i. Inclusion of 10% names in NRC may be re-verified – The Supreme Court has asked the State Coordinator of NRC to submit a comprehensive report indicating the feasibility including the time taken and the advantages/disadvantages that amy accrue if the aforesaid modifications/change of legacy documents is permitted.Accordingly, the date of commencement of filing of claims is postponed. The Court also noted that it would consider the necessity of re-verifying at least 10% of names included in the final NRC draft. [Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.274 /2009, date of order: 29.08.2018]

ii. All-India reservation policy of NCT of Delhi upheld – In a significant decision, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was deliberating on the issue “whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?” The Bench held that to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the lists for that particular state, the state shall make its views in in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular state. The Court further held that unilateral action by States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution. [Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board, Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2013, date of judgment: 30.08.2018]

iii. Judgment in petition asking reconsideration of M. Nagaraj reserved - The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in whether the 2006 judgment of M. Nagaraj v Union of India should be reconsidered by a larger bench. The judgment mandated reservations in promotions in government jobs for ST/SC candidates. In the latest hearings, it has been argued by those challenging the judgment that presumption of backwardness “vanishes” once the persons get a government job. If reservations are to be offered, they should only be allowed in Class III and Class IV government jobs. Further the government should be satisfied of the backwardness of the class as a whole rather than an individual case. On the other hand, it was argued that if the State feels that there has been no improvement because of the reservation policy, then the same has to be imputed to the government itself. Certain groups may have advanced economically, but they still invite social stigma.

iv. Article 35A proceedings adjourned– The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of the petitions challenging Article 35A in view of the local elections to be held in the State of Jammu and Kashmir between September and December. The Court felt that the issue was to too sensitive and has postponed the hearings to January, 2019. [We the Citizens v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 722 of 2014, date of order: 31.08.2018]

v. Order restricting manufacture of Oxytocin by private entities stayed – The Delhi High Court has stayed a notification by the Central government prohibiting the manufacture and sale of drug Oxytocin by private entities, and allowing only Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceutical, a PSU, to manufacture and sell Oxytocin. Oxytocin is used heavily to treat postpartem haemorrhage among women and also is used in veterinary care. The petitioners, i.e., the private drug manufacturers, and public interest health group, have argued that measures to protect against the misuse of the drug were taken in 2014 itself by restricting bulk supply of oxytocin only to licensed manufactures. Further the single manufacturer, which has been allowed, would not be able to meet the need of the market. The Court found that the petitioners had a prima facie case and thus a stay could be granted. [BGP Products Operations GMBH v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6084/2018, date of order: 31.08.2018]


vi. CBI Special Director ordered to monitor Bihar shelter homes rape case investigation – The Patna High Court has ordered the Special Director of CBI, Rakesh Ashtana, to monitor the progress of the probe into the incidents of sexual abuse in shelter homes in Muzzarfarpur. The court perused the status report submitted to it and came to the conclusion that the agency had to look into many more details to uncover the truth, and at the same time ensure speed of the investigation and handed the monitoring of the probe to the Special Director. An amicus has also been appointed in the case to submit a plan for rehabilitation of the victims. [Based On The Letter Of Social Activist Mr. Saleem Madavoor Dated 29.07.2018 v State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12845 of 2018 date of order: 29.08.2018]

Other developments –

i. Law Commission makes various recommendations–The Law Commission of India has made various recommendations through its consultation papers and reports. The Commission has questioned the practice of using Section 124A for quelling political dissent, which deals with sedition. The act which is being tried under the said provision should necessarily be done to overthrow the government. The Law Commission has thus demanded a reconsideration of the offence of sedition. It has also submitted a draft report in the favour of simultaneous elections for Central and State legislatures, saving public money and time. It has also noted that simultaneous elections were not possible under the current constitutional framework and amendments would be required. But further discussions would be required on the issue. In another consultation paper on family law, it asks for a universal age for marriage, instead of the present 18 for women and 21 for men. It also supports a change in the grounds of divorce from a fault based divorce to a no-fault based regime where if a marriage simply does not work out, it could be ended. It reiterates the recognition of community property in a marriage and equal distribution of the same on divorce. It has also sought for changes in Sikh and Muslim marriage law. The paper, notably states that a UCC was neither desirable nor necessary presently. (IPA Service)