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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

  • Minority Issues – SC, ST, Dalits, OBC, Reservations, etc.

    States must decide on SC/ST quota in promotions: Supreme Court

    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: Nagraj Case

    Mains level: Quota in Promotions

    The Supreme Court has refused to lay down the criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation for granting reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in government jobs.

    What did the court held?

    • The court stuck firm by the decisions of its Constitution Benches in the Jarnail Singh and M. Nagaraj case that the question of adequate representation of SC/ST communities ought to be left to the respective States to determine.
    • It held ‘cadre’, and not class or group or the entire service, as the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data for giving promotion quotas.

    Why such decision?

    • Determination of inadequate representation depends upon myriad factors of states which this Court cannot envisage.
    • Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State governments.

    Quota in Promotions: A timeline

    What was the case?

    • The Union government has been pressing for reservation in promotion proportionate to the population of SCs and STs as per a 1995 judgment by the top court in the RK Sabharwal case.
    • It wants it to be left open to the Centre and states to decide on promotional avenues for SCs and STs.
    • It claims that the condition regarding the collection of quantifiable data to show the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs is “vague”.
    • Advocates representing the general category have contended that the reservation cannot be for an indefinite period and that it must stop as soon as the upper ceiling has been reached.
    • Further, they have emphasized that reservation in promotion should be cadre-based only after quantifiable data is collected and the creamy layer has been excluded.

    Defying the need for quantifiable data

    • Attorney General sought to convince the court that the roster system, based on the proportionate population of SCs/STs, has been working quite well in all government departments.
    • The condition of collecting quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs may not be required at all.
    • He urged that there is no need to verify any further or collect quantifiable data after the roster system.

    What is the Nagraj Case?

    • Article 16(4A) of Indian Constitution allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.
    • In 2006, a Constitution bench’s ruling in the M Nagaraj case made it incumbent upon the state to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation in public employment.
    • This was to be done in addition to maintaining overall administrative efficiency.

    Related amendments

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

    Why such demand for quotas in promotion?

    • The Attorney General has said that it is tough for a member of the SC/ST to reach the ‘Group A’ category jobs.
    • The time has come for the apex court to firm up and draw the basis for reservation in promotions for SC/ST candidates to fill up vacancies in top jobs.
    • The Bench referred to records filed before it to note that there was low representation of SC/ST category in Group A jobs.
    • Instead of improving the situation in the Group A ranks, the court said, efforts are on to ensure adequate representation in Groups B and C.
    • This was not fair, it remarked.

     

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Medical Education Governance in India

    Supreme Court upholds validity of OBC quota in NEET admissions

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

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: NEET Quota row

    Mains level: Significance of the Judgment, New definition of Merit

    The Supreme Court has pronounced its decision upholding the constitutional validity of providing 27% quota to Other Backward Classes (OBC) in NEET All India Quota (AIQ) seats for UG and PG medical courses.

    What is the issue?

    • The petitioners, several NEET aspirants, had argued that since the top court had limited reservation to 50% in the Indira Sawhney judgment, the government should have first applied to the court before tinkering with the quota calculations.
    • The court further confirmed that there was no need for the Centre to have got the prior consent of the Supreme Court before introducing OBC quota in the AIQ seats under NEET.
    • The court reasoned that material affluence of certain individual members of a socially backward group or ‘creamy layer’ could not be used against the entire group to deny it the benefits of reservation.

    What is the background of this case?

    • The government introduced OBC/EWS quota before the counselling of NEET counselling.
    • The candidates applying for NEET PG were not provided any information on the distribution of the seat matrix.
    • Such information is provided by the counselling authority only after the counselling session is to begin.

    Key observations of the Apex Court

    • The SC has held that reservation is not at odds with merit.
    • It observed that ‘merit’ could not be narrowed to the limit of success in open competitive exams.
    • Merit of a person is a sum total of “lived experiences” and his or her struggle to overcome cultural and social setbacks, observed the SC.

    Why is this a landmark judgment?

    • Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination, which only provides formal equality of opportunities , said the SC.
    • Current competencies are assessed by competent examinations but are not reflective of excellence, capability and potential of an individual.

    Major justifications for Reservations

    • Exams did not reflect how social, economic and cultural advantages that accrued to certain classes contributed to their success in them, the court noted.
    • Examinations are not a proxy for merit.
    • Merit should be socially contextualized and re-conceptualized.
    • Reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive impact, Justice Chandrachud observed.

    Constitutionality of the decision

    • The court held that the power of the State governments to provide reservations under Article 15 (4) and (5) of the Constitution was not an “exception” to Article 15 (1).
    • It enshrines the mandate that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them”.
    • The court held that the power of the State government to craft reservations for the OBC amplified the principle of “substantive equality” manifested through Article 15 (1).

    Implications: Victory for States

    • In a significant victory for States such as Tamil Nadu, the court confirmed their power to make “special provisions” and provide reservations in educational admissions, whether in aided or unaided institutions.
    • TN provides government jobs for the advancement of “any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs and STs”.

     

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.

    Farmers have Right to Protest, but can’t block roads: SC

    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: Article 19

    Mains level: Farmers protests and related issues

    The Supreme Court has said farmers protesting at Delhi borders against the three farms laws have the right to agitate but they cannot block roads indefinitely.

    For students with Sociology optional, can someone list the differences between- Dissent, Protest, Agitation and Movement?

    What is Protest?

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

    Issues with ongoing protest in Delhi

    • The question as to the absolute nature of the right to protest is not even a question in the true sense here.
    • We have seen the vandalism protest at Red Fort last year.
    • Hence the rights mentioned above are subject to reasonable restrictions under 19 (2) and 19 (3) on grounds such as sovereignty and integrity of India, and public order.

    Right to Protest in India

    • The right to protest is the manifestation of three FRs:
    1. Right to Freedom of Assembly
    2. Right to Freedom of Association and
    3. 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.

    In detail: Article 19(1)

    It states that All citizens shall have the right:

    • (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
    • (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
    • (c) to form associations or unions;
    • (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
    • (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
    • (f) omitted
    • (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

    Do you know?

    Right to Internet is a fundamental right and is an essential part of freedom of speech and expression. One might get confused if it is an FR under Article 21.

    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.
    • Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on this.
    • The court held it was entirely the responsibility of the administration to prevent encroachments in public spaces.

    Conclusion

    • 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.

     

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Minority Issues – SC, ST, Dalits, OBC, Reservations, etc.

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

    SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Health & Education

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Minority Rights in India

    Mains level: Read the attached story

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

    What is the case about?

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

    Key takeaways from the Judgment

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

    Basis of the Judgment

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

    Various grounds discussed

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

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

     

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

    Back2Basics: Minority Rights in India

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

     

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Historical and Archaeological Findings in News

    What is Vishnuonyx?

    Prelims OnlySC Judgements | Trivia | Mains Paper 3: Awareness in various sc and tech fields

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Vishnuonyx neptuni

    Mains level: NA

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

    Vishnuonyx neptuni

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

    Why in news?

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

    How did it travel as far as Europe?

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

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Judicial Reforms

    Need for ‘Indianization’ of Legal System: CJI

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

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: Not much

    Mains level: Indianization of Judiciary

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

    Prospects of Indianization by CJI

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

    What did CJI say?

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

    Reasons for Indianization

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

    Major suggestions by CJI:

    (A) Simplification

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

    (B) Alternate dispute mechanisms

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

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Important Judgements In News

    Allahabad HC verdict disqualifying then PM

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

    Note4Students

    From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

    Prelims level: National Emergency

    Mains level: Important judgments

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

    What was the case?

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

    What is an Election Petition?

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

    Findings against Gandhi

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

    A case that led to the promulgation of National Emergency

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

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

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

    Back2Basics: National Emergency

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

     

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

    Attend Now

  • Right To Privacy

    Delhi HC observations on Right to be Forgotten

    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: Article 21

    Mains level: Right to be Forgotten

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

    Right to be Forgotten in India

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

    What was the recent case?

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

    Legal issues

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

    Key features of PDP Bill

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

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.

    Protest should not hinder traffic: SC

    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: Right to Protest

    Mains level: Reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights

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

    Right to Protest

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

    Constitutional Backing

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

    (a) to freedom of speech and expression;

    (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

    (c) to form associations or unions;

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

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

    (f) omitted

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

    Reasonable restrictions on Protest

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

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

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

    Attend Now

  • Judicial Reforms

    SC questions govt over Tribunal Reforms Bill

    SC 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: Issues with Tribunals Reform Bill 2021

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

    What are Tribunals?

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

    Do you know?

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

    Creation of Tribunals

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

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

    SC stance on Tribunals

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

    Issues with tribunals

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

    Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021

     

    What is the recent news?

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

    What happens to cases pending before the tribunals are dissolved?

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

    Observations made by the Court

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

    A new flashpoint between Executive and Judiciary

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

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

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

    Attend Now