Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [Jan 25 – Jan 31]

Top Stories: 1. 'We Are Concerned About Broadcasts Which Incite Violence' : Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From Centre On Powers Under Cable TV Act A Bench led by CJI SA Bobde asked the Central Government about its powers under Cable TV Networks(Regulation) Act 1994 to control broadcast of content (by electronic media), that has a tendency to incite violence. "We aren't concerned so much with what people are saying, people say anything these days.We are concerned with situations that may create violence and lead to loss of property and life", the CJI said while hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against news reports which communalised the Tablighi Jamaat event. It may be noted that the Government has powers under Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable TV Act to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme for public order. However, the bench opined that there is an ambiguity in Section 19 (Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest) of the Cable TV Act inasmuch as it is not clear if it will include "broadcaster" or only a cable TV network. The bench observed that the amendment adding the definition of 'broadcaster' in the Cable TV Act does not reflect in the penal provisions of Section 19 and 20. 2. "We Will Not Stop High Court"; Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain UP Govt's Plea To Transfer Cases Challenging Love-Jihad Ordinance To SC A Bench headed Chief Justice of India SA Bobde refused to transfer to itself the petitions filed in Allahabad High Court challenging the ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh government against religious conversions, which among other things, criminalizes religious conversions for marriage. "If the Allahabad High Court is going to decide the cases, why should we interfere," remarked the Court. It added, "We have issued notice does not mean High Court cannot decide. People are making light of High Courts these days. High Court is a constitutional court." PS Narasimha, appearing for the UP Government, had urged the Supreme Court to allow the transfer application to avoid multiplicity of proceeding before the High Court and the Supreme Court. 3. "These Women Served Nation, Why Push Them To Litigation Cycle Again": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Resolve Differences in Permanent Commission Matter A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud observed that once the proceedings have been disposed of by way of a final judgement and order, a miscellaneous application for its implementation is not maintainable. The observation was made in an application for directions, in pursuance of its March 17, 2020 verdict in Annie Nagaraj's case holding that serving women Short Service Commission Officers in Indian Navy were entitled to Permanent Commission at par with their male counterparts. However, the judge suggested to ASG Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Union of India – "They are your own officers. They have served the Navy and the Army. Please try to sort it out with the authorities. Why push them into the litigation cycle again? There in their years of retirement now. We won't entertain this, but as the ASG, you intervene. These women have served the nation. Why should they be made to go to the AFT again? We don't want to set the wrong precedent (by intervening) but you instruct the authorities. Sit down with (their counsel) and sort it out." 4. [Extra Attempt For UPSC Civil Service Exam]"We Are Not Asking You To Increase Age-limit, We Are Only Asking You To Give One-Time Concession": SC To Centre "It's just a one-time relaxation. If it has been done before, why not this time", said A Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar to ASG SV Raju in a plea seeking for an extra chance for Civil Service aspirants who had given their last attempt of the UPSC exam in October 2020. The Court also informed the ASG that it was not being asked that the age-limit would be increased and that the only request would be that a one-time concession would be given after exhausting of all attempts. It posed two questions to the ASG and sought for the answers to the same by the coming Monday. First, how many candidates would come into the fray if one-time concession was given, and secondly, since the time the UPSC was constituted, how many times this relaxation had been given in the past. Thereafter, it adjourned the matter to Monday, 1st February. Also Read: Extra Chance For UPSC Civil Service Aspirants : Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Filing Affidavit Without Clarity Also Read: UPSC Exams - Extra Chance For Final Attempt Candidates Would Amount To Differential Treatment : Centre's Affidavit In Supreme Court 5. Foundation Of Supreme Court Is Much Stronger, Criticism Can Never Be Contempt: Mukul Rohatgi Submits For Rachita Taneja "A criticism of the court is not contempt," submitted Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi before the Supreme Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [Jan 25 – Jan 31]

Akshita Saxena

Tags