India's Supreme Court has intervened in the Shahi Jama Masjid survey case and tried to put a temporary halt to the proceedings. This was done by the apex court on an order given for a view from the apex court in order to understand fallout that comes forth from the ongoing row as it bases demand for survey of the mosque premisesIt originates as a writ petition filed before the Sambhal district court, seeking an exploration survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid under the auspices of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The petitioners are of the view that historic evidence establishes the existence of a temple on the site before the setting up of the mosque and have claimed that a truth survey was necessary to discover the reality behind the controversy of the site. However, the mosque management committee refuses to accept this demand. They claim that the plea is politically motivated and aimed at creating an agonized atmosphere in the region. The place has been a prayer site since time immemorial, and any interference with this place of worship is considered as violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that protects the status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, during the Supreme Court hearing, admitted the sensitivity of the issue, emphasizing that the need of the hour was to maintain peace and harmony. The court mentioned that allowing parallel proceedings before the district court would only complicate matters and inflame tensions further. The bench noted that the questions involved are broader legal and constitutional issues, which deserve careful consideration at the highest judicial level. It has therefore asked the district court to halt its proceedings until the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to examine the case . This development has attracted much attention due to its implications for other disputes concerning religious structures. Legal analysts argue that the outcome of this case could set a precedent in the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act and its application in similar controversies. The Supreme Court's intervention underlines the judiciary's role in managing delicate issues that have far-reaching consequences for social harmony. It has assured all parties that it will expedite the hearing to avoid prolonged uncertainty..
The Madras High Court has recommended the innovative step of making those who seek government jobs undergo some kind of gender sensitivity test at the time of their selection. The recommendation comes in a case relating to misconduct in the workplace and gender discriminationJustice Anand Venkatesh, in this case, brought forward the significance of a gender-sensitive workforce in government institutions. The court observed that the technical qualifications and expertise with respect to the subject matter qualify an individual for a governmental job, but at par, a person's awareness and sensibility towards gender-related matters is as important as other requirements for a respectable work environment. The court questioned the Central Government as to whether measures could be introduced at the time of selection so that it could assess the understanding of gender sensitivity. This was done in an attempt to instill gender awareness within the professional ethos of public servants so that there would be a reduction in cases of workplace harassment and bias. This was in a case where a female employee had leveled allegations of gender-based discrimination and inappropriate behavior by her male colleagues in a government department. The court, in dealing with the grievance, held that incidents of workplace misconduct generally arise out of ignorance regarding gender equality and respectful behavior. Justice Venkatesh, however opined that, until and unless the principle against gender discrimination and harassment is internalised by people, laws and policies like the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 would remain on paper. He also added, as representatives of the government, public servants have the duty to uphold the constitutional values of equality and dignity. The court further added that gender sensitiveness can be measured through any behavioral tests, interviews, or psychometric assessments at the stage of recruitment. It would help understand whether the applicant not only fulfills all the technical parameters required to perform a certain job but also has an emotional quotient to handle a more diversified and inclusive environment. Time is being given to the Central Government to present their view on whether such an assessment is feasible or not in response to the court's suggestion. Meanwhile, the High Court has asked the existing government employees to undergo gender-sensitivity training programs to immediately address the respect for the workplace culture. This initiative by the Madras High Court has generated quite a lot of debate in the legal, academic, and professional circles, as many would perceive it as a progressive measure toward addressing the deep-rooted issues of gender bias and harassment in workplaces. This case may become a precursor for integrating gender sensitivity in public service recruitment and training throughout India..
The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that mere refusal to marry cannot be equated with abetting suicide under Indian law. It was based on a case wherein the tragic suicide of a woman left behind a dying declaration impinging her partner as liableThe case is from the death of a young woman who had ended her life which reportedly due to her partner's refusal to marry her. The deceased stated her case but did not allege any sexual exploitation or physical relationship under the false promise of marriage. The family of the deceased accused the partner of abetment, citing emotional distress caused by his unwillingness to marry her. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The High Court affirmed the conviction also which appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court's Observations A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered the facts and evidence in depth and insisted that there must be either direct or indirect intent to commit suicide for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Court highlighted that: Dying Declaration: The deceased's dying declaration did not contain any allegations of coercion, abuse or sexual exploitation under false pretenses. It was therefore more of emotional conflict through unmet expectations of marriage. Lack of Mens Rea: In abatement of suicide, there must clearly be evidence of instigating or participating in such an act of suicide. Only emotional conflict does not support the legal requirement. Nature of Relationship. The Court found this problem in modern relations, yet it held an unkept promise of marriage does not itself establish abetment in absence of further elements such as exploitation and fraud. The Supreme Court dismissed the conviction, holding that the refusal to marry was not an act of abetment. The Court held that without proof of instigation as well as malice in mens rea also criminal liability under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be saddled..
The Bombay High Court ruled that giving opinions on caste-based reservations through WhatsApp messages is not an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The Court clarified that freedom of speech, even when addressing contentious social issues, cannot be criminalized unless it is accompanied by clear evidence of intent to humiliate. Background of the Case The case was initiated when an upper caste individual shared messages in a WhatsApp group criticizing the caste-based reservations. A member of the Scheduled Caste, who was part of the group, filed a complaint stating that the messages were derogatory and formed an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalize intentional insults or intimidation against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members in public. The trial court had taken cognizance of the complaint and, hence, the accused went to the Bombay High Court for relief. Court Observations The Bombay High Court considered the content of the messages, the context in which they were circulated, and the applicability of the SC/ST Act in the given circumstances. The Court observed that Freedom of Speech and Expression: The Court held that criticizing policies, such as caste-based reservations, is within the purview of free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Such controversial opinions do not ipso facto amount to an offence, unless they are directed to castes with the aim of insulting or offending them. Requirement: The SC/ST Act requires the alleged insult or intimidation to take place in a public place or within public view. Since the messages were shared within a private WhatsApp group. Intent to Humiliate: There must be an intent to humiliate or intimidate a member belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. There is no such intent found here in the messages. They were general expressions of opinion upon a policy matter. Judgment The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the accused's WhatsApp messages did not fulfill the requirements of an offense under the SC/ST Act. The Court reiterated that even though individuals need to exercise caution and sensitivity when discussing issues related to caste, mere expression of opinion without any intent cannot be brought within the precincts of criminal prosecution. Importance This judgment gives importance to protection of free speech without compromising it while balancing it in the need not to condone casteism. In other words, it warns that the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked ad hoc and that personal opinion, even when offensive, cannot be turned into crime unless it becomes an action with intent to cause or is seen from a public platform.
The Indian Supreme Court is going to not forget a totally important query of regulation; whether it's miles obligatory that the victim be heard previous to granting anticipatory bail to an accused. A very vital query of regulation, this has big repercussions for the justice gadget regarding the rights of the accused and the want for the presence and protection of the victim on the equal time.Anticipatory bail is one of the pre-arrest criminal remedies granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Such a treatment protects a person against arrest based on mere allegations and ensures liberty is not denied without being unjustly curtailed. But what has ensued of such debate is that it has not been specifically incorporated within the provisions of the CrPC to require the sufferer's announcement prior to the granting of bail, thereby excluding them from an important aspect of the trial process. Of late, the courts in India have encountered the problem of whether victims, in particular in cases of serious offenses like sexual violence or dowry murders, should be granted a right to raise their grievances during anticipatory bail hearings. Advocates for mandatory victim participation argue that with the exception of the sufferer may also result in a miscarriage of justice, as their perspective is regularly important in assessing the potential hazard posed by way of the accused if granted bail. On the opposing hand, defenders of outlawing victim participation point to how one of those pass would infringe upon the defendant's right to a true trial. In that aspect, they take hold on the principle of audi alteram partem that anticipatory bail hearings most often address the arrest apprehension in place of finding out whether they are guilty or not. The pivotal case of X vs. Y, 2021, Supreme Court has held that in certain situations, the views of sufferers should be considered, especially with regard to sexual offense cases. It was a contemporary step, but questions relating to the general application remained unanswerable. The modern deliberation of the Supreme Court is inspired by an attraction that challenges a high court decision to deliver anticipatory bail without an opportunity given to the victim. According to the petitioner, denying the victim such a forum is contrary to the tenets of natural justice and demeans the role of judiciary in safeguarding the rights of victims.
The Supreme Court of India has been stern on the issue of the difficulty in compensating construction workers tormented by the suspension of construction sports for the duration of Delhi's excessive pollutants disaster. Expressing deep difficulty over the plight of daily-wage laborers, the Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Punjab to provide an explanation for the failure in disbursing repayment.While such steps are vital for mitigating pollutants, they go away lots of production people without their primary source of earnings. Acknowledging this, the Supreme Court in its in advance guidelines had additionally informed states to provide such monetary comfort to these employees. This fund became created under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act of 1996. Despite clean orders, the implementation remains lacklustre. Reports submitted to the Court found out enormous delays and lapses in compensating employees, prompting the bench, led by means of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, to summon the Chief Secretaries. The Court burdened that such negligence undermines the judiciary's efforts to balance environmental concerns with socio-financial realities. In this hearing, the Court has pointed out that even though the states often discuss pollution control as a reason for halting activities, they rarely mention the livelihood issues that are witnessed. The bench criticized the states for not being responsible rather than the use of the welfare fund, as the fund is mounted to help the people in the course of such crises. It is this determination that the court established inconsistencies of the facts of the people registering within states and this emphasized that the maximum still stands beyond the scope of organized schemes because of inefficiency within administrations. The Chief Secretaries have also been directed to furnish individual reports on measures taken toward making repayment on time, about the popularity of welfare cost of money, and measures proposed and carried forward to improve identification and enrollment. The interlink between environmental and socio-financial problems is highlighted by the Supreme Court intervention. While measures to govern pollution are critical for public health, their unintentional effects can not be disregarded, particularly economic burden on vulnerable groups. This case is a reminder that policymaking should be holistic and implementation mechanisms should be robust. The judiciary also wants to shoulder the responsibility of keeping the authorities accountable so that ripples of this regulatory decision may not cause more chaos. At this point of time, since the Supreme Court is looking for a response from all states, only time will say whether such judicial push could bring about an effective change into the life of Delhi's creation workers.
The Allahabad High Court recently reacted to the media over its reporting on the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute, stressing restraint and responsible journalism. Observations by the court come at a time when the public interest in the case has been increasing with this long-standing legal battle concerning ownership and rights over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the Shahi Idgah Masjid adjacent to it in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.Case has its roots in a compromise deed in 1968 between the Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and the Shahi Idgah Management Committee. The masjid premises were marked as part of the settlement, and subsequently, claims have arisen that the mosque was built on the birthplace of Lord Krishna in the Mughal era. In fact, multiple cases have been filed in courts over the years by Hindu plaintiffs to recover the land on the grounds of historical injustice. In the most recent developments, Allahabad High Court was considering a petition filed challenging the maintainability of suits pending in lower courts. The petitioners represented the Shahi Idgah Management Committee, which sought relief from what it described as politically motivated and communally sensitive litigation. On the other hand, the Hindu claimants contended that the issue deals with matters of faith and heritage and hence warrants judicial intervention. Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra expressed his concerns of sensationalized reporting and a tendency to escalate communal tension. The court reiterated the fact that the matter remains sub judice and took pains to caution media channels from portraying the case in such a manner that prejudice may be caused to the public . The court also pointed towards the media responsibility regarding journalistic ethics which essentially ensures fair, balanced as well as non-inflammatory coverage of events. The High Court was keen to point out that it is the role of the media to inform rather than inflame and that such reckless reporting can undermine the judicial process and public harmony. Now that the case is before the High Court, all parties concerned await a decision that accords with historical evidence, legal precedents, and societal peace. In this context, the court's reminder has been a very strong guidance for the media in making them realize their important role in creating an informed and unbiased discourse on matters of national importance.
The Supreme Court of India has once more told the Jacobite faction that it needs to conform with the 2017 judgment that had granted ownership rights of a few churches to the Orthodox faction. In this regard, this order is an effort from the court to settle the age-long dispute between the two rival factions of the Malankara Church in Kerala over the past decades.The Malankara Church, which was established in 1665, split into the Jacobite as well as Orthodox factions in early 20th century to cause protracted legal warfare over ownership of church property. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the constitutional control of 1,100 parishes and their properties to remain with the Orthodox faction issued in the constitution of the Malankara Church of 1934. But this was met with great resistance since the Jacobite party could not accept the loss of most churches. The last hearing of the Supreme Court saw the three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, express dissatisfaction over the Jacobite faction's refusal to abide by the verdict pronounced in 2017. The court pointed out that judicial decrees need to be honored and adhered to; otherwise, serious legal implications may ensue. The bench called for a peaceful settlement also told the Jacobite faction to let church properties be transferred as decided upon. The court also raised a concern as to the panic that might be brought about and also communal disorder. It, therefore ordered local law enforcing authorities to ensure that implementation of judgment does not turn violent and that no chaos is done. The Jacobite faction has been arguing for a long time that the verdict undermines the religious and administrative autonomy of their community, claiming that a majority of the parishioners align with their beliefs. They have sought government intervention to mediate a resolution. However, the Orthodox faction maintains that the ruling is legally binding and should be enforced without exceptions. This case raises the challenge of reconciling faith, governance, and judicial authority in religious disputes. The position taken by the Supreme Court reflects a commitment to uphold the rule of law, ensuring that the pronouncements of the courts are respected without regard to parties. The impact of this landmark dispute is going to last very long in the religious and administrative extent of the Malankara Church after it provides a precedent for similar conflicts in the country. Peaceful compliance with the directive of the court is crucial towards harmony and respect for authority of the judiciary in matters of faith.
A writ petition has been filed before the Gauhati High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act of 2023. The Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act makes it obligatory to register all Muslim marriages and divorces in AssamThe petitioner submitted that the Act singled out Muslim marriages and divorces as mandatorily registrable, which was an unequal and discriminatory burden on one religious community. While other personal laws in India allowed marriages to be registered voluntarily, the legislation compulsorily required only Muslims to do so, with unequal treatment. It further argues that the Act violates the religious and cultural susceptibilities of the Muslim community and thus infringes their rights to freedom to practice religion as envisaged under personal laws. Key Provisions of the Act The Act makes it mandatory to register all Muslim marriages before the officers appointed for this purpose. But unless so done, the Act goes on to provide for penalties by the government with such penalties being fines among other things. It prays for providing a legal framework in fraudulent marriage cases, women's welfare record-keeping among others. Such a rationale, the petitioner argues, given by the government while proposing the Act, is baseless and bereft of justification because an identical machinery for all communities may be constituted not by targeting only Muslims. Constitutional Challenge It argues that the Act runs violative of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 whereby marriages between persons belonging to all religions can be registered on a voluntary basis. The Act being applicable to Muslims alone, the Assam government has violated the very basic principles of secularism and equality enshrined in the Constitution. In pleading, procedural flaws are raised in the passage of the law in that stakeholders of the Muslim community were not abundantly consulted. It was said that the drafting process harbored a breach in democratic principles such as equal representation and justice. Defense by the State The Assam Government has been vindicating its move under the Act as necessary to bring about social elements like early marriage, a system of polygamy, and non-documentary status prevailing in rural backgrounds. For the government, the act ensures gender justice through providing statutory protection to women. Status at present Gauhati High Court accepted this petition and is likely to be taken up soon. The decision in this case may well be significant on both the marriage registration regulations and religious liberty and their connection with that aspect of Indian law..
The Kerala High Court has taken strong exception to a breach of elephant parade norms at the annual festival at the Poornathrayeesa Temple in Thrippunithura. The court censured a Devaswom officer, holding him negligent over matters of animal welfare and public safety. The incident reveals the increasing scrutiny of temple festivals in Kerala, in which elephants play a central role.The controversy surfaced following allegations that the temple authorities did not abide by the guidelines followed while taking out elephants for processions, which is regulated by the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012. The norms were formulated to ensure that the welfare of the elephants, an integral part of the cultural heritage of Kerala, is not violated while organizing festivals in the interest of public safety. Violations Observed The court was informed that elephants were marched for hours without proper rest, water, or food that was against the norms of welfare. It was also told that mahouts used pointed tools to tame elephants which was unethical. The High Court observed that such activities caused not only mental agony but even the possibility of accidents during peak festive temple processions. It has been emphasized by the petitioners that repeated infringement during festivals in various temples indicate a sense of no accountability amongst the officers of Devaswom. Temple management not showing priority consideration to animal welfare was construed as a constitutional mandate breach under Article 51A(g), ordaining compassion towards animals. Judgment of the Court Justice Anil K. Narendran, who was presiding over the case, said he was disappointed by the lax attitude of the in-charge Devaswom officer. The court said that cultural traditions cannot be used as an excuse for compromising animal welfare or public safety. It directed the Devaswom Board to ensure that the rules are strictly adhered to and instructed district collector and forest department officers to monitor the use of elephants in temple festivals. It further warned that again and again such negligence can be punished and the festival would even invite even suspension of permission to carry out the festivals. Immediate Action Undertaken The high court asked the Devaswom Board to strictly follow all procedures of rearing the elephants for their parades by keeping good records and rest, food and water facilities to the respective elephants. Avoid the use of sharp tools; Trained mahouts should only be used. Compliance report should be submitted in two weeks.
The Kerala High Court has recently pronounced judgments over protests by "Dolly workers" at Sabarimala, while giving paramount importance to the sanctity of the place of worship. The case dealt with the issue concerning the obstruction caused by the workers carrying pilgrims on dolly chairs, who were old, in going up the hill shrine. Their main demands were increased wages and working conditions.Background of the Protest The protest by dolly workers at Sabarimala made a lot of publicity as they struck work in the pilgrimage season and this has brought some kind of interruption in the smooth conduct of the site. These workers help the pilgrims with disability or any kind of immobility reach the site. However, they say their wages are too less in consideration to the type of strenuous work that the pilgrimage route entails. Though their cause is very genuine, the public protests at the timing and location of the strike question whether it will also ensure the sanctity of the Sabarimala shrine. High Court Observations The Kerala High Court acknowledged the workers' grievance but held that Sabarimala is a religious and spiritual site. The court noted that such protests, especially during the pilgrimage season, interfere with the right to peaceful worship of devotees. The bench held that Sabarimala is not just a public space but a sacred place, and any disruption to its sanctity would be unacceptable. Court Judgment The court asked the dolly workers to address the problem appropriately without hampering the religious atmosphere of Sabarimala. At the same time, the authorities, including Travancore Devaswom Board, were told to attend to the problem that prevailed among the workers on their part effectively in a proper time frame. A good balance was found for safeguarding the sanctity of the temple and rights of the workers. Implications This judgment further reinforces the principle that places of worship should remain free from protests and strikes, no matter what the cause is. It sets a precedent on how to resolve disputes in sensitive locations through dialogue and legal channels rather than disrupting methods. At the same time, judgment asks temple managements to take a benevolent attitude towards workers who play a very important role in keeping religious sites accessible. While calling upon parties to amicably find solutions, the court emphasized mutual respect between workers and temple management.
