List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

• The Delhi High Court has refused to injunct further telecast of the movie alleged to be based on late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s life.
• The suit prayed for permanent injunction upon further telecast of film.
• The court made the observations in the matter of Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors.

Background

• The suit is regarding the telecast of a movie “Nyay: The Justice” based on late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s (SSR) life which was released on OTT platform Lapalap in June 2021.
• The suit sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all others from using actor’s name, caricature lifestyle in any projects or films without the prior permission of the plaintiff (Father of SSR).
• The plaintiff alleged that any such effort would infringe the privacy rights of the actor and also cause deception in the minds of the public.
  • The rights contested in the suit are the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights of the actor.

Court’s Observations

• The bench observed that the privacy rights ventilated in the plaint vested in the actor, are not heritable. They died with the death of the actor hence plaintiff cannot claim them.
• Court promoting equality between common person and celebrity said that the law cannot allow itself to be a “vehicle to promote celebrity culture” and that the rights which emanate from one’s personality would be available to one and all, and not only to celebrities.

Legal Provisions

Right to Privacy

• The Right to Privacy is enshrined under Article 21 which affirms Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
• In M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962), the court stated that Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right.
• However, the court remarked in Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962) that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residuary personal rights and recognized the common law right to privacy.
• Further, the Apex Court in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) stated that Right to Privacy is a fundamental Right.
• The abovementioned judgment led to crusade for a separate legislation for protection of data.
• The Union Cabinet recently approved the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill, 2023, to be tabled in Parliament in the upcoming Monsoon session of 2023.

Permanent Injunction

• An injunction is a remedy granted by the court that prohibits the commission of a wrong or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun.
• A permanent injunction is granted by the decree of the court, and upon the examination of the facts and merits of the case.
• It is also known as perpetual injection.
• Permanent injunctions are governed by Sections 38 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• Its major purpose is to give conclusive and long-term relief.

Why in News?

Recently the High Court of Allahabad in the case of X v. State of U.P & Ors., allowed a 12-year-old rape victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy after considering the opinion of the Medical Board that the continuation of pregnancy "poses a greater risk to her physical and mental health" due to her "tender age".

Background

• Recently, a rape victim approached the Allahabad High Court for termination of her 25-week pregnancy.
• Observing that a woman cannot be forced to give birth to the child of a man who had sexually assaulted her, the High Court had requested for the constitution of a medical board to examine the petitioner and to submit its report before the Court.
• After the submission of report by the medical board, the Court came to the conclusion that the victim can be granted relief by ordering the termination of her 25 weeks of pregnancy.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed that in the case of sexual assault, denying a woman the right to say no to medical termination of pregnancy and fasten her with the responsibility of motherhood would amount to denying her human right to live with dignity as she has a right in relation to her body which includes saying Yes or No to being a mother.

Legal Provisions

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act 1971 came into force on 1st of April 1972.
• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 and its Rules of 2003 prohibit unmarried women who are between 20 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant to abort with the help of registered medical practitioners.
• This Act was updated more comprehensively in 2020, and the revised law became effective in September 2021 with the following amendments:
  • Increase in the maximum gestational age at which a woman may obtain a medical abortion from 20 weeks under the MTP Act of 1971 to 24 weeks.
  • A single qualified medical professional’s opinion might be used to access the MTP up to 20 weeks into the pregnancy and from 20 weeks up to 24 weeks, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners would be required.
  • After seeking the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks of gestational age under the conditions given below:
    • If the woman is either a survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest;
    • If she is a minor;
    • If there is a change in her marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (due to widowhood or divorce);
    • If she suffers from major physical disabilities or is mentally ill;
    • Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of fetal malformation incompatible with life or the possibility of a seriously handicapped child being born;
    • If the woman is situated in a humanitarian setting or disaster or stuck in the emergency as declared by the Government.
• Abortion is performed based on fetal abnormalities in cases where pregnancy has progressed over 24 weeks.
  • A four-member Medical Board, established in each state under the MTP Act, must grant permission for this type of abortion.
• In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.

