National School of Banking : 1 : Ptr-0320 Points to Remember
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NATIONAL SCHOOL OF BANKING : 1 : PTR-0320 POINTS TO REMEMBER CONSTITUTION - Supreme Court - The Supreme Court on 13th November 2019, upheld the disqualification of 17 dissident Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) legislators by then Karnataka Assembly Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) but held that their ouster is no bar from contesting repolls. Neither under the Constitution nor under the statutory scheme it is contemplated that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule would operate as a bar for contesting re-elections, a Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana said in a judgment. The court said Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not contemplate such disqualification. On the provisions introduced in the 91st Constitutional Amendment, it said they were brought in specifically to ensure that a legislator disqualified for defection was not appointed as a government Minister or to any remunerative post from the date of his disqualification either till the expiry of his term of office or till he was re-elected to the legislature, “whichever is earlier”. In the light of the existing constitutional mandate, the Speaker is not empowered to disqualify any member till the end of the term. However, a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule shall be subjected to sanctions provided under Articles 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B of the Constitution, which provides for a bar from being appointed as a Minister or from holding any remunerative political post from the date of disqualification till the date on which the term of his office would expire or if he is re-elected to the legislature, whichever is earlier, the court held. The Supreme Court on 13th November 2019, struck down the provisions in the Finance Act, 2017, which altered the terms and conditions of appointments and service of members in key judicial tribunals as unconstitutional. The court said Section 194 of the Finance Act, under which Rules were formed to alter the service conditions of tribunal members, suffered from "various infirmities". It said the Centre's 'control' of different facets of functioning of tribunals would affect judicial independence. A majority judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however, refrained from taking a decision on whether the Lok Sabha speaker had acted right in allowing the Finance Act 2017, especially the parts which changed the character of the conditions and service of tribunal members, to be passed as a money bill in Parliament. A money bill is tabled in Lok Sabha and can be passed circumventing the Rajya Sabha. However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented with the majority on sending the question of money bill to a larger Bench. Justice Chandrachud said it was wrong to pass the provisions as a money bill. He said there was no bar on the court's powers to judicially review the Speaker's discretion to certify a bill as a money bill. The Supreme Court on 14th November 2019, did not alter its ruling allowing women of all ages to enter the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala but asked a seven-judge bench to evolve guidelines to decide cases involving a clash between the right to equality and the right of denominations to follow their customs - a tussle that has been brought to the fore by the campaign to let women into temples, mosques and Parsi agyaris (fire temples). A five-judge bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices R.F Nariman, A.M Khanwilkar, D.Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, by a 3-2 majority, said the seven-judge bench would evolve a comprehensive judicial policy to guide the court in future adjudication of cases of conflict between citizens’ right to equality and a believer’s faith in religious practices and customs. The Supreme Court on 22nd January 2020, refused to stay the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, declining to take note of protests and anti-CAA resolutions by the Kerala and Punjab assemblies, and brushed aside repeated pleas for deferment of processes relating to the National Population Register as a corollary of CAA. The court said the petitions would be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench. A bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna had a tough time dealing with a record 144 petitions represented by nearly 300 advocates leading to a packed courtroom and a cacophonous atmosphere. The protection of anticipatory or pre-arrest bail cannot be limited to any time-frame or “fixed period” as denial of bail amounts to deprivation of the fundamental right to personal liberty : 2 : PTR-0320 in a free and democratic country, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on 29th January 2020. A five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, acknowledged that anticipatory bail helps thwart influential powers from implicating their rivals in false cases. Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects people from the ignominy of detention in jail for days on end and disgrace to their reputation. The court recorded its amicus curiae and senior advocate Harin Raval’s argument that anticipatory bail is all the more needed now because there is an accentuation of political rivalry and “this tendency is showing signs of steady increase”. “The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not normally end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial,” the court held. The Supreme Court on 4th March 2020, scrapped a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular preventing banks from providing services in support of cryptocurrencies, lifting a de facto ban on trading in bitcoin and other such instruments. Cryptocurrency exchanges welcomed the decision and startups said they will revive plans to invest and expand their businesses in India. The move may set the tone for a more calibrated regulatory approach toward digital currencies. A three-member bench headed by Rohinton F Nariman said the central bank hadn’t demonstrated that trading in such currencies was deleterious in any manner, while pointing out that there was no ban on them. “While we have recognised… the power of RBI to take a pre-emptive action, we are testing in this part of the order the proportionality of such measure, for the determination of which RBI needs to show at least some semblance of any damage suffered by its regulated entities. But there is none,” the bench said. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on 6th March 2020, held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act will not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the authorities have tendered the compensation by deposit in the Treasury. A five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, held that landowners, who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. With this, the Constitution Bench has affirmed the February 2018 ruling on Section 24 by a three-judge Bench, led by Justice Mishra himself, in the Indore Development Authority case. The Bench has overruled an earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling in the Pune Municipal Corporation case of 2014. Bills & Acts - Despite strong protests by the LGBTQ community as well as Opposition MPs in Parliament, the Rajya Sabha on 26th November 2019, passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019 through a voice vote. Opposition MPs from the DMK and Congress requested the ruling BJP to send the Bill to a select committee for further legislative scrutiny and to come up with a more ‘comprehensive’ bill and also moved a motion in this regard, but it was defeated in a vote. The Bill had been passed in the Lok Sabha on August 5 during the monsoon session with barely any debate. However, when it came to the Upper House, several MPs raised strong apprehensions regarding implications for the transgender community. As per the Bill, sexual abuse of a transgender person is punishable by only two years jail whereas under the IPC, minimum punishment is seven years. Congress MP Rajeev Gowda pointed out that ‘discrimination’ against transgender persons has not been defined adequately. Minister Thawar Chand Gehlot said apprehensions raised by the members were unfounded if the related provisions were studied in detail. He maintained that ‘wider consultations’ have been held. The Modi government has decided to expand the definition of care-givers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by making not just biological children, but even sons-in-law and daughters-in-law responsible for looking after family members. The amendments to the Act, cleared by the Union Cabinet on 4th December 2019, have been expanded to include parents-in-law and grandparents, whether or not senior citizens. Care-givers who fail to comply can face a jail term of up to six months instead of the current maximum of three months. The definition of “maintenance” is proposed to be expanded to include housing, safety and security. The quantum of maintenance may be decided on the basis of earning and standard of living of senior citizens and parents, children : 3 : PTR-0320 and relatives. The amendment proposes a provision for registration of “senior citizens’ care homes” and the central government will prescribe the minimum standards for their establishment, running and maintenance. The draft bill proposes to register agencies providing ‘home care services’. To reach out to senior citizens, every police station will have to appoint a nodal officer.