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that individuals holding foreign law degrees cannot seek exemption from the BCI qualifying examination by citing completion of a bridge course. This was as a result of petitions filed by foreign law degree holders who claimed that their bridge course qualified them to practice law in India without sitting for the mandatory All India Bar Examination (AIBE).Case Background The petitioners were foreign university law graduates who had undergone a bridge course from recognized Indian institutions. They submitted that the bridge course was intended to bring their foreign qualifications on par with the Indian legal standards and hence they should be allowed to practice in India without further examination. However, the BCI held that AIBE is compulsory for all advocates enrolled with India. The test ascertains that the practitioner is well-equipped with requisite knowledge of Indian laws and the ability to practice with effect in the country's legal framework. Observation of High Court The court upheld the stand taken by the BCI holding that the following points made are valid: Role of AIBE: the court emphasized maintaining standards in terms of legal practice in regard to what has been sought by giving this importance and stated in such a regard that candidates knowledge about laws of Indian be evaluated with the same consideration. It is in this background that the bridge course, observed the High Court, "is essentially an academic exercise in getting foreign graduates accustomed to Indian legal principles." It cannot therefore replace the professional assessment that AIBE brings on the table. Uniform Standards: Granting exemptions will create inequalities among the practicing lawyers and erode uniform standards set forth by BCI. The bench emphasized that all aspiring advocates, without any distinction regarding their qualification, must also meet equal professional standards. Judgement The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions and ruled that foreign law degree holders, who seek to practice in India, would have to clear the AIBE, regardless of the bridge course they had undertaken. The judgment further strengthened the authority of BCI in regulating entry into the legal profession and imposing uniform standards of competency. Consequences of the Judgment Maintaining Professional Standards: The judgment ensures that all practicing advocates in India are of minimum standard proficiency in Indian laws. Clarity for Foreign Graduates: The decision clarifies the requirement of foreign law graduates for the practice of law in India. Strengthening Regulatory Oversight: By upholding the mandatory nature of the AIBE, the judgment strengthens the BCI's role in regulating the legal profession.
In the recent legislative history of India, the Indian Parliament recently passed the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024, Indian Aviation Bill, 2024, which will supersede the colonial Aircraft Act, 1934. This new legislation is going to update India's aviation sector with regard to modern challenges and standardsRequirement for Reform Aircraft Act, 1934 was enacted by the British and mainly governed civil aviation with very archaic provisions. It came up for time-to-time amendments but more and more became inadequate to deal with the complexities of an aviation industry that was changing very rapidly. Increasing volumes of air traffic, technology advances, and heightened safety and environmental concerns demanded a holistic update of the laws regulating aviation. Key Provisions of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024 The new act has brought about some fundamental changes to pave the way for the better efficiency, safety, and regulation of the Indian aviation sector: It has also further enhanced the safety standards in the new law in terms of ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization's international standards. Digitalization and Technology Use: Significant importance is placed on using digital solutions to make air traffic management streamlined, services efficient for passengers, and monitoring compliance appropriate. Licensing and Certification Streamlined: Licensing is streamlined for pilots, maintenance engineers, and all professionals in aviation professions while keeping high standards. Environment Sustainability: The chapter involves the practice of sustainable aviation and pushes aviation toward reducing carbon emission by encouraging green technologies for the aviation sector. Penal Provisions: It involved strict penal provisions for violation of safety measures or doing business without adequate sanction, or for any activity dangerous to the safety of its passengers. Consumer Protection: Enhanced provisions are going to result in more redressal of grievances with passengers who are likely to focus more on the transparent pricing of tickets and the services involved. Impact on the Aviation Industry Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak will have an impact: Economic growth will see an upsurge with safer and efficient transportation by aircraft and therefore increase investment into the sector as well. Global Competitiveness: The harmonised rules will enhance the Indian position as the hub in the world of aviation, and it will offer competitive advantage over its global competition in the international arena Passenger Experience: Safely, satisfactory redressal of grievances, sustainability in all aspects for all passengers. Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024: passed in the Parliament as a step to actualize India's vision for being Aatmanirbhar in aviation. The forward-looking policies of the government have also enabled a proper platform for developing a strong aviation sector capable of tackling both current and future challenges. This legislation reform further marks the seriousness of India in changing its aviation landscape so it will top the global map in the aviation industry..
It has ruled in an important decision that there was dismissal of the petitioner who was challenging the judgment relating to 2023 Judicial Services Examination challenging that it was conducted arbitrary as candidates do not have rights of per se right to know precisely in advance how will the exam be taken because no candidate has unconditional right of knowing in advanced how they will take that particular exam.They are aspirants for the 2023 Chhattisgarh Judicial Services Examination. The petitioners submitted that ignorance of the pattern and syllabus of the examination at the time of the petitioner's examination gave an undue and unfair advantage to the respondents. Any sudden change or vagueness about the format was violative of the fundamental principles of fairness and transparency, resulting in violation of the petitioners' rights. Observations of the High Court The bench dismissed the petition on the following critical observations: No Statutory or Constitutional Obligation for Pre-Disclosure: The court clarified that though transparency is essential, it is not a statutory and constitutional obligation of the examination-conducting authorities to disclose the pattern in advance. It held that the candidates are expected to prepare for variations in the process of examination. Design and holding of examinations is purely and squarely within the competence of the concerned authority. Court jurisdiction over such an affair has been approved only to deal with situations where there are already found instances of illegality or arbitrariness, which were held to be absent in the given case. Fairness and Preparedness: This court held that the general pattern of the examination is not altered drastically and gave adequate general guidelines to aspirants. It held the responsibility of preparation lies within the aspirants who would have to adapt to changes which are reasonable. Judgment The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the challenge and held that the candidates have no vested right to demand the disclosure of exam pattern before hand. In the view of the author, the discretion on part of the examination authority remains well founded to set as well as modify the pattern as long as there remains no violation of legal norms or creates undue hardship Implication of the Judgement Flexibility for Examination Authorities: The judgment finds the authorities to have discretionary authority to form and modify examination patterns without the rigorous processes of pre-disclosure procedures. Greater Burden to the Aspirants: It would be an integral mode of preparation by aspirants themselves rather than fixing on patterns. Reduced Scope for Litigation on Pattern Issues: The judgment forms precedence which is not to open the floodgates to litigations on pattern unless proof of arbitrariness and malpractice to exist. This decision cements the principle that while fairness and transparency are basic requirements in examinations, those are not extended as absolute rights for candidates to have every detail of the composition of the examination well known beforehand.
The dark page in Indian history that will never fade out is the 1987 Hashimpura massacre, when 42 Muslims were mercilessly killed in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. On 7 December 2024, India's Supreme Court granted bail to eight ex-servicemen of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, who had been convicted in this gory crime.Background of the Case In May 1987, during Meerut communal riots, the PAC allegedly conducted a raid in the Hashimpura locality purportedly to search for rioting suspects. They reportedly arrested about 50 Muslim males and bundled them into a truck to take them to the outskirts of the city. The aftermath was gruesome: the arrested persons were shot and their bodies were thrown into the Hindon and Ganga canals. While some persons survived this brutal incident and subsequently testified, many lost their lives in this gruesome incident. It had perpetrated one of the most vile acts in history, but it was delivering justice at the speed of a snail. An FIR was registered and the legal process was clogged with systemic bottlenecks and lacked political will. In 2015, nearly three decades after the mass killing, a trial court in Delhi convicted 16 personnel of the PAC, holding them guilty of murder and sending them to life imprisonment. Eight of the convicts submitted petitions before the Allahabad high court that they were suffering from medical complications and were old. The court also pointed out that the convicts had already spent most of their sentence and, consistently followed legal procedures in the course of imprisonment and appeal. Coupled with that was the fact that they were suffering from deteriorating health. That is why the Court granted them temporary relief. Reactions to the Verdict The bail decision has drawn mixed responses. Some hail it as the pragmatic move to address humanitarian concerns. Others say it is watering down the gravity of the crime and the protracted struggle for justice put up by the families of victims. Some activists and legal experts raised their voices regarding the precedential implications of this bail decision on the state-led atrocities.