List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for disregarding the mental and physical health challenges faced by a woman judicial officer due to a miscarriage while assessing her performance. A bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted gender-based biases in performance evaluations and questioned the absence of similar standards for male judges. This was in a suo moto case involving the termination of two female judicial officers. 

What was the Background of Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. Case? 

• Six judicial officers from the Madhya Pradesh High Court were simultaneously terminated from service.  
• Two female judicial officers remained terminated after four others were reinstated by the High Court.  
• The specific case focuses on one female judicial officer's performance assessment.  
• Performance Metrics: 
  • Disposed of only two civil suits in one year. 
  • Earned just 1.36 performance units. 
  • Maintained below-average disposal rate during COVID-19 period. 
  • Personal Challenges Impacting Performance: 
    • Suffered a miscarriage. 
    • Contracted COVID-19. 
    • Had a brother diagnosed with cancer. 
• Professional Documentation: 
  • Previous Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) contained good and very good remarks. 
  • An inspection judge from Ratlam provided "average" remarks post-termination.  
  • Complaints against her were not conclusively resolved before termination. 
  • The judicial officer challenged her termination, bringing the case to the Supreme Court's attention.  
  • The case states potential gender-based disparities in judicial performance evaluations and the need to consider personal hardships in professional assessments. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh, critically examined the Madhya Pradesh High Court's performance assessment criteria for judicial officers.  
• The bench strongly criticized the evaluation method that failed to consider personal medical and mental health challenges, particularly those specific to female judicial officers.  
• On this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: "I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this.” 
  • The lady got pregnant, and she had a miscarriage! The mental and physical ailment of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. 
  • What is this? I wish men have menstruation.  
  • Then they will know what it is. We are sorry.  
  • This is a High Court dealing with a woman judicial officer. Black and white she has written here that due to miscarriage. Have the same kind of criteria for the male judges! 
• Justice Nagarathna explicitly challenged the gender-biased performance metrics, questioning whether such stringent criteria would be equally applied to male judges 
• The Court observed the need to accommodate personal circumstances like miscarriage, COVID-19 infection, and family health crises in professional performance evaluations.  

What are the Supreme Court's Views on Mandating Menstrual Leave in Workplaces? 

• The Supreme Court, led by the then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud states the complex nuances of implementing a menstrual leave policy, recognizing two contrasting perspectives on such workplace provisions. 
• The bench cautioned that mandating menstrual leave could potentially disadvantage women by making employers reluctant to hire female staff, thereby potentially creating unintended negative consequences for women's employment opportunities 
• The Court State that menstrual leave is fundamentally a policy issue best addressed by policymakers at government and organizational levels, rather than through judicial intervention 
• The three-judge bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, disposed of the petition urging mandatory menstrual leave, noting that the petitioner had previously been advised to submit representations to relevant governmental authorities.  
• While acknowledging the importance of the issue, the Court maintained that policy formulation requires careful consideration of potential impacts on women's workforce participation and should be left to appropriate governmental bodies. 

What are the Legislative Measures Being Taken Regarding Menstrual Leaves? 

• Parliament has seen attempts to introduce menstrual leave and menstrual health products bills, but they have not been successful so far. 
• Example: The Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017’ and Women’s Sexual, Reproductive and Menstrual Rights Bill in 2018. 

The Right of Women to Menstrual Leave and Free Access to Menstrual Health Products Bill, 2022 

• The bill proposes a comprehensive framework to provide three days of paid menstrual leave for working women and female students, along with free access to menstrual health products across all establishments and educational institutions 
• The bill aims to address critical issues surrounding menstrual health, including the fact that approximately 40% of girls miss school during their periods due to various challenges like lack of privacy, discomfort, and social stigma 
• A proposed Female Menstrual Health Products Price Regulating Authority would be established to ensure free distribution of menstrual products, regulate prices, create awareness, and prioritize access for marginalized women 
• The legislative initiative draws inspiration from international practices, noting that countries like Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, Indonesia, and Mexico have already implemented menstrual leave policies 
• The bill frames menstrual leave as an extension of the right to life (Article 21), arguing that women should not be expected to work during menstruation given physical discomfort, mental health challenges, and potential hygiene-related difficulties 

Worldwide

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Deepak Manaklal Katariay V. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors. has held that "jurisdiction" and "maintainability" are distinct legal concepts often mistakenly used interchangeably. 

