Supreme court+ High court judgement

How does the Constitution ensure affirmative action? Fundamental Rights: The Constitution ensures social justice by guaranteeing equality in Articles 15 and 16, allowing affirmative action in educational admissions and public employment. Provisions for Backward Classes: It enables special provisions for the advancement of OBCs, SCs, and STs. The 1992 Indra Sawhney case upheld a 27% reservation for OBCs while capping total reservations at 50%. Creamy Layer Exclusion: The court mandates excluding wealthy OBC individuals, currently defined as those with incomes above ₹8 lakh. EWS Reservation: The Janhit Abhiyan case in 2022 validated the 10% Economic Weaker Section (EWS) quota. Muslim Reservation: Karnataka has a 4% sub-categorization for Muslims under the OBC quota, though it was briefly redistributed among Hindu OBCs. Courts later upheld this categorization. How does affirmative action work in other countries? United States: The U.S. uses affirmative action programs that give special consideration to racial minorities like African-Americans and Latin-Americans. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fair Admissions vs. Harvard (2023) that race-based admissions violate the Constitution. United Kingdom: The U.K. permits voluntary “positive action” programs allowing employers to support underrepresented groups. France: There is no race-based affirmative action in France. Instead, educational measures promote opportunities for low-income students.

What are the different court rulings regarding willful defaulters? Takano v SEBI: The Supreme Court ruling on inspection rights in securities law influenced later cases. It ensured that regulatory authorities follow fairness principles and allow access to relevant investigation materials. Jah Developers Case (2019): The Supreme Court decision emphasized the need for proper procedural safeguards. It ensured that wilful defaulters receive fair treatment before being classified. Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India: The Bombay High Court invalidated the rule allowing public banks to request lookout circulars (LoCs) against wilful defaulters. It held that this practice violated the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and life (Article 21). Milind Patel v Union Bank of India: This case clarified that commercial lenders must follow natural justice principles. Borrowers should have access to all investigation material before being designated as wilful defaulters.

SC directive on promoting products in media The Supreme Court has mandated that advertisers must provide self-declarations to confirm the accuracy of their product claims before advertising in the media, aiming to protect consumers from deceptive marketing. This ruling was prompted by a case involving misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved. About the SC directive on promoting products in media 1. S.C directed the advertisers to submit self-declarations, affirming the accuracy of their product claims, before promoting them through various media channels. 2. Implementation Plans: a) To enforce this directive effectively, advertisers are mandated to adhere to the Cable TV Network Regulations Rules of 1994. b) Advertiser must upload their self-declarations on the Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s ‘Broadcast Seva’ portal before airing ads on TV channels. Copies of these declarations are also required to be provided to the broadcasters. c) A similar portal for print advertisers will be established within a four-week timeframe. 3. Responsibility of Promoters: The Supreme Court has emphasized on the responsibility of social media influencers, celebrities, and public figures endorsing products. They have been urged to possess sufficient knowledge about the products they promote and to ensure that their endorsements are not contributing to deceptive advertising practices. 4. Enhanced Consumer Protection Measures: a) Recognizing the importance of consumer empowerment, the Court has directed the Centre to establish a clear and accessible procedure for filing complaints against misleading advertisements. b) Consumers are entitled to be informed of the outcomes of their complaints, ensuring transparency and accountability. 5. Government Action: The Ministry of Health has been directed to furnish data regarding complaints received by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) pertaining to misleading advertisements and misbranding of food and health products. This transparency aims to bolster consumer trust and regulatory efficacy in the realm of product advertising and marketing.

What has been the history of conflict between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)? This tension between the two has existed throughout India’s history.However,it has become particularly intense in the 1970s when amendments were made to exempt certain laws from judicial review. 1) Constitutional Provisions and Earlier Judicial Interpretations- A) At its inception, the Constitution’s bare text was clear enough. Article 13 stated that any law violating a fundamental right would be invalid. In contrast, Article 37 stated that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) wouldn’t be enforceable in court. B) In its early judgments, the Supreme Court clarified the hierarchy between fundamental rights and DPSPs. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958), the Chief Justice stated that the state should implement DPSPs without abridging fundamental rights. 2) Introduction of Article 31(C)– The 25th amendment introduced Article 31C to protect laws enacted to fulfill Article 39(b) and (c) from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. This provision aimed to exempt legislation promoting the common good from fundamental rights scrutiny. 3)  Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)– The court upheld the validity of Article 31C but made it subject to judicial review. 4) 42nd Constitutional Amendment– Parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, which extended the scope of the Article 31C by including within its purview any law to implement any of the DPSPs specified in Part IV of the constitutional and not merely Article 39 (b) or (c). 5) Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980)– 42nd CAA was subsequently challenged in this case. The court declared the amendment unconstitutional. The Court found that while DPSPs provided the ends of governance, fundamental rights constituted the means to such ends. 6) Waman Rao vs Union of India– The court upheld the validity of Article 31C by arguing that laws aligned with Articles 39(b) and (c) wouldn’t violate rights under Articles 14 and 19.

pregnant persons Supreme Court (SC) ruling that broadened the definition of “pregnant persons” to include non-binary and transgender men, not just cisgender women. This shift promotes more inclusive language, supporting better legal and healthcare protections for diverse gender identities. What is the definition of “pregnant persons“? “Pregnant persons” is a term used by the Supreme Court to include all individuals capable of pregnancy, regardless of gender identity. In the A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra case, this term was used over 40 times by the bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The definition covers non-binary people and transgender men, in addition to cisgender women.

Status of women in the higher judiciary:  ✅Out of 268 judges ever appointed in the Supreme Court since independence, only 11 have been women ✅Justice Fathina Beevi the first woman judge appointed to the Supreme Court in 1989. ✅According to The India Justice Report 2022 women make up 35% of judges in subordinate courts but only 13% in High Courts. Additionally, only 15% of practising lawyers are women.

What is Article 31C? Introduction of Article 31C: It was added to the Indian Constitution in 1971 via the 25th Amendment, primarily in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bank Nationalisation Case. In this case the court had invalidated a government act to nationalize banks due to issues with the compensation offered. Purpose of Article 31C: The article shields laws that implement the principles specified in Article 39(b) and (c)—ensuring the distribution of material resources to prevent wealth concentration—from being challenged on the grounds of violating rights to equality and freedoms under Article 14 and Article 19. Why is the existence of Article 31C in question? Legal Revisions and Challenges: The existence of Article 31C is in question due to its history of amendments and legal challenges. Notably in the Kesavananda Bharati case where parts of it were struck down, affecting its overall standing. Impact of the Minerva Mills Ruling: In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This cast doubt on the expansions made to Article 31C under the 42nd Amendment, specifically whether the original version of Article 31C survived these changes. Current Supreme Court Review: Currently, the Supreme Court is examining Article 31C to address unresolved constitutional uncertainties. This includes its application in property laws such as the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. The Act uses Article 39(b) to justify the redistribution of cessed properties, making this review crucial for determining the future application of Article 31C in socio-economic legislation. What are the arguments regarding Article 31C? Argument Against Automatic Revival: Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina argued that the original Article 31C was completely replaced by an expanded version in the 42nd Amendment. Therefore, when the new version was struck down in the Minerva Mills case, the original could not automatically revive. This argument is based on the legal principle that once replaced, the original provision ceases to exist unless explicitly reinstated. Argument for Doctrine of Revival: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the original Article 31C should automatically be revived based on the doctrine of revival. This view is supported by precedents like the ruling on the National Judicial Appointments Commission, where struck-down amendments led to the revival of previous provisions, suggesting that the pre-amended Article 31C should resurface if the subsequent amendments are invalidated.

Election Commission powers against disruption of normal polling process . Why in the News? Under Sections 58(2) and 58A (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), the Election Commission of India (EC) invalidated the polls held on April 19 in 11 polling stations in Manipur and 8 polling Stations in Arunachal Pradesh. When Election Commission can use its powers against disruption of normal polling process? 1. Intentional Destruction of EVMs: Section 58 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) empowers the EC to conduct fresh polls if intentional destruction occurs. The process involves immediate notification by the Returning Officer (RO) to the EC and Chief Electoral Officer, followed by a formal declaration of void poll and scheduling of a new one. Contesting candidates are duly informed, and voters participate with fresh inked marks to distinguish from the original poll. 2. Booth-Capturing: Section 135A of the RPA defines booth capturing, punishable under law. Section 58A allows for immediate action by the Presiding Officer, closing of EVMs and notifying the RO, who then informs the EC. The EC may void the poll at the affected station or countermand the entire constituency’s election, depending on the severity. 3. Natural Disaster and Disruption: Section 57(1) of the RPA enables the Presiding Officer to adjourn polling due to various disruptions. EC approval is required for resumption. Only remaining voters are eligible to cast their votes upon resumption. 4. Death of a Candidate: Section 52 of the RPA addresses the adjournment of polls due to the death of a recognized party’s candidate. If the candidate passes away after a specified time, the RO informs the EC, postponing the poll. The EC then requests the party to nominate a replacement within seven days. The candidate list is updated accordingly.

Laws about Uncontested elections ✅Automatic Election: According to Rule 11 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, if the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of seats available, the returning officer is required to declare these candidates elected automatically. ✅Legal Precedent: Section 53 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 also supports this mechanism, mandating that if the number of candidates does not exceed the number of seats, no polling is needed, and candidates are declared elected. ✅Reissuing a call for candidates: The Representation of the People Act (RPA) provides for the possibility of reissuing a call for candidates if no one files for an election initially. However, the Act does not specify what should be done if no candidates come forward after a second call.

Important SC Judgements 2023-24  1.Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India – Upheld legal Validity of Demonetization 2. Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh - no reason to impose “additional restrictions” on the right to free speech of Ministers, and the government is not vicariously liable for disparaging remarks made by them. 3. Common Cause v. Union of India – Upholds ‘Right to Die’ as part of Article 21. Removes “insurmountable obstacles” for implementing Advance medical directives of terminally ill patients. 4. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India - Election Commissioners will be appointed by the President of India on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India. (Parliament has passed an act to overturn the judgement). 5. Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam - Mere Membership Of Unlawful Organization Is UAPA Offence. 6. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India - National Security Concerns Won't Absolutely Abrogate Principles Of Natural Justice; No Blanket Immunity For IB Reports; 'Sealed Cover Procedure Infringes Open Justice; Press Has Duty To Speak Truth To Power, Critical Views On Govt Policies Can't be Termed Anti-Establishment; Supreme Court Lifts Telecast Ban On Media One, Says State Using Plea Of 'National Security' To Deny Citizens' Rights 7. Union of India And Ors. v. Parashotam Dass - High Courts Can Entertain Challenges To Orders Passed By Armed Forces Tribunal. 8. Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India - National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land, it held. (Overturned by Parliament Act).  9. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra And Ors - Governor's Decision For Floor Test Wrong, But Uddhav Govt Can't Be Restored As He Resigned. Nabam Rebia referred to a larger bench.