Subsequent dilution: A March 2017 notification and a July 2021 OM introduced routes for post facto clearance, which the Supreme Court has since narrowed.

    The precautionary principle:

    1. It is a core rule in environmental law requiring authorities to take preventive action against serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when there is no full scientific certainty.
    2. Key aspects include shifting the burden of proof to project developers, prioritizing safety over delay, and focusing on proactive governance.
    3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court formally integrated the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle into Indian jurisprudence.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework in India. The article examines EIA implementation in light of the precautionary principle established in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996).

  • Centre defends CEC panel without CJI

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.

    What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?

    The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
    • Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha

    What changed?

    • The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
    • This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.

    What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?

    • Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
    • Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
      • Prime Minister
      • Leader of the Opposition
      • Chief Justice of India
    • The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.

    Centre’s Arguments

    • Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
    • The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
    • Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
    • Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • The committee lacks a neutral member.
    • A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
    • Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.

    [2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
    1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners.
    2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections.
    3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 3 only

    [C] 2 and 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • SC restricts ‘retrospective’ green clearances

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court on 29 July 2026 quashed, with prospective effect, the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed ex post facto environmental clearances for projects built without prior approval. It held that the government cannot alter the mandatory environmental clearance regime through a mere administrative instruction. The ruling closes a route that had let project proponents regularise unauthorised construction through a recurring “amnesty,” while leaving open a narrow exception issued through proper notification.

    What did the 2021 Office Memorandum allow, and why did the court strike it down?

    1. What the OM did: The 2021 OM created a standard operating procedure allowing perpetual, recurring ex post facto environmental clearance for projects undertaken without prior environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Why it failed the legal test: The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, held that the OM was “an administrative order” that “envisages a perpetual regime” and “supplants an earlier delegated legislation through an administrative instruction, which is impermissible in law.”
    3. No selection criteria: The OM applied indiscriminately to all permissible projects without laying down an intelligible differentia connecting selection to “supervening public interest,” making it disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
    4. Weakened deterrence: The decriminalisation of the offence of breaching the prior clearance regime through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 compounded the problem, since violators earlier faced up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, before the offence became a civil liability.

    What can the government still do to grant retrospective clearance?

    1. Narrow exception preserved: The Court held the Centre retains power under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to issue an appropriate, narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest, as an exception to the 2006 notification, but not through an administrative memorandum.
    2. Selection requirement: Any future amnesty scheme must make a distinct, reasoned selection of projects, tested against proportionality and public interest, rather than covering all non-compliant projects uniformly.
    3. Accountability demand: The Court ordered that future amnesty schemes must provide effective deterrent measures against individual public servants, including disciplinary action and personal liability, wherever the state or its own instrumentalities violate the prior clearance regime.

    What happens to projects that already received clearance under the quashed OM?

    1. Prospective effect only: The Court quashed the 2021 OM prospectively, to avoid disrupting ongoing projects including the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital building in Odisha, the Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, Vijayapura Airport in Karnataka, and various medical colleges, slum rehabilitation and irrigation projects.
    2. Existing clearances remain valid: Retrospective clearances already granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM remain valid unless individually challenged in accordance with law.
    3. Litigation history: The ruling follows a back-and-forth: a May 2025 Division Bench judgment called such clearances a “gross illegality,” a November 2025 larger Bench recalled that ruling citing the “devastating effect” on public projects worth thousands of crores, and the present July 2026 judgment on review petitions restores the stricter position on the OM specifically.

    Does closing the OM route resolve the tension between environmental compliance and project continuity?

    1. Unresolved incentive: Because existing ex post facto clearances remain valid unless individually challenged, project proponents that already built without clearance retain the benefit of past regularisation, even as the route for future violators is closed.
    2. Enforcement gap remains: With the 2023 Jan Vishwas Act having decriminalised breaches of the prior clearance regime, the deterrent effect of closing the administrative amnesty route depends on how strictly future violations are now penalised as civil liabilities.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has closed the administrative route for open-ended retrospective environmental clearance while preserving a narrow, notification-based exception for genuine public interest cases. Whether this actually curbs future violations depends on how strictly the Centre applies the “narrowly tailored” and “intelligible differentia” tests the Court has now set, and whether civil penalties under the Jan Vishwas Act carry enough deterrent weight.

