sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu
Menu

Article 14

Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons NITU KUMARI 26 Mar 2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha …PetitionerVersusUnion of India & Ors. …Respondents Date Of Judgment: October 3, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 753Presiding judges:Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala,Justice Manoj Misra Introduction A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra gave a slew of directions prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons. Factual Background The article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System” was written by journalist Sukanya Shantha (“Petitioner”) and published on December 10, 2020. Discrimination in prisons based on caste was emphasized in the article. Subsequently, the Petitioner challenged the legitimacy of certain clauses of State Prison Manuals before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Some of the Prison Manual provisions challenged stated that:(i) A convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to performing such duties;(ii) A convict overseer may be appointed as a night guard provided he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes;(iii) Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste;(iv) Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free; and(v) Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men. The Petitioner argued that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in prisons. The States of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Odisha, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu appeared before the Supreme Court. Issue Of The Case Whether provisions in the Prison Manuals of various States that distinguish between inmates based on caste are unconstitutional. Whether using vague and indeterminate criteria like “habit,” “custom,” “superior mode of living,” and “natural tendency to escape” as a basis for classifying prisoners serves as a valid differentia or merely acts as a proxy for caste-based discrimination against marginalized communities. Whether prison authorities’ practice of segregating inmates based on caste identity, justified as a measure to prevent conflicts and maintain discipline, is constitutional and compatible with fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Indian Constitution. Observations The Court ruled that caste-based segregation in jails breaches core constitutional safeguards and continues to discriminate against underprivileged people, even when it is justified under the guise of maintaining discipline. The Court categorically rejected the “separate but equal” theory, concluding that it is incompatible with the Indian Constitution and cannot be utilized to support caste-based prison segregation. The Court observed that prison authorities’ duty to maintain discipline cannot be discharged at the cost of violating fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates, stating that alternative non-discriminatory measures must be adopted. The Court concluded that definitions of “habit,” “custom,” “superior mode of living,” and “natural tendency to escape” that were used to categorize prisoners were unconstitutionally ambiguous and imprecise, acting only as stand-ins for discrimination based on caste. The Court ruled that, with the exception of certain limited uses to advance equality and social justice, caste-based classification—whether direct or indirect—is prohibited under the Constitution. The Court found that caste-based prisoner classification is arbitrary and unlawful since it lacks any logical connection to the justifiable goals of security, reform, or rehabilitation. The Court pointed out that caste-based isolation will exacerbate caste tensions and hostility rather than address them, undermining the prison system’s rehabilitative goals. Judgment A three-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that the challenged Prison Manual provisions breached Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23. The Court ordered the States to amend their jail manuals within three months. It also asked each state to provide a status report. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. Conclusion In addition to ordering extensive reforms in all States and Union Territories and establishing a monitoring system to guarantee compliance and stop prejudice inside the prison system, the Supreme Court ruled that caste-based prison segregation was unconstitutional. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at

Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons Read More »

Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra:

