List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's ruling regarding the grade pay disparity between Navy Artificers and Chief Petty Officers. The court concluded that differences in grade pay are justified due to the distinct promotional hierarchy within the Navy's technical branch, and the notion that promotional pathways and command structures can influence pay grades despite equivalent seniority rankings. 

• Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held in the matter of Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors. 

What was the Background of Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors.? 

• The dispute originated when Manish Kumar Rai, serving as Artificer III in the Indian Navy's technical branch (X group), challenged the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. 
• The Indian Navy's personnel structure divides sailors into technical branches (including Artificers) and non-technical branches, with Artificers being highly skilled technical personnel ranked from Artificer V to Master Chief Artificer Ist Class. 
• On 30th August 2008, through a Gazette Notification (effective retrospectively from 1st January, 2006), the Government of India implemented revised pay structures following the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. 
• Under the revised structure, while all S-9 category personnel were placed in pay band-2, Artificers of classes I, II, and III received a grade pay of Rs. 3,400, whereas Chief Petty Officers were granted Rs. 4,200. 
• Navy Instructions No. 2/S/96 and other official communications established that Artificers III and above held the relative rank of Chief Petty Officer, confirmed through presidential warrants upon promotion. 
• The appellant initially filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, which directed the respondents to examine the grievance regarding grade pay disparity. 
• Following the High Court's direction, the appellant made representations to the Union of India, which were rejected through a speaking order by Naval Headquarters dated 20th April 2009. 
• The matter involved interpretation of Regulation 247 and various Navy Orders, particularly Navy Order 100/67, concerning the seniority and command structure between Artificers and non-Artificers. 
• Upon establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the matter was transferred from the Bombay High Court and was heard as a Transfer Appeal, with both the original petition and subsequent review petition being addressed by the Tribunal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court conducted a hierarchical analysis of Regulation 247, determining that while it governs ranking and command structure within the Navy, it does not establish equivalence for pay purposes, particularly noting the command authority of Chief Artificers over Artificers of classes I to III. 
• In interpreting Navy Order 100/67, the Court distinguished between seniority equivalence and pay structure equivalence, holding that the equivalence between Artificer III and Chief Petty Officer ranks was specifically limited to seniority purposes vis-à-vis non-Artificers. 
• The Court observed the significance of promotional pathways in determining grade pay structure, noting that Artificers III to I can only progress to Chief Artificer positions and cannot directly access Master Chief Artificer roles, thereby justifying their intermediate grade pay of Rs. 3,400. 
• The Court validated the hierarchical pay structure where Artificers III to I receive grade pay higher than Artificer IV (Rs. 2,800) but lower than Chief Artificers (Rs. 4,200), finding this consistent with the organizational command structure and promotional avenues. 
• The Court upheld the Speaking Order dated 20th April, 2009, affirming that the "Chief" rating's exclusive application to Chief Artificers (and not Artificers III to I) constituted a legitimate basis for pay differentiation. 
• The Court concluded that promotional pathways and command structure could legitimately influence pay grades independent of nominal rank equivalence, finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the existing grade pay structure. 

Armed Forces Tribunal 

About: 

• The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is a specialized judicial body in India that adjudicates disputes and complaints related to the armed forces. 
• Established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 
• Handles appeals against court-martial verdicts 
• Provides fast-track justice to serving and retired military personnel 
• The AFT aims to provide a speedy and effective resolution of issues concerning service personnel, including matters of service conditions, disciplinary actions, and pension entitlements.  

Jurisdiction 

• The AFT has territorial jurisdiction over the entire country and exclusive jurisdiction over all service matters of personnel from the Army, Navy, and Air Force (excluding paramilitary forces). 
• It has the power to hear and decide appeals against any court-martial orders, decisions, findings, or sentences passed by military courts. 
• The Tribunal has the authority to grant bail to persons in military custody, with or without conditions, functioning as a criminal court under the Indian Penal Code and CrPC. 
• It can modify court-martial punishments by:  
  • Remitting whole or part of sentences 
  • Mitigating or enhancing punishments 
  • Commuting sentences to lesser ones 
  • Granting parole or suspending imprisonment 
• The AFT has jurisdiction over service matters including promotions, appointments, transfers, and retirement benefits of military personnel. 
• It can adjudicate disputes regarding pension matters and violations of service rules and regulations for both serving and retired military personnel. 
• Appeals against AFT decisions can only be filed directly in the Supreme Court, bypassing High Courts. 
• The Tribunal can declare court-martial findings legally unsustainable if there's evidence of miscarriage of justice or material irregularity in the proceedings. 

Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal 

• The principal bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal is located in New Delhi. 
• Armed Forces Tribunal has regional benches located in the cities mentioned below: 
  • Chandigarh – Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh 
  • Lucknow – Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand 
  • Kolkata – West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and U.T. of Andaman and Nicobar Islands 
  • Guwahati – North-East Region 
  • Chennai – Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry 
  • Kochi – Kerala, Karnataka and Lakshadweep 
  • Mumbai – Maharashtra and Gujarat 
  • Jaipur – Rajasthan 
  • Jabalpur – Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh 
  • Jammu – Jammu and Kashmir 
• Regional benches of Chandigarh and Lucknow have three benches each while the remaining have a single bench. 

