List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that “A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) would make it clear that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act”.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of The State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das.

What was the Background of the State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das Case?

• The case originated from the discovery of an unclaimed black backpack containing materials linked to the CPI(Maoist) in Kolkata.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The respondent was apprehended and brought before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who approved the addition of offences under the UAPA, as per the Investigating Officer's request.
• However, the respondent petitioned the High Court to quash this decision, arguing that only Special Courts designated by the Central or State Government under the NIA Act had jurisdiction over UAPA offences.
• The High Court granted the petition, annulling proceedings related to UAPA offences.
• The State of West Bengal has appealed this decision, contesting the High Court's jurisdictional interpretation.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta had the jurisdiction to pass the order as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act, since the State of West Bengal had not constituted a Special Court for trial of UAPA offences.
• The definition of 'Court' under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA includes a normal criminal court and a Special Court under the NIA Act.
• Hence, the SC allowed the appeal.

What is Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act)?

• Power of State Government:
  • The State Government is empowered to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts.
• Applicability of Provisions:
  • The provisions of this Chapter apply to the Special Courts designated by the State Government, with certain modifications.
• Jurisdiction of Special Court:
  • Until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, the jurisdiction conferred by NIA Act on a Special Court is exercised by the Court of Session of the division where the offence was committed.
• Transfer of Trials:
  • Upon designation of the Special Court by the State Government, trials of offences investigated by the State Government under this NIA Act are transferred to that Court.

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Birsa Agricultural University v. State of Jharkhand has held that a pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Article 300A of the COI?

• In this case the respondents (Mahmud Allam, Md. Abbas Ali, Deo Narayan Saw and Shekh Ketabul Hussain) were engaged under the appellant (Birsa Agricultural University) as daily wagers.
• The respondents approached the writ court with a grievance of non-regularization of their service because other similarly situated daily wagers under the University were regularized.
• The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the appellant to consider the regularization of the respondents.
• Later respondents were offered appointments, which according to the appellant university were fresh appointments and therefore respondents were not entitled to claim any benefit of their past services.
• Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed writ applications to claim all benefits of pay, allowances and pension for their past services which were later disposed off.
• Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Navneet Kumar observed that denying pensionary benefits to an employee is to rob them of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the COI, as pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services.
• The High Court relied on the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) wherein the Supreme Court held that pension is not a bounty or a charity, it is earned by the employee on account of meritorious past services.

What is Article 300A of the COI?

• This Article states that persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.
• Originally, Part III of the COI established the right to property as one of the fundamental rights.
• However, the Right to Property ceased to be a fundamental right with the 44^th Constitution Amendment in 1978.
• It was made a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the COI.
• Article 300A requires the State to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Kumar v. Gb Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology Ghurdauri has held that the termination of the services of the employee without holding disciplinary enquiry violates the principles of natural justice.

What was the Background of Sandeep Kumar v. Gb Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology Ghurdauri Case?

• In this case, the instant appeal filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court is directed against the judgments dated 4^th August 2022 and 21^st February 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in writ petition.
• The learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for assailing the order dated 19^th May, 2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 terminating the services of the appellant on the post of Registrar of the respondent no. 1 (G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology).
• The appellant challenged the termination on the note that before taking the action of terminating the services of the appellant, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity to show cause was given to the appellant.
• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court gave direction to reinstate the appellant on the post of Registrar.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

What are the Principles of Natural Justice?

About:

• Natural Justice is a common law concept which emphasis on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice.
• It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.

Rules of Natural Justice:

• Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases.
• Audi Alteram Partem – It means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.

Case Laws:

• In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the parties.
• In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every decision-making functions.
• In the Union of India v. W.N Chadha (1992), the Supreme Court observed that since the purpose of the Principles of Natural Justice is to ensure justice and prevent and prevent miscarriage of justice, these rules do not extend to those areas where their application may lead to injustice.