List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled 8:1 that States have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol, classifying it under "intoxicating liquor" as per Entry 8 of the State List. 

• The majority opinion observed that the term should not be narrowly defined, including substances that could be misused for human consumption.  
• In dissent, Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is specifically not meant for human consumption, stated differing interpretations of the term "intoxicating liquor." 

What was the Background of State Of U.P. V. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish? 

• The case revolves around a constitutional dispute between the States and Union regarding who has the power to regulate industrial alcohol/denatured spirit. 
• There are multiple relevant constitutional provisions : 
  • Entry 8 of List II (State List) deals with "intoxicating liquors" and gives States power over production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale 
  • Entry 52 of List I (Union List) gives Parliament power over industries declared to be under Union control 
  • Entry 33 of List III (Concurrent List) allows both State and Union to regulate trade and commerce of products from industries under Union control 
• The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (IDRA) was enacted by Parliament under Entry 52 of List I. Section 18G of this Act gives the Central Government power to regulate supply and distribution of products from scheduled industries. 
• In 2016, the First Schedule of IDRA was amended to specifically exclude "potable alcohol" from Union control, while keeping other alcohol under its purview. 
• Previously, in the Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. case, a seven-judge bench had dealt with the interpretation of Section 18G of IDRA but didn't fully address its interference with State powers. 
• The main contentions raised by States were: 
  • The term "intoxicating liquor" should be interpreted broadly to include denatured spirit/industrial alcohol 
  • States should have regulatory power over all forms of alcohol 
  • Central laws shouldn't diminish State powers through notifications 
  • The Union's key arguments were: 
  • There's a clear distinction between industrial alcohol and potable alcohol 
  • The Union has control over industrial alcohol through IDRA 
  • Entry 52 (Union List) and Entry 33 (Concurrent List) should be read together to give Union complete control over regulated industries 
• Main issue raised  
  • Whether Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution overrides Entry 8 of List II;  
  • Whether the expression ‘intoxicating liquors’ in Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution includes alcohol other than potable alcohol;  
  • Whether a notified order under Section 18G of the IDRA is necessary for Parliament to occupy the field under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Majority Opinion (8:1) 

• On Entry 8 Of List II (State List):  
  • The entry is both industry-based and product-based in nature.  
  • The words following "that is to say" in Entry 8 are not exhaustive of its contents.  
  • The scope extends from raw materials to consumption of 'intoxicating liquor'. 
• On Legislative Competence:  
  • Parliament cannot occupy the entire industry field merely through a declaration under Entry 52 of List I.  
  • State Legislature's competence under Entry 24 of List II is limited only to the extent covered by Parliamentary law under Entry 52 of List I.  
  • Parliament lacks legislative competence to control the intoxicating liquor industry under Article 246 read with Entry 52 of List I. 
• On Interpretation Of 'Intoxicating Liquor':  
  • The term is not limited to its popular meaning of alcoholic beverages producing intoxication.  
  • It encompasses alcohol that could be noxiously used affecting public health. 
  • The term includes:  
    • Rectified spirit 
    • ENA (Extra Neutral Alcohol) 
    • Denatured spirit d) Excludes final products containing alcohol (e.g., hand sanitizers) 
• On Precedents and Prior Judgments:  
  • The Synthetics (7J) judgment stands overruled. 
  • Item 26 of First Schedule to IDRA must exclude "intoxicating liquor" as interpreted in this judgment. 

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Nagarathna) 

• On Scope of Entry 8 List II:  
  • Deals exclusively with "intoxicating liquors" in the traditional sense. 
  • Industrial alcohol falls outside its purview. Misuse potential cannot be basis for interpretation. 
• On Legislative Intent:  
  • Constituent Assembly clearly distinguished between potable and non-potable alcohol.  
  • Intoxicating liquors" represents only a segment of "Fermentation Industries." 
  • No intention to include industrial or non-potable alcohol within Entry 8. 
• On Regulatory Framework:  
  • Denatured alcohol belongs to the "industrial alcohol" family.  
  • Section 18G of IDRA governs industrial alcohol under Entry 33(a) List III.  
  • Parliament alone competent to legislate on articles related to scheduled industry of "Fermentation Industries."

