Supreme court+ High court judgement

Why do constitutional courts not interfere with statutes or statutory rules frequently? Constitutional courts generally presume that laws made by Parliament are valid unless they are shown to breach constitutional provisions. The conventional wisdom is that the legislative process is not usually driven by malicious intent. For ex-This was stated in the case of Manish Kumar vs Union of India in 2021. Similarly, in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot judge the motives behind legislation. What are the issues with this approach of the constitutional court? 1) Lack of Judicial Interdiction-The Supreme Court has refrained from interdicting (stopping or restraining) the operation of enactments due to the presumption of validity. This has led to delay in judgements in cases like Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India (2023) (demonetization case) and by this time the situation had already become irreversible. 2) Endangering Democracy– A) The recent Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 overturned the Supreme Court judgement in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023) case and reinstated the “Prime Minister’s Committee” method for ECI selection. B) This new Act was subsequently challenged in Jaya Thakur vs Union of India (2024), where the Court refused to prevent the implementation of the statute, despite it being unconstitutional and threatening the foundation of democracy. 3) Counter Majoritarian Role: Contemporary populist regimes globally often invoke targeted legislation, manipulating the electoral system and enacting laws with little regard for constitutional schemes. Such trends necessitate an assertive judicial approach to maintain the counter-majoritarian role of constitutional courts. What should be the way forward? The Supreme Court should learn from its track record and understand the political consequences of its insensitivity during critical times. The Supreme Court has effectively interdicted parliamentary legislations in cases like the 27% quota for OBC candidates in professional colleges in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India, 2007 and the 3 contentious farm laws in Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India, 2021.

Supreme Court Judgment on Private Property Acquisition  Recently, the Supreme Court made a pivotal decision to safeguard private property against arbitrary state acquisition for “public purpose”. The court ruled that compulsory acquisition without adhering to mandatory procedures, even if followed by compensation, is unconstitutional. About Supreme Court Judgment on Private Property Acquisition 1. Constitutional Protection of Property: The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, emphasized that the right to private property is protected under the Constitution and is also considered a human right. 2. Mandatory Procedures for Acquisition: The court declared that for a valid acquisition of property, it is not sufficient to just have the power of eminent domain and provide compensation. Proper legal procedures must be established and followed. 3. Article 300A: Despite the omission of the right to property as a fundamental right by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, Article 300A was added. It stated that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law. This involves adhering to due process. 4. Procedural Rights: These are the laws which act as the ‘machinery’ for enforcing rights and duties. The Supreme Court outlined seven procedural rights that need to be respected during property acquisition: i) Right to notice – the duty of the state to inform the person about the intended acquisition. ii)  Right to be heard – the state must listen to objections from the property owner. iii) Right to a reasoned decision – the state must explain its decision regarding the acquisition. iv) Demonstration of public purpose – the acquisition must exclusively serve a public purpose. v) Right to fair compensation – the property owner is entitled to reasonable compensation vi) Efficient process – the acquisition process should be conducted efficiently and within set timelines. vii) Conclusion of proceedings – acquisition isn’t complete without the actual physical possession of the property being taken.

Supreme Court Ruling on PMLA Arrest Norms  The recent Supreme Court decision has specified the obligations to notify an accused of the reasons for their arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA) About Supreme Court Ruling on PMLA Arrest Norms 1. Enhancement of Personal Liberty: The Supreme Court emphasized the right to personal liberty by stating that individuals summoned by a designated special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are not considered to be in custody and are not required to apply for bail under the strict conditions of the PMLA. 2. Conditions for Custody: The Court also ruled that if an accused responds to a summons and appears before the special court, it does not mean they are in custody. Therefore, applying for bail is unnecessary. 3. Limitation on ED’s Powers: The judgment restricts the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) ability to arrest individuals after a special court has acknowledged a case. The ED must apply separately for custody and demonstrate specific reasons for needing custodial interrogation. 4. Provision for Furnishing Bonds: The Court mentioned that the special court might require the accused to provide bonds as per Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It clarified that providing a bond is merely an undertaking and does not equate to bail being granted. Thus, the stringent twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply when a bond is provided. 5. Bail Conditions Under PMLA: The Supreme Court highlighted the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. Under this, the accused must prove their prima facie innocence and assure the court they will not commit any further offences while on bail, placing a significant burden of proof on the accused.

⚠️ Are you scoring low in Mock Test ? LEARN 50+ GS SCORE BOOSTING TECHNIQUES... 🌟 LIET & SCOPE BATCH : Logical Intelligent Elimination Techniques (Hinglish / English ) 🌟 Course Fees : 2000 (499/- ₹) 🫡 Must Watch CSE Prelims Decoded Trends👇 1⃣ 2023 CSE Hacks (Hinglish) : https://youtu.be/ECwBuVJOKJU?si=TfBZCo1zsCcfsRw- 2️⃣ 2022 CSE Hacks (English) : https://youtu.be/S78DvgHMR88?si=8QsgOXhyE4JXUj20 • Download App & Enroll here👇 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.lenord.owsqi ----( FREE SAMPLE NOTES)👇

IPS, IRS, EPFO Officers & Toppers Are Already Enrolled 🤗 • Join Us : @DelhiUpscSecrets_Official

What are registered parties? 1) Defined under– Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) defines the criteria for political parties to get registered with the ECI. As per the ECI, there are 2,790 active registered political parties in India. 2) Requirement-Registered political parties must submit their memorandum/constitution to the ECI, pledging allegiance to the Indian Constitution, principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy, and upholding India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. 3)  Benefits enjoyed by the registered parties- (a) tax exemption for donations received under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) common symbol for contesting general elections to the Lok Sabha/State Assemblies (c) twenty ‘star campaigners’ during election campaign. What are recognized parties? 1) Defined under-It’s called a Registered Unrecognized Political Party (RUPP). Political parties are recognized either as ‘national’ or ‘State’ parties according to The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, by the ECI. At present, there are 6 ‘national’ parties, and 61 ‘State’ parties that have been recognized. 2) Requirement-To be recognized at the national or state level, a party needs to win a certain number of seats or get a specific percentage of votes in a Lok Sabha or State Assembly election. 3) Benefits– They receive benefits like a reserved election symbol and 40 star campaigners. What are the issues? 1) Registered Parties and Election Contestation-Less than one-third of registered parties contest elections. The RP Act does not confer explicit powers on the ECI to de-register any political party if it fails to contest elections, conduct inner-party elections or lodge requisite returns. 2) Political Party Deregistration– The Supreme Court in Indian National Congress versus Institute of Social Welfare & Ors (2002) had held that the ECI can de-register a political party only under exceptional circumstances like fraud or disloyalty to the Constitution. 3) Abuse of Tax Exemptions– RUPPs that abstain from contesting elections raise concerns about potential misuse of income tax exemptions and donations for money laundering purposes. 4) Limited Enforcement of MCC by ECI -The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) prohibits appealing to caste/communal sentiments and voter intimidation/bribery. Recognized parties have been guilty of MCC violations. However, the action of ECI has been limited. For ex- short campaigning bans.

Legal challenges related to deepfakes in India ✅Sections 66D, 66E, 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT Act penalize impersonation and obscene material but do not fully address deepfakes. ✅The Digital Personal Data Protection Act could be more effective if it included reputational loss in its definition of “loss.” Data fiduciaries are required to notify individuals of data breaches but need stricter measures like disabling private-media downloads. ✅Rule 4(2) of the 2021 IT Guidelines mandates social media to identify originators of harmful content, but platforms like WhatsApp and Meta contest this, citing privacy concerns. ✅The Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India case highlights privacy and publicity rights violations by deepfakes.

Dolly Rani v Manish Kumar Chanchal Misconceptions are particularly related to the requirement of the ‘saptapadi’ ceremony for the validity of Hindu marriages. What is the case and judgement? The case emerged from a transfer petition in the SC, related to a divorce. In this case petitioners are pushing for divorce with the argument that even though they had been issued marriage certificate, their marriage was invalid because they didn’t perform the traditional ‘saptapadi’. In its judgement Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Saptapadi ceremony and held that a Hindu marriage cannot be recognized in the absence of a valid ceremony, such as saptapadi. However, it has created a doubt whether this judgment made the Saptapadi ceremony an essential practice for the validity of the marriage. Saptapadi is a custom among certain sections of Hindus which involves taking seven steps around the sacred fire. But it is not universally practiced among all denominations. What are the issues with this judgement? 1) The judgment didn’t mention other ways to validate the marriage or explore customs with simpler ceremonies like exchanging garlands. 2) SC didn’t state any special status for saptapadi. Therefore, this cannot be understood as the only form of solemnization of marriage. 3)  It also didn’t discuss the amendment in Tamil Nadu introducing the suya mariyadhai form of marriage. What are the requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding solemnization? 1) The Supreme Court stated that as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage is deemed complete and binding with the performance of customary rites, including ‘saptapadi’ where it is practiced. 2) Section 7(2) says that if the rituals include saptapadi, the marriage is complete and legally binding after the seventh step. However, this cannot be understood as the only form of solemnization of marriage. What was the stand of the previous judgments and amendments in this regard? In 1967, Tamil Nadu passed an amendment to simplify marriage ceremonies. Upholding this amendment’s validity, the Madras High Court ruled in S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) that a priest’s presence is not necessary for a valid marriage. Parties can marry in front of relatives or friends, exchanging vows and performing simple rituals like garlanding or exchanging rings. 2) In Balakrishnan v The Inspector of Police (2014) case, the Madras High court held that a marriage conducted in secrecy, called suya mariyadhai, is not valid. 3) In Ilavarasan v The Superintendent of Police and Others (2023), the court disagreed with its earlier ruling in Balakrishnan v The Inspector of Police (2014). It held that a public solemnization or declaration is not required for a valid marriage under Section 7A(1). The Court argued that imposing a public declaration requirement, not mentioned in Section 7A (1), restricts the law’s broader purpose and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

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.