Top Quotes From The Top Court : Supreme Court Weekly Review [January 23-29]

As promised, we bring to you a compilation of the most impactful observations made by the Supreme Court, a judicial ‘action recap’, as it were! Here are our top picks from the week starting from Monday, January 23: 1. Healthcare policies not to short-change citizens living in rural areas “The framers of the Constitution, in Article 47, have directed the union and state governments to regard the ‘improvement of public health’, as its primary duty. It follows from this directive that the State shall make all possible efforts to ensure equitable access to healthcare services. These efforts must be made to progressively realize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as acknowledged in international conventions and agreements. While the State has every right to devise policies for public health and medical education, with due regard to peculiar social and financial considerations, these policies ought not to cause unfair disadvantage to any class of citizens. The citizens residing in rural areas have an equal right to access healthcare services, by duly qualified staff. Policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not short-change the citizens residing in rural areas or subject them to direct or indirect forms of unfair discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence. Any variation between the standards of qualification required for medical practitioners who render services in rural areas qua the medical practitioners rendering services in urban or metropolitan areas must prescribe to constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination. We may hasten to add that deciding the particular qualifications for medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary or tertiary medical services, is within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the said mandate by the Parliament. The above ought to be considered in the spirit of constitutional goals and statesmanship subserving, as it does, the common good of the citizenry of our Country.” [Justice B.V. Nagarathna in Baharul Islam and Ors. v. Indian Medical Association and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56] 2. Removing vice from previous legislation not encroachment on judicial power “The legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision. But when a competent legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation. Such legislative device which removes the vice in previous legislation which has been declared unconstitutional is not considered an encroachment on judicial power but an instance of abrogation. The power of the sovereign legislature to legislate within its field, both prospectively and retrospectively cannot be questioned. It would be permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers by way of judicial review. This defect can be removed both retrospectively and prospectively by a legislative process and the previous actions can also be validated. But where there is a mere validation without the defect being legislatively removed, the legislative action will amount to overruling the judgment by a legislative fiat which is invalid…[Therefore] the petitions challenging the vires of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 are liable to be dismissed, and are accordingly dismissed. The said Act has been enacted with a view to restore the position of the diploma holders in medicine and to give them continuity in service. The said Act has been enacted by a valid legislative exercise, and does not transgress any other constitutional limitation and in accordance with Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and is not in conflict with the IMC Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder as per Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.” [Justice B.V. Nagarathna in Baharul Islam and Ors. v. Indian Medical Association and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56] 3. Purse seine fishing raises issues regarding biodiversity and conflict of economic interests between fishermen “The Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu had banned, inter alia, the use of Purse Seine Fishing nets within its territorial waters i.e., within 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres from the coast line). …The petitioners are aggrieved by the restrictions imposed by the Tamil Nadu Government. Whether the ban imposed by the State Government, within its territorial waters is justified, is a matter which is pending consideration by this Court. The method of Purse Seine Fishing has more than one aspect which ...

Top Quotes From The Top Court : Supreme Court Weekly Review [January 23-29]

Awstika Das

Tags