Under Article 246 of the Constitution of India 

• Fundamental Framework 
  • Article 246 Distribution Scheme:  
    • Parliament has exclusive power over Union List (List I)  
    • State Legislatures have exclusive power over State List (List II) 
    • Both Parliament and State Legislatures have power over Concurrent List (List III) 
    • Parliament has power to legislate for Union Territories 
• Hierarchical Structure 
  • Parliamentary Powers:  
    • Exclusive power over List I matters  
    • Power operates "notwithstanding" anything in Lists II or III  
    • Predominant power in case of irreconcilable conflict with State legislation 
  • State Legislature Powers:  
    • Exclusive power over List II matters 
    • Power operates "subject to" clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246  
    • Sovereign within allocated sphere except where expressly limited 
• Principles Of Interpretation 
  • Federal Balance Principles:  
    • Each legislative body is sovereign within its allocated sphere  
    • Parliamentary predominance applies only in case of irreconcilable conflict
    • Non-obstante clause in Article 246(1) does not permit Parliament to directly legislate on List II subjects 
  • Conflict Resolution Framework:  
    • Entries must be read together without restricted meaning  
    • Harmonious interpretation to be attempted first  
    • Federal supremacy applicable only in case of "irreconcilable direct conflict" 
• Overlap And Conflict Resolution 
  • Treatment of Overlapping Entries:  
    • Distinction between 'overlap' and 'conflict' must be maintained  
    • Courts must endeavor to diminish overlap rather than enhance conflict  
    • Federal supremacy applies only at stage of actual conflict 
  • Interpretation Guidelines:  
    • Entries to be given wide meaning 
    • Incidental and ancillary matters included within scope  
    • Harmonious interpretation preferred to maintain federal balance 
    • No entry should be rendered redundant 
• Specific Limitations 
  • State List Restrictions:  
    • Entries may be subject to specific provisions of List I or List III  
    • May be subject to entire list provisions  
    • May exclude matters specified in List I  
    • May be subject to Parliamentary law limitations 
  • Taxation Powers:  
    • Cannot be derived from general entries 
    • Require specific taxation entries  
    • Clear distinction between general and taxation entries maintained 
• Legislative Discretion 
  • Power Exercise: 
    • Entries do not cast obligation to legislate  
    • Legislature has plenary power within constitutional confines 
    • Discretion in manner of legislation preserved 
• Constitutional Safeguards 
  • Federal Balance Protection:  
    • Language devices prevent conflict between entries  
    • Clear demarcation of fields maintained  
    • Express subordination required for limitation of state power  
    • Harmonious interpretation mandated to preserve federal structure

What is the Scope and Significance of Entry 8 Of List II in Relation to The Regulation of Intoxicating Liquors and Industrial Alcohol? 

• Entry 8 of List II is both an industry-based and product-based entry, covering everything from the stage of raw materials to the consumption of 'intoxicating liquor'. The Entry itself indicates this broad scope by including "production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale" of intoxicating liquors. 
• The phrase "that is to say" in Entry 8 of List II is explanatory and illustrative rather than limiting. The Supreme Court has held that for legislative entries (unlike taxing statutes), this phrase should be interpreted broadly and liberally rather than as a restrictive enumeration. 
• Entry 52 of List I (Union List) notably lacks the phrase "to the extent to which" that appears in other entries like Entry 54. This means Parliament's control over industries under Entry 52 does not require specifying the extent of control, unlike regulations under Entry 54. 
• The term "intoxicating liquors" in Entry 8 extends beyond just beverages that cause intoxication. Based on the Supreme Court's interpretation in FN Balsara, it includes all liquids containing alcohol that could potentially be used as substitutes for intoxicating drinks. 
• Entry 8 is a special entry that specifically enumerates 'intoxicating liquors' as a legislative field to the exclusion of all other general entries under which it might otherwise have been subsumed. 
• The Supreme Court has interpreted Entry 8's scope in light of both its legislative history and Article 47's constitutional directive regarding prohibition of intoxicating drinks, leading to a broader interpretation that encompasses health and public order concerns. 
• While Entry 24 of List II (State List) deals with industries generally and is subject to Entry 52 of List I, Entry 8 stands as a specific entry dealing with intoxicating liquor and does not follow the same industry-product distinction found in other entries. 
• The constitutional framework provides that when Parliament takes control of an industry under Entry 52 of List I, the products of that industry shift to the Concurrent List (Entry 33 of List III) from the State List, though this general principle must be considered alongside Entry 8's special status.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice BR Gavai issued guidelines regarding free legal aid to prison inmates.           

