List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav held that the Appellate Authority has power to consider the application of petitioner for stay.               

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Sri Nagraj v. The Hon’ble Addl. Labour Commissioner and Othrs. 

What was the Background of Sri Nagraj v. The Hon’ble Addl. Labour Commissioner and Othrs. Case?  

• The petitioner was appointed as a Finance Officer on contract basis. 
• During the course of his employment the 2nd Respondent lodged a complaint against him of sexual harassment at workplace which according to him is a false complaint. 
• The petitioner has filed detailed reply to the complaint. 
• The Internal Complaint Committee made out it’s recommendation by way of final report and the employer passed an order of transfer. 
• It is the case of the petition that an application of stay was filed before the Appellate Authority and till date no orders are passed and the Authority has merely issued notice in appeal without considering granting an interim order which has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 
• Thus, the main grievance of the petitioner is that once the appeal is filed unless the application for stay is considered by the authority, cases where genuine grievance are raised would remain unaddressed till the appeal is decided which may take time with no relief in the interregnum.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The provisions governing appeal under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH) are provided for under Section 18 of POSH and Rule 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (POSH Rules).    
• The Court observed that these provisions nowhere stipulate that the Appellate Authority has power to grant interim relief. 
• However, the Court observed that once the appellate authority has the power to set aside the impugned proceedings, it can be construed that the appellate authority also has power to consider passing of interim order of stay as well. 
• Further, the Court emphasized on the principle “ubi aliquid conceditur conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest” which means that the Court must be deemed to possess all such powers as are necessary to make the order effective. 
• Thus, it was concluded that when there is no bar on grant of interim relief under the statute, such power to grant interim relief could be considered. 
• The writ petition was hence disposed off and the Court observed that the Appellate Authority has power to consider the application of petitioner for stay.

What is the Provision of Appeal under the POSH Act and POSH Rules? 

POSH Act, 2013

• Section 18 of POSH Act lays down the provision of appeal against the orders made under the POSH Act. 
• The following are the recommendations against which appeal can be filed under the POSH Act:

• The appeal shall be filed to the following as per the POSH Act: 
  • Appeal can be filed to the Court or tribunal in accordance with the service rules applicable to the said person. 
  • Where no such service rules exist the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed. 
• Section 18 (2) lays down that the appeal under Section 18 (1) shall be filed within 90 days of the recommendations. 

POSH Rules, 2013 

• Rule 11 of POSH Rules, 2013 provides that the appeal may be filed to the appellate authority notified under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 

What are the Landmark Judgments on Power of Appellate Authority ? 

• Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. MK Mohammed Kunhi (1968): 
  • The Court was dealing with the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 and 255 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). 
  • The Court held that at the relevant time there was no specific power available to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to grant stay against the demand of tax but the same can be read into the powers of deciding appeal itself. 
• Smt. Savitri v. Sri Govind Singh Rawat (1986): 
  • The Court allowed the consideration of interim order in an application filed under Section 125 of CrPC. 
  • The Court held that “Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment.” 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant has been nominated as the chairperson of the Supreme Court legal Services Committee (SCLSC) by the CJI (Chief Justice of India) of India. 

What is the Background of the News? 

• In the present nomination, Justice Surya Kant has been nominated as the chairperson of the SCLSC. 
• Earlier the post was held by the Supreme Court's senior most puisne judge, Justice BR Gavai who has now been appointed as Executive Chairperson of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). 
• Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna nominated Justice Surya Kant for the post in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA). 
• The notification regarding the same was issued on 12th November 2024. 

What is the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee? 

About: 

• The SCLSC was constituted under Section 3A of the LSA, to provide “free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society”, in cases falling under the top court’s jurisdiction. 
• Section 3A of the LSA Act states that the NALSA shall constitute the committee. 
• It consists of a sitting Supreme Court Judge, who is the chairman, along with other members possessing the experience and qualifications prescribed by the Centre. Both the chairman and other members will be nominated by the CJI. 
• Further, the CJI can appoint the Secretary to the Committee. 

