Latest legal News | Top legal News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking legal News Today | English legal News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

Man Seeks Legal Action Against Wife’s Family for Giving ‘Undemanded Dowry’

November 9, 2024, 11:56 am

In an unusual incident, a man sought criminal proceedings against his wife’s family, claiming they had given him dowry without his request. However, his plea was dismissed by the court, and he failed to reverse this decision on appeal.

Additional Sessions Judge Navjeet Budhiraja presided over the man’s revision plea against a July 2022 magisterial court ruling, which had dismissed his request for an FIR against his in-laws, including his wife’s parents and brother, alleging they had given him dowry. Notably, the man is currently facing a case of cruelty filed by his wife’s family.

During the October 5 order, Judge Budhiraja noted that the in-laws had already filed an FIR against him under Section 498A of the IPC, concerning alleged cruelty toward his wife. The court emphasized that “until the evidence is led by both the parties during the trial, the aspect of whether dowry was demanded or not cannot be effectively adjudicated upon.” It further observed that the man’s claim of not demanding dowry, despite receiving Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 46,500 in his account, appeared self-serving at this stage.

The magistrate’s observations also highlighted that the wife’s family had reportedly admitted, while filing their own FIR, to paying dowry to the man, which the court noted is a violation under the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per Section 3 of this Act, penalties apply for both giving and receiving dowry.

Judge Budhiraja further cited the magistrate’s findings, which indicated that the man’s repeated claims of not demanding dowry lacked evidence and seemed to be an “attempt to hoodwink this court.” Additionally, the magistrate pointed out that Kumar had not disclosed serious allegations made against him by his in-laws about his persistent dowry demands.

The court concluded that the magistrate had “suitably addressed” the issues raised in the complaint, and found no grounds to overturn the initial dismissal order, noting no legal flaw in the magistrate’s decision.

Mercedes Front Wing Concept: Formula 1 Legal Controversy

September 14, 2024, 5:10 am

The Formula 1 (F1) world has stirred up in the last couple of months with the latest developments of the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team, the ground-breaking front wing design that has stated to revolutionize the aerodynamics of the cars in the sport. What has been spectated is that this innovation might just be potential to give Mercedes a competitive edge, which has driven the spark for the legal controversy for the emotive balance between technological progress and the adherence to the F1 regulations.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Compliance Disputes
The debut of the Mercedes’ new front wing at the 2024 Canadian Grand Prix, made a big-note on the series of aerodynamic modifications that it brought, a feature that aimed at providing a more rebalanced downforce in comparison to the old wings (Straw). However, this innovative design came under the immediate radar of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) the governing body of motor sports.
The technical regulations of the FIA have always been dubbed as being notoriously stringent, which have placed exceptionally detailed specifications on the material to be used, the dimensions and the prohibition of movable aerodynamic devices in F1 motor-cars. The Technical Regulations of the FIA under Article 3 explicitly define these parameters. Under the sub-section of Article 3, that is 3.2 which talks about the General Principles and Legality Checking, 3.2.1 talks about the Objective of Article 3, which is an important objective of the Regulations in Article 3 is to enable cars to race closely, by ensuring that the aerodynamic performance loss of a car following another car is kept to a minimum (2024 Formula 1 Technical Regulations). Keeping this in mind an initial assessment of the Mercedes’ wing suggested a breach of the boundaries of these rules.

Patent Battles and Intellectual Property Pertinence
The cutting-edge innovation brought out by Mercedes along with regulatory compliance also raises significant intellectual property (IP) disputes as well. Concerns have always surrounded almost every sport where the teams have spent millions on research and development. To protect these crucial and much needed investments patents are generated. One might instinctively assume that patent protection would be the national resource for safeguarding F1 teams’ intellectual property, given that traditionally, a patent grants exclusive rights to inventive and “non-obvious” creations, providing a limited monopoly over their use (Dhamsania).
However, even after Mercedes filing several patents in regard to their new front wing design, many rival teams, especially Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Ferrari are monitoring their situation to spot any kind of patent infringements. And statements have built that in the hypothetical situation of Mercedes infringing on any existing patents then legal charges could be set on them, resulting in modification in the design or ban.

Competitive Dynamics and Potential Protests
The front wing design has inevitably stirred the competitive pot for all F1 teams. It is well aware that even a marginal aerodynamic advantage of any car can result in significant gains on the track. And through reports, many teams have considered lodging formal protests against the Mercedes design with the FIA.
Any protest involves a process of detailed review by the FIA, resulting in hearings before the International Court of Appeal. This has set multiple questioning in relation to whether the legalities of the sport are being followed. Much adversities can follow, with the element of uncertainty in the competition.

Broader Impact for the Future of F1
What the main highlights of front wing issue has been to accentuate the broader tension between innovation and the regulations that limit some of these possibilities. The Mercedes saga has undoubtedly created a challenge for the FIA to assess the thin grey line between innovation and the maintenance of safety and fairness. Most importantly, mid-season directives, could become a reality to address the new developments, with the controversies we have seen so far. With the progress of this season, there is no doubt that all eyes would be on Mercedes and their performance alongside handling the legal challenges that they faced. As the technology evolves, driving will be seen with a new era of aerodynamic innovation which needs to be incorporated in the rules and regulations of the FIA.
The legal interest in this case would definitely be influenced by all the factors enlisted above and much more, setting precedents for the future of moto racing as well. This intersection would absolutely provide competition to all the teams participating in the race, because of the intersection of the critical aspects of technology and law in the Formula 1 races.

Conclusion
To conclude is to say that the front wing dispute of Mercedes is more than just a dispute based on technical regulations. This case threads on many levels, with issues at just the concept design of the new car, to the infringement cases based on IP law that could adversely effect Mercedes this season. On some not the developments in such manner would definitely strengthen other teams to look into such enhancements for healthy and fair competition. But at the same time speaking conversely, if it is held non-compliant then it is natural that all the teams will have to be cautious in the innovations that are done, encouraging a clear framework. At the same time the growth and popularity that Formula 1 has seen in the recent years, has also led to fans, sponsors, and stakeholders, keenly observing the disputes, issues and developments. Hence it is pre-emptive to balance the reputation and regulation of the sport with the developments that are done. At this crucial juncture it is the unique blend of law, technological prowess, and competitive spirit that drives the dynamic sport to the glory it is.

Pune Porsche Hit-and-Run Case: Police Verify Interrogation of NCP MLA Sunil Tingre

September 7, 2024, 4:27 am

On Friday, Pune city police confirmed that they have questioned National Congress Party (NCP) MLA Sunil Tingre in connection with the Porsche car accident case.

Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar stated, “Yes, we have inquired about everyone directly or indirectly involved in the Porsche car case, including MLA Sunil Tingre.”

The incident occurred on May 19, when a 17-year-old driving a luxury Porsche crashed into a motorcycle, resulting in the deaths of two young riders in Kalyaninagar. Following the accident, there were allegations that MLA Tingre attempted to intervene at the police station to protect the juvenile driver and used his political influence to sway the investigation.

MLA Tingre has denied these allegations.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar recently mentioned in a public speech that Tingre was questioned by the police for three to four hours. Pawar asserted that Tingre had clarified his lack of involvement in the case and criticized those attempting to implicate him unfairly.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: ‘Sufficient Cause’ IN Limitation Act Cannot Be Liberally Constructed For Govt Departments

December 30, 2023, 6:37 am

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case Union of India Vs Jagjeet Kour observed and has held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally construed just because a government department is seeking the condonation of delay.

The bench headed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani in the case observed and has dismissed the application moved wherein seeking condonation of a 65-day delay in filing a review petition by the Union of India.
The court in the case observed and has emphasized that the government departments are equally being bound by the law of limitation and must provide cogent and plausible explanations for delays.

Facts of the case:

In the present case, the bench of Justice Wanu was hearing the Review petition which arose from a writ petition filed by Jagjeet Kour, wherein seeking the compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, who being an employee of the Union of India.

The Single bench of High Court in the case observed and has directed the Union to offer compassionate appointment to Kour within four weeks. Thus, the Union seek to challenge this order through a review petition, but filed it 65 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

It has been argued by the Union before the court that the delay was caused due to administrative processes, including record collection, legal advice, and inter-departmental consultations.

Further, it has been contended by them before the court that government departments should be given more leeway in matters of condonation of delay.

Observations Made By Court:

The court in the case emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even in cases involving government departments.
The bench in the case referred to several precedents, which includes the pivotal case of ‘P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala,’ wherein it highlighted the necessity for a sufficient and plausible cause for condoning delays.

The court in the case observed and has expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided in the application.
the bench of Justice Wani in the case stated that it lacked specificity regarding when the order was received, thus, when the said matter was considered at various levels, and when legal advice was sought and obtained.

