List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench consisting of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra upheld the amendment made to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, requiring a practice of 3 years or a law degree with 70% marks for eligibility to sit for the Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Examination.

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court gave this observation in the case of Devansh Kaushik v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

What was the Background of Devansh Kaushik v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• The Madhya Pradesh government amended Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, introducing an additional eligibility criterion for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level).
• The amended rule required either
  • continuous practice as an advocate for at least 3 years on the last date of submitting applications, or
  • being an outstanding law graduate with a brilliant academic career, having passed all exams in the first attempt with at least 70% aggregate marks for General and OBC categories, and at least 50% for reserved categories.
• The writ petition in this case was filed challenging the amendment, as the petitioner, a law graduate with 66.2% aggregate marks, did not meet the 70% criteria.
• Several other writ petitions were filed, and interim orders were granted by the High Court, including relaxation of marks for OBC candidates, consideration of changed subjects, and waiver of the requirement to produce six order sheets for one year.
• Later, the Supreme Court directed the HC to allow all candidates to participate in the recruitment examination based on the unamended rules, subject to the outcome of the challenge before the HC.
• The HC accepted all applications as per the unamended rules, and the matters were heard finally.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court dismissed most of the petitioners' contentions challenging the amendment requiring 70% marks in aggregate for general/OBC candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates in the first attempt to be eligible for the judicial service examination.
• The court upheld the impugned amendment as it has a nexus with the object of ensuring qualitative dispensation of justice and achieving excellence as per Article 51A(j) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The court ruled that the 70% marks requirement for outstanding law graduates is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The only relief granted was regarding Note (4) of the advertisement, where the court held that insisting on producing six order sheets/judgments per year of practice is directory and not mandatory.
  • Candidates only need to produce material to support their claim of active practice.
• The court emphasized that excellence should precede over mediocrity, and the interests of litigants in receiving quality justice from the best candidates outweigh the individual interests of the petitioners.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

• Article 14:
  • The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 19 (1) (g):
  • All citizens shall have the right
    • to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Article 51A (j):
  • It shall be the duty of every citizens of India
    • to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi and Anr. has held that the promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers/promises eliciting acceptance and enforceable by law.

What was the Background of Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi and Anr. Case?

• The appellant is a well-known film producer. It produced a film called ‘Fan’ in the year 2016.
• Before the release of the film, the appellant circulated a promotional trailer, both on television and online, which contained a song in the form of a video.
• The complainant, a teacher in a school in Aurangabad, states that having watched the promotional trailer of the film, she decided to go to watch the movie on the silver screen with her family.
• However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, even though the song was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. She filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum and claimed Rs. 60,550 as damages.
• The District Consumer Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider.
• Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 as cost to the complainant.
• The matter was carried to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
• The NCDRC had held that inclusion of a song in the promo of the movie when it is not actually a part of the movie amounted to deceiving viewers and was an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the appellant challenging the NCDRC order.
• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the order of NCDRC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Bench comprising of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that a promotional trailer is unilateral. It is only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship. Since the promotional trailer is not an offer, there is no possibility of it becoming a promise.
• The Court further emphasized that services involving presentation of art necessarily involve the freedom and discretion of the service provider and no unfair trade practice was made out nor any enforceable contractual promise broken.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

• This Act has been enacted to protect the interests of consumers and for that purpose, to establish authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes.
• Section 2(1)(r) of this Act deals with unfair trade practices.
• After, the amendment in the year 2019, Section 2(47) deals with unfair trade practices.

Offer

• The first thing for creating a contract is a valid proposal or offer.
• Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) states that when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other person to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal or offer.

Promise

• As per Section 2(b) of ICA, when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.
• A proposal is therefore a prerequisite to a promise.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court has held that denying child-care leaves to mothers of children with disabilities would violate the Constitutional duty to ensure equal women participation in the workforce.

What was the Background of the Case?

• In this case, the petitioner is the assistant professor working in a college at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh.
• The petitioner had approached the State seeking child care leave as her son is suffering from Osteogenesis Imperfecta, a rare genetic disorder, and had undergone several surgeries.
• Due to his continuous treatment, she had exhausted all her sanctioned leave. But her application was declined on account of non-adoption of the provision of child- care leave.
• The woman moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which dismissed her plea.
• Thereafter, she filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Court proceeded to order the State government of Himachal Pradesh to revise its child-care leaves policy so that it is consistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala observed that child-care leave subserves an important constitutional objective where women are not denied an equal opportunity in the workforce. A denial of the leaves may compel a mother to leave the workforce and it applies to a mother more who has a child with special needs.
• It was further held that the participation of women in the workforce is a matter not just of privilege but a constitutional entitlement protected by Article 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). The state as a model employer cannot be oblivious to the special concerns which arise in the case of women who are part of the workforce.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

• It was enacted on 27^th December 2016, replacing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
• This Act came into force on 19^th April 2017, heralding a new era of rights and recognition for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India.
• This Act broadens the scope of disabilities to cover 21 conditions, including physical, intellectual, mental, and sensory impairments.
• It mandates that educational institutions and government organizations reserve seats and positions for persons with disabilities, ensuring their access to education and employment opportunities.
• The Act emphasizes the creation of barrier-free environments in public spaces, transportation, and information and communication technologies, enabling greater accessibility for persons with disabilities.
• It mandates the government to formulate schemes and programs for social security, healthcare, and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.
• The Act mandates the formulation of guidelines and standards for public buildings to ensure universal accessibility.

Article 15 of the COI

• This Article deals with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• This Article provides that no citizen shall be discriminated on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Exception to this Article states that certain provisions can be made for the women, children, citizens from any socially or educationally backward class for their upliftment (such as reservation and access to free education).