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: NITU KUMARI 26 Mar 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9792 OF 2023 Kunal Kamra …PetitionerVersusUnion of India …Respondents Date Of Judgment: January 31, 2024Presiding judges:Justice Gautam PatelJustice A.S. ChandurkarJustice Dr. Neela Gokhale Introduction Who is Kunal Kamra? Kunal Kamra is an Indian stand-up comedian and political satirist. In his shows, he quips about the peculiarities of life, popular culture, the economy, politics, and big business.Born and reared in Mumbai, Kamra is often embroiled in controversy due to his polarizing remarks about BJP politicians, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In 2017, he started a show called Shut Up Ya Kunal, in which he had informal discussions with politicians and activists from both sides. He’s previously made headlines for a mid-air confrontation with news anchor Arnab Goswami in 2020. Who is Eknath Shinde? Eknath Sambhaji Shinde, an Indian politician who was born on February 9, 1964, has been serving under Devendra Fadnavis as Maharashtra‘s Deputy Chief Minister since December 2024 alongside Ajit Pawar. He has been the head of the Shiv Sena since February 2023 and was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra from June 2022 to December 2024. He was an MLA for the Thane seat from 2004 to 2009 and has been a member of the Legislative Assembly since 2009 for the Kopri-Pachpakhadi constituency. Factual Background When Kunal Kamra performed at the Habitat Studio at the Unicontinental Hotel in the Khar neighborhood of Mumbai, he called Shiv Sena leader and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “traitor” and proceeded to sing a parody about him. Kamra described Shinde’s 2022 mutiny against his then-boss Uddhav Thackeray using a modified version of a Hindi song from the film Dil To Pagal Hai. According to PTI, which cited the police, a number of Shiv Sena employees allegedly vandalized the studio and the hotel on Sunday night. Due to Kamra’s alleged defamatory remarks against Shinde, the Mumbai Police filed a formal complaint against him on Monday. According to the PTI report, Shiv Sena official Rahul Kanal and 11 other people were also taken into custody by the police for looting the hotel. According to ANI, the Mahayuti ruling alliance has claimed that the Shiv Sena, led by Uddhav Thackeray, bribed Kamra. Kamra’s comments have been supported by the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance, which has criticized the state administration for the collapse of law and order and brought up the subject of freedom of speech. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolition team took hammers to the Habitat Studio on Monday. The H West ward staff was instructed to perform an inspection by BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani following a conversation with State Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik. Maharashtra’s State Home Minister, Yogesh Kadam, said Monday that the legislation will be strictly implemented and that Kamra’s whereabouts were being investigated. What is the Kunal Kamra–Eknath Shinde Controversy all about? During a recent stand-up show, comedian Kunal Kamra is once again at the center of a political storm after his recent performance in Mumbai. During his latest show ‘Naya Bharat’ at the Habitat Comedy Club in Khar, he humorously parodied a popular Shah Rukh Khan Hindi song by calling Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “gaddar” (traitor). The comment made reference to Shinde’s 2022 political rebellion, which led to the dissolution of the Shiv Sena party. In a spoof of a song from Dil To Pagal Hai, Kamra sang:“Meri nazar se tum dekho to gaddar nazar wo aaye, haaye.” After being posted on social media, the video swiftly gained popularity and attracted the attention of political supporters. A case was filed against comedian Kunal Kamra after a video of him surfaced showing him taking a jibe at Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde for switching sides. What was the reaction of Eknath Shinde? The joke was taken seriously by the Shiv Sena section led by Eknath Shinde. In a police complaint, Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel called for Kunal Kamra‘s arrest and an apology from the public. He threatened to hold rallies and deny Kamra the freedom to “move freely” in Mumbai unless he apologized within two days. The Habitat Studio in Mumbai, where Kamra had performed, was vandalized by Shiv Sena supporters in outrage. As a result, more than 40 Sena members were arrested by the Mumbai Police for unlawful assembly and property damage. Kunal Kamra’s Response “Not Against the Law… I Don’t Fear”: Kunal Kamra’s Initial Response to the Eknath Shinde Joke Scandal. In a forceful initial statement regarding the uproar he sparked, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra said he does not “fear this mob” that damaged his show’s venue and refused to apologize for his traitorous “joke” about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on Monday. Kamra defended his act, arguing that comedy and satire are essential tools in democracy. In response to the controversy, he posted an image of

Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »

The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria —- Supreme court on 7th November, 2024 04 Mar 2025 Table of contents Introduction Facts Issue involved CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634 of 2013 Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors ………. Appellant (s) v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors ……… Respondent (s) Date of judement : 7th November, 2024 Presiding Judges :- DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, JJ Introduction:  In a matter posing a legal question of whether the criteria for appointment to a public post could be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has started, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench  held the following: Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for the applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the select list cannot be altered midway, unless explicitly allowed by the prevailing rules or the original advertisement, provided it does not contradict those rules; If such change is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, the change has to meet the standard of Articles 14 of the Constitution and must satisfy the test of non —arbitrariness; Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512. (deals with right to be placed in the select list), is good law and not in conflict with State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (deals with the right to be appointed from the select list) into consideration. These cases dealt with altogether different issues. Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise an appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure is transparent non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility, however, where the rules are silent, the administrative instructions can fill in the gaps. Placement in the select list does not give a candidate an indefeasible right to employment; the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons can chose to not fill up the vacancies, however, if vacancies exist the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration. Facts: The present case is concerned with the recruitment process for filling thirteen translator posts in the Rajasthan High Court, which required candidates to first appear for a written exam, followed by a personal interview. Twenty-one candidates participated in the process, but only three were declared successful by the High Court (administrative side). It was later revealed that the Chief Justice of the High Court had imposed a 75 per cent marks criterion for selection, which had not been mentioned in the original recruitment notification. This new criterion was applied retroactively, resulting in the selection of only three candidates and the exclusion of the remaining ones. In response, three unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition challenging the decision, arguing that the imposition of the 75 per cent cutoff amounted to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played,” which was impermissible. The High Court dismissed their petition in March 2010, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court for relief. In 2023, the three-judge bench acknowledged that applying the K. Manjusree (supra) ruling strictly to the present case would compel the Rajasthan High Court to recruit all thirteen candidates, rather than just three. However, the Bench expressed that such a rigid application, without further scrutiny, might not serve the larger public interest or the goal of creating an efficient administrative framework. To support this view, the Bench referenced the Subash Chander Marwaha case, which dealt with the recruitment of civil judges in Haryana, noting that this ruling had not been considered in the Manjusree case. As a result, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for a conclusive ruling…. Issues  Involved:- When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played Whether the decision in K. Manjusree (supra) is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a Statute could be given a go-bye (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end:- The Court reiterated that the process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played:- The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article

The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote