New Delhi Feb 28 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Delhi High Court decision to stay an order directing the AAP government to decide and formulate a policy on the implementation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwals announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itA bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant which perused the speech of Kejriwal said promissory estoppel will not lie on the basis of speech There has to be some policy a notification has to be issued in this regardIn contract law promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine that a party may recover based on a promise made as it had relied on the said promiseThe bench said that it is an interlocutory order passed by the Delhi High Court and therefore it is not interfering with itSince the Special Leave Petition is directed against an interlocutory order which has been passed by the division bench of the High Court in an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on that ground it orderedOn September 27 last year the Delhi High Court had stayed an order of single-judge bench directing the AAP government to formulate a policy on the implementation of the Chief Ministers announcement that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic the state would pay itThe High Court had issued notice on the Delhi governments appeal against the order passed by a single judge who had also held that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens is enforceable in natureThe notice was issued to petitioners -- daily wagers and workers -- on whose petition the single judge had passed the order which has been challenged by the Delhi GovernmentIt had said that irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant Delhi government if an order of stay is not passedOn July 22 last year a single-judge bench of the High Court had ruled that a Chief Ministers promise to citizens was enforceable and directed the AAP government to decide within six weeks Kejriwals announcement that the state would pay rent on behalf of a poor tenant who is unable to do so on account of COVID19The judge had said that against the backdrop of a commitment made by the Chief Minister a lack of decision-making or indecision was contrary to lawA statement given in a consciously held press conference in the background of the lockdown announced due to the pandemic and the mass exodus of migrant labourers cannot be simply overlooked Proper governance requires the government to decide on the assurance given by the CM and inaction on the same cannot be the answer the single judge had said in the verdictThe judge had said that in the present case the assurance was not a political promise as was sought to be canvassed as it was not made as a part of an election rally but it was the statement made by the Delhi Chief MinisterThe statement was not made by a government functionary at a lower level in the hierarchy who could be devoid of such knowledge The CM is expected to have had the said knowledge and is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to his promiseassurance the judge had said adding that a citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his government while making the promise PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Feb 28 PTI The NOIDA authority Monday informed the Supreme Court that the work for the demolition of realty major Supertechs twin 40-storey towers in its Emerald Court project which have been held as illegal for a violation of norms has commenced and will be razed completely by May 22The authority in the status report said that after the demolition of these massive structures the entire debris will be cleared of the site by August 22A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked all the stakeholders including NOIDA and Supertech to strictly abide by the timeline given in the status report and listed the matter for further hearing on May 17It noted that a status report has been filed by NOIDA in compliance with the order dated February 7 2022 and following the order a meeting of stakeholders was convened on February 9 2022The court is apprised of the fact that the demolition has commenced at the site All concerned including NOIDA and Supertech as well as other authorities will strictly comply with the time schedule indicated in the status report List the Miscellaneous Application on May 17 and NOIDA will file an updated status report about the developments in this regard the bench saidAt the outset advocate Ravindra Kumar appearing for NOIDA submitted that the authority has filed the status report dated February 25 in which it has stated what has transpired in the meeting held on February 9It was agreed between Supertech and Edifice Engineering that by February 20 the Edifice Engineering would mobilise the site with manpower material and machine as per the action plan approved by NOIDA and CBRI Kumar saidOn February 7 the top court had directed the authorities to commence within two weeks the demolition of the twin towersIt had directed the NOIDA CEO to convene a meeting within 72 hours in which all the agencies concerned shall be present to finalise the schedule for demolitionThe apex court had noted the submission that Supertech Ltd had received the necessary NOCs for facilitating the work of demolition from the agencies concernedIt was apprised that a cheque of Rs 70 lakh minus TDS has been given to Edifice Engineering an agency which has been entrusted with the task of demolitionOn January 12 the top court had pulled up the builder for not complying with its orders to demolish the twin 40-story towers in sector 93 of NOIDA and warned that its directors will be