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Others. 

What was the Background of Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Others Case? 

• In the present case a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). Following were the pleas in the writ petition: 
  • Direct the Respondents Union of India, States and the Union Territories to ensure that no prisoner is subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment because of living in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions in jail. 
  • All person deprived of their dignity should be treated with respect for the inherent dignity. 
  • Create a permanent mechanism to decongest the overcrowded prisons.  
• The Court in it’s order on 17th May 2024 identified two issues: 
  • Pertaining to Open Correctional Institutions 
  • Modalities for visitation by lawyers in jail so as to ensure free legal aid to the deserving prison inmates. 
• This judgment is however confined to only the aspect of free legal aid for prison inmates.  

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court gave the following directions with regard to free legal aid to the prison inmates : 
  • The Court directed that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in cooperation with State Legal Services Authority (SLSA’s) and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA’s) will ensure that the Standard of Procedure (SOP) on Access to Legal Services to prisoners and functioning of Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs) are operated efficiently in practice. 
  • The Legal Services Authorities at different levels will adopt measures to strengthen the monitoring of PLACs and review their functioning periodically. 
  • The Legal Services Authorities will periodically update the statistical data. 
  • The Legal Services Authorities will ensure that the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System will function to the best of it’s potential. 
  • Awareness of the legal aid mechanism is very important. The Court directed that a robust mechanism should be in place to ensure that the various beneficial schemes promoted by the Legal Services Authorities reach the maximum number of persons. 
  • The Court directed that following steps should be taken in order to create awareness as enunciated above: 
    • In public places like police stations, post offices, bus stands, railway stations etc. boards in prominent places be displayed furnishing the address for contact and the phone numbers of the nearest legal aid office. 
    • Promotional campaigns should be undertaken through Radio in addition to through digitalization process. 
    • Promotional campaigns may also include other creative measure like organizing street corner plays. 
    • The Legal Services Authorities will update the SOP –2022 for the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC). 
    • The huge gap between the total number of persons identified by the UTRC and the number of persons recommended for release should be looked into and adequate corrective measures be taken.  
      • Similarly, the difference between the number of prisoners/inmates recommended for release and the number of bail applications filed should be particularly looked into by NALSA/SLSAs/DLSAs and adequate corrective measures taken. 
    • The “Early Access to Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework” established by NALSA for pre-litigation assistance should be diligently pursued and the work undertaken under the framework be periodically reviewed. 
    • The convicts should be informed of their right to free legal aid. 
      • The Legal Service Authorities at different levels should interact with convicts who had not preferred appeals and this exercise should be periodically undertaken. 
    • Periodic interaction should be held with Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) and Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs). This is to ensure updation of their knowledge so that the system functions efficiently as a whole. 
    • Pre-litigation assistance:  
      • Steps for continuing education of lawyers involved in prelitigation assistance and those associated with the Legal Aid Defence Counsel set-up should be provided by Legal Services Authorities. 
      • Apart from this, it should also be ensured that adequate law books and access to online libraries are available to lawyers engaged at the pre-litigation assistance stage and those involved with the Legal Defence Counsel set-up. 
  • Periodic reports should be submitted by the DLSAs to the SLSAs to the NALSA. The digitisation of the above must be done. 
  • The State Government and Union of India shall continue to cooperate with the Legal Services Authorities at different levels for effective implementation of the measures. 
  • The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to all the High Courts. 
    • The Court observed that the High Court may consider the feasibility of issuing a practice direction to the effect that all courts including the High Court while furnishing the copy of the judgment of conviction/dismissal/reversal of acquittal/dismissal of bail applications, may append a coversheet to the judgment informing the convict about the availability of free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies. 
    • The coversheet may set out the contact address and phone number of the legal aid committee attached to the court for seeking appropriate guidance. 
    • Similar information may be made available in the notices issued to the respondents by the courts concerned in appeals against acquittal. 
    • The High Courts may on their webpage carry information about the legal aid facilities available in the State. 

What is Free Legal Aid? 

About 

• Legal aid refers to providing free legal services to the individual who is unable to afford legal representation. 
• It is to be noted that India is a welfare State and endeavors to promote welfare of the people by protecting social order. 
• Article 14 of the COI ensures justice based on fairness and hence it is the duty of the State to provide free legal aid. 
• The right to free legal aid is found in the COI under Section 39 A and is also given formal recognition under LSA Act.  

History of Free Legal Aid in India 

Persons eligible for getting free Legal Aid 

What are the Legal Provisions with Regard to Free Legal Aid? 

• Article 39 A: Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid 
  • Free Legal Aid can be found in the Constitution under Part IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). 
  • This has been added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. 
  • This provision states that the State shall in particular provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. 
  • Thus, the above is the constitutional goal. 
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act) 
  • The legislation has been enacted to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society. 
  • The aim of the legislation is to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of any economic or other disabilities.  
  • Section 3 of the LSA Act constituted the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). 
  • Section 4 of LSA lays down the functions of the NALSA and the relevant ones are as follows: 
    • lay down policies and principles for making legal services available under the provisions of this Act 
    • frame the most effective and economical schemes for the purpose of making legal services available under the provisions of this Act 
    • utilise the funds at its disposal and make appropriate allocations of funds to the State Authorities and District Authorities 
    • monitor and evaluate implementation of the legal aid programmes at periodic intervals and provide for independent evaluation of programmes and schemes implemented in whole or in part by funds provided under this Act  
• Section 341 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)   
  • This provision under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides for Legal aid to accused at the State expense in certain cases. 
  • Section 341 (1) provides that the Court assign an advocate for the defence of accused at the expense of State in following cases: 
    • Where, in a trial or appeal before a Court, the accused is not represented by an advocate, and 
    • Where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage an advocate 
  • Section 341 (2) provides that the High Court may with the previous approval of the State Government make the rules providing for: 
    • the mode of selecting advocates for defence under sub-section (1) 
    • the facilities to be allowed to such advocates by the Courts 
    • the fees payable to such advocates by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1) 
  • Section 341 (3) provides that State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of Session. 

What are the Important Judgments with Respect to Free Legal Aid?  

• Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980)  
  • A procedure which does not make available legal services to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal assistance, cannot possibly be regarded as “reasonable, fair and just”. 
  • It is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court's process that he should have legal services available to him. 
• Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 
  • Right to counsel for a prisoner is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21. 
  • Right to legal aid is a State’s duty and not Government’s charity. 
  • The Court held that procedural safeguards are indispensable to the essence of liberty under Article 21. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of MC Mehta v. Union of India has held that after the 2023 Jan Vishvas Amendment, section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA) has become in operative. 

What was the Background of the MC Mehta v. Union of India Case?  