The court noted that the explanation presented was neither plausible nor sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.
The court stated that the explanation offered in the application per-se is casual and cryptic and even the affidavit accompanying the application in support thereof is having filled in blanks and manifestly a stereotype one.

The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed wherein the application is moved seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the consequent dismissal of the accompanying Review Petition.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application.

Bombay High Court: Juvenile Justice Act 2015| No Insistence On DOB Certificate From First School Attended To Determine Juvenility Of Accused

December 30, 2023, 6:33 am

The Bombay High Court in the case observed and has held that an accused claiming to be a juvenile need not produce a Date of Birth, DOB certificate from his ‘first’ school to determine his age and a certificate from any school he attended can be submitted under the new Juvenile Justice Act 2015, JJ Act.

The bench headed by Justice SM Modak in the case observed and has set aside the order of trial court that adjudicated the accused’s plea based on the old JJ Act and Rules.
In the present case, the FIR was registered for kidnapping and rape, as well as under section of 4 and section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the accused claimed that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence in 2018.

It has been asked by the session court that the accused to submit documents about his date of birth as per Section 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules, 2007, requiring a certificate from the school first attended.
The bench of Justice Modak in the case observed that although the trial Court considered Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules, now 2015 Act and 2016 Rules are enacted. So, earlier the rules do not exist.
The court in the case also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in the case Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the High Court stated that what was provided under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules 2007 has been provided under Section 94 of the JJ Act 2015.
It has also been stated that Section 94(2)(i) only refers to ‘date of birth certificate from the school” and does not insist on the first school certificate.’

The bench of Justice Modak in the case observed and has held that the Section 9(2) of the Act talks about conducting an enquiry by the Court by taking the evidence and as per the proviso, such enquiry has to be conducted as per the Rules. Therefore, the court stated that Section 94(2) of the 2015 Act refers to date of birth certificate from the school. It no more says about second school.

The court quashed the Sessions Court order and has remanded the matter back for an inquiry by the trial court under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has granted the accused the liberty to ask his second school to produce any certificate obtained from the first school.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.

Bill To Regulate Appointment Of Chief Election Commissioner And Election Commissioners Gets Presidential Assent

December 30, 2023, 6:15 am

The President gave her assent to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners, the Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill 2023.
The bill among other things seeks to establish the mechanism for appointing the top election officials in the country. The Bill which repealed the 1991 Act and the bill provides for the appointment process and the conditions of services for the CEC and ECs, was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 21. The Rajya Sabha passed the bill on December 12.

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners, the Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office Bill 2023 gets the assent of President.
The Bill essentially aimed to regulate the appointment, conditions of service, and term of office for the chief election commissioner, CEC and other election commissioners, EC, as well as outline the procedure for the functioning of the Election Commission.

The key provision of the bill includes the replacement of the Election Commission (the Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
The bill covers the aspects such as the appointment, salary, and the removal of CEC and the other election commissioners.
The Bill stated that the resident would appoint the CEC and ECs which is based on the recommendation of a selection committee, comprising the prime minister, a union cabinet minister, and the leader of the opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.

The recommendation made by the said committee would remain valid even in the absence of a full committee. A search committee, headed by the Law Minister, would propose a panel of names to the selection committee, with eligibility criteria requiring candidates to have held a position which being equivalent to the secretary to the central government and the salary and the conditions of service for the CEC and ECs were set to be equivalent to that of the cabinet secretary, deviating from the previous equivalence with a Supreme Court judge’s salary.

Therefore, the bill drops the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee. This year, in March, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the election commissioners shall be selected by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and the chief justice, till the parliament frames a law prescribing the selection process.

It has been noted that that Article 324 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner, CEC and the determined number of Election Commissioners, ECs as it is determined by the President. However, the Election Commission of India, ELC is tasked with overseeing the compilation of electoral rolls and the organizing elections for Parliament, State Legislatures, as well as the offices of the President and Vice-President.

According to the constitution, the appointment of CEC and ECs is to be made by the President, in accordance with the provisions which are outlined in an Act of Parliament.
The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act was enacted by Parliament in the year 1991.
Therefore, the legislation established the remuneration of the Chief Election Commissioner, CEC and Election Commissioners, ECs at a level equivalent to that of a Supreme Court judge.
The said Act did not address the procedure for the appointment of them, leaving this matter to be determined by the President.

Delhi High Court Dismissed TV Today Network’s Petition Against Orders To Run Apology Scroll For Broadcasting Advertisements Promoting Liquor Brand Names

December 26, 2023, 5:10 am

The Delhi High Court in the case TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India and Anr observed and has refused to interfere with orders passed by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, whereby TV Today Network, operator, or owner of India Today and Aaj Tak, was directed to run an apology scroll for broadcasting advertisements which are promoting brand names associated with the alcohol produces.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case observed while dismissing the plea moved by Network, wherein the court observed that Rule 7(2)(viii) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (and its proviso) permit advertisement of a product that may bear a name also used in connection with prohibited articles.
The court stated that such advertisement is subject to conditions, which were contravened in the instant case.

The court observed that the Network broadcasted two advertisements. Thus, one pertains to ‘100 Pipers Music CDs’ and the other to ‘ll Seasons Club Soda’.
The letter has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Network stating that the advertisements broadcasted by it promoted brand names associated with alcohol produces.
The court observed that when the Network was granted an opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority, it came up that the Network had no means to verify the advertisement as well as the certificate issued by Central Board of Film Certification, CBFC.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 then issued an advisory providing a mechanism for verification of CBFC certificates.

The court observed that the impugned orders were passed, wherein the court directed CBFC certificate pertaining to the ‘100 Pipers’ advertisement. It was urged with respect to the ‘All Seasons’ broadcast that the brand name is commonly used in connection with products other than liquor.

It was contended also contended before the court that the Network’s channels had acted in good faith, and were not obliged to compare clips provided by the advertiser with the one certified by CBFC prior to running. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Union of India stated that ‘100 Pipers’ advertisement carried a logo of the liquor brand, in violation of Rule 7(2)(viii) of the 1994 Rules. Thus, with regards to all the All-Seasons’ advertisement, it was urged that the advertisement showed a liquor bottle and as such could not come within the purview of ‘surrogate advertisement’. Besides, the said clip was not CBFC-certified.

The court in the case observed and has held that since the provisions of Rule 7 has not been complied with, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that they had proceeded in good faith which being on the basis of the CBFC certificate which was submitted by the advertiser cannot be accepted as the Rules do not permit the broadcaster to independently ascertain the veracity of the clip that is provided by the advertiser.
The court also observed with regard to the ‘All Seasons’ advertisement that the same was not certified by CBFC. Further, the court observed that the issue was stated to have attained finality in view of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dealing with the same advertisement in the case New Delhi Television Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

The counsel, Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Kumar Kshitij, Radhika Gupta, and Saumitra appeared for petitioner (TV Today Network).
The counsel, CGSC Apoorv Kashyap with Advocates Kirti Dadheech, Akhil Hasija, and Ojaswa Pathak appeared for respondent (Union Of India).

Reforming freebies for sustainable socio-economic growth: Balancing relief & prudence

December 26, 2023, 4:33 am

In the vibrant tapestry of Indian politics, the trend of “Freebies Politics” has woven itself into the very fabric of electoral campaigns, offering promises of immediate relief and socio-economic upliftment. While the allure of free goods and financial incentives may resonate with a broad spectrum of the electorate, it is imperative to peel back the layers and explore the nuanced realities that underlie this seemingly benevolent phenomenon.

At first glance, the distribution of freebies appears to be a commendable strategy to address the immediate needs of the socio-economically vulnerable sections of society. Subsidized essentials, cash transfers, and other such measures are portrayed as instruments of empowerment, promising to bridge the gaps of inequality and uplift the marginalized. However, as we delve deeper into the ramifications, a more complex and, at times, unsettling narrative emerges.

The foremost concern revolves around the sustainability of these populist policies. While the short-term benefits may resonate with voters, the long-term fiscal implications cannot be ignored. Widespread adoption of freebies poses a substantial strain on state finances, potentially leading to a precarious economic situation. As India aspires for robust economic growth and development, a delicate balance must be struck between meeting immediate needs and ensuring the fiscal stability that forms the bedrock of sustainable progress.
Equally critical is the examination of the electoral dynamics sculpted by freebies politics. Are these measures genuine attempts at social empowerment, or do they risk devolving into electoral tactics that overshadow more comprehensive and enduring development agendas? The potential distortion of democratic values through the lure of immediate gratification demands our attention and scrutiny.

Beyond the policy intricacies, freebies politics invites us to question the very essence of governance quality. Does the focus on short-term gains compromise the pursuit of a more holistic and sustainable development vision? As citizens, we must actively engage in this discourse, moving beyond the surface allure of freebies to demand transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to the long-term well-being of the nation.
The need for an informed and vigilant electorate is paramount. As we witness the rise of freebies politics, it is crucial for citizens to be discerning participants in the democratic process. In doing so, we contribute to a narrative that transcends the dichotomy of support or opposition, aiming instead for a comprehensive understanding of the socio-economic implications and the preservation of democratic ideals.

India stands at a crossroads where choices made today will reverberate for generations. The unfolding saga of freebies politics demands our collective attention, urging us to see beyond the immediate allure and contemplate the far-reaching consequences. In navigating this complex terrain, we have the opportunity to redefine the contours of Indian democracy, ensuring that it thrives not just in the moment but for the sustained progress and prosperity of all its citizens.

The discourse on freebies politics in India necessitates a nuanced and introspective approach. Acknowledging the commendable intent behind addressing immediate needs, we must confront the sustainability challenges posed by these populist policies. Balancing fiscal responsibility with social welfare is crucial for the long-term economic health of the nation.
The electoral dynamics, often shaped by the allure of freebies, require careful scrutiny. Are these measures genuine instruments of social empowerment, or do they risk diluting the democratic essence by becoming mere tactical maneuvers for securing votes? This introspection is vital for preserving the integrity of the democratic process.

Moreover, the focus on governance quality in the context of freebies politics prompts us to question whether the pursuit of short-term gains compromises the vision for a more holistic and sustainable development trajectory. As citizens, our active engagement is pivotal in demanding transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the nation’s enduring welfare.
The imperative for an informed and vigilant electorate cannot be overstated. Beyond being passive recipients of political promises, citizens must actively participate in shaping the narrative of their democracy. By transcending the dichotomy of support or opposition and advocating for a more comprehensive understanding of the socio-economic implications, we contribute to the preservation of democratic ideals.

India, at this critical juncture, is not merely a spectator to the unfolding saga of freebies politics but an active participant in shaping its future. Choices made today will resonate for generations, and the opportunity lies in redefining the contours of Indian democracy. This requires a commitment to sustained progress, fiscal responsibility, and the prosperity of all its citizens. In striking this delicate balance, India can pave the way for a democracy that thrives not just in the moment but endures for the long-term well-being of its diverse populace.

(Abhinav Pandey is Legal Researcher and Third year Law Student at University Of Lucknow)

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF QUOTAS

May 15, 2023, 12:39 am

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a quota is a proportional share assigned to a person or group; an allotment or an official limit on the number or amount of something that is allowed or required over a given period; a minimum or maximum number. In India, quotas are provided in various areas like education, jobs, government schemes, scholarships, etc., for the disadvantaged groups of people. The constitutional validity of quotas has been a matter of great debate over the years and the Supreme Court has always played an important role in determining the constitutionality of quotas.
Analyzing the various judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court, it can be enunciated that many factors are considered by it while determining the constitutional validity of quotas. There must be a legitimate purpose of quotas such as promoting social justice or equality and their object must always be reasonable. No doubt, quotas can be granted for a specific group, such as a caste or tribe, or for a general category, such as women or the economically backward classes, etc., but they should never adversely affect the interests of other groups. The Supreme Court has also considered many factors, while determining the constitutional validity of quotas such as the history of discrimination and the need to promote equality.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the 27% reservation for SEBCs (Socially and Economically Backward Classes) was implemented in addition to the 22.5% reservation which already existed for the members of SCs/STs. In the year 1979, the Mandal Commission was set up to define the SEBCs and to identify the criteria for them. The Commission recommended reservation for the members of SEBCs and after the implementation of the said recommendation, the same was challenged. The Supreme Court validated the 27% reservation and held that there is an objective evaluation of the social and educational backwardness of classes behind the reservation and the criteria for a group to qualify for reservation is social and educational backwardness. The Court reiterated that the 50% cap in the vertical reservation category is to ensure efficiency in administration which can be breached in exceptional circumstances and decided the validity by considering the beneficial interest of the society.
In the years 1995 and 2000, Parliament enacted two amendments to the Constitution, namely, the 77th and 81st amendments, which introduced changes with respect to reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. The Supreme Court was faced with the challenge to these amendments in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, wherein the provisions 4A and 4B were added to Article 16 of the Constitution. The main point of contention that was raised by the Petitioner while challenging the amendments was that these amendments to the Constitution violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution and they provided preferential treatment to the members of SCs/ STs. It was also contended that the said amendments did not meet the test of backwardness as per the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked upon the historical aspects of the members of SCs/STs and observed that these amendments were necessary to address the historical disadvantages faced by these classes and that the said amendments are the remedial measures taken by the legislature to provide the members of SCs/ STs with equal opportunities. The Supreme Court also held that reservations in promotions can only be provided if there is sufficient data available to show the backwardness of SCs / STs in the concerned departments. The issue of the creamy layer was also raised as to whether this concept can be made applicable in the case of SCs/STs as well. To this, the Supreme Court, while upholding this contention, held that certain criteria for identifying the creamy layer within SCs/STs are required which include income, education, occupation and property.
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab is another important matter in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of quotas in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The matter arose out of a challenge to a Punjab government notification that reserved 16% of vacancies in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners argued that the notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Supreme Court held that the notification was constitutional and found that the government had a legitimate purpose in reserving vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, namely to promote social justice and equality. The Court also found that the notification was not excessive, as it only reserved 16% of vacancies and held that quotas are constitutional if they are for a legitimate purpose, such as promoting social justice or equality. The Court observed that quotas must be reasonable, not excessive and must not adversely affect the interests of other groups, such as the general category or merit. The Court also observed that providing quota was a necessary tool to address the historical discrimination faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Recently, the Supreme Court decided the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, in the matter of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, which authorized the State to provide reservations to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society in higher education and public employment. The said amendment inserted Clause 6 in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution which provided for 10% reservation to the people belonging to the EWS category. The main question for determination before the Supreme Court was whether reservation can be granted solely on the basis of economic criteria and whether EWS reservation breaches the 50% ceiling for reservation, established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment. The Supreme Court decided the validity by the 3:2 majority and held that reservation can be granted solely on the basis of economic criteria. It was held that the intention of the legislature and its reasonable justification in providing quotas, which if proven to be aligned, cannot be struck down by the Constitutional Courts. Further, the Court went on to hold that the exclusion of disadvantaged groups who are deriving benefits from reservations was in consonance with the right to equality and is not discriminatory in nature. On the point of the 50% ceiling limit, as prescribed by Indra Sawhney’s judgment, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the cap so fixed was flexible and only applied to the existing reservations for the members of SCs, STs and SEBCs. It was the conclusion of the Supreme Court that through this amendment, there seems to be no feature that violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
A conspectus of the above discussion would show that the Supreme Court has time and time again held that the quotas are a valid and constitutional exercise of government’s power to focus on the advancement of social and educational backwardness classes. The primary object of the provisions of the Constitution (Articles 14, 15 and 16) is to achieve social inclusion, which casts a duty on the State to make special provisions for citizens of India and to provide equal opportunity in terms of employment and education. The validity of quotas has been upheld by the Supreme Court by keeping in mind the legitimate purpose of quotas and their object, which must not be arbitrary. The reasonings given by the Supreme Court in numerous matters was at par with the social inclusion principles. It will also be in the fitness of things to mention that Dr. Ambedkar always argued that while equality of opportunity was a great principle in theory, there must be a provision to facilitate the entry of those communities into public employment who have historically been denied the chance to do so and the importance of this standpoint can be seen in the judgments of the Supreme Court in determining the constitutional validity of quotas.

Muneeb Rashid Malik and Samarth Kapoor are Advocates).

Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre regarding a petition for legal recognition of same-sex marriage

November 25, 2022, 3:13 pm

The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre on Friday on a petition to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages and alliances between members of the LGBTIQ+ community under the Special Marriage Act.

A division bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud directed that notices be issued not only to the Union government but also to the Attorney General of India. The case will be heard in four weeks by the court.

The Special Marriage Act of 1954 establishes a civil marriage for couples who are unable to marry under their personal law.

A gay couple had petitioned the Supreme Court for legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, as well as for appropriate direction to authorities to allow them to marry.

The petition cited the lack of a legal framework that allowed members of the LGBTQ+ community to marry whoever they wanted.

According to the petition, the couple sought to enforce LGBTQ+ individuals’ fundamental right to marry anyone of their choosing and stated that “the exercise of which ought to be insulated from the disdain of legislative and popular majorities”.

The petitioners also asserted their fundamental right to marry each other and requested that this Court issue appropriate directions allowing and enabling them to do so.

The petitioners, both LGBTQ+ members, argued that the right to many a person of one’s choice is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution to each “person” and has been explicitly recognised by this court.

They emphasised that the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that LGBTQ+ members have the same human, fundamental, and constitutional rights as other citizens.

However, the legal framework governing the institution of marriage in this country currently does not allow members of the LGBTQ+ community to marry the person of their choice and exercise the fundamental right guaranteed to them by our Constitution.