Members: 

• The SCLSC consists of a chairperson and nine members nominated by the CJI.  
• The Committee, in turn, can appoint officers and other employees as prescribed by the Centre, in consultation with the CJI. 
• Besides this, Rule 10 of the NALSA Rules, 1995, entails the numbers, experience, and qualifications of the SCLSC members. 
• Under Section 27 of the LSA, the Centre is empowered to make rules in consultation with the CJI, by notification, to carry out the provisions of the Act. 

What are the Constitutional Provisions that Mandate the Provision of Legal Services in India? 

• The need for providing legal services has been underlined in many provisions of the Indian Constitution.  
• Article 39A states, the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and 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. 
• Moreover, Articles 14 (right to equality) and 22(1) (rights to be informed of grounds for arrest) also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before the law and a legal system that promotes justice based on equal opportunity. 

Justice Surya Kant 

About: 

• Justice Surya Kant was born in Hisar (Haryana) on 10th February 1962. He graduated from Government Post College Hisar in 1981 and completed his bachelor’s degree in law from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in 1984.    
• He was appointed as the Advocate General of Haryana on 7th July 2000.  
• He was designated as Senior Advocate in March 2001.  
• He was designated as Permanent Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9th January 2004.  
• He assumed the role of Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 5th September 2018.  
• He was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court on 24th May 2019.   

Important Judgement Passed by Justice Surya Kant: 

• S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022): 
  • The petitions were filed challenging the validity of Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).   
  • The Court in this case passed the order that the State Government and Central Government must restrain from registering FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measure by invoking Section 124A of IPC.  
  • The Court also directed that all the proceedings arising out of Section 124 A of IPC should be kept in abeyance.
• Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court held that once the signatures on the cheque or deed were admitted, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued for consideration of a legally enforceable debt.
• In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023): 
  • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the decision of the Union Government to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution.  
  • The Court held that the interpretation clause cannot be used to amend the constitution, it can only be used to define or give meaning to particular terms.    
  • The Court held that the President had the power under Article 370(3) to unilaterally notify that Article 370 shall cease to exist.  
  • Further, the Court held that since the concurrence of the State Government was not required for the exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d), the President securing the concurrence of the Union of India was not mala fide.
• Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey (2024): 
  • In this case a claim was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.  
  • The deceased was a 50 year old woman who was a homemaker.  
  • The Court held that the role of a homemaker is as important as any other member of the family whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family.  
  • The Court held that as a homemaker her direct and indirect monthly income can in no circumstances be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.
• Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP and Anr (2024): 
  • The court observed that the decision in the first round of litigation could not serve as res judicata to bar the second round, especially considering situations where larger public interest is at stake.  
    • It noted that GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court.  
    • There were no disputed issues between them in the first round.  
  • Considering public interest concerns, most appeals filed by the Delhi government were allowed, and directions were issued.  
    • Separate orders were passed in other cases.  
  • The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan said that in such cases, "a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far-reaching public interest implications."

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjiv Khanna has officially assumed the office as the 51st Chief Justice of India, succeeding Justice DY Chandrachud. He was sworn in by President Droupadi Murmu in a ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure as Chief Justice will last until May 2025. He is known for his significant contributions to various landmark judgments, including in cases involving the RTI Act, hate speech regulation, the Central Vista project, and politically sensitive bail applications, among others. 

What is the Background of the News?

