Top Case Verdicts Of India In 2020-21, Important For UPSC Examination

Spread the love

The world is facing a very hard time due to the covid-19 pandemic. We all have been consuming the covid19 news for the past 2years. But we missed to notice some important and new “laws and case verdicts”

However, many other important issues are going on in the world as well as in India. 

So here is the list of some important and new “laws and cases relating” to it to gain some extra knowledge about “what’s happening in India other than covid19”. 

CCTV Installation On The Police Station 

In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court  (led by the three-judge bench justice R.F.Nariman, justice K.M.Joseph, justice Aniruddha Bose) ordered the state-level oversight committee and district-level oversight committee to look after the installation of CCTV camera in the police station. 

This verdict is relevant to the case of ” Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others” which is directly related to the custodial violence in Tamil Nadu, in 2020. 

Nevertheless, in the judgment of “Shafi Mohammad vs.State of Himachal Pradesh(2018), it was approved that a Central Oversight Body (COD) should be set up by the Ministry Of Home Affairs( MHA) to enforce the plan of action concerning the case of videography in the crime scene during the investigation. 

Later, the court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras on the police station. But the response of the state and union has been cold till now. 

However, now on 02.12.2020, the Supreme Court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all the places of the police station except public toilets.

Also, not exclusively at a police station but other departments i.e – CBI, ED, NCB, DRI, SFIO have to install CCTV cameras. 

🔵Read more Civil Service Examination- The Evolution And History

Skin To Skin Contact 

This law is related to the case ” Satish Ragde vs. The state of Maharashtra” that happened recently in Nagpur where a 39yr old man sexually assaulted a 12yr minor girl child. 

Earlier, the trial court punished the accused with 3yrs of jail under two acts. I.e – outraging the modesty of a woman under Indian Penal court (IPC), and Prevention of children from sexual offenses (POCSO) art. 

However, the accused registered a case against the verdict in the Bombay high court. But the judgment of the high court was shocking for everyone. 

The Nagpur tribunal of Bombay High Court was chaired by a single-judge bench of Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala said that ” groping a minor breast without removing her clothes would not fall within the purpose of sexual aggression but would be termed as “outraging the modesty of a woman” under the IPC. 

This particular sentence of the High court faced a lot of backlash among the people. 

Yet, the Supreme Court Of India put a stay on this case. 

Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial 

The case related to this law is the “Union Of India Vs. k.A.Najeeb ” case which occurred on July 4, 2010, in Kerala where a group of 7 students chopped the right palm of a college professor, T.J.Joseph! While he was returning home on a Sunday morning. 

This happened after the professor seemingly insulted Prophet Muhammad in a question paper set by him for an internal examination. 

However, in 2015 one of the accused, K.A.Najeeb was arrested under section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act1967.

Under this act, an individual who is accused can’t be acquitted easily. 

However, the Kerala High court on 1st February 2021, granted bail to the accused on the ground of the ” fundamental right of speedy trial” act. 

Anyway, the NIA filed a case against this judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court but the court supported the previous verdict. 

Maratha Reservation Act 

On 9th July 2014, the State of Maharashtra approved an ordinance granting 16% reservation in education and public employment for the Maratha community, suggesting them as the backward class of the society. 

On 14th Nov. 2014, the Bombay High court issued a temporary order on the implementation of the act. 

Thereafter, the Maharashtra government established a state backward class commission chaired by Justice Gaikwad who recommended 12 to 13% of reservations for the Maratha community. 

However, the Maharashtra government in 2018, passed the “socially and educationally backward class act” 2018. And enforced 16% of reservations for the Maratha community. 

 Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil vs. The CM of Maharashtra case gave rise to this entire circumstance to the Supreme court. 

However, the Supreme Court on 5th May, 2021 abrogated the provisions of the Maratha law on some strong ground. 

At first, the Reservation ceiling set up by the Supreme Court was 50%. After the famous case of “Indra Sawhney 1992” but this Maratha Reservation exceeded the Reservation by up to 63%. 

Then the state government had no right to execute the Reservation act. Only the president and the parliament could implement such an important act. 

Daughter’s Right To Property 

The Hindu Succession Amendment act was implemented on 5 September 2005 after the president’s approval which was essentially enforced to break the “gender stereotype” from the Property Rights in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Before 2005, the daughter did not have any legal rights on her father’s or ancestor’s property. 

However, there was still some confusion going on regarding this topic i.e. if the daughter was born before 2005 or if the father died before 2005 then whether the daughter would still get the legal rights on the property. 

However, recently in 2018 Vinita Sharma filed a case against her brothers and mother regarding the property. 

A bench of Justice Arun Mishra, S.Abdul Nazeer, and M.R shah cleared out the confusion from the apex court. 

The court declared that it doesn’t matter whether the daughter was born before or after 2005, or the father died. As long as they are both connected by blood, she has the Right on the Property. 

Conclusion 

These are some of the most important topics/cases of 2020/21. However, there were some minor cases like ” media freedom to report court hearing”, the election commission filed a plea against media reporting at the Supreme Court but the court dismissed the plea because that violated the “fundamental right of speech”. 

Another case is called ” No extra chance for exams”, due to the present situation of covid19. In the recent UPSC examination there were some students who could not appear the examination and they were pleading to the Supreme Court for another chance but the court refused the petition.These are some of the important and news of “case verdicts” 

Reference

  1. https://bit.ly/3rFYPYS
  2. https://bit.ly/3xfMwno

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *