Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 263 To LL 2021 SC 278]

1. 'Digital Divide Will Have Serious Implications On Right To Equality & Health': Supreme Court On CoWIN Portal [Case: Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic; Citation: LL 2021 SC 263]A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhatt flagged the digital divide afflicting the accessibility to the CoWIN portal by stating that it could have serious implications on right to equality and right to health. It observed, "A vaccination policy exclusively relying on a digital portal for vaccinating a significant population of this country between the ages of 18-44 years would be unable to meet its target of universal immunization owing to such a digital divide. It is the marginalized sections of the society who would bear the brunt of this accessibility barrier." The order also stated that it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the CoWIN platform is not accessible to persons with visual disabilities, and that the accessibility barriers should be addressed. The Court also opined that the CoWIN platform and other IT applications like Aarogya Setu should be made available in regional languages to increase accessibility. Also Read: How Rs 35000 Crores Budget Allocation Spent For Vaccines? Why Can't It Be Used To Vaccinate 18-44 Years Group? SC Asks CentreAlso Read: Centre's Policy Of Paid Vaccination For 18-44 Years Prima Facie Arbitrary & Irrational : Supreme Court Also Read: Constitution Doesn't Envisage Courts To Be Silent Spectators When Executive Policies Infringe Citizens' Rights : SC In COVID Vaccine Case 2. 'Name Is An Intrinsic Element Of Identity': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recording Corrections & Changes In CBSE Certificates[Case: Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E; Citation: LL 2021 SC 264]A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari issued guidelines for the Central Board of Secondary Education to process the applications for correction or change in the certificates issued by it. The Court also directed CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its Byelaws so as to incorporate these guidelines for recording correction or change in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it. The Court also held that name is an intrinsic element of one's identity. Further, the Court observed that the Byelaws of the Board have the force of law and must be regarded as such for all legal purposes. The Court also added that even if it is held that the Examination Byelaws are not "law" under Article 13 of the Constitution, it would not affect the power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference to Part ¬III of the Constitution as CBSE is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and all its actions are consequently subject to Part III of the Constitution.3. Contempt Action Can Be Taken Only In Respect Of Established Willful Disobedience Of Court Order, Reiterates Supreme Court[Case: Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik; Citation: LL 2021 SC 265] A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai reiterated the principle that a contempt action can be taken only in respect of established willful disobedience of the Court order. ""In exercising contempt jurisdiction, the primary concern must be whether the acts of commission or omission can be said to be contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions given in the judgment and order of the Court", it observed. In the instant case, the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam had terminated the service of the petitioners and consequently such an order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court which ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioners. This was later upheld by the Supreme Court consequent to which contempt petitions were filed alleging violation of directions issued by the Court. The Court noted that the concerned High Court and the Supreme Court orders do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the petitioners as the expression used in the order was "to permit the petitioners to work on the posts". Thus this was not a case of willful disobedience, the Court noted. 4. 'Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment': Supreme Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua [Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 266]A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR against senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh." In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read down Section 124A IPC and held that the application of the provision should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 263 To LL 2021 SC 278]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags