Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 22 to March 28 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. 'Structures Of Our Society Created By Males For Males' : Supreme Court Holds Army's Evaluation Criteria To Grant Permanent Commission For Women Officers ArbitraryCase Title : Lt Col Nitisha and othes v Union of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 181A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah declared that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to consider the grant of permanent commission for women officers to be "arbitrary and irrational". The Court directed the Army to reconsider the pleas of women Short Service Commission officers for grant of PC within two months in accordance with the fresh directions issued by the Court.The top court held that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Army to benchmark the women officers with the lowest credentials of their male counter-parts and to freeze their ACR evaluation at the 5th or 10th years of their services to be "arbitrary and irrational", causing women officers "systemic discrimination"."We must recognize here that the structures of our society have been created by males and for males. As a result, certain structures that may seem to be the "norm" and may appear to be harmless, are a reflection of the insidious patriarchal system.At the time of Independence, our Constitution sought to achieve a transformation in our society by envisaging equal opportunity in public employment and gender equality. Since then, we have continuously endeavored to achieve the guarantee of equality enshrined in our Constitution. A facially equal application of laws to unequal parties is a farce, when the law is structured to cater to a male standpoint....Superficial face of Equality does not stand true to the principles enshrined in the Constitution", the Court observed in the 137-page judgment.Also Read: 'Not Enough To Proudly Say Women Are Allowed To Serve Army When Their Service Conditions Tell A Different Story' : Supreme Court In Permanent Commission CaseAlso Read: Permanent Commission For Women Army Officers- Indirect Discrimination Even Without Discriminatory Intent Must Be Prohibited: Supreme Court2. Supreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To Reinstate Cyrus Mistry As ChairmanTitle : Tata Sons Ltd v Cyrus Mistry and others Citation : LL 2021 SC 184In a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.The Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their separation terms.On December 18, 2019, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. Allowing Mistry's appeal, the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the judgment of Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had upheld the appointment of N Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. The said NCLAT order was stayed by the Apex Court in January 2020 whereas the judgment was reserved on 17th December 2020.3. "Call For Justice Not Hate Speech": Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Patricia MukhimCase Title: Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. Citation: LL 2021 SC 182The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara and S. Ravindra Bhat this week quashed the FIR registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim over a Facebook post on violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya. The Court noted that the Facebook post was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters.The Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukhim challenging the Meghalaya High Court order which had dismissed her plea to quash the FIR."India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen's rights; they include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India. At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the state authorities turn a blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied – or delayed. This is exactly what appears to have happened in this case." The Bench held.Also Read: Free Speech Of...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 22 to March 28 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags