Permanent Commission for women in armed forces
The judgment came when the court dealt with a bunch of cases on reservations for people from SCs and STs in promotions in a government department in Uttarakhand. It also clarified that a previous five-judge bench ruling on the necessity to collect data regarding inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government services was confined only to situations when a state wants to provide reservation but not otherwise. Explaining the constitutional mandate on providing reservation, the court held that it is within absolute discretion of a state government to decide whether or not to provide for reservation, and that there is no obligation on the states to mandatorily do so. In February, the top court ruled that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in public jobs it added that no court could ask a state government to provide reservation. The bench added a caveat that if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so. In this case, the court said it was bound by existing laws and thus asked the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition preferably within three months.Ī five-judge bench cleared the confusion on whether the protection given to a person through anticipatory bail was time-bound, as it ruled that a pre-arrest bail cannot be subject to time constraints and that it can very well continue till the end of trial. The court maintained that disqualification cases of either MPs or the MLAs should be decided by an independent tribunal, outside Parliament or legislative assemblies. The court was hearing an appeal by a Congress MLA from Manipur, who complained against a delay by the Speaker in deciding a disqualification petition against another MLA who won on a Congress ticket but later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Speaker also belongs to a political party, emphasised the court, requesting Parliament to amend the Constitution and strip Legislative Assembly Speakers of their exclusive power to disqualify MLAs. Further, every blackout order must specify reasons and has to be reviewed regularly by the authorities concerned, the court said.Ĭonsider taking away power of disqualification from the Speaker Therefore, it can be demanded as such before a constitutional court. The judgment did not directly order for restoration of the services in the backdrop of the security concerns, but laid down an important principle in law – right to access Internet is a fundamental right by extension. The first month of 2020 witnessed a three-judge bench ruling against the telecommunication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir following the scrapping of Article 370. A rundown of the outgoing year shows an assortment of crucial judgments, including a few that changed the landscape of judicial history.Īccess to Internet equivalent to a fundamental right But the year 2020 was as striking as any other year for the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, once a hive of activity, remains quiet, but since March 23, when the courts started virtual hearings, life has returned to some sort of new normal : the court rooms have been substituted by virtual courts paper books by computer files judges conduct hearings through video conferencing and technology largely determines success of a hearing, if not the outcome.
0 kommentar(er)
