Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Feb 17 - 23]

'Absolute Exclusion Of Women From Command Appointments In Army Illegal': SC Dismisses Centre's Appeals Against Delhi HC Verdict [The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.] In a significant judgment on gender equality, the Supreme Court directed that Permanent Commission should be granted to women in the army regardless of their service, in all the ten streams where the Union Government has already taken a decision to grant Short Service Commission to women. The Court also held that absolute exclusion of women from command assignments is against Article 14 of the Constitution and unjustified. Therefore, the policy that women will be given only "staff appointments" was held to be unenforceable by the Court. ● Community Kitchens: SC Imposes Additional Cost On States For Failure To File Reply The Supreme Court imposed additional costs amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- on Maharashtra, Delhi, Manipur, and Orissa & Goa for failure to file their replies in a Petition seeking setting up of community kitchens PAN India, substantiating the total cost payable by each state to Rs. 10 Lacs. Last week, the Bench comprising Justices NV Ramanna, Ajay Rastogi & V. Ramsubramian had imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lacs on several states for non-compliance of an earlier order dated 2nd September 2019, thereby directing the states to file their replies. ● Notion That Women Are 'Weaker Sex' Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset [The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.] The notions that women are the "weaker" sex and may not undertake tasks that are "too arduous‟ for them are constitutionally flawed, observed the Supreme Court, in its judgment which held that the absolute exclusion of women from Command Appointments In Army is Illegal. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that to cast aspersion on their abilities on the ground of gender is an affront not only to their dignity as women but to the dignity of the members of the Indian Army – men and women – who serve as equal citizens in a common mission. ● Parental Responsibility Does Not End With Breakdown Of Marriage: SC [Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar] The Supreme Court has observed that the parental responsibility of the couple does not end even if there is a breakdown of the marriage. In a custody battle, no matter which parent wins but the child is always the loser and it is the children who pay the heaviest price as they are shattered when the Court by its judicial process tells them to go with the parent whom he or she deems, remarked the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi while considering a civil appeal in a matrimonial case. ● Right To Pension Cannot Be Taken Away By A Mere Executive Fiat Or Administrative Instruction [Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar & Ors.] The Supreme Court has observed that the right to pension is covered under a right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and it cannot be taken away by a mere executive fiat or administrative instruction. The issue considered by the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra in this appeal was whether the State of Bihar was justified in withholding 10% pension and full gratuity of its employee under Circulars, and Government Resolution issued by it, on the ground of pending criminal proceedings? ● HC Collegium Recommendations Must Be Continuing Process Without Waiting For Results Of Earlier Lists [M/s Plr Projects Pvt. Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd & Ors.] The Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts should continuously recommend names for judicial appointments in anticipation of vacancies, regardless of the pendency of the earlier recommendations. A bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said that there should be a "continuing process" of recommending names without waiting for the results of earlier recommendations. ● Judicial Officers Cannot Seek Direct Recruitment To Post Of District Judges Against Quota For Advocates [Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that civil judges are not eligible to seek direct recruitment to post of District Judges in bar quota. Eligibility under Article 233(2) of the Constitution requires 7 years of continuous practice. "Only practising candidates can avail the quota. It is exclusively for them", Justice Arun Mishra, dictating the order, said. "Article 233(2) nowhere provides eligibility of in-service candidates for consideration as a District Judge concerning a post requiring 7 years' practise as an advocate or a pleader. The requirement of 7 years' experience for advocate or pleader is qualified with a rider that he should not be in the service of the Union or the State", the Court ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Feb 17 - 23]

Arabhi Anandan

Tags