List of Current Affairs

Why in News?  

Recently the Supreme Court said that it cannot take recourse to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 to order a blanket stay on various suits and legal proceedings pending in different courts across the country relating to disputed religious sites. 

Background  

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea which challenged the Act on the ground that it allows illegal acts of invaders to continue for perpetuity by barring legal remedies to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. 

The Apex Court said that no blanket stay can be granted by it and allowed the Central Government time till October 31, 2023, to file its response. 

Court’s Observations  

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra while adjourning the matter observed that the parties to each concerned case must seek stay from the concerned court by pointing out that the Place of Worship Act, 1991 is in operation and the same has not been stayed by Apex Court. 

Legal Provisions  

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 

This Act was introduced during the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.  

It aims to protect the status of all religious structures as it stood on August 15, 1947, by barring courts from entertaining cases which raise dispute over the character of such places of worship. 

Section 3 of this Act bars the conversion, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, or even a different segment of the same religious denomination. 

Section 5 of this Act, states that this Act does not apply to Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid and to any suit, appeal or proceeding relating to it. 

By virtue of Section 5 of this Act, the Supreme Court awarded the disputed site at Ayodhya to a trust for the construction of Ram Temple.   It also ordered the government to allot 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board out of the 68 acres acquired by the Centre or by the state within the city of Ayodhya. 

However, it lauded the Places of Worship Act as a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. 

Section 6 of this Act prescribes a punishment of maximum three years imprisonment along with a fine for contravening the provisions of the Act.  

Blanket order also known as general order refers to an order that is applicable to a large group of people or to a vast array of cases. They are orders without any restrictions or limitations as to their applicability. 

Why in News?

• A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court fixed the date of 5th of August 2023 to hear the petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • The petitions involving important legal and constitutional questions will be taken by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

Background

• On August 05, 2019, the Central Government issued an order (Presidential Order) amending the Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954 and superseding it with the Constitution (Application of Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 2019.
• The Central Government also amended Article 367 of the Constitution of India to add new clause (4), making the Constitution of India directly applicable to Jammu & Kashmir.
• As a result, all clauses of Article 370 ceased to operate, except clause 1, which was amended to state that the Constitution of India applies to the State of J&K. This scrapped the special status for J&K.
• Subsequently, the Jammu & Kashmir (Reorganization) Act, 2019 bifurcated J & K into two Union Territories.
• The hearing of the current matter started in December 2019 challenging the constitutionality of the abrogation of Article 370.
  • The petitions also challenge the J&K Re-organization Act, 2019 which bifurcated J&K into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
• An affidavit by the central government was filed in the matter of Shah Faesal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr regarding the present status of Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of its special status.
  • However, now the current petition will be referred to as In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution for all purposes.

Court Observation

A Constitution Bench said the Centre’s fresh affidavit claiming that Jammu and Kashmir is witnessing an “unprecedented era of peace, progress and prosperity” following the abrogation of Article 370 has “no bearing on the constitutional challenge” to the repeal of the provision.

Constitutional Challenges

• To challenge the Presidential Orders, the petitioners have invoked the ‘doctrine of colourability,’ which prohibits the passing of legislation seeking to doindirectly something not allowed to be done directly.
• Article 370(3) prohibited the President from amending Article 370 without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly. However, the two Presidential orders in effect did so without the Assembly’s concurrence, thereby subjecting them to a constitutional challenge.
• The petitioners have also argued that the 2019 Act is unconstitutional since Article 3 of the Constitution does not give the Parliament powers to downgrade federal democratic States into a less representative form such as a Union Territory.
• Several petitions also contend that in a federal democracy, the right to autonomous self-government is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution and cannot be taken away without adhering to the due procedure established by law.

