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."