sent to jail for playing truant with the courtOn August 31 last year the top court had ordered the demolition of Supertech Ltds twin 40-storey towers under construction within three months for violation of building norms in collusion with NOIDA officials holding that illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of lawThe NOIDA authority had received a rap on its knuckles as the top court pointed out multiple incidents of collusion of its officials with the Supertech Ltd in the Emerald Court project and violations of norms by the realty major in the construction of the twin towersThe top court had directed that the entire amount of home buyers be refunded with 12 percent interest from the time of the booking and the RWA of Emerald Court project be paid Rs 2 crore for the harassment caused due to the construction of the twin towers which would have blocked sunlight and fresh air to the existing residents of the housing project adjoining the national capital PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Feb 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to make its stand clear on whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or notA bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant which was dealing with a case related to the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against one Ajay Bhardwaj and others for allegedly duping investors across India by inducing them to trade in Bitcoin and assuring them high returns said that the accused were booked for their involvement in Bitcoin tradeThe bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing for Centre and Enforcement Directorate We want you to tell us on affidavit whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not What is the regime for Bitcoin trade at present Bhati said she would file an affidavit on the legality of the cryptocurrency trade and added that the accused who is seeking quashing of proceedings has not been cooperating with the investigating agency after being granted bail by the court in 2019She said that 47 FIRs have been registered against the accused of duping people across the country and the issue involves a trade of 87000 Bitcoin worth Rs 20000 croreThe bench ordered We direct the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement within two days and thereafter cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon to do so The investigating officer shall file a fresh status report before this court on or before four weeks indicating the progress of the investigation and whether there has been any cooperation on the part of the accused List after four weeksThe bench said the ad-interim order restraining the arrest of Bhardwaj shall continue till the next date of listing of the matterAt the outset Advocate Shoeb Alam appearing for one of FIR informant Vipin Kohli said that he has filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Bhardwaj on the ground that he has not disclosed true facts of the matter to this court and concealed material in his writ petition thereby misleading this courtThe advocate said that Bhardwaj has deliberately suppressed the fact that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate CMM Patiala House Court through court notice had issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of the accused under section 82 of Criminal Procedure CodeThese material facts were not disclosed to the court when the bail was granted to him Hence we are seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner Alam submittedHe said that after the grant of bail to the accused the complainant was attacked in a hotel which is on CCTV camerasThe bench asked whether the grant of bail to other accused has been challenged to which the advocate replied in affirmativeBhati said that even the co-accused who have also been granted bail are also not cooperating in the matterThe bench noted in its order that a status report has been filed in July 2021 by the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate and Bhati has submitted that the accused has not cooperated in the course of the investigationIt noted that there is an allegation of collection of 87000 Bitcoins valued at approximately Rs 20000 crores and prayer is being made that the ad-interim order granting an interim stay of arrest be vacatedThe bench made it clear that it is testing the petitioner Bhardwaj and asked him to cooperate in the investigation and for now it is not vacating the protection from arrestThe allegation against Bhardwaj is that he along with other co-accused who are mostly his family members had induced investors to invest in Bitcoin through a multi-level marketing scheme on false promises of securing to the investors a 10 per cent assured monthly returns for 18 months that is total of 180 percent profitIt was alleged that due to the dishonest inducement the customers invested their Bitcoins in the said business but after making an investment they did not get the assured returnsThe FIRs also said that to escape from inevitable punishment under the law Bhardwaj and other co-accused persons collectively in a dishonest manner and with the deliberate intention of destroying all the evidence shut down the fake gainbitcoin website through which investors made the investment PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Feb 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday allowed a petitioner seeking an independent and impartial probe by an SIT into the alleged incidents of violence which took place in Tripura last year to move the state High Court which is seized of a similar matter A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant also directed the state police to not take any coercive action against petitioner Ethesham Hashmi in case he chooses to appear before the Tripura High Court physicallyWe permit the petitioner to assist the High Court so that a comprehensive view can be taken from all aspects including those which are raised in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution In view of the apprehensions which have been expressed on behalf of the petitioner and without this court expressing any opinion on the merits of the apprehension we permit the petitioner to make a request to Chief Justice of the High Court to be allowed to make a submission through counsel on the video conferencing platform the bench said Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Hashmi said that in case the petitioner chooses to go there he should not be subjected to any coercive action by the police Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Tripura government said that the petitioner should not make any provocative and inflammatory posts on social media He will not post any inflammatory post The court may consider mentioning in the order that our contentions are also left open in the matter It cannot be objected to if the High Court is examining the issue We would also raise issues about the intention behind this petitioner The High Court has taken up the matter suo motu we will assist it Mehta saidBhushan added that the petitioner has posted about the report which he has given publicly about the violence which took place there and damage that was caused to the mosque and other placesThe bench then added in its order We clarify that in the event the petitioner seeks to appear physically before the High Court no coercive steps shall be taken by the Tripura police Nor shall any precipitate action be taken which would impede his access to justice All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open on the merits of the proceedings The proceedings should take place expeditiously Mehta submitted they have absolutely no difficulty about the High Court going into merits but the government may also be permitted to raise contentions about the credentials of the petitionerThe bench noted that a division bench of the High Court of Tripura headed by the Chief Justice has entertained the Public Interest Litigation in suo motu under Article 226 of the Constitution and has passed certain orders on the issue The High Court is evidently seized of the suo motu proceedings Having regard to the above position it would be appropriate if the issue which are sought to be highlighted by the petitioner in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution are permitted to be raised before the High Court by the petitioner by filing a suitable application for intervention it said At the outset Bhushan submitted that the issue relates to Tripura violence which took place last year in which mosques were burnt and damage was caused to public propertyHe said that the plea seeks independent and impartial investigation by an SIT constituted for the purpose and direction is being sought for following guidelines concerning hate speechBhushan added that the state government was earlier denying that no violence took place and later started targeting those persons who exposed the violent incidentsHe added that the state government has filed a status report in the High Court in which it has accepted that some of the incidents have indeed taken place which it was earlier denying The bench said that when the High Court is seized of the matter then it would not be appropriate for this court to go into the issue as it would like expressing no confidence in the High CourtMehta said that it would have been better if the petitioner had the same alacrity to highlight the violence happening in other states also Bhushan said that the High Court is seized of the matter which relates to compensation and other issues but not the issues which are raised in the present PILThe bench permitted the petitioner to file an intervention application before the High Court and raise the issues which are sought to be raised in the top courtOn January 24 the top court was told by Bhushan that it was totally unbecoming of the Tripura government to indulge in whataboutery on the issue of alleged communal violence in the State In its reply affidavit the Tripura government has told the top court that public-spirited citizens seeking an independent probe into the recent communal riots in the state have come with unclean hands and that under the garb of public interest the forum of this court is being used for oblique purpose The north-eastern state had last year witnessed incidents of arson looting and violence after reports emerged from Bangladesh that Hindu minorities there had been attacked during Durga Puja on allegations of blasphemy The plea by Hashmi has alleged that police authorities were hand in glove with the perpetrators and not a single arrest was made concerning the rioters responsible for vandalism and arson PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Feb 24 PTI A child born from the second wife of a deceased employee is eligible for compassionate appointment the Supreme Court on Thursday said as it held that a policy which has the force of law must not discriminate on grounds including that of descentThe top court said that while the compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16 a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitutionA bench of Justices UU Lalit S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha set aside a Patna High Court order of January 18 2018 and said that one Mukesh Kumar cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the second wife and there shall be a direction to consider his case as per the extant policy of the railwaysThe Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with the law The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of three months from today it saidThe bench said that once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointmentThat is to say a policy for compassionate appointment which has the force of law must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 162 including that of descent In this regard descent must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimants legitimacy as their child it saidThe bench said that the policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendantApart from the fact that strict scrutiny would reveal that the classification is suspect as demonstrated by this Court in VR Tripathi 2019 verdict it will instantly fall foul of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the ground of descent Such a policy is violative of Article 162 the bench saidThe bench referred to the 2019 verdict and said that this Court held that the scheme and the rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the ConstitutionThe circular creates two categories between one class and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved Once the law has deemed them legitimate it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee it saidThe top court said that apart from the discrimination ensuing from treating equals unequally which is writ large as demonstrated in the judgement of this Court 2019 verdict there is also discrimination on the ground of descent which is expressly prohibited under Article 162However compassionate appointments are a well-recognized exception to the general rule if they are carved out in the interest of justice to meet public policy considerations It lends justification only that far and no further it addedAdvocate Manish Kumar Saran appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court given in VR Tripathi 2019 verdict which is in the context of this very circular and policy of the railways by which it was held that a child of a second wife of an employee could not be denied compassionate appointment on that ground aloneAdvocate Meera Patel representing the Centre referred to the Circular of March 21 2018 issued in supersession of Circular dated January 2 1992 which provides that if a legally wedded surviving widow does not want herself to be considered she cannot nominate the illegitimate sonsdaughters of her husband for compassionate appointmentThe top court noted the facts of the case that one Jagdish Harijan was an employee of the Indian Railways appointed on November 16 1977 and in his lifetime he had two wives One Gayatri Devi was his first wife and Konika Devi since deceased was his second wife and the petitioner Mukesh Kumar is the son through the second wifeHarijan died in service on February 24 2014 and shortly after that Gayatri Devi made a representation dated May 17 2014 seeking the appointment of her step-son Mukesh Kumar under the scheme for appointments on compassionate groundsThe Centre rejected the representation on June 24 2014 because Kumar being the second wifes son is not entitled to such an appointmentThe petitions filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Patna High Court were also dismissed subsequently after which the issue reached the top court PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Feb 21 PTIThe statement on in-principle approval of One Rank-One Pension OROP for defence services was made by then Finance Minister P Chidambaram on February 17 2014 without any recommendation by the then union cabinet the Centre on Monday told the Supreme CourtHowever the Centre in its additional affidavit filed in the pending matter on OROP said that the cabinet secretariat had conveyed the approval of the Prime Minister on OROP as per the Transaction of Business Rules on November 7 2015Respondent respectfully submits that this statement of the then Finance Minister dated February 17 2014 is not based on any decision or recommendation by the then Union Cabinet On the other hand the cabinet secretariat conveyed the approval of the Prime Minister in terms of Rules 12 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules 1961 on November 7 2015 the affidavit saidIt added that following this the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare of Ministry of Defence vide communication dated November 7 2015 conveyed the policy of OROP for the defence force personnelA post-facto approval of the Union Cabinet dated April 6 2016 was also conveyed by the cabinet secretariat on April 7 2016 it saidThe clarification was given by the Centre after a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud while hearing a PIL filed by Indian Ex-servicemen Movement IESM on February 16 asked the government to clarify whether the statement made by then Finance Minister on February 17 2014 was based on any decision or recommendation by the Union CabinetThe bench had also asked the Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman to place on record the proposals before the union cabinet for its approvalThe affidavit placed on record the communication dated April 7 2016 issued by the cabinet secretariat conveying the ex-post facto approval and the proposal placed before the Union CabinetTo the Courts query about the financial data of the outflow that is likely to be incurred by the Centre if non-MACP is grouped with MACP personnel for payment of OROP the government said that the total financial outflow from 2014 would be in the range of Rs 4277638 croresThe Centre on Modified Assured Career Progression MACP said that it is more or less automatic unless otherwise a person gets disqualified for specific reasons such as disciplinary proceedingsIt said that a Sepoy of three years and Sepoy who had crossed eight years qualifying for MACP are not equated even for OROP purpose since they do not qualify the criteria for same length of serviceTherefore one of the qualifying conditions for the OROP benefit is benchmarking defence personnel having the same length of service Consequently one who had not put in the same length of service and therefore not eligible for a MACP cannot be benchmarked with personnel who has qualified for MAVP it said adding that the condition same rank with the same length of service had remained constant throughoutIt said It was therefore the consistent plea of the Union that the comparison sought to be made by the petitioners is between comparables and non-comparables and between apples and oranges Therefore this plea of the petitioners should not be allowed to succeedThe government said that the data of total financial outflow from 2014 in the range of Rs 4277638 crores have been placed on record only for the convenience of the court and should not be treated as a concession or an agreement by the Union to the contentions of the petitionersThe contention of the petitioners defeats one of the core values of the OROP which is not only same rank but with the same length of service This pair cannot be impaired One cannot take only the same rank and ignore the length of service and similarly one cannot merely take the length of service and ignore the rank it addedThe government said that while framing the OROP regime it has not brought out any discrimination between defence personnel who are in the same rank with the same length of service while the petitioners are seeking an OROP on merely the same rank overlooking the same length of serviceIt also sought to counter the contention of IESM for automatic revision of OROP saying such dynamic calculations are unheard of in practice whether it is a pay scale or pension or any other financial emoluments given to a government servantThis is not in vogue for the simple reason that it is impossible to put it as a scheme of implementation it saidOn February 16 the top court had said that Centres hyperbole on the OROP policy presented a much rosier picture than what is actually given to the pensioners of the Armed forcesIt asked the Centre to place before it as to how many persons in the Armed forces have received Modified Assured Career Progression MACP how many are in Assured Career Progression ACP and what would be the financial outlay if the court directs MACP to be also factored in for OROPOn July 11 2016 the top court had issued notice on the plea filed by IEMS through advocate Balaji Srinivasan seeking implementation of OROP as recommended by the Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual revision instead of the current policy of periodic review once in five years PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Jan 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Tuesday left it for the Centre to take a considered view on the suggestions given by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights DCPCR for the need to provide effective access to vaccination and targeted tracking of pregnant women and lactating mothers in case of Adverse Event Following Immunization AEFI A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna said that the court is conscious of the fact that the suggestions which have been made on behalf of DCPCR are issues of policy but these have emanated from a statutory body and hence can be considered with the same sense of cooperation by the Centre as has been during the hearing of the petition It said that the three suggestions which have been made by the DCPCR would undoubtedly require the involvement of application of mind and domain knowledge by experts in the area and the court may not be in the best position to make decisions unaided by an expert determination The bench said We are of the view that having regard to the inclination shown by the union government it would be appropriate the three ideas which have been outlined earlier are duly placed before the concerned expert group as set out in the affidavit of the Centre so that the suggestions can be factored in at the policy-making level at an appropriate stage The top court said that it appreciates the steps taken by the DCPCR in moving these proceedings and equally a sense of responsibility with which suggestions have been made and discussed both by DCPCR and the Union government during these proceedings We leave it open to the Union of India to take a considered view after evaluating the suggestions we dispose of the petitions the bench said During the hearing advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for DCPCR submitted that the affidavit of the Centre is substantially concerned with the issues which have been raised in the petition with the object of ensuring that vaccination for pregnant women and lactating mothers is taken up on priority The bench noted that the decision to facilitate vaccination for pregnant women was announced on July 2 2021 whereas the decision for vaccination of lactating mothers was taken a little earlier on May 19 2021 The court has been apprised of the fact that taking these decisions the government has been guided by its experts group as well as the consensus which has evolved at the international level through the World Health Organization WHO it said Grover highlighted concerns that persist according to her and need to be addressed at a suitable level by the government She said that the women who visit the vaccination centre may not necessarily be aware of the need to make such a voluntary declaration and if she is not duly informed by the personnel at the vaccination centre the recording of the status either as a pregnant woman or a lactating mother may remain to be incorporated in the datasheet She said instead that if the CoWIN portal at the time of registration can be suitably modified to incorporate a declaration this would facilitate the entire process particularly the subsequent monitoring of the health of the pregnant woman or lactating mother as the case may be Grover further suggested to upgrade and support the surveillance which has been instituted by the government for monitoring AEFI targeted tracking of pregnant women and lactating mothers can be considered to further bolster the process of monitoring She emphasised that when adequate data sets become available the publication of data will enhance the confidence of the process of vaccination Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing for Centre responded to the suggestion submitted that each of the three suggestions has been carefully evaluated by the expert group of the Union government She said that in the ongoing process where decisions are continuously evolving the government has certain concerns over the implementation of the suggestions at the present stage but is open to further deliberations within the expert bodies which exist at the present point of time Bhati said that with the process of walk-in registration the registration in the CoWIN portal has been rendered of subsidiary importance but added that the reason why it was believed that a verbal declaration at the time of vaccination would suffice was to ensure that no person is dissuaded from seeking vaccination by introducing an additional column at the time of registration She said that there exists a robust mechanism for targeted tracking which has been put in place by the Centre and as regards the publication of the data it has been submitted that at this stage any such proposal may be premature but the union government is duly seized of the issue Bhati added that the raw data may not be appropriate and is being published after due scrutiny and assessment by expert agenciesIn its affidavit the Centre has said that the pregnant and lactating women are informed about the risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy as also the benefits and likely side effects of the vaccination as per the advisory and Standard Operating Procedures SOP It has said that the guidelines issued for monitoring of adverse events following the COVID-19 vaccine allow for reporting of any suspected adverse event irrespective of the time interval between the day of vaccination and the day of onset of symptoms PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Jan 24 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday was told that it was totally unbecoming of the Tripura government to indulge in whataboutery on the issue of alleged communal violence in the StateA bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan that the State government in its reply has said that why were public-spirited citizens who have filed the PIL for an independent probe were silent during violence in West Bengal and other StatesIt is totally unbecoming of the state government to indulge in whataboutery They have said why these public-spirited citizens who went there and prepared a fact-finding report were silent on violence incidents in West Bengal and other States It is unbelievable that the State government is indulging in all this in such a serious matter It could have been understood if some C-grade news channels were doing all this Bhushan saidHe sought time to file a rejoinder affidavit to the reply of the State government after which the bench listed the matter for further hearing on January 31In its reply affidavit the Tripura government has told the top court that public-spirited citizens seeking an independent probe into the recent communal riots in the state have come with unclean hands and that under the garb of public interest the forum of this court is being used for oblique purposePointing to the petitioners silence on a series of pre-poll and post-poll violence that took place in West Bengal the Tripura government has said the so-called public spirit of the petitioners did not move a few months back on a larger scale of communal violence and suddenly their public spirit aroused due to some instances in a small state like TripuraIt is pointed out that such a selective outrage of the petitioner is not presented before this court as a defence but to satisfy this court that under the garb of public interest the August forum of this court is used for apparently oblique purposes an affidavit filed by the state government saidIt is not a question of one petition or the other but the majesty and sanctity of the proceedings before the highest court of the country No individual or group of individuals professionally functioning as public-spirited personsgroups can selectively invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court to achieve some apparent but undisclosed motive The selective rousing of public interest itself justifies dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost the affidavit statedThe affidavit was filed in response to a PIL filed by advocate Ethesham Hashmi seeking an independent probe into the recent communal riots in Tripura and the alleged complicity and inaction of the state police in itThe Tripura government further said that the petition is based on basis of a privatesponsored report titled Humanity under Attack in Tripura Muslim Lives Matter and is not maintainableA genuine and bonafide public-spirited citizen would not be selective in his public interest and would not be choosy about rushing before the court with regard to one state and keeping quiet with regard to the other Tripura saidThe present case is clearly a case of selective outrage under the pretence of public interest and to achieve some undisclosed agenda it allegedThe north-eastern state recently witnessed incidents of arson looting and violence after reports emerged from Bangladesh that Hindu minorities there had been attacked during Durga Puja on allegations of blasphemyThe plea by Hashmi has alleged that police authorities were hand in glove with the perpetrators and not a single arrest was made concerning the rioters responsible for vandalism and arsonIt said that police and state authorities instead of attempting to stop the violence kept on claiming that there was no communal tension anywhere in Tripura and further denied reports of any religious structure being set ablazeOn November 11 last year the top court heard a plea of two advocates and a journalist seeking quashing of a criminal case lodged under the harsh UAPA provisions against them for allegedly bringing facts through social media posts about the violence against the minority community in TripuraThese members of the civil society who were part of a fact-finding committee have also challenged the Constitutional validity of some provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 on the grounds that the definition of unlawful activities is vague and wide and moreover the statute makes the grant of bail to accused very difficult PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Jan 20 PTI The Supreme Court on Thursday said if open examinations present equality of opportunity to candidates to compete reservations ensure that the opportunities are distributed in such a way that backward classes are equally able to benefit from such opportunities which typically evade them because of structural barriersIt said that the high scores in an examination are not a proxy for merit which should be contextualised and re-conceptualized as an instrument that advances social goods like equalityThis is the only manner in which merit can be a democratizing force that equalises inherited disadvantages and privileges Otherwise claims of individual merit are nothing but tools of obscuring inheritances that underlie achievements the top court saidThe court which upheld 27 per cent Other Backward Classes reservation in All India Quota seats in the NEET for UG and PG medical courses said that the binary of merit and reservation has now become superfluous once this Court has recognized the principle of substantive equality as the mandate of Article 14 and as a facet of Articles 15 1 and 161 of the ConstitutionA bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said if open examinations present equality of opportunity to candidates to compete reservations ensure that the opportunities are distributed in such a way that backward classes are equally able to benefit from such opportunities which typically evade them because of structural barriersIt said High scores in an examination are not a proxy for merit Merit should be socially contextualized and re-conceptualized as an instrument that advances social goods like equality that we as a society value In such a context reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences The bench added that an open competitive exam may ensure formal equality where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate However widespread inequalities in the availability of and access to educational facilities will result in the deprivation of certain classes of people who would be unable to effectively compete in such a system Special provisions like reservation enable such disadvantaged classes to overcome the barriers they face in effectively competing with forward classes and thus ensuring substantive equality it saidThe bench said that the privileges that accrue to forward classes are not limited to having access to quality schooling and access to tutorials and coaching centres to prepare for a competitive examination but also includes their social networks and cultural capital communication skills accent books or academic accomplishments that they inherit from their familyThe cultural capital ensures that a child is trained unconsciously by the familial environment to take up higher education or a high post commensurate with their familys standing This works to the disadvantage of individuals who are first-generation learners and come from communities whose traditional occupations do not result in the transmission of necessary skills required to perform well in the open examination They have to put in the surplus effort to compete with their peers from the forward communities the top court addedIt said that a combination of family habitus community linkages and inherited skills work to the advantage of individuals belonging to certain classes which is then classified as merit reproducing and reaffirming social hierarchiesThis is not to say that performance in competitive examinations or admission in higher educational institutions does not require a great degree of hard work and dedication but it is necessary to understand that merit is not solely of ones own making The rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family schooling fortune and a gift of talents that the society currently values aids in ones advancement it saidThe top court added that while examinations are a necessary and convenient method of distributing educational opportunities marks may not always be the best gauge of individual merit It said that at the best an examination can only reflect the current competence of an individual but not the gamut of their