Supreme Court of India leave it to wisdom of PM and CM to appoint clean ministers with no criminal background

In response to a petition filed by one Manoj Narula (Writ Petition Civil No. 289/2005) seeking to stop MPs and MLAs chargesheeted but not yet convicted of crimes from being appointed ministers in Central and State governments respectively, the 5-Judge Batch of Supreme Court of India pronounced an important judgment on 27th August 2014. The Court said that framers of Constitution reposed faith and trust in the Prime Minister and Chief Minister and left it to their wisdom to appoint only those persons as ministers who have clean antecedents. The Court ruled that corruption is an enemy of the nation. As a trustee of the constitution, the PM is expected not to appoint unwarranted persons as ministers. The Court wished that politicians with a "criminal background" should not serve in government.

The court however said it could not disqualify the ministers, as the constitution allows prime minister to appoint his own cabinet, but said it hoped that the PM will honor the spirit of the constitution in appointing ministers. 

Earlier, vide judgment in case of Lily Thomas vs UOI on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of People Act 1951. As a result of said ruling, if a MP or MLA is "convicted" of an offence prescribed in Section 8(1) & (2), then he will immediately cease to be an MP or MLA and thus will thus lose his ministership if he is a minister. There was an outcry by the politicians. The then Government headed by Congress introduced a bill called Representation of People (Second amendment and Validation) Act 2013 to dilute the judgment to help the tainted politicians but before the bill could be passed, the parliament was adjourned. The Government that immediately brought an ordinance to undo the said judgment but after severe public criticism, the ordinance was dropped and not pursued.

In another judgment in case of Chief Election Commissioner vs Jan Chowkidar on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had held that the persons who are either in prison serving a sentence after conviction or who are in lawful custody of police, are debarred from contesting elections of MP or MLA. The Government succeeded in undoing this judgment by getting the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 passed in Rajya Sabha on 27th August 2013. In Lok Sabha, it was passed on 6th September 2013 without any discussion. Thus, the bar on convicted politicians from contesting elections has been removed by the Government by said amendment.

Click here for Full Text of the Judgment.

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41850

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court rejects the various petitions challenging validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill

The Supreme Court on 25th August 2014 rejected a bunch of PILs challenging the validity of Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014 on the ground that these are pre-mature as the bill is still in the process of becoming law and it has only been passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha at the moment. Since it will amend Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the States of India (i.e. min. 15 States) before being sent to the President for approval. This law will replace the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and High courts judges under which the collegium comprising three senior most judges of Supreme court including the CJI recommends the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges. 

Under the new system proposed to be introduced by this new law, the appointment will be made by a Commission which will be called National Judicial Appointment Commission which will comprise of 6 persons comprising the Chief Justice of India, two other seniormost judges of Supreme Court, Law Minister of India and two eminent personalities who would be chosen by a panel of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of single largest party in Lok Sabha. 

The Attorney General argued that the Court can not restrain a government from enacting a law, it will lead to chaos, it will amount to interference of judiciary in legislative and executive domain.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court orders for fast tracking criminal trials against politicians

Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL regarding disqualification of those MPs and MLAs from contesting elections against whom chargesheet has been filed in a criminal court and regarding fast-tracking criminal cases involving politicians. This is Writ Petition (Civil) No.536/2011 titled as 'Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India'. (At present, a MP or MLA, only on being convicted, ceases to be MP / MLA. There is no disqualification incurred at the stage of being chargesheeted). 

On 16.12.2013, Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to expedite consideration of the two issues, namely, (1) whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and, if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit? In pursuance thereto, the Law Commission prepared its recommendation in the form of 244th Report titled 'Electoral Disqualifications'. In this Report, the Law Commission recommended that MP / MLA should be disqualified on framing of charges against them by the court, subject to certain conditions. This was considered by the Supreme Court in hearing on 10th March 2014. 

To ensure the maintenance of probity of public office, to ensure conclusion of trial expeditiously, the Supreme Court on said day directed that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned court extending the time for conclusion of the trial. 

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March 2014.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt

On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2053611p.txt

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Delhi High Court dismiss petition seeking ban on Hindi movie 'Finding Fanny'

A Bench of Chief Justice Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL 'Nandini Tewari vs Union of India and other' Writ Petition (Civil) No.6053/2014 on 10th September 2014. The PIL sought a ban on the release of director Homi Adajania's new movie 'Finding Fanny' starring Deepika Padukone and Arjun Kapoor. The PIL alleged that the word "fanny" was vulgar and was a slang and should be removed from the movie, its songs, posters and banners. It said the dictionary meaning of the word "fanny" was highly sexually explicit, and using the word in the movie will hurt the feelings of the citizens of India, especially minor children. It said that allowing such words in films and television will pollute children's minds. It also challenged the UA certificate given to this movie. 

The film released on Friday 12th September 2014.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court entertains PIL seeking better treatment and facilities for leprosy patients

The Supreme Court (Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Vikramajit Sen) on 1st November 2014 issued notice to all States and Central Govt on a PIL titled as 'Pankaj Sinha vs Union of India' being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767/2014 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 

This PIL is aimed at eradicating leprosy from the country and for better facilities for the leprosy patients. This PIL has drawn attention to the fact that an effective cure, namely, Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT) which has been available since 1981 that can completely cure 99% of leprosy bacteria, due to apathy of the Government of India and the State Governments, people are still suffering from the said disease, which is treated as a social stigma. The PIL states that had people been made aware by the competent authorities of the Central Government and the State Governments, millions of people who are suffering from leprosy would have been cured and come to the mainstream of life and would not have been ostracized from the society. The petition further states that because of non-concern, the leprosy affects more than one lakh twenty five thousand persons yearly throughout the country, which is completely avoidable. They are not allowed to have education, sanitary benefits, community based rehabilitation as a result of which they are driven to streets and eventually turn to begging or compelled to live in so-caled leprosy homes where they are treated as unpersons or aliens. 

The PIL has sought issuance of directions for availability of the drugs at primary health centres and proper administration of the same for treatment of the pregnant women suffering from leprosy in an apposite manner with dignity, and making provision in educational institutions whether government or private, so that discrimination against the children of the leprosy affected families due to some kind of inhibition which has no constitutional sanction, is stopped and for providing banking facilities and establishment of such colonies where they can live for temporary period till they are cured and come to the society, etc. 

Click below for the Full Text of the Order.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc76714p.pdf

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

SC uphold 3% quota for disabled in jobs and promotions

    A Bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman, on 12.9.2014, dismissed the petition viz. SLP CC No. 13344/2014 'Union of India vs National Federation for Development of Disabled and others'. This petition was filed by the Government against the judgment and order dated 4th December 2013 of Bombay High Court in PIL No. 106/2010 wherein the High court, on a PIL, had directing the government to implement three per cent reservation for the differently-abled in civil services recruitment, besides granting the benefit in the matter of promotion too. 'The Persons With Disabilities Act' provides for three per cent quota for the differently-abled people. The court said that this Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and that Appointment will include promotion. 

The Court said that the Centre, States and Union Territories were obligated to implement the rules of reservation for this class in the matters of appointment, selection, direct recruitment, deputation and also for promotions. It asked the Centre to show a big heart and give the differently-abled people their due in all central and state government jobs. The SC reiterated its earlier verdict that the principle of not exceeding 50 per cent reservation would not be applicable while granting quota for differently-abled people. The Government had sought to argue that the reservation at the stage of promotion may lead to huge resentment, especially among employees in Group A and Group B categories, since many beneficiaries may get ahead of their seniors.

This order will give a level-playing field to more than four crore people with disabilities in India.

Read the Full Text of Bombay High Court Judgment dated 4th December 2013.

Read the Supreme Court order dated 12th September 2014.

The Government had confined reservation for disabled to Group C and Group D posts. In its memoranda issued in 1997 and 2005, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had also created a distinction between posts to be filled through direct recruitment and those through promotion, while stating that no reservation shall be provided in posts to be filled through promotion in Group A and Group B categories. However,  Supreme Court of India (bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Justice Abhay M Sapre) by its judgment on 30.6.2016 in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & others vs Union of India & others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2008) declared the DoPT memoranda as “illegal and inconsistent” with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The Supreme Court ruled that three per cent reservation shall be provided to them in all posts and services under the Government of India. This is the first authoritative judgment that has explicitly directed the government to do away with the distinction and give benefits of reservation to the differently-abled, without any classification.

The court’s Judgment came on two petitions which challenged this policy in recruitment to state-run Prasar Bharati. Rajan Mani of Disability Law Initiative and S K Rungta, the only visually impaired senior advocate in the country, led the legal challenge. The Government opposed concession to the disabled, contending that they have no right to demand reservation in promotion to identified Group A and Group B posts. It also cited the nine-judge bench ruling by the apex court in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal reservation) case, to maintain reservation should be confined to recruitment at the initial level, and not at the stage of promotions.

-->

But the bench dismissed the Government’s arguments, noting that once the posts for the disabled have been identified under Section 32 of the Act, the purpose behind such identification cannot be frustrated by prescribing a mode of recruitment which results in denial of statutory reservation.

Read Supreme Court Judgment dated 30th June 2016.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en