Q. Whether Persons With Physical Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions Also ?

A. Yes

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS VS LEESAMMA JOSEPH

Citation : LL 2021 SC 273

Note: A 2-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy held so dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala against a judgment of the Kerala High Court(State of Kerala vs Leesamma Joseph).

The Supreme Court said that the High Court judgment was "salutary" and did not require any interference.

Further, the Supreme Court directed the Kerala Government to implement reservation in promotion for disabled within 3 months.

Q. Whether Merely Proving The Kidnap Of A Person Is Sufficient For Conviction For The Offfence Of 'Kidnapping For Ransom' Under Section 364-A Of The Indian Penal Code ?

A. NO

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

 SHAIK AHMED V STATE OF TELANGANA

Citation : LL 2021 SC 272

Q. What Else Then Also Be Proved To Secure Conviction U/S.364-A IPC ?

A. It must also be proved that there was threat to cause death or harm to the kidnapped person or the kidnapper, by his conduct, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death.

Note: A bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhuhsan and Justice R Subhash Reddy was considering a criminal appeal filed against the conviction of a person under Section 364A IPC (Shaik Ahmed v State of Telangana).

The appellant, an auto-rickshaw driver, was convicted for kidnapping a school boy who had taken ride in the auto and for demanding a ransom of Rs 2 lakhs from his father.

Q. What are correct about Re: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS LL 2021 SC 274 ?

1. The Supreme Court this week directed that all states must implement the "one nation, one ration card" scheme - which enables migrant workers to avail ration benefits from any part of the country - by July 31.
2. The Court directed the Central Government to develop the Portal in consultation with National Informatics Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers.
3. It also directed that the Central Government as well as the respective States and the Union Territories to complete the process of Portal for registration under National Data Base for Unorganised Workers (NDUW Project) as well as implement the same, which by all means may commence not later than 31.07.2021.
4. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah passed the order in the suo moto case 'In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers'. With the above directions, the bench disposed of the suo moto case.
5. ALL ARE CORRECT

A. 5

Q. What Is Correct About REEPAK KANSAL VS UNION OF INDIA LL 2021 SC 276 ?

1. The National Disaster Management Authority has a statutory obligation to frame guidelines for recommending minimum ex-gratia assistance for the victims of COVID pandemic, held the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah delivered the judgment in the cases GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND REEPAK KANSAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
2. The Court held that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act cast a statutory obligation on the part of the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend minimum relief for the victims of a national disaster. Such minimum relief will also include 'ex-gratia assistance' as per Section 12(iii), the Court held.
3. The Court rejected the argument of the Union Government that Section 12 was not a mandatory provision. The Court noted that Section 12 uses the word 'shall' and hence concluded that the provision was mandatory. The Union had argued for reading 'shall' in Section 12 as 'may' .
4. However, the Court said that it cannot direct the Union Government to pay a particular amount as compensation. The Court has directed the National Authority to frame guidelines within 6 weeks on providing ex-gratia assistance to COVID victims.
5. ALL ARE CORRECT

A. 5

Q. Whether Bar Under Rule 3-A Shall Be Attracted If Compromise On The Basis Of Which Decree Was Passed Was Void Or Voidable ? Whether Separate Suit Is Maintainable?

Q. What Is The Remedy In Such Case?

A. YES, NO

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

 R. JANAKIAMMAL VS. SK KUMARASAMY (Deceased) LL 2021 SC 280

D.B. OBSERVED THAT :

Only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and separate suit is not maintainable.

Q Whether Hindu Joint Family Even If Partitioned Can Revert Back And Reunite To Continue The Status Of Joint Family? What Will Be The Effect Of Reunion?

A. YES.

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

R. JANAKIAMMAL VS. SK KUMARASAMY (Deceased) LL 2021 SC 280

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the acts of the parties may lead to the inference that parties reunited after previous partition.

Referring to the concept of reunion in Hindu Law explained in Mulla on Hindu Law, 22nd Edition, the court noted:

"Effect of reunion:- The effect of a reunion is to remit the reunited members to their former status as members of a joint Hindu family. Intention necessary to constitute reunion: To constitute a reunion, there must be an intention of the parties to reunite in estate and interest."

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES

Q. What Is True About RANJANA AGNIHTORI AND OTHERS V UNION OF INDIA ?

1. The Supreme Court has this week dismissed a PIL
2. PIL has sought action against alleged forceful religious conversion of Hindus at District Mewat Nuh in Haryana by the Muslim Community.
3. A three-Judge bench of CJI Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the petition observing that the Court cannot entertain a matter merely on the basis of newspaper reports .
4. All are correct

A.4

Q. Which of the following are correct ?

1. Seeking the release of Manipur based political activist Leichobam Erendro, who was detained under the stringent National Security Act over a Facebook post that cow dung or cow urine will not cure COVID, a habeas corpus petition has been filed in the Supreme Court.
2. The petition has been moved by Erendro's father L. Raghumani Singh through Advocate Shadan Farasat.
3. Erendro was initially arrested on 13.05.2021 for his Facebook post of 13.05.2021 where he had stated that: "The cure for Corona is Not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & common sense Professor ji RIP". The statement was made in the context of the death of the President of the Manipur BJP, Prof. Tikendra Singh, was meant as a criticism of the BJP politicians who had been advocating cow-urine and cow-dung as cures for COVID-19. Enraged by the Facebook post, few local BJP leaders filed complaint, leading to his arrest.
4. ALL ARE CORRECT.

A. 4

Q. Which Of The Following Are Correct ?

1. The Supreme Court this week dismissed petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgment which dismissed a plea to halt the Central Vista Redevelopment project work during the second wave of the COVID pandemic.
2. The Supreme Court expressed agreement with the High Court's view that the petitioners had "selectively" challenged one project.
3. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed:"Petitioners are not in a position to point out that as public spirited citizens they had researched on other projects", the bench observed in the order. The bench said that despite the project contractor reporting compliance with the COVID protocol, the petitioners chose to pursue the PIL for "reasons best known to them".
4. ALL OF THE ABOVE

A.4

Q. What Is Correct About Review Petition In Marataha's Reservation Matter ?

1. The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Central Government against the 5-judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court which HELD THAT the 102nd Constitution Amendment abrogated the power of State Governments to identify and notify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
2. "The grounds taken in the review petition do not fall within the limited ground on which review petition can be considered. The various grounds taken in the review petition have already been dealt with in the main judgment. We do not find any sufficient ground to entertain this review petition. The review petition is dismissed," reads the review order.
3. On May 5, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the constitutionality of Maratha quota, had by 3:2 majority HELD THAT after the 102nd Constitution Amendment, ONLY THE PRESIDENT has the power to notify SEBCs, AND THAT THE POWER OF STATES WAS ONLY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
4. While Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat were on the majority on this point, the minority comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer HELD THAT the effect of the amendment was only related to the power of Centre to identify SEBCs for the central list.
5. ALL ARE CORRECT

A. 5