Legal Provisions

Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950

• On October 17, 1949, Article 370 was added to the Constitution of India, as a 'temporary provision', which exempted Jammu & Kashmir, permitting it to draft its own Constitution and restricting the Parliament of India's legislative powers in the state.
• Article 370 provided for application of Article 1 and Article 370 of the Constitution of India to Jammu & Kashmir.
• Other provisions of the Constitution did not automatically extend to Jammu & Kashmir but clause (1)(d) of Article 370 empowered the President of India to extend them through an executive order with the concurrence of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.
• Article 370 was abrogated on 5th August 2019.
• Article 35A stems from Article 370 and was introduced through a Presidential Order in 1954, on the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
  • Article 35A empowers the Jammu & Kashmir legislature to define the permanent residents of the state, and their special rights and privileges.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019

• It is an act by the Parliament of India where the State of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two union territories — Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
• The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has a legislative assembly.
• Whereas the Union Territory of Ladakh does not have a legislative assembly and is administered by the Lieutenant Governor alone.
• The Union Territory of Ladakh will include the districts Leh and Kargil which, in effect, ceased to be part of the existing state of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The remaining territories remained with Jammu and Kashmir after the bifurcation.
• Representation in the House of People - Out of the six Lok Sabha seats in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, five remained with the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and one went to the Union Territory of Ladakh.
• The Election Commission may conduct Lok Sabha elections for both the Union Territories as per the allocation of seats specified in the Delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies Order, 1976 as amended by this act.

Why in News? 

Supreme Court stated that a legislative act to nullify a judgment, without taking away its basis, is an impermissible exercise. 

The above-mentioned observation came against the extension of term of Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Sanjay Kumar Mishra. 

The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2021) directed that that Sanjay Kumar Mishra should not be given further extensions. 

However, the Union Government extended his tenure two times after that, in November 2021 and November 2022. 

The court made the observations in the matter of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. 

Background  

Respondent, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who was working as Principal Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of two years in 2018. 

According to the appointment order, he was set to retire two years later on reaching the age of 60 years. 

However, in November 2020, the government retrospectively revised the order, increasing his tenure from two years to three years. 

The extension of tenure was challenged in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2021). 

In this case a division bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao held that extensions could only be granted in ‘rare and exceptional cases’ for a short period of time. 

Subsequently, the court in the above-mentioned case directed that no further extension was to be granted to the chief of the Directorate of Enforcement.  

Court’s Observations 

The bench observed that the only way for legislature to nullify the effect of a judgment is by taking away its base or curing the defects in the law.  

However, an enactment which merely nullifies a judgment is unconstitutional. 

The bench further observed that the nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be impermissible legislative exercise. 

Legal Provisions 

Mandamus 

It is among the types of writs mentioned under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. 

The literal meaning of mandamus is “we command”.   

The court issues it in the form of a direction to public authority to perform a particular task.  

It must be filed in good faith by the person having the legal right.     

It can be issued against government, public officials, inferior courts, tribunals and public corporations.     

It is issued against the public authority denying performing its duty or has failed to do so.    It cannot be issued against private individuals, President and Governors, and Chief Justice.   

Directorate of Enforcement (ED) 

ED was established on 1 May 1956 with its headquarters in New Delhi. 

It is a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offences of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws. 

It is responsible to the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance. 

The director of the ED is appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003. 

Why in News?

• In the matter of Bharat Mata Saraswati Bal Mandir Senior Secondary School v. Vinita Singh and Ors., a private school in Delhi filed a plea in the Delhi High Court against the directions to pay its teachers as per the Seventh Central Pay Commission (Seventh CPC).
• The plea has been filed against a December 2021 order of the single-judge bench of the High Court.

Background

• The Directorate of Education, Delhi Education in 2017 directed that all recognized schools shall implement the recommendations of the Seventh CPC.
• Three teachers of the private school had approached the single judge of the High Court earlier after the benefits of the Seventh Central Pay Commission were not extended by the school.
• The single-judge bench, in its judgement passed in December 2021, directed the school to grant benefits and salaries to the teachers under provisions of the Seventh Central Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016, along with the arrears.

Court’s Observations

• A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna of Delhi High Court while rejecting the plea held that teachers of unaided private schools are entitled to same pay as their counterparts in Government schools.
• The court further observed that Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 provides that the pay scale, allowances and other prescribed benefits of a recognized private school and Government school shall be same.

Legal Provisions

Delhi School Education Act, 1973

Section 10 - Salaries of employees. — (1) The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:

Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such school to bring the same up to the level of those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:

Provided further that the failure to comply with such direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.

(2) The managing committee of every aided school shall deposit, every month, its share towards pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits with the Administrator and the Administrator shall disburse, or cause to be disbursed, within the first week of every month, the salaries and allowances to the employees of the aided schools.