What was the Background of Deepak Manaklal Katariay V. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors. Case?  

• The case involves a property dispute between Deepak Manaklal Katariya (the petitioner) and Ahsok Motilal Katariya (Respondent No. 1) stemming from an arbitration agreement executed on 28th May 1995.  
• In 1994, a dispute arose between the parties concerning movable and immovable properties. 
• An arbitrator was appointed, and on 17th February 1997, a draft arbitration award was submitted.  
• The petitioner accepted this draft, but Respondent No. 1 refused to accept it, which meant no final arbitration award was ever formalized. 
• On 17th March 1998, the petitioner filed a civil application seeking an interim injunction against Respondent No. 1. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C) 
• The Trial Court initially granted a temporary injunction on 7th April 1998. 
• Respondent No. 1 challenged this injunction, and the District Judge set aside the injunction, ruling that the Civil Judge was not a proper "Court" under the A & C Act. 
• The petitioner challenged this order through various legal channels, including a writ petition and a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. 
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under Section 20 of the A &C Act, 1940 seeking to resolve the ongoing dispute. 
• The core issue revolves around the jurisdictional and procedural complexities surrounding the arbitration agreement and the subsequent legal proceedings, particularly in light of the transition from the 1940 Arbitration Act to the 1996 A & C Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court made the following observations: 
  • Distinction between Jurisdiction and Maintainability 
    • The Court emphasized that "jurisdiction" and "maintainability" are distinct legal concepts often mistakenly used interchangeably. 
    • Jurisdiction refers to the court's power and authority to adjudicate a dispute 
    • Maintainability relates to the procedural validity of a legal proceeding 
  • Types of Jurisdictions 
    • The Court elaborated on three types of jurisdictions: 
      • Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Power to deal with a specific type of case 
      • Territorial Jurisdiction: Geographic area of court's authority 
      • Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Monetary limits of a court's power 
  • Critical Analysis of Trial Court's Order 
    • The High Court found that the Trial Court incorrectly conflated jurisdiction and maintainability 
    • The Trial Court erroneously concluded it lacked jurisdiction when it should have examined maintainability 
  • Significance of Respondents' Prior Statements 
    • The Court noted that the respondents themselves had earlier admitted in Supreme Court proceedings that the arbitration agreement pertained to the 1940 Act 
    • This admission was crucial in light of the savings clause in Section 85(2)(a) of the 1996 Act 
  • Procedural Defects 
    • The Trial Court improperly considered maintainability when it had already concluded a lack of jurisdiction. 
    • The Court stressed that a jurisdiction finding precludes further deliberation on case merits. 
  • The Bombay High Court interpreted Section 20 of the 1940 A & C Act as allowing parties to seek court intervention for filing arbitration agreements and appointing arbitrators 
  • The jurisdiction of the Civil Judge is derived from the ability to decide matters that could be subject to a suit 
  • Ultimately, the Bombay High Court quashed the Trial Court's order and directed it to adjudicate the application on merits, strictly in accordance with law. 

What is Section 20 of the A & C Act, 1940? 

• Application to file in Court Arbitration Agreement: 
  • Subsection (1): Conditions for Filing 
    • Parties must have entered into an arbitration agreement before instituting a suit 
    • Applies to the subject matter of the agreement or part of it 
    • A difference has arisen covered by the agreement 
    • Parties can apply to a Court with jurisdiction instead of proceeding under Chapter II 
  • Subsection (2): Essentials of Application 
    • Must be in writing 
    • Numbered and registered as a suit 
    • Parties Classification: 
    • If all pa rties apply: Some as plaintiffs, others as defendants 
    • If only some parties apply: Applicants as plaintiffs, others as defendants  
  • Subsection (3): Court's Initial Response 
    • Court must issue notice to all agreement parties (except applicants) 
    • Notice requires parties to show cause 
    • Specifies a time limit for responding why the agreement should not be filed 
  • Subsection (4): When No Sufficient Cause is Shown 
    • Court shall order the agreement to be filed 
    • Make a reference order to: 
    • Arbitrator appointed by parties (in agreement or otherwise) 
    • If parties cannot agree, Court will appoint an arbitrator 
  • Subsection (5): Subsequent Proceedings 
    • Arbitration proceeds according to other provisions of the Act 
    • Applies provisions as far as they are applicable

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan laid down the conditions when an order passed by a single judge in contempt is appealable to the division bench.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others. 

What was the Background of Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others. Case?  

• The Respondent (Devina Tewari) in this case filed a contempt application related to previous High Court order from April 2015. 
• The original 2015 High Court judgment directed a college to reinstate the respondent to service. 
• On January 5, 2022, a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the contempt application, finding that no contempt had been committed. 
• The Respondent then filed an appeal against this Single Judge order before the Division Bench of the High Court. 
• The Division Bench passed an interim order allowing the respondent to submit a joining report within 15 days and directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the college. 
• The appellant (Deepak Kumar) challenged the maintainability of this appeal, arguing it was not tenable based on the Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. Case. 
• The respondent's counsel argued that since the Single Judge went into the merits of the matter, the appeal was maintainable under Clause V of the Midnapore judgment. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Apex Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the Single Judge clearly stated that no contempt was committed regarding the original April 2015 court order.  
• According to the Supreme Court's previous Midnapore judgment, such an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings is not appealable. 
• The respondent's argument trying to use Clause V of the Midnapore judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court found that the Single Judge's order did not involve any decision on the merits of the original case. 
• The only legal remedy available to the respondent was to file a special leave petition directly to the Supreme Court. 
• Hence, the Court finally dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court’s Division Bench.

What is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act? 

• The CC Act was passed by Parliament in the year 1971 and came into force on 24th December 1974. 
• The main objective of the CC Act is to protect the integrity of the courts. 
• This CC Act gives inherent powers to the court to punish against its own contempt. 
• Contempt of court seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority. 
• When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India (COI). 
• Separately, Article 129 of the COI conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. 
• Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. 
• There are two kinds of contempt: 
  • Civil Contempt: It is the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 
  • Criminal Contempt: It is the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. 

What is the Provision for Appeal under the CC Act?  

• The provisions related to appeal are given under Section 19 of the CC Act as 
  • Clause (1) states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt— 
    • where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court. 
    • where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. 
  • Clause (2) states that pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that— 
    • The execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended. 
    • If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail. 
    • The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. 
  • Clause (3) states that where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). 
  • Clause (4) states that an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed— 
    • In the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days. 
    • In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

What are the Principles Governing Appeals Against Orders in Contempt Proceedings? 

• The Court laid down the principles in the case of Mindnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006):  
  • An appeal under Section 19 will only lie against an order or decision of the High Court imposing punishment for contempt. 
  • There can be no appeal in following circumstances (however in special circumstances they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the COI): 
    • an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt 
    • an order initiating proceeding for contempt 
    • an order dropping the proceedings for contempt 
    • an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor 
  • The High Court may in a proceeding for contempt decide whether any contempt has been committed and if so, what should be the punishment. 
    • In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. 
  • Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties will not be in the exercise of the 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore not appealable under section 19 of the CC Act. 
    • The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. 
  • If the High Court decides an issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties in a contempt proceeding the aggrieved person is not without remedy. 
    • Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-Court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the COI (in other cases).