Important Legal News: May 2019

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India.

• In petitions, challenging the Scheme, filed by the NGOs Common Cause and Association for Democratic Reforms(ADR) and CPI (M), the SC declined to stay the controversial Electoral Bonds Scheme observing that the question could not be determined on the basis of a short hearing.
• But the bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi directed all parties to furnish by May 30 information as to the donations received by way of Electoral Bonds (including the identity of the donors, amounts received, details of payments, bank accounts etc) to the Election Commission in sealed covers. 

Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India.

• The SC held the right to travel abrod as an important basic human right as it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. 

Important Cases 2019: CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggrawal.

Issues:

• Whether the Supreme Court and the CJI are two separate public authorities.

• Held: Supreme Court of India is public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the office of CJI and other judges are part and parcel of the SC.
• The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are not two distinct and separate ‘public authorities’. Hence office of CJI is also a public authority.

• Meaning of term Public Interest.

• Held: Disclosure of information is determined by weighing the public interest in accepting exemptions  under Section 8(1)(j) in a particular case to deny information against the public interest in disclosure in such case.
• Possible harm or injury to third party must also be factored in when determining disclosure of confidential information relating to third parties under section 11.

• Whether asset declaration by Supreme Court Judges are “information”under the Act.

• Held: Information pertaining to declaration of assets by judges given to the CJI are information under section 2(f) of the Act.

Does the CJI hold such information in a “fiduciary” capacity?

• Held: The Chief Justice of India merely holds the information in accordance with the official functions and not in any fiduciary capacity.
• Hence its disclosure will not result in breach of fiduciary duty under section 8(1)(e).
• Such disclosure would not, in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacy of the judges.

Issue of Judicial Independence.

• Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand as accountability ensures, and is a facet of judicial independence. 
• Judicial independence does not mean the insulation of judges from the rule of law.
• Where judicial independence focuses on freedom, judicial accountability is concerned with the manner in which that freedom is exercised by the judges.



Right to information can never be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance to scuttle effective functioning of judiciary. 
Read the Full Judgment

Important Cases 2019: B K Pavitra v. Union of India-II.

B K Pavitra v. Union of India-II. On the provision of Article 16(4-A) as the impugned legislation of Karnataka government provided for consequential seniority for SC/STs after promotion.

• Act was held to be in conformity with the judgments of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh v. Lakshmi Narain Gupta.
• On question of administrative efficiency as mentioned under Article 335 of the Constitution, following views were held by Chandrachud J. that:
• No inference can be drawn that reservation in favour of SC/STs has negatively impacted efficiency.
• Meritorious candidate is not one who is merely talented but one whose appointment fulfills constitutional goal of uplifting SCs and STs.
•  Administrative efficiency in the affairs of the Union and state must be defined in inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation in public administration.

Censorship Issue: S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574

If we talk about censorship in Indian cinema's context, the first and most recent name appears, Bhansali-directed Padmavat, which was the focus of conflict in 2017 and at the outset of 2018. But very few of us are aware of another movie that drew the ire of politics in 1989. 

Ore Oru Gramathile, a Tamil movie, produced by Mr. S. Rangarajan, criticized the caste-based reservation policy in Tamil Nadu’s educational institutions. The producer had to fight against members of the Dr. Ambedkar People’s Movement and the Republican Party of India for securing release of the movie. The Tamil Nadu government seemed helpless and stopped the film’s release, on the apprehension of a “very serious” law and order problems across the state. 

Judgment of the Court.

The matter reached the court and the impasse was removed the apex court in the landmark judgment of S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574, wherein the court held that inability of the state  to handle the hostile audience problem was not a sound defence and it is its obligatory duty on the state to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.

Can failed affair lead to rape charges: SC

Looking into the trail of cases, wherein the women have used rape as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a man to marry, the Supreme Court has asked a question raising a doubt on a failed consensual relationship between adults lead to filing of rape charges against the man.

Last year, the Delhi HC noticed the issue and said rape cases were being used as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a man to marry.

The case before the apex court concerned a failed relationship between a top IDFC banker and a former cabin crew member with an international airline. The man said the highly educated and net savvy woman knew all along that he was married with two children and it was impossible to hide his marital status. He said he could not have induced sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.

The woman in her complaint accused him of sexually abusing her on the promise of marriage and threatening to circulate an indecent video of her prepared by him.

A vacation bench of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice SK Singh asked: "Why did you take the indecent photograph? You say it was a selfie. Is it possible to take selfie of a whole body?

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused, said: "People get carried away in such relationships. They had a peculiar relationship. The bench asked, "Peculiar? It can be called a cupid relationship not a stupid relationship."

When Luthra said that "breach of promise to marry" was not an ingredient for rape charges, the bench asked: "Where is it held (by a court) that if you had a relationship for two years (with a woman), it becomes rape when it failed?"

It was quite appreciable on the side of the Supreme Court, which has looked into the rising misuse of the rape as a weapon for girls to get the relationship converted into marriage. It can be noticed that though the women protection laws have the noble ideas of their protection, they are being misused as a weapon to get their means served. This hampers the basic goal served by these laws and by the law-makers.