Right of a Woman to exercise her reproductive Choice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution gives an unmarried woman the right of choice as to bear or not to bear a child on a similar footing as that of a married woman.
• In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), Supreme Court recognized that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

• Article 21 is generally characterized as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty’.
• Justice Bhagwati in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981) said that Article 21 embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.
• This Article can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or personal liberty’ by the State. This Article is enforceable even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.

Why in News?

• The Union Government has notified the appointment of two High Court Chief Justices as Judges of the Apex Court.
• The elevation of the High Court judges was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 5th July 2023.
• The two names recommended for elevation are:
  • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, currently serving as the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court and
  • Justice SV Bhatti, Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.

Background

• The Supreme Court, which has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, is short of three judges.
• With justice Krishna Murari set to retire in July 2023, the vacancy will rise to four.
• The collegium responsible for appointments and transfers at present comprises of sitting Chief Justice of India (CJI) and three other members namely Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant.
• Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and senior advocate KV Viswanathan were appointed as Supreme Court judges prior to the current appointment.

Collegium System

• Constitution of India, 1950 under Articles 124(2) and 217 deal with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.
• Collegium System is the system of appointment and transfer of judges that has evolved through judgments of the Supreme Court, and not by an Act of Parliament or by a provision of the Constitution.
• The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of Supreme Court and the other judges are appointed by President after the consultation with the Chief Justice of India and such other judges of the Supreme Court.
  • The consultation with the Chief Justice is obligatory in the case of appointment of a judge other than Chief Justice.

Case Laws

The cases from which the collegium System was evolved are as follows:

• First Judges Case - S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
• The ruling by the Supreme Court held that the word ‘consultation’ in Article 124 does not mean concurrence. Hence, the President was not bound to make a decision based on the consultation of the Supreme Court (SC).
• Second Judges Case - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another v. Union of India (1993)
• SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that ‘consultation’ really meant ‘concurrence’.
• It was further added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.
• Third Judges Case - In re Special Reference 1 of 1998
• SC on the President's reference (Article 143) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.
• The Supreme Court also laid down strict guidelines for the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. These guidelines are currently known as the Collegium System.
• Fourth Judges Case - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association and another V. Union of India (2015)
• The Constitution’s 99th Amendment created the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 by which Article 124A was added to the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The functions and Parliament’s power to make laws regarding NJAC were outlined in Articles 124B and 124C of the Constitution of India.
• In the present case, the Supreme Court held that Article 124A does not provide adequate representation to the judicial component of the National Judicial Appointment Commission hence it was held violative of the independence of the judiciary which forms the essential structure of the Constitution. The court invalidated the National Judicial Appointment Commission and restored the earlier system.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 124(2) - Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court -

Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal *(on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A) and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years:

Provided that —

(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4).

Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.—

(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal *(on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A), and the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two years:

Provided that— (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court; (c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and— (a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.

(c)Explanation —For the purposes of this clause—

(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;

(aa) in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law after he became an advocate;

(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.

*Subs. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 2, for "after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose" (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015.

About Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s parent High Court is the Gauhati High Court.
• He was appointed as Additional Advocate General, Assam on 21st July 2011.
• He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court on 17th October 2011 and was made a permanent judge on 20th March 2013.
• He was transferred as a Judge of Bombay High Court on 3rd October 2019.
• Thereafter, he was transferred as a Judge of Telangana High Court on 22nd October 2021.
• He was elevated as Chief Justice of Telangana High Court on 28th June 2022.
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has acquired significant experience in diverse fields of law. He has acquired specialization and domain knowledge in the law of taxation.

About Justice SV Bhatti

• On 12th April 2013 he was elevated as Additional Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and served as judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh until bifurcation.
• He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court on 24th April 2023.
• He was appointed as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court in June 2023.