Composition  

• The AFT is led by a chairperson who must be either a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice. 
• Judicial Members of the tribunal are appointed from among retired High Court Judges. 
• Administrative Members are selected from two categories:  
  • Retired Armed Forces officers who held the rank of Major General or equivalent for at least 3 years 
  • Former Judge Advocate Generals with minimum one year of service experience 
• The Principal Bench of AFT is located in New Delhi, with several regional benches across the country to ensure accessibility. 
• Each bench typically consists of a combination of Judicial and Administrative members to ensure both legal expertise and military experience in decision-making. 
• The tribunal maintains a balanced composition between civilian judicial officers and military expertise to effectively handle both legal and service-related matters. 

Who can appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal? 

An aggrieved person by the court martial order, decision or finding can appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal. 

Note: 

• The tribunal can also dismiss the appeal if the court martial findings are found to be justified.
• The tribunal can allow an appeal against conviction. 
• Any appeal by a person against a decision given by the tribunal can only be taken up in the Supreme Court. 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Doctor v. State of Maharashtra has held that the state cannot have policies that adversely affect citizens' pursuit of education, especially for those in employment.   

What was the Background of Doctor v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner is a 44-year-old Medical Officer working at the Unani Dispensary in Ardhapur, District Nanded. 
• He was appointed as Medical Officer (Group B) and posted at Primary Health Center at Tamloor, District Nanded. 
• In April 2024, a public notice was issued inviting online applications for All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) 2024. 
• The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to participate in AIAPGET as he held the necessary qualifications. 
• The Deputy Director of Health Services issued him an NOC on 28th June 2024. 
• The petitioner appeared for the AIAPGET examination and secured 184 marks out of 400. 
• However, on September 24, 2024, the Deputy Director withdrew his NOC because: 
  • There was a criminal case registered against the petitioner. 
  •  The case involved charges under Sections 498A (domestic violence), 494 (bigamy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • He was also charged under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 
• The withdrawal was based on the Government Resolution which made medical officers with pending criminal cases ineligible for such examinations. 
• The criminal case against the petitioner stemmed from a matrimonial dispute with his wife, who had filed the complaint against him. 
• The Petitioner challenged the withdrawal of his NOC through a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Bombay High Court observed that: 
  • The only reason given in the withdrawal order was the pending criminal case against the petitioner citing Clause 4.5 of the Government Resolution. 
  • While the government claimed that the petitioner obtained the NOC by suppressing information about his criminal case, this wasn't actually mentioned as a reason in the withdrawal order. 
  • The criminal case against the petitioner arose from a matrimonial dispute with his wife, making it a personal matter. 
• The Court determined that this type of case couldn't be classified as involving moral turpitude that would impact his right to pursue educational advancement. 
• The Court also referred to some judgement and observed that 
  • Case didn't specifically deal with the validity of Clause 4.5 
  • The Supreme Court had limited that judgment's application to that specific case only 
• The Bombay High Court concluded that the petitioner case was similar to the precedent set in Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2024) where Clause 4.5 was found ineffective for in-service candidates seeking admission to PG courses. 
• The Bombay High Court emphasized that the state cannot have policies that adversely affect citizens' pursuit of education, especially for those in employment. 
• The Bombay High Court recognized that in-service candidates achieving higher education would ultimately benefit the public. 
• The Bombay High Court found that the withdrawal of NOC based solely on a pending criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute was not justified. 

What is the Right to Education?  

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) that the citizens of the country have a fundamental right to education.  
  • The Court held in this case that such right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• Subsequently, Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted which introduced the following constitutional amendments:  
  • Article 21 A:   
    • This was inserted in Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights.  
    • This provision provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law determine.  
  • Article 45:   
    • This was inserted in Part IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy.  
    • The Article provides that the State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.  
  • Article 51 A:   
    • This was inserted in Part IV A i.e. Fundamental Duties.  
    • Article 51A lists the fundamental duties of every citizen.  
    • Clause (k) was added in these duties and it was provided that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India ‘who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.’  
• Further, to enforce Article 21A the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE Act) was enacted in 2009. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Unni Krishnan JP And Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. (1993)  
  • The Supreme Court held that the right to education flows directly from the right to life and right to education is concomitant to the fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.  
  • The effect of holding that right to education is implicit in the right to life is that the State cannot deprive the citizen of his right to education except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. 
• Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (2012)  
  • The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 12 of the RTE Act which requires that all schools (whether state funded or private) to accept 25% intake from disadvantaged groups.  
  • The Court in this case reiterated that it is the primary obligation of State to provide free and compulsory education to all children, especially those who cannot afford primary education. 
• Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2024)  
  • In this case some important principles were established as: 
    • Right to education is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
    • This right extends to in-service candidates seeking higher education 
    • The right cannot be denied merely because of pending departmental or criminal proceedings 
    • While the government can set conditions for NOCs, they cannot be arbitrary or illegal