List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar held that merely because the initial appointment orders issued to the petitioners mentioned that the appointment was made on contractual basis, it cannot be said that the petitioners’ appointment was not made on regular basis.               

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Rakesh Lal Meena and others v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others.

What was the Background of Rakesh Lal Meena and others v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others. Case?  

• A group of nurses filed a petition regarding their employment status. The main issue was that despite being selected through a proper recruitment process, they were treated as contract employees. 
• The recruitment process in 2006 included: 
  • Jobs were advertised in Employment News and local newspapers. 
  • Names were also called from the local Employment Exchange. 
  • 154 candidates appeared for Staff Nurse positions. 
  • A proper Selection Committee was formed with four senior officials. 
• The Selection Committee's decisions were as follows: 
  • Selected 15 candidates for existing vacancies. 
  • Prepared a separate list of 6 candidates for proposed new positions. 
  • Created a waiting list of 16 candidates. 
• The petitioners' situations: 
  • Petitioner 1 was appointed from the waiting list against one of the 15 vacancies. 
  • Petitioners 2, 7, and 8 were appointed from the main select list. 
  • Petitioners 3, 4, 5, and 6 were appointed against the proposed six new posts. 
  • Petitioners 9 and 10 were different - their names weren't in any of the selection committee minutes. 
• The main grievance: 
  • Despite going through proper selection process under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
  • Despite being selected against regular vacant positions. 
  • They were given only 6-month contracts. 
  • Were paid a fixed salary of Rs.9075 per month. 
  • Their contracts stated they would work "till the post is created and filled up on a regular basis". 
• The petitioners' argument is that since they were selected through proper recruitment channels (advertisements, employment exchange, selection committee), they should be treated as regular employees, not contract workers. 
• The issue to be determined by the Court was whether the initial appointment of the petitioners made as Staff Nurse on the basis of the selection held by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22nd February 2006 is to be treated to be regular appointment or such appointment has to be treated otherwise; that is to say appointment on contract basis. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• According to the Goa Government (Directorate of Health Services) Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Class III Recruitment Rules, 1967 Service Rules (Service Rules, 1967) following are the requirements for the post of Staff Nurse: 
  • Job Level: It's a Class-III position (indicating it's a non-gazetted position). 
  • Age Requirement: Candidates must be 35 years old or younger. 
  • Required Qualifications:  
    • Must have an A grade certificate in nursing from a recognized institution. 
    • Must have a certificate in midwifery. 
  • Hiring Process:  
    • Positions are filled through direct recruitment. 
    • No need to consult with UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) for hiring. 
• A precondition for treating an appointment to be regular is that the selection should have been made against the available vacancy in the duly sanctioned post. The Court held that the appointments were made against the clear vacancies in the duly sanctioned posts.   
• In the absence of any clear prescription regarding composition of a Selection Committee in the Service Rules, 1967, it cannot be said that the selection of the petitioners was not made by a duly constituted Selection Committee.  
• Had the Service Rules, 1967 provided any particular composition of the Selection Committee and the composition of the Selection Committee which held its meeting on 22nd February 2006 would not have matched with the composition as provided in the Service Rules, 1967, it could be said that the petitioners were not subjected to the selection process by the duly constituted Selection Committee. However, as already observed above, since Service Rules, 1967 do not prescribe any composition of Selection Committee, as such, we have no hesitation in concluding that appointment of the petitioners was made on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was appropriately constituted. 
• If the regular selection process has been followed in terms of the provisions available in the Service Rules, 1967, merely because initial appointment order of the petitioners described the appointment to be on contract basis, in our considered opinion, it will not render the appointment of the petitioners to be on contract basis or irregular in any manner.  
• In these circumstances, depriving the benefit of regular appointment of the petitioners on the post of Staff Nurse was held by the Court to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.

What are the Goa Government (Directorate of Health Services) Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Class III Recruitment Rules, 1967? 

• The said rules were notified on 2^nd February 1967. 
• These have been framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The Proviso to Article 309 of COI provides that the following can make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this Article:  
  • President or such other person as he may direct in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union.  
  • Governor of a State or such other person as he may direct in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. 
• As per Rule 2 of the Service Rules, 1967, the said service rules apply to the posts specified in column 1 of the Schedule appended thereto. 
• Rule 3 provides that number of posts, classification of posts and scales of pay attached to the posts shall be as specified in column Nos.2 to 4 of the Schedule, according to which cadre strength of the post of Staff Nurse was 164 and the post of Staff Nurse was classified as Class-III (non-ministerial, non-gazetted) post. 
• Rule 4 of the Service Rules, 1967 provides for the method of recruitment to the posts, age limit, qualifications and other matters connected therewith as mentioned in column 5 to 13 of the Schedule. 
• Rule 5 of the Service Rules, 1967 provides that the said Rules shall come into effect from the date of Notification.

When Does the Appointment Classify as a Regular Appointment? 

• Regular Appointment means the employment of a person in an authorized full-time position. 
• A Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh & Ors (2008) held that if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.   
• An appointment to qualify as a regular appointment should be made on the basis of selection held by a duly constituted selection committee in terms of the requirement of the recruitment rules.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court's recent judgment in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case declare AMU as an "Institution of National Importance" does not strip it of its minority character. The Court states that the Union's argument that such a designation should necessitate a more inclusive approach to reservations, emphasizing the need to balance national priorities and protect minority rights. 

• The decision emphasizes the constitutional recognition of AMU’s distinct identity while ensuring it remains aligned with broader social justice principles. 

What was the Background of Aligarh Muslim University through its registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal Case? 

• The Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College was established in Aligarh in 1977, initially affiliated with Calcutta University and later with Allahabad University. 
• In 1920, the imperial legislature passed the Aligarh Muslim University Act, which established and incorporated the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). 
• Two significant amendments were made to the AMU Act:  
  • The 1951 Amendment Act  
  • The 1965 Amendment Act, which modified religious instructions for Muslim students and the university's administrative structure. 
• The amendments changed several key aspects, including removing the requirement for Court members to be Muslims and transferring significant powers from the Court to the Executive Council. 
• Constitutional challenges were filed under Article 32 against both the 1951 and 1965 Amendment Acts, primarily arguing that these amendments violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 
• The petitioners' main argument was that AMU was established by Muslims (a religious minority), and therefore they had the right to administer it under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 
• The Union of India opposed these petitions, contending that the Muslim minority didn't have administration rights since they hadn't established the institution - rather, it was established by Parliament through the 1920 Act. 
• Main Legal Issues: 
  • Whether AMU qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution? 
  • The core dispute centers around the interpretation of the phrase "establish and administer" in Article 30(1) which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court stated that AMU's status as an Institution of National Importance under Entry 63 of List I does not automatically negate or diminish its potential minority character. 
• The Court held that the qualities denoted by the terms "national" and "minority" are not mutually exclusive or contradictory; rather, they can coexist within the same institution. 
• The Court emphasized that while "national" indicates a pan-India character, "minority" reflects the religious or linguistic background of the founders and their constitutional rights. 
• The Court rejected the Union's argument that being an institution of National Importance should subject AMU to a more rigorous examination for minority institution status, particularly regarding SC/ST/OBC reservations. 
• The Court clarified that State or Union powers under the Scheduled Lists and minority rights under Article 30 can exist overlappingly, with the former not superseding the latter's constitutional status. 
• The Court determined that State regulation of educational aspects does not amount to a surrender of minority character, and legislative competence over universities does not affect an institution's minority status. 
• The Court held that allowing an institution's national importance status to eliminate its minority character would effectively subordinate Article 30(1) rights to Parliamentary powers. 
• The Court observed that Parliament's power under Entries 63 and 64 to declare institutions as nationally important cannot automatically exclude these institutions from Article 30(1) protections. 
• The Court emphasized that a minority educational institution can simultaneously maintain national importance status while preserving its constitutional protections under Article 30(1). 
• The Court determined that legislative competence distribution between Parliament and State legislatures has no bearing on determining an institution's minority character. 

What is the History and Legal Significance of Minority Rights and Aligarh Muslim University? 

• History of Minority Rights: 
  • The concept originated with the Peace of Westphalia treaties in the mid-17th century, initially focusing on religious minorities. 
  • With the rise of nationalism in Europe, minority rights shifted to include national identities and groups. 
  • By the 1878 Congress of Berlin, protecting minority rights became a condition for new nations to gain international recognition. 
  • The League of Nations made minority rights a priority after World War I, especially in ethnically diverse East-Central Europe. 
  • The protection of minorities evolved from religious identities to include linguistic, cultural, and national identities over time. 
  • The Permanent Court of International Justice played a key role in developing minority rights through several landmark cases in the 1920s-30s. 
• Minority Rights in India: 
  • British rule introduced formal categorization of minorities through religious and caste-based classifications. 
  • The 1909 Morley-Minto Reforms introduced separate electorates and quotas for minority communities. 
  • The 1919 Montagu-Chelmsford reforms further consolidated minority identities in political representation. 
  • The Constituent Assembly initially planned extensive minority protections but scaled back after Partition. 
  • The final Constitution retained Articles 29 and 30 as fundamental rights for cultural and educational protection of minorities. 
  • Post-independence, additional protections were added through Articles 350A and 350B for linguistic minorities. 
• History of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU): 
  • Founded as Muhammaden Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. 
  • Faced decline by 1895 due to increased fees and stricter examination requirements. 
  • The Sir Syed Memorial Fund was created in 1898 to raise money for establishing a university. 
  • Significant deliberations occurred at the All-India Muhammadan Educational Conference about establishing a university. 
  • The AMU Act was finally passed in 1920, establishing the formal university structure. 
  • The Act created four main governing bodies: Executive Council, Academic Council, Court, and other Officers including the Lord Rector. 
• 1951 Amendment Act Key Features: 
  • Replaced the Lord Rector position with 'Visitor', which was to be held by the President of India. 
  • Gave the Visitor extensive inspection and inquiry powers over university operations. 
  • Established the AMU Court as the supreme governing body with powers to review Executive and Academic Council acts. 
  • Granted the Court authority to make, amend, and repeal Statutes. 
  • Expanded Ordinance-making powers to cover student admission, courses, fees, and faculty conditions. 
• 1965 Amendment Act Major Changes: 
  • Significantly reduced the powers of the Court, limiting it mainly to an advisory role. 
  • Transferred Statute-making power from the Court to the Executive Council. 
  • Required Executive Council to get Visitor's approval for new Statutes or amendments. 
  • Restructured the Court's composition to include Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, and others specified in Statutes. 
  • Made the Court primarily an advisory body to the Visitor and other University authorities. 
• Azeez Basha Case: 
  • Case emerged as a challenge to both 1951 and 1965 Amendment Acts. 
  • Primary constitutional question centered on Article 30 (minority institution rights). 
  • Focused on determining if AMU qualified as a minority educational institution. 
  • The challenge came shortly after the 1965 amendments were implemented. 
  • Constitutional validity was examined through the lens of minority rights protection. 

What is Article 30 of the Indian Constitution? 

• Article 30 serves a dual purpose: preventing discrimination against minorities in establishing educational institutions AND providing special protection in their administration. 
• The right to establish educational institutions is not exclusive to minorities (non-minorities have it under Article 19(1)(g)), but minorities get special protection in how they administer their institutions. 
• While Article 30 doesn't explicitly list restrictions, courts have held it's not absolute - regulations can be imposed for educational standards, discipline, health, sanitation, morality and public order. 
• The key distinction is that regulations must not infringe on the "minority character" of the institution - this is the special protection Article 30 provides that isn't available to non-minority institutions. 
• The right to administer includes choosing the managing body, selecting teachers, control over student admissions, and using properties/assets for the institution's benefit. 
• The degree of state interference varies based on whether the institution:  
  • Is unaided and unrecognized (minimal interference). 
  • Is unaided but seeks recognition (moderate regulation). 
  • Receives state aid (can regulate fund usage without diluting minority status). 
• Minority institutions can employ non-minority staff, including in leadership positions, as this falls under their protected right of choice in administration. 
• Article 30 extends beyond religious education to secular education, allowing minorities to provide education in a manner harmonious with their religious/linguistic identity. 
• Any regulations must be both relevant to the purpose of granting recognition/aid and must not infringe on the institution's minority character. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash has denounced the “Bulldozer Justice” trend and the same is against the rule of law. 

What was the Background of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner, a senior journalist, addressed the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop.  
• The road where Tibrewal's house was located was notified as National Highway. Before this, it was a state highway running from District Pilibhit via Bahraich, Balrampur and Maharajganj to Padrauna. 
• The Government of India sanctioned the widening of the existing road. A Detailed Project Report stated that the right way between KM 484 to KM 505.120 should be 30 meters. 
• On 2nd May 2018, an agreement was signed between the State Public Works Department and Mahakaleshwar Infratech Private Limited to execute the work. 
• Authorities claimed Tibrewal was among several people who had encroached upon NH 730 land. The state claims they made public announcements (Munadi) asking for encroachment removal. 
• Tibrewal's mother requested the District Magistrate not to demolish her house, citing a 1975 High Court interim order that required proper notice and statutory provisions for demolition. 
• Tibrewal's brother submitted a letter stating that he had purchased the house/land (registered as Abadi Land) and requesting compensation if demolition was necessary. 
• The authorities demolished the house after allegedly asking occupants to remove their belongings the previous evening. 
• The property had historical ownership documentation: 
  • It was purchased by Tibrewal's father through a registered deed. 
  • A registered deed of partition was executed in the family. 
  • The property was a two-storied ancestral house. 
• Days before the demolition, Tibrewal's father had reportedly demanded a SIT inquiry into alleged irregularities and corruption in the Rs. 185 crore road construction project on NH-730, which was published in local newspapers. 
• Multiple investigations followed the demolition: 
  • The National Human Rights Commission conducted an inquiry. 
  • The Commissioner, Basti Division conducted a separate investigation. 
  • The matter was also brought before the Allahabad High Court through various petitions. 
• This case essentially revolves around the dispute over whether proper legal procedures were followed in the demolition of the property and whether the demolition extent was justified under the road-widening project. 
• A suo motu Writ Petition was registered before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • The State of Uttar Pradesh failed to produce critical documentation: 
    • No documents showing the original width of the State Highway (later NH 730). 
    • No material showing any proper encroachment enquiry or demarcation. 
    • No evidence that land was legally acquired before demolition. 
    • No documentation of the precise extent of alleged encroachment. 
    • No records showing the width of the existing road or notified highway. 
    • No justification for demolition beyond the alleged 3.70 meters of encroachment. 
  • The Court found serious procedural violations: 
    • The demolition was conducted with only a "Munadi" (public announcement). 
    • No written notice was issued to the occupants. 
    • No disclosure was made about the basis of demarcation. 
    • No information was provided about the extent of the planned demolition. 
    • Even for the allegedly encroached area, due process was not followed. 
  • The Court strongly condemned "bulldozer justice": 
    • Stated that justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. 
    • Warned of the danger of selective reprisal through property demolition. 
    • Emphasized that citizens' voices cannot be suppressed by threatening to destroy their properties. 
    • Stressed that a person's homestead represents their ultimate security. 
  • The Court established that while encroachments are not condoned: 
    • Municipal laws and town-planning legislation contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. 
    • Where such legislation exists, its safeguards must be observed. 
    • The constitutional right to property under Article 300A must be protected. 
  • The Court emphasized the need for accountability: 
    • Officials who carry out or sanction unlawful demolitions must face disciplinary action. 
    • Their violations of the law should invite criminal sanctions. 
    • Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. 
  • The Court mandated that any action regarding public or private property must: 
    • Be backed by due process of law. 
    • Follow proper legal procedures. 
    • Respect constitutional rights. 
  • The Court found the entire process followed by the State to be high-handed and without legal authority, necessitating: 
    • Payment of punitive compensation. 
    • Disciplinary action against responsible officers. 
    • Criminal investigation through CB-CID. 
    • Accountability measures for individual officials who violated the law. 
  • These observations reflect the Supreme Court's strong emphasis on due process, rule of law, and protection of citizens' property rights against arbitrary state action. 

What is the Rule of Law? 

About: 

• The term ‘rule of law’ is derived from the French word ‘le principe de legalite’ which means ‘the principle of legality’. 
• Rule of law, also known as supremacy of law, means that no one (including government) is above the law. 
• The rule of law is a legal principle that law should govern a nation against arbitrary decisions by government officials. 
• Every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank. 

Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law: 

• Professor A.V. Dicey is known to be the main exponent of the concept of the rule of law. 
• In 1885, he propounded three principles of the rule of law in his classic book ‘Law and the Constitution’. 
• According to Professor A.V. Dicey, to achieve the supremacy of law the following three principles must be followed: 
  • Supremacy of the law 
  • Equality before the law 
  • Predominance of legal spirit: the court should be free from impartiality and external influence. 

Rule of Law in India: 

• Constitution of India is the law of the land and prevails over the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. 
  • These three organs of the state have to act according to the principles engraved in the constitution. 
• Under the Constitution, the rule of law is incorporated in many of its provisions. 
• Article 13 promotes the doctrine of Rule of Law in India. 
  • The “laws’’ defined under Article 13 as rules, regulations, byelaws and ordinances can be struck down if they are contrary to the constitution of India. 
• Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before law and equal protection of law. 
  • It states that no one shall be denied equality before the law and the equal protection of the law by the state. 
• In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court has included the Rule of Law as the basic feature of the Constitution. 
• In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the SC in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in State actions, ensures fairness and equality in treatment. 
• Another significant derivative goof rule of law is judicial review. 
  • It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. 
• It not only protects constitutional principles but also checks administrative actions and its legality. 
  • In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court. 
• The powers of judicial review are delegated to the High Courts under Article 226 and Article 227 and to the Supreme Courts under Article 32 and Article 136. 

Case Laws: 

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): 
  • This case is also known as “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of the most important cases when it comes to rule of law. 
  • The question that was raised before the Hon’ble Court was whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• DC Wadhva v. State of Bihar (1986): 
  • The SC used the rule of law to decry state government which was too frequently using its ordinance making power as a substitute of legislation by the legislature. 
  • The Court ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances was unconstitutional as the re-promulgation of the ordinances for a period of one to fourteen years without going to the legislation was a colourable exercise of power by the executive. 
• Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi (2000): 
  • The SC has laid down the proposition that it is the duty of the State to preserve and protect the laws and that it may not permit any violent act, which may negate the rule of law.