    Back2Basics:

    Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

    1. Enactment: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, giving the Central government overarching powers to protect and improve the environment.
    2. EIA notification: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under Section 3 of this Act, mandates prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects before construction begins.
    3. Jan Vishwas Act, 2023: This Act decriminalised minor offences across 42 laws, including converting the penalty for breaching the prior environmental clearance requirement from imprisonment to a civil liability.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and the legal requirements governing environmental clearances. The article builds on the PYQ by analysing the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate open-ended ex post facto environmental clearances, reinforcing prior approval as the cornerstone of the EIA regime.

  • Anti-defection law: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on Tenth Schedule merger interpretation

    Why in News

    The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central Government challenging the prevailing interpretation of the merger exception under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The plea, linked to the 2022 Goa defection case, argues that the current interpretation undermines the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law by allowing legislators to avoid disqualification without a genuine party merger.

    What is the Merger Exception?

    • Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule provides an exception to disqualification in cases of a merger.
    • A merger is protected when not less than two-thirds of the legislators of a political party agree to merge with another party.
    • The present dispute is whether a legislative party alone can claim a merger, or whether the original political party must also merge.

    About the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

    • Added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
    • Strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which removed the earlier exemption for one-third splits.
    • Seeks to curb political defections, ensure government stability, and uphold party discipline.
    • The Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides questions relating to disqualification.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Articles 102(2) and 191(2): Provide for disqualification of MPs and MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.
    • Tenth Schedule: Contains provisions relating to disqualification on grounds of defection.

    Landmark Judgments

    • Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and held that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review.
    • Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur (2020): Directed Speakers to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, ordinarily three months.

    Issues with the Current Law

    • Delay in deciding disqualification petitions.
    • Allegations of partisan conduct by the Speaker.
    • Ambiguity regarding the merger exception.
    • Weakens representative democracy when mass defections alter electoral mandates.

    [2013, GS2, 10M] The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention?”

    [2022] With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:

    1. The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.

    2. The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Insurers seek first third party premium hike in four years

    Why in News?

    Non life insurers are pressing for their first motor third party premium hike in four years, citing a Supreme Court judgment recognising the economic value of homemakers’ unpaid domestic work.

    Key Highlights

    • In its 11 June 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court held that unpaid domestic work performed by homemakers has measurable economic value and must be fairly considered while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
    • Insurers argue that the ruling is likely to increase compensation payouts, adding to existing underwriting losses.
    • They have requested an upward revision in motor third party insurance premiums, the first such increase in four years.
    • The Central Government, in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), notifies third party premium rates.

    Motor Third Party (TP) Insurance

    • Mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for all motor vehicles operating in India.
    • Covers death, bodily injury, or property damage caused to a third party due to the insured vehicle.
    • Does not cover damage to the insured vehicle; that requires comprehensive motor insurance.
    • Premium rates are regulated by the Central Government, based on recommendations from IRDAI.

    Value Addition

    • IRDAI: Statutory regulator established under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
    • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT): Adjudicates compensation claims arising from road accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
    • Significance of the Supreme Court ruling: Strengthens recognition of the economic contribution of unpaid care work, advancing substantive gender equality and ensuring more equitable compensation in accident claims.

    [2026] With reference to different Committees in India, consider the following details :

    Sl. No.CommitteeObjectiveOrganization under which it was formed
    1R.N. Malhotra CommitteeComprehensive reforms of Insurance sector in IndiaInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
    2L.C. Gupta CommitteePreparing a roadmap for the introduction of derivatives trading in IndiaSecurities and Exchange Board of India
    3Urjit R. Patel CommitteePreparing a roadmap for reforming bank lending to the Housing sectorReserve Bank of India
    4Y.H. Malegam CommitteePreparing a roadmap for reforms in Microfinance sector in IndiaReserve Bank of India


    In which of the above rows are all the details correctly matched ?

    [A] 2 only

    [B] 2 and 3

    [C] 1, 3 and 4

    [D] 2 and 4

  • Supreme Court on Abortion Law for Minor Rape Victims 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India has asked the Union government to consider removing the time limit on abortion in cases involving minor rape survivors, while hearing a case allowing termination of a 30 week pregnancy of a 15 year old survivor.

    Background

    • Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (amended in 2021):
      • Abortion allowed up to 24 weeks for special categories
        • Rape survivors
        • Minors
        • Women with disabilities

    Key Observations of the Court

    • State or doctors cannot decide for the survivor
    • Decision should rest with:
      • Survivor
      • Parents or guardians
    • Emphasised reproductive autonomy and dignity
    • Forcing continuation of pregnancy may cause lifelong trauma

    Court’s Suggestions

    • Amend law to:
      • Remove time limit for abortion in minor rape cases
      • Ensure speedy trial (within one week)
      • Provide compensation to victim (including property of accused)

    Legal and Constitutional Aspects

    Article 21

    • Right to life and personal liberty
    • Includes reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity
    • Reproductive Rights: Recognised as part of privacy and dignity

    Key Issues Highlighted

    • Conflict between: Foetal rights vs rights of the survivor
    • Importance of informed consent
    • Role of doctors: Provide medical guidance, not impose decisions

    Important Concepts

    • Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP): Legal framework governing abortion in India
    • Reproductive Autonomy: Right of a woman to make decisions about her body and pregnancy
    [2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? 
    (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29

  • SC strikes down provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, tells govt. to set up panel

    Why In The News?

    Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, saying they gave government excessive control over tribunal appointments, functioning and salaries, undermining independence.

    1) About the Supreme Court Judgement on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

    • Striking Down Provisions: The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 that gave the Union government dominant control over appointments, functioning, and salaries of tribunal chairpersons and members.
    • Need for Independence: The Court held that Parliament must structure the tribunal system to ensure independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication as constitutional requirements.
    • Violation of Constitutional Principles: Laws that enable executive control, curtail tenure, or weaken autonomy violate foundational constitutional values.
    • National Tribunal Commission: The Bench directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure independence and transparency.
    • Repackaged Ordinance: The 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance struck down in July 2021.
    • Ignoring Defects: Parliament had ignored the defects pointed out earlier by the Supreme Court, transferring the same provisions into the 2021 Act with minor changes.
    • Rejection of Parliament’s Argument: The Court dismissed the claim that Parliament has discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
    • Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court insisted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot brush aside the supremacy of the Constitution.

    2) Power of Judicial Review:

    • Meaning: Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions of public authorities.
    • Process Review: It reviews how a decision was made, not the correctness of the decision itself.
    • Procedure Established by Law: A law is valid only if enacted following the proper legislative procedure.
    • Due Process of Law: Ensures that laws are fair and just; India follows Procedure Established by Law.
    • Scope: Extends to reviewing actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative bodies.
    • Functions: Helps legitimize government action and protects the Constitution from undue encroachment.
    • Basic Structure: Judicial review forms part of the basic structure doctrine (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975).
    • Judicial Functions: Includes interpretational and observer roles of the judiciary.
    • PILs and Suo Moto: Courts can intervene through Public Interest Litigation and suo moto cases.
    • Types:
      • Review of Legislative Actions: Ensures laws comply with the Constitution.
      • Review of Administrative Actions: Enforces constitutional discipline on administrative bodies.
      • Review of Judicial Decisions: Allows correction of prior judicial decisions.
    • Importance: Ensures supremacy of the Constitution, prevents misuse of power, protects rights, maintains federal balance, and upholds judicial independence.
    • Problems: May limit government functioning, create overreach, lead to rigidity, risk judicial bias, and diminish public faith through repeated interventions.
    • Indian Context: India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers, but has checks and balances empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

    3) Tribunals:

    • Nature: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies aimed at reducing caseloads and providing technical expertise.
    • Constitutional Basis: Articles 323A and 323B added via the 42nd Amendment (1976) empower creation of tribunals.
    • Article 323A: Enables Parliament to form administrative tribunals for service matters.
    • Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on subjects like taxation and land reforms.
    • 2010 SC Clarification: Subjects under Article 323B are not exclusive—legislatures may create tribunals for any subject in the Seventh Schedule.
    • Composition: Tribunals include judicial and technical members.
    • Jurisdiction: Defined, subject-specific jurisdiction; some have appellate powers.
    • Appeals: Generally lie with High Courts, though some go directly to the Supreme Court.
    • Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997): Appeals from tribunals must reach a division bench of High Courts.
    • Current Position: Tribunals may function as substitutes for High Courts or remain subordinate.

    Significance of Tribunals:

    • Specialization:
      • Ensures cases are handled by individuals with deep legal and technical expertise.
    • Speedy Resolution:
      • Enables timely resolution in crucial matters like tax, service disputes, and environmental issues.
    • Reduced Case Load:
      • Helps ease the burden on regular courts and reduces judicial backlog.
    • Accessibility:
      • Tribunals often have geographically dispersed benches, improving access for litigants.
    • Efficiency in Service Matters:
      • Bodies like CAT expedite government service-related disputes.

    Concerns with Tribunals:

    • Independence Issues:
      • Government-controlled appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
      • In 2019, the Supreme Court warned that lack of judicial dominance violates the separation of powers.
    • Pendency of Cases:
      • Example: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had 18,829 pending cases in 2021.
    • Human Resource Constraints:
      • Lack of staffing contributes to rising pendency.
    • Tenure Problems:
      • Short tenure and reappointment provisions increase executive control.
    • Non-Uniform Procedures:
      • Wide variations cause inconsistency and confusion for litigants.
    • Overlapping Jurisdictions:
      • Leads to conflicts between courts and tribunals.
    • Technical Member Issues:
      • Some technical members lack legal qualifications.
    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.

    2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a)  1 only (b) 2 only* (c)  Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • SC recalls verdict rejecting Green Clearances

    Why in the News?

    A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recalled its May 16 verdict that had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) to construction projects as a “gross illegality” and “anathema” to environmental laws. This decision had struck down a 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum of the Union Government that allows such retrospective clearances.

    Key Points of Decision

    1. Majority Opinion:
      • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled to recall the May 16 verdict, which had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) as illegal.
      • The majority emphasized the public interest in avoiding the demolition of ongoing construction projects, which could lead to significant financial losses and job cuts.
      • They argued that retrospective clearances should be an exceptional measure rather than a routine practice, and these projects could continue if heavy penalties were imposed for violations.
    2. Dissenting Opinion:
      • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, critiquing the majority for undermining environmental jurisprudence.
      • Justice Bhuyan argued that granting ex post facto ECs violates the precautionary principle and undermines sustainable development, as it encourages illegal constructions that bypass environmental laws.
      • He emphasized that environmental protection should not be compromised for development purposes.

    Implications of the Judgement

    • Development vs Environment: The decision underscores the tension between economic development and environmental protection, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development while addressing violations of environmental laws.
    • Environmental Governance: It raises questions on judicial review of executive actions, emphasizing the need for effective regulatory compliance and policy frameworks that balance growth with ecological safeguards.
    • Sustainability and Public Health: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect natural resources and public health, which is critical for India’s long-term sustainability and policymaking.

     

  • Supreme Court reserves verdict on defining Aravalli Hills and Ranges

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, a critical environmental issue impacting Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.

    About the Aravallis:

    • Geology: The Aravalli Range is one of the oldest fold mountain ranges in the world, formed during the Proterozoic era.
    • Spread: It stretches for about 692 km, from Gujarat to Delhi, passing through Rajasthan and Haryana.
    • State-Wise Coverage: Around 80% of the range lies in Rajasthan, with the rest spread across Haryana, Delhi, and Gujarat.
    • Highest Peak: The tallest point is Guru Shikhar in Mount Abu, Rajasthan, with an elevation of 1,722 meters.
    • Natural Barrier Function: Acts as a green wall, preventing the spread of the Thar Desert into eastern Rajasthan and the Gangetic plains.
    • River Origins: Important rivers such as the Banas, Sahibi and Luni originate from the Aravallis.
    • Minerals: Rich in minerals like copper, zinc, lead, and marble.
    • Biodiversity: Home to 300+ bird species and key wildlife such as leopards, hyenas, jackals, wolves, civets, and Nilgai.
    • Prehistoric Significance: Contains cave art and tools from the Lower Palaeolithic period.

    About the Aravalli Case: Quick Backgrounder

    • Supreme Court Review: The Court is deciding on a uniform, legally enforceable definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
    • Case Origin: Stems from the long-running M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2008) matter on illegal mining, encroachment, and ecological degradation in the Aravallis.
    • Judgment: The Court held Aravalli lands to be forest areas under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, restricting non-forest activities.
    • Existing Legal Protection: Notifications under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 were upheld for safeguarding ecologically sensitive land.
    • Expert Committee (2024): SC directed MoEF&CC to set up a panel to develop a scientific definition for consistent protection across states.

    Proposed Legal Definitions of Aravalli Hills and Ranges

    (more…)