Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Top Stories This Week: 1. [Students Vs UGC] Students Cannot Be Promoted Without Exams;States May Approach UGC To Postpone Exams Citing COVID-19: SC [Praneeth K V. UGC/Batch Pleas]The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of the petitions challenging the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for conducting final semester exams by September 30 with following orders :1. The bench has refused the prayer to quash the UGC guidelines to hold the exams.2.The directions of State Disaster Management Authority for canceling exams in that particular State will prevail over the UGC direction.3. However, the direction of the State Disaster Management Authority to pass the students on the basis of previous performance is beyond the scope of the Disaster Management Act.4. States/UTs cannot promote final year students without examination as ordered by UGC. States/Union Territories given liberty to approach the UGC to seek postponement of the exams in the light of COVID19 pandemic situation.Also Read: State Govt/SDMA Can Override UGC Deadline For Exam Based On Local Pandemic Situation: SC2. Is Sub-Classification Permissible Within SC-ST Reservation? SC 5 Judge Bench Refers Matter To Larger Bench; Says 'EV Chinnaiah' Decision Needs Reconsideration [State of Punjab V. Davinder Singh & Ors.]A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger bench. The bench expressed the view that once a State Government has the power to make reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list. "In a federal structure, the State Government cannot be denied the power to make laws to give preferential treatment to sub-categories within the reservation list", Justice Arun Mishra observed, while reading out the operative portion of the judgment.3. 'Tells Us What Is Wrong In Using The Word "Apology"': Asks Justice Mishra As SC Reserves Judgment In Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case Over Two Tweets [In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr.]The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Tuesday reserved judgment on the sentence in the suo moto contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan over his tweets. "Tell us what is wrong in using the word 'apology'? What is wrong in seeking apology? Will that be reflection of the guilty? Apology is a magical word, which can heal many things. I am talking generally and not about Prashant. You will go to the category of Mahatma Gandhi, if you apologise. Gandhiji used to do that. If you have hurt anybody, you must apply balm. One should not feel belittled by that", observed Justice Mishra while reserving Judgment.Also Read: 'We Expected Something Better', SC On Prashant Bhushan's Statement; AG Urges Court To Take 'Compassionate View'4. SC Bench Headed by Justice Arun Mishra Refers 11 Year Old Contempt Case Against Prashant Bhushan To CJI To Post Before Appropriate Bench [Amicus Curiae V. Prashant Bhushan]The Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Tuesday directed the listing of the 2009 contempt case against Prashant Bhushan before another bench on September 10 based on the orders of CJI. "I am short of time. I am demiting office", J Mishra observed. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, submitted that he has raised some questions of law and that the matter ought to be referred to Constitution Bench. Dhavan also urged the bench to hear Attorney General as issues of constitutional importance are involved.5. SC Refuses Pre-Broadcast Order To Stop Sudarshan TV's Alleged Communal Program On Muslims Clearing UPSC [Firoz Iqbal Khan V. UOI & Ors.]The Supreme Court on Friday refused to pass a pre-broadcast injunction order to stop the telecast of a show in Sudarshan TV which was allegedly communalising the selection of Muslims in UPSC exams. In a petition filed by one Firoz Iqbal Khan, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud & KM Joseph stated that it has to desist from imposing a pre-broadcast injunction on the basis of an "unverified transcript of a 49 second clip". The court noted that during the hearing it had been highlighted that the expression of views derogatory to a particular community had a "divisive potential" and the petition had thus raised significant issues bearing on the "protection of constitutional rights".6. "Community May Be Targeted For Spreading Virus" SC Refuses Permission To Hold Muharram Procession [Syed Kalbe Javed V. UOI]The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to grant permission to hold Muharram Procession amid the covid19 pandemic. A bench of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun observed that granting general directions to take out the procession across the country shall lead to chaos & a particular community may then be targeted for...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Week Commencing August 24 to August 30, 2020