• In the present case, a civil writ was filed by the petitioner stating that Section 15 of EPA is not in operation. 
• It was stated that the practice of stubble burning has increased air pollution specifically in the State of Punjab & Haryana. 
• It was alleged by the petitioner that no strict actions have been taken by the authorities against such practices. 
• The respondent contented that Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) has issued has issued show cause notices to officers of both Punjab and Haryana including the Secretary of Environment, Additional chief secretary agriculture etc. 
• It was also observed that the monitoring committee is not in function due to absenteeism of its members for which the Union of India assured the court that it will replace the members who are not working properly. 
  • Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh made an observation that in spite of repeated directions by the Court the monitoring committee has made negligible progress.  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • The Supreme Court criticized CAQM for just issuing notices on stubble burning instead of using its power under Section 14 of Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 (CAQM). 
  • The Supreme Court also criticized the Union of India for not making Section 15 of EPA operationalized as due to amendment the penal provisions have been replaced by the penalties. 
  • It was further added by the Court that due to absence of rules related to appointment of adjudicating officers under Section 15C of EPA which made it difficult to impose punishments. 
  • It is also observed by the Court that the amendment under Section 15 of EPA has made the objective of the act baseless and toothless. 
  • The Supreme Court also questioned CAQM for not implementing Section 15 of CAQM Act in the proper manner and for not determining the environmental compensation rates.  
  • The Court last week had summoned the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana. 
  • The Supreme Court also noted that there was no prosecution under the CAQM Act for violation of CAQM orders regarding stubble burning. 
  • The Supreme Court also criticized the work of the state and the CAQM by stating the improper functioning of the members of the monitoring committee. 
    • It was observed that the members remain absent most of the time and therefore couldn’t make sufficient efforts. 
• Based on the above observations the Supreme Court held that: 
  • CAQM must make rules for making section 15 of CAQM Act operative by prescribing appropriate compensation rates and should not merely rely on the formula set by the National Green Tribunal. 
  • The Supreme Court also directed the Union of India to amend the rules under Section 15 of CAQM within 2 weeks and provide proper rates of environmental compensation. 
  • The Court has also directed the Centre and the Government of Delhi NCR to provide reports of pollution based on the causes of air pollution (waste burning, transport pollution, pollution from heavy trucks, and industrial pollution).  

What is Section 15 of EPA? 

• Section 15 states the provisions regarding penalty for contravention of provisions of Act, rules, orders and directions 
  Main Penalty 
  • Subsection (1) states that any person who does not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made, or orders or directions issued where no penalty was provided then for such contravention, he shall be liable to pay Rs. 10 lakhs which may exceed to Rs. 15 Lakhs. 
    • This subsection has been amended in accordance with Section 3 of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of provisions) Act, 2023 (JV) 
    • Under this the fines and penalties under subsection (1) shall be increased by 10% (minimum amount) after expiry of every 3 months from the date of the commencement. 

Old Subsection (1) 

• Before the amendment subsection (1) used to state that: 
  • any person who does not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made or orders or directions issued where no penalty was provided then for such contravention be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with Fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. 
  • in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. 

Continuing Contravention of Subsection (1) 

• Subsection (2) states that for continuing contravention under subsection (1) the person shall be liable to an additional penalty of ten thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues. 

Old Subsection (2) 

• Before the amendment subsection (2) used to state that: 
  • in case the failure or contravention continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. 
• Section 15C of EPA was also inserted by the JV Act which states the provisions for Adjudicating officer. 
  Appointment Of Adjudicating Officers 
  • Subsection (1) states that the Central Government, for the purposes of determining the penalties under this Act, may appoint an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India or a Secretary to the State Government to be the adjudicating officer, to hold an inquiry and to impose penalty in the manner, as may be prescribed:  
  • Provided that the Central Government may appoint as many adjudicating officers as may be required. 

Powers of the Adjudicating Officer 

• Subsection (2) stated that the adjudicating officer may-  
  • call upon any person alleged to have contravened or not complied with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder or having the knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • require such person to produce any record, register or other document in his possession or any other document, which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer may be relevant to the subject-matter. 

Hearing And Penalty Imposition 

• Subsection (3) states that The adjudicating officer shall, after giving the person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person concerned has contravened or has not complied with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of sections 14A, 14B, 15, 15A or Section 15B, as the case may be. 

Factors For Determining Penalty 

• Subsection (4) states that the adjudicating officer, while adjudicating the quantum of penalty under Sub-Section (3), shall have due regard to the following, namely: - 
  • the population and the area impacted or affected due to such contravention or noncompliance 
  • the frequency and duration of such contravention or non-compliance 
  • the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such contravention or non-compliance. 
  • the damage caused or likely to be caused to any person, as a result of such contravention or non-compliance, if any. 
  • the undue gain derived out of such contravention or non-compliance. 
  • such other factor, as may be prescribed. 

Additional Liability 

• Subsection (5) states that the amount of penalty imposed under the provisions of sections 14A, 14B, 15, 15A or 15B, as the case may be, shall be in addition to the liability to pay relief or compensation under Section 15 read with Section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010).