potential capabilities or excellence which are also shaped by lived experiences subsequent training and individual characterIt added that an oppositional paradigm of merit and reservation serves to entrench inequalities by relegating reserved candidates to the sphere of incompetence and diminishing their capabilities PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Jan 19 PTI The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped some of the State governments like Kerala and Bihar for the low number of claims received for death due to COVID and the high number of rejection of applications saying that those eligible must get ex-gratia paymentThe top court said that it rejects the COVID-19 death toll given by Bihar and pointed out that these are not actual but government figuresWe are not going to believe that only 12000 people died in the state of Bihar due to Covid the bench told the counsel appearing for the Bihar governmentThe bench noted that in Telangana there are only 3993 deaths recorded and it has received applications for claims 28969 while Kerala has 49300 recorded deaths due to COVID but applications for the claim were just 27 274What is this going on in Kerala Unlike other states why are there so many less claims You have recorded deaths and their particulars why cannot the state government officials reach out to the family or the kin for compensation Let your people go to the district Taluka level and find out the family members of COVID victims the bench told the counsel for Kerala governmentIt directed the Kerala government to issue necessary directions to its officials to reach to the kin of the person who have lost their lives due to COVID and whose death is registered with the authorities and ensure payment of compensation The Maharashtra government in its latest figures has said that out of the 141885 deaths recorded due to COVID it has received 217151 claims applications out of which it has paid 100271 and 49000 applications have been rejectedThe state government claimed that it being a bigger state it has the highest number of deaths due to COVID and has made elaborate arrangements for disbursal of claims to the next of kin and the figures are continuously changingSimilarly the Gujarat government has 10094 recorded deaths and as per updated figures it has received 91 810 applications for a claim out of which 59885 have been paid and around 5000 have been rejected and 15000 are under examination of being processedA bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna said that there should not be any rejections of claims due to technical reasons and state government officials should reach out to the claimants and rectify their mistakesOur anxiety is that we want all the eligible people to get the compensation so that they can get some relief the bench told counsels for the State governmentsThe court was hearing a batch of pleas by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal and intervenors represented by advocate Sumeer Sodhi seeking ex-gratia assistance to family members of COVID-19 victimsThe bench also asked counsel for the Gujarat government to place on record the details of rejection and asked the State to ensure that there are no rejections merely on the technical ground like non-filing of particularsJustice Khanna said that it is surprising why there are so many gaps in the figures of the deaths recorded and claims of applicationsThe bench said that if the States cannot identify the claimants then it will involve the State Legal Service Authority and District Legal Service Authority to identify and facilitate payment of compensation like it was done by Gujarat High Court during the 2001 earthquake According to the data submitted by the Centre in the court Assam has 6185 deaths but the application for claims received so far is 4092 and 3044 claimants have been paidIn Karnataka there are 38376 recorded deaths and claims received so far are 27325 and payment has been done to 26558 people while payment through direct benefit transfer has been unsuccessful to 3583 claimantsIn Madhya Pradesh there are 10 543 recorded deaths and applications for claims have been received are 12485 while payment has been disbursed to 10400The bench noted that in Punjab there are 16557 deaths recorded and only 8756 applications have been received while payment has been disbursed to 6642 claimantsIn Rajasthan there are 8955 recorded deaths and 281 applications were received after the advertisements were published and 8633 claims have been processedOn November 18 last year the top court had pulled up the Gujarat government for issuing a notification that was just contrary to the directions given regarding ex-gratia to the next of kin of those who died due to COVID-19 and said an attempt has been made to overreach the directions issued by the apex courtIt had said on October 4 last year that no state shall deny ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50000 to the next of kin of the deceased due to COVID-19 solely on the ground that the death certificate does not mention the virus as the cause of deathThe top court had also said that the ex-gratia is to be disbursed within 30 days from the date of applying to the district disaster management authority or the district administration concerned along with the proof of the death of the deceased due to coronavirus and the cause of death being certified as died due to COVID-19It had said that its directions for payment of compensation to the family members of the persons who died due to COVID-19 are very clear and there was no requirement at all of constituting the scrutiny committee to award compensation PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS