Daily Legal Current Affairs 23 May 2024, Judiciary Exam Current Affairs

Ashish Redu v. Government Of Karnataka

• • BENCH : Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Karol.
  • FORUM :  Supreme Court of India
  • PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION : Article 14 - Constitution of India
    • Article 14 - Equality before law
      • The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

• FACTS

• The Karnataka Government’s scheme mandates every MBBS graduate, every Post-Graduate (Diploma or Degree), and every Super Specialty candidate who has pursued their course of study either in a government university or on a government seat in a private/deemed university to render one year of compulsory public rural service.

• Only after the fulfillment of this requirement will the requisite No-objection certificate (NOC) be issued, and this will enable the petitioner to be eligible for permanent registration with the Karnataka Medical Council.

• As per the notification dated 28.07.2023, this requirement was extended to candidates enrolled in private seats in private/deemed universities.
• Pertinently, in the petition it has been argued that the Candidates enrolled in private or deemed universities on private seats, who are pursuing their studies at significantly higher costs, constitute an intelligible differentia under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, they are not to be subjected to compulsory service requirements, argued the petitioner.

• OBSERVATIONS

• The Supreme Court  issued notice in a writ petition filed challenging a notification issued by the Karnataka Government that required the medical students to fulfill one year of compulsory public rural service in order to be eligible for permanent registration with the Karnataka Medical Council.

• As soon as the matter was taken up, Justice P.S. Narasimha expressed his doubts, saying that just because a student studies in a private college, they would not exempt the person from working in rural areas.

• “What is wrong? Private (institution) people have no obligation to nation building? Just because you go and study in a private hospital, or a private law college, you have an exemption from working in rural areas? What is this which gives you an exemption just because you studied in a private medical college that you cannot work in rural areas?”  When the counsel, representing the petitioners, submitted that there were bandwidth and language issues.
• To this Justice Narsimha replied “So what? It is a beautiful thing that you go somewhere else and work. You walk up and down India and work in different rural areas. That is such a beautiful thing to do.”  He went on to say “What is this exemption? Just because you are rich and you go to a private medical college and you get an exemption from going to the rural areas...where do you get these ideas? Because you have purchased your degree.
• To support this, the Top Court's decision in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants Residents & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors W.P.(C) No. 376/2018 has also been cited. In this, the Court rejected the challenge against the imposition of compulsory bonds to be executed for admission to postgraduate medical courses and super specialty courses.  However, at the same time, it was noticed that certain State Governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds and therefore suggested that the Union of India and the Medical Council of India may take steps to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government institutions.
• In view of this projection, the writ petitioner has primarily prayed for the following two directions:
  • Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Commissionerate of Health & Family Welfare Services to issue the required NOC to the petitioners without subjecting them to any affidavit of compulsory rural service.
  • Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Karnataka Medical Council to accept the Permanent Registration of the Petitioners.

Click Here to Download Daily Legal Current Affairs 24 May 2024 PDF

Union of India v. Barakathullah

• BENCH :  Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
• FORUM :  Supreme Court of India

• OBSERVATIONS

• The Supreme Court  set aside the Madras High Court order granting bail to 8 men allegedly belonging to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

• The Court cancelled the bail of the persons stating that the allegations of collecting funds to commit terrorist acts against them appeared to be 'prima facie true'.

• The bench was deciding a challenge by the National Investigation Agency against the High Court's order dated October 19, 2023. The bench took note of the seriousness of the offences alleged, the period of incarceration being 1.5 years, and the nature of material produced by the NIA and agreed to interfere with the impugned order. The Court while cancelling the bail also directed that the trial be expedited.

• The bench stated " The accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and the mandate of proviso contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail.

• Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the offences, previous criminal history of the respondents as mentioned in the charge sheet, the period of custody undergone by the accused being hardly 1.5 years, the severity of the offence, the prima facie material collected during the course of the investigation, the impugned order by High Court cannot be sustained.

• The court further held that “we are conscious of the legal position that we should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court , however it is equally settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal or perverse, it must be set aside."

• National security of paramount importance : The Court further observed that UAPA reflects the endeavour to curb terrorist activities and ensure the paramountcy of national security in the country.

• Thus the restrictions imposed upon the civil liberties of individuals or associations accused under the UAPA are done in the larger interest of maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of India.  It cannot be denied that national security is always of paramount importance and any act linked to any terrorist act violent or non-violent is liable to be restricted.

• The UAPA is one of such Acts enacted to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals or associations and to deal with terrorist activities as also to impose certain reasonable restrictions on the civil liberties of such individuals in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the Court observed.  The Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the respondents to surrender forthwith to the NIA.

• The Court also directed the Special Court to expeditiously accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations in the judgment.  The impugned order by Justices SS Sunder and Sunder Mohan refused to link the accused to any terrorist activities such as the offence of collecting funds for 'committing terrorist acts'. The NIA had relied upon a 'vision document' which showed the collection of several RSS leaders with markings on them.

• It was alleged that as per this vision document, the accused had marked the RSS and other Hindu Organisation leaders on the 'hit list' of PFI.   The High Court rejected these contentions and granted bail to the main accused on the grounds that there was no direct evidence to link the persons to the 'vision document'.

• It was further observed that PFI is only declared an unlawful association and not a terrorist organisation, thus "any  preparatory act in the context, should be construed as in defence and not to perpetrate any terrorist act."

Also Read: Daily Legal Current Affairs 20 May 2024

Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited v. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union & Anr

• • BENCH : Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale
  • FORUM :  Supreme Court of India
• FACTS
• The case relates to the denial of the permanent status to the workmen by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited despite fulfilling the requirement of the law prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu.

• Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Workmen) Act, 1981 (“1981 Act”) confers permanent status to the workmen who are in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in an industrial establishment.
• The corporation denied the conferment of the permanent status on the ground that the activities undertaken by the corporation were not commercial in nature to attract the provision of the 1981 Act. It was argued that Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (“1947 Act”) bars the conferment of permanent status upon the workmen (as prescribed under the 1981 Act) employed in an industrial establishment engaged in the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work whether structural, mechanical or electrical.  Since the corporation is involved in the construction activities for designing and constructing hospital buildings for the Government and private persons, therefore, it claimed exemption from conferring the permanent status to the workmen.
• OBSERVATIONS
• In a recent decision relating to the grant of permanent status to the workmen employed in the industrial establishments in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that the TN Medical Services Corporation could not deny the permanent status to the workmen if they have worked consecutively for more than 480 days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in the commercial establishment engaged

• After perusing the memorandum of Article of Association of the Corporation, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol stated that apart from engaging in the construction activities, the Corporation was engaged in other activities for commercial gains, and the construction activities were one amongst other activities carried on by the corporation.

• “This, however, in our view would not allow the Corporation to wash its hands off the responsibilities or obligations under the Act, since the construction to be undertaken by the Corporation, is only one of the many activities to be undertaken by it. To take all the workers out of the purview of the Act, especially, when the said workers, like the members of the respondent union, were not the ones undertaking construction is unwarranted.”
• The court said.  “As such, both requirements, of the establishment being covered under the definition of industrial establishment as provided and that of the employee having uninterruptedly continued in service for 480 days or more for 24 months, having been met we have no hesitation in holding that the Act would apply to the parties to the present dispute.”, the court concluded.

In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services Smw(C)

• BENCH : Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Karol
• FORUM :  Supreme Court of India

• OBSERVATIONS

• The Supreme Court  resumed its hearing in a suo motu matter regarding a rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh that excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.

• As an interim relief, the Bench passed an order that the candidates with various disabilities who appeared for the final examination will be allowed to appear for an interview if they have secured minimum marks as provided for the SC/ST candidates.

• It may be recalled that the Court took suo motu cognizance of a letter sent to CJI DY Chandrachud by the mother of one of the visually impaired candidates against such exclusion.

• Converting the letter petition into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the CJI-led bench had issued notice to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

• Previously, the Court had also noted that the Civil Judge Class-II examination conducted in 2022 did not include reservation slots for visually impaired participants, a move that significantly contradicts the principles laid out in the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Considering that the main exam was scheduled to be held on 30 and 31 March 2024, the bench had also issued a slew of interim measures.

• The Bench was made aware that after the Court passed the aforementioned order, 31 candidates were allowed to appear. However, none of the candidates have secured the minimum marks to appear for the interview.

• The amicus also expressed the difficulty of not having a separate cut-off for persons with disabilities.  Based on this, Justice Narasimha posed whether, in such cases, there could be separate reservations. He elaborated by saying that “there can always be some quota for women. For sports there can be some quota. What is wrong (with this category)?”
• In view of these circumstances, the Court indicated that this issue about providing reservations, separately for these categories, will have to be heard for the purpose of laying down the law. Nevertheless, as an interim measure and to take its previous order to a logical end, the Court passed the following order:
• In furtherance of our order dated March 21st, 2024 we are informed that 31 candidates, with various disabilities, have appeared in the main examination. It is submitted that none of them were called for an interview either on the ground of eligibility or for not securing minimum marks. We direct that if any of these 31 candidates have secured minimum marks as provided for the reserved candidates (SC/ST), they shall, as an interim measure, be called for an interview. This direction is subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.”  Notably, before parting, Justice Narasimha stated that every selection process in our country gets into litigation. There is not a single HC that has successfully conducted a selection process without litigation. Even before you commence it, litigation starts."
• The Supreme Court, in its 2021 judgment in the case Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (authored by Justice Chandrachud, as he was then), overruled an earlier precedent which excluded candidates with more than 50% visual or hearing disability from judicial service.

Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement And Another

• BENCH :  Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
• FORUM :  Supreme Court of India
• PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION - Section 436 A of Criminal Procedure Code
  • Section 436A - Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained
    • Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties
    • Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties.
    • Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.
    • Explanation.—In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.

• OBSERVATIONS
  • The Supreme Court has reiterated that the benefit of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable even to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).  As per Section 436A CrPC, a person who has spent one half of the maximum period of the prescribed sentence as an undertrial shall be released on bail.
    • In this case, the accused would complete 31⁄2 years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024, meaning he would complete half of the prescribed sentence.

• In the 2022 judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , the Supreme Court had held that Section 436A CrPC can be applied in PMLA cases.  "It is to be noted that the Section 436A of the 1973 Code was inserted after the enactment of the 2002 Act. Thus, it would not be appropriate to deny the relief of Section 436A of the 1973 Code which is a wholesome provision beneficial to a person accused under the 2002 Act," the judgment held.
• Applying this precedent, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in the instant case chose to allow the release of the undertrial prisoner on bail as per Section 436A CrPC.  "This Court has held that Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CRPC") will apply even to a case under the PMLA. But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused, " the bench observed.
• In this case, even the charges have not been framed and hence it cannot be said that the accused has delayed the trial, which has not even started.  "In the facts of the case, we find that there is no prospect of even the trial commencing, as the charge has not been framed. In these facts, we find that the appellant will be entitled to be enlarged on bail under section 436A of the CRPC on 27th May, 2024," the Court observed.
• The Court stated that the bail formalities will be completed before the trial court.