• Justice Sanjiv Khanna has been appointed as the 51st Chief Justice of India. 
• He took oath at Rashtrapati Bhavan, administered by President Droupadi Murmu. 
• His tenure will run until 13th May, 2025 (approximately seven months). 
• Prior to the Supreme Court, he served at the Delhi High Court and was elevated to Supreme Court on 18th January 2019. 
• Constitutional and Civil Rights Jurisprudence 
  • He has delivered landmark judgment applying RTI Act to the Office of Chief Justice of India, enhancing judicial transparency 
  • Authored significant opinion in Amish Devgan case establishing judicial framework for regulating hate speech 
  • Established irretrievable breakdown of marriage as grounds for divorce under Article 142 powers of Supreme Court 
• Public Interest and Infrastructure Cases 
  • Authored dissenting opinion in Central Vista case, emphasizing procedural irregularities 
  • Led bench in EVM-VVPAT matter, balancing electoral integrity with practical considerations 
  • Mandated additional safeguards in electronic voting while maintaining existing verification protocols 
• Anti-Corruption and Enforcement Cases 
  • Presided over high-profile Delhi liquor policy cases involving senior political figures 
  • Established precedent for balanced approach in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) cases 
  • Granted conditional interim bail for election campaigning, setting important precedent for political rights during ongoing investigations 
• Constitutional Bench Matters 
  • Participated in landmark judgments on Article 370 and Electoral Bonds 
  • Authored separate concurring opinion in Electoral Bonds case, focusing on constitutional rights violations 
  • Significant transparency in political funding while protecting democratic principles 
• Administrative Law 
  • Demonstrated consistent approach in balancing executive powers with procedural safeguards 
  • Established precedents for judicial review of administrative actions 
  • Emphasized expeditious trial completion in sensitive political cases 
  • Civil Liberties 
  • Maintained strong focus on protecting fundamental rights 
  • Developed jurisprudence on balance between investigation needs and personal liberty 
  • Emphasized need for safeguards against potential abuse of investigative powers. 

List of Chief Justices of India and Their Tenures  

What are the Constitutional Provisions Related Chief Justice of India? 

• Article 124(1) 
  • Establishes the Supreme Court of India with a Chief Justice and other judges 
  • Maximum strength of judges is fixed by Parliament (currently 34 including CJI) 
• Article 124(2) 
  • CJI is appointed by the President of India 
  • Consultation with other Supreme Court judges is mandatory for appointment 
  • President must consult sitting CJI for appointment of other Supreme Court judges 
• Article 124(3) 
  • Qualifies requirements for CJI appointment:  
    • Must be an Indian citizen 
    • Must have been a High Court judge for at least 5 years, or 
    • Must have been an advocate in High Court(s) for at least 10 years, or 
    • Must be a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion 
• Article 124(4) 
  • Provides procedure for removal of CJI 
  • Can be removed only through impeachment on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity 
  • Requires special majority in both houses of Parliament 
• Article 125 
  • Determines salary and allowances of CJI 
  • Currently governed by High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 
• Article 126 
  • Empowers President to appoint Acting Chief Justice when:  
    • Office of CJI is vacant 
    • CJI is temporarily absent 
    • CJI is unable to perform duties 
• Article 127 
  • CJI can appoint ad hoc judges to Supreme Court with President's approval when quorum not available 
• Article 128 
  • Allows CJI to request retired Supreme Court judges to act as judges of Supreme Court. 
• Article 129 
  • Establishes Supreme Court under CJI as court of record with power to punish for contempt 
• Article 130 
  • CJI's consent required to seat Supreme Court in place other than Delhi 
• Article 144 
  • All civil and judicial authorities must act in aid of Supreme Court under CJI's leadership 
• Article 145 
  • Empowers CJI to make rules for regulating court practice and procedure 
  • Subject to law made by Parliament and approval of President 
• Article 146 
  • CJI has administrative powers to appoint officers and servants of Supreme Court 
  • Conditions of service determined by rules made by Supreme Court with Presidential approval 
• Article 217 
  • CJI must be consulted in appointment of High Court judges 
• Article 222 
  • CJI's recommendation required for transfer of High Court judges 
• Additionally relevant provisions: 
  • Second Schedule 
    • Specifies salary and allowances of CJI 
    • Cannot be varied to disadvantage during term of office 
  • Article 50 
    • Separation of judiciary from executive 
    • CJI's role in maintaining judicial independence