More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
The court’s objection was based on the absence of a procedure rather than the merits of an existing system.26 Soon after the Satwant Singh judgement, the Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 (the Passports Act) to regulate how passports would be issued, refused, impounded and/or revoked—matters on which comprehensive legislation did not exist earlier.
Interesting...
(The most notable instance of this was when Surya carried photographs showing the son of then defence minister Jagjivan Ram engaging in sexual intercourse with a student of Delhi University.)
Tabloid pro max
The court’s judgement in Maneka Gandhi is based on the simple premise that an arbitrary law is no law.
‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law’.
Peocedures under IT Act satisfy this?
Perhaps the most logical criticism of the judgement on secular grounds is the fact that the court could have decided in Shah Bano’s favour based on constitutional principles, without interpreting Muslim law (which was done in two cases before Shah Bano).28 The court ventured into hazardous territory when it invoked its own interpretation of the Quran.
Jabardastii phantom...
Shah Bano affixed her thumbprint on a letter retracting her involvement with the cause—a fight that persisted over seven years and took her everywhere, from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate to the Supreme Court. She dissociated herself from the Supreme Court judgement,30 allegedly because she was ‘explained’ that her salvation would depend upon whether she sought maintenance or not.
the court emphasized that the MWA ensured that a husband would not only maintain his divorced wife during iddat, but also pay a lump sum that would amount to a reasonable and fair provision for her future.
In Danial Latifi, the Supreme Court exercised greater restraint than in Shah Bano. It refused to strike down the MWA, yet protected the rights of divorced Muslim women through an astute use of interpretative tools.
Ishmart...
Feminism will languish low in the priority list of governments when it is pitted against a large vote share.
Everything will lie low aginst a vote bank!
Although Shah Bano didn’t eventually claim her alimony from her former husband, there are many divorced Muslim women who will.
This is most interesting about this case. She backed out!
‘[i]f the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him [or her] of his [or her] means of livelihood to the point of abrogation’.
isn't this the basic argument against the caste system as well?
By allowing construction of the dam, the court took the number of persons displaced by the project to a staggering 3,20,000,26 affixing its stamp of approval on the largest court-sanctioned forced eviction in the world.
wow
Many who were not even born at the time of the disaster but were still in the womb of their mothers endured its catastrophic consequences. Even today, residents of Bhopal suffer from genetic defects such as damaged reproductive systems, lung problems and vision impairments due to the gas leak that occurred almost three decades ago.
wow
The Government of India was quick to derail their hopes. It promulgated the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Ordinance, 1985, which was replaced by the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 (the Bhopal Act) on 29 March 1985. The Bhopal Act gave the Central government the exclusive right to represent and act (in India or overseas) in place of the persons entitled to make claims in relation to the Bhopal gas leak. It authorized the Central government to represent the interests of those affected by the gas leak as ‘parens patriae’—this tool, which originated in
...more
how it this allowed? doesn't this violate some fundamental right?
The arguments projected a strange situation—the Union of India argued that Indian courts could not handle the matter efficaciously while a United States corporation asserted that they could.
wtf?
To retain the litigation in this forum . . . would be yet another example of imperialism, another situation in which an established sovereign inflicted its rules, its standards and values on a developing nation. This court declines to play such a role. The Union of India is a world power in 1986, and its courts have the proven capacity to mete out fair and equal justice. To deprive the Indian judiciary of this opportunity to stand tall before the world and to pass judgement on behalf of its own people would be to revive a history of subservience and subjugation from which India has emerged.
...more
patak ke li hai...
Indian law does not value life as much as it is valued in other nations, such as the United States of America. Is it because we have so many people that each one doesn’t mean as much?
Basic demand and supply hai..
Warren Anderson, Chairman of UCC at the time of the leak, did not appear in court and was declared an absconder.
Though the court slapped the maximum punishment it could, it was sharply criticized for treating the disaster like a ‘minor traffic accident’.42
At the same time, one cannot help but notice the differential treatment of the two incidents. Had the accident occurred in Indian waters, would BP have paid even half the compensation it eventually did?
The recent Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 (passed by both houses of Parliament) caps the liability of nuclear plant operators for nuclear accidents to 1500 crore (15 billion) rupees (roughly 325 million dollars). This amount is lower than the 470-million-dollar compensation awarded in the Bhopal case, which in itself was grossly insufficient.
The 1265-crore-rupee (12.65-billion-rupee) aid package cleared by the Union Cabinet for the Bhopal victims in 2010 is a step in the right direction.
additional compensation of 7844 crore (78.44 billion) rupees,55 is a more realistic and appropriate
In 1980, the Mandal Commission submitted its report—it applied eleven relative indicators, grouped into three broad heads (social,23 educational24 and economic25) to ascertain which classes could be treated as socially and economically backward. The commission found 3743 socially and economically backward castes via these parameters—a figure 50 per cent higher than that arrived at by the Kalelkar Commission. From the caste figures based on the census of 1931—the last time a caste census had been conducted in India—as well as the population census of 1971, the Mandal Commission inferred that
...more
Recognizing that caste had become the ‘cancer cell’ of Hindu society and the ‘biggest curse’ for India,35 the court emphasized that position in the Hindu caste hierarchy should be used as a criterion to determine if a class could be considered backward.
The court then found that the 10 per cent quota for economically backward persons (otherwise not entitled to avail of reservation) was unconstitutional. Neither does the Constitution contemplate reservation based solely on economic grounds nor is it aligned with the purpose of reservation—to uplift historically disadvantaged groups, not eradicate poverty in general.
The court also disallowed the Mandal Commission’s finding that reservations should also apply to promotions, thus restricting its ambit to the appointment stage.
The court also said, rightly, with regard to some technical positions (for instance, in the case of pilots, scientists and nuclear technicians), by virtue of the nature of work, appointment should only be based on merit.
Within three years of the Indra Sawhney judgement, the Parliament inserted Article 16(4A)42 into the Constitution, permitting reservations for SCs and STs to extend to promotions.43 This was a political tactic and was meant to nullify the portion of the court’s judgement that disallowed reservation at the promotion stage.
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government45 reignited it in 2006 when it passed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act (the CEI Act). This act implemented the report’s other recommendations, via which 27 per cent of the seats in all government-funded institutions would be reserved for OBCs.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009—according to which all primary schools (including private unaided institutions) were to reserve 25 per cent of their seats for children belonging to socio-economically backward classes, SCs and STs—
Even pvt schools?
However, even as the Supreme Court validated reservations in primary educational institutions, it exempted minority institutions from the ambit of the reservation policy.
Wtf. Why?
the Union Cabinet, on 9 September 2010, decided to delink the regular population census from the caste census.
TBR was caste census finally done, or not?
If a person is unlawfully detained by the police, the Constitution allows redressal by the filing of a habeas corpus petition under Article 324 or 226.5
Habeas corpus (in Latin, literally ‘[we command that] you shall have the body’) is one of the oldest writ remedies, recognized by courts for centuries.
In 1979–80, police officials at Bhagalpur Central Jail in Bihar blinded thirty-one undertrial prisoners by pouring acid into their eyes.
Clearly, the court’s decision signified that the ordinary remedy to seek damages from the state is through ordinary civil (tortious) law. The compensation provided to Sah was an exception—it was an attempt to undo the injustice done unto an innocent man.
the court ordered the state to pay Bhim Singh the suitable sum of 50,000 rupees. The court did not elaborate how the amount of compensation was calculated.
What year was this?
The two women were beaten up and the nine-year-old son of one of them died due to police brutality. The court ordered compensation of 75,000 rupees to be paid to the mother for the murder of her child.
Which year? And only 75k?
Thus, for the very first time, the Supreme Court drew the distinction between compensation as a remedy in public law and private law proceedings.
Did not completely understand this subtlety.
These included conducting regular medical examinations of the person in custody, the right to inform a friend or relative of the arrest, access to a lawyer during interrogation, and so on. Not only did the court order that these requirements be circulated to all police stations in India, it also innovatively suggested that they be broadcast on All India Radio and telecast on Doordarshan.
TBR would be interesting to see/hear these announcements
In another case where a Bangladeshi national was gang-raped by railway employees, the Supreme Court extended the right to seek compensation to foreign nationals—all persons enjoy the right to life under Article 21.37
Wtf man!
Thus, it did away with the cloak of ‘sovereign immunity’ previously enjoyed by public officials as a defence against acts of negligence.
This is important!
By reducing the compensation granted to the amount claimed, the court would only encourage petitioners to make extravagant compensation claims to somehow ensure that the amount calculated by the court did not exceed the amount claimed as compensation.
From as little as 10,000 rupees awarded by the Supreme Court in 1991 in a case of insult to individual dignity to as much as 10 lakh (1 million) rupees awarded by the Calcutta High Court in 2000 to a victim of rape by railway employees, the calculation of compensation amounts has been erratic and inconsistent.
The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
Different than US?
Another unhappy practice developed—although vacancies were available for permanent judges, every high court judge was initially appointed as an additional judge before being confirmed as permanent. If the executive was unhappy with the decisions of a particular judge, he/she could be penalized by being refused confirmation as a permanent judge of that high court. This system clearly went against the principles of the Constitution, under which additional judges were to be appointed not as a matter of course, but only to meet temporary increase in business or work arrears.
It ordered that the correspondence be produced, asserting that the ‘right to know’ how a nation is governed is an essential pillar of democracy.
Therefore, in the course of its judgement in the First Judges Case, the Supreme Court moved away from two traditional rules of law—the rule of locus standi and the protection of privileged communication—and laid down seminal roadmaps.
it recognized an important doctrine (in favour of one party), but ultimately decided in favour of the opposing party.
Ayodhya verdict sounded like this
