Upsc Law Optional Mains Current Affairs January 2022

LAWXPERTSMV
JANUARY 2022 LAW OPTIONAL UPSC
FEATURES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW
FREEBIES FROM PUBLIC FUND CHINA AND NPT

PLEA IN SUPREME COURT SEEKS WORLD POWERS VOW TO STOP SPREAD OF
ACTION AGAINST POLITICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS || CHINA TO
PARTIES THAT PROMISE ‘MODERNISE’ ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL || THE
‘IRRATIONAL’ FREEBIES FROM STATUS OF THE NUCLEAR NON-
PUBLIC FUNDS PROLIFERATION TREATY
LAW OPTIONAL FOR UPSC

INDIA RANKS 85 IN TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL’S
CORRUPTION INDEX
DELHI HC EXTENDS TIME FOR FACEBOOK, WHATSAPP TO

RESPOND TO CCI NOTICES IN PRIVACY POLICY MATTER
Call/ Whatsapp: 6382125862 | Join our student discussion portal at
telegram:https://t.me/lawoptionalxperts
CENTRE GETS ‘LAST CHANCE’ TO

CURRENT AFFAIRS FOR UPSC LAW
RESPOND TO PLEA FOR DECLARING
OPTIONAL MAINS | ALL SUBJECTS
HINDUS A MINORITY IN SIX STATES
MONTH | JANUARY 2022
WHAT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS? KARNATAKA: SDPI OPPOSES ANTI-
CONVERSION BILL, TERMS IT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PLEA AGAINST MALAYALAM FILM
BOMBAY HIGH COURT GETS THREE
‘CHURULI’ A PUBLICITY INTEREST
PERMANENT JUDGES
LITIGATION: KERALA HC
23 NAMES REITERATED BY SC
PROOF OF PEGASUS USE ON PHONES,
COLLEGIUM FOR APPOINTMENT AS HC
CYBER EXPERTS TELL SC PANEL || FRESH
JUDGES PENDING WITH GOVT
PLEA IN SC ON PEGASUS ROW SEEKS
PROBE INTO 2017 INDIA-ISRAEL HOW DELHI JUDGES JUDGES HELPED
DEFENCE DEAL SAVE LIVES DURING CORONA
SC, ST QUOTA IN PROMOTIONS: SUPREME HC ALLOWS WOMAN TO TERMINATE 28-

COURT REFUSES TO LAY DOWN WEEK PREGNANCY
YARDSTICK, SAYS STATES OBLIGATED TO
A SOBERING REMINDER TO THE POWERS
COLLECT DATA
THAT BE
MAHARASHTRA MLAS’ SUSPENSION
ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS
RULING: IN ORDER, SC CALLS FOR
(EWS) AND INCOME CRITERIA
STATESMANSHIP, NOT BRINKMANSHIP ||
EXPLAINED | IS SUSPENSION OF MLAS UP CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF DAM
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW? SAFETY ACT CHALLENGED IN HC
RIGHTS, DUTIES TWO SIDES OF SAME

COIN: PRESIDENT RAM NATH KOVIND
JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

FACE BOOK PAGE: HTTPS://BIT.LY/3PUQJBZ 1
AWAITING LAW PANEL REPORT ON INDIA AT UNSC: DEEPLY CONCERNED

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: CENTRE TO DELHI ABOUT SAFETY OF 7 INDIANS ON
HC HOUTHI-SEIZED SHIP; CALL FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF CREW, VESSEL
CENTRE YET TO NOTIFY RULES OF
CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT EXPLAINED | WHAT WILL BE THE
IMPACT OF CHINA’S BORDER LAW?
WHY NO AFFIDAVIT ON RATION SUPPLY
FOR SEX WORKERS, SUPREME COURT WORLD POWERS VOW TO STOP SPREAD
ASKS STATES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS || CHINA TO
‘MODERNISE’ ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL ||
CONTROL RATHER THAN PRIVACY
THE STATUS OF THE NUCLEAR NON-
ACT NOW, RECAST THE SELECTION PROLIFERATION TREATY
PROCESS OF THE ECs
LAW OF CRIMES
SC TO EXAMINE IF RECORDING WIFE'S
SC JUDGE RECUSES FROM HEARING
TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITHOUT
TEJPAL’S PLEA IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE
HER KNOWLEDGE IS INFRINGEMENT OF
PRIVACY NUMBER OF DEATH ROW PRISONERS
488, HIGHEST IN 17 YEARS, SAYS REPORT
PLEA IN SUPREME COURT SEEKS ACTION
AGAINST POLITICAL PARTIES THAT KERALA HC DIRECTS DILEEP AND
PROMISE ‘IRRATIONAL’ FREEBIES FROM RELATIVES TO SUBMIT SIX MOBILE
PUBLIC FUNDS PHONES IN CONSPIRACY CASE
SELF-GOVERNED SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS INDIA RANKS 85 IN TRANSPARENCY

TRUSTS CAN’T BE SUBJECTED TO INTERNATIONAL’S CORRUPTION INDEX
OVERARCHING STATE CONTROL:
AMEND IPC, CRPC TO DEAL WITH HATE
SUPREME COURT
SPEECH: HOME PANEL CHAIRMAN TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW

AMIT SHAH || HATE SPEECH IN THE TIME MATCH-FIXING IN KPL CRICKET

OF FREE SPEECH MATCHES DID NOT AMOUNT TO
OFFENCE OF CHEATING UNDER IPC: HC
COURT ORDERS FIR AGAINST GURUGRAM
HOSPITAL, TWO DOCTORS FOR LEAVING LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER
COTTON INSIDE WOMAN’S STOMACH PROTECTION
TIME TO COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH FILL VACANCIES IN CONSUMER COURTS,

SEDITION LAW: SC EX-JUDGE ROHINTON HC TELLS DELHI GOVT.
NARIMAN
CONTEMPORARY LEGAL
SC EXPANDS MEANING OF VULNERABLE DEVELOPMENTS
WITNESSES, DIRECTS HCS TO SET UP
GOVT TO TRACK CONDUCT CODE
VWDC COMMITTEES
ENFORCEMENT BY EDTECH FIRMS
POST THE PROHIBITION OF DOWRY
OVER 1.75 MILLION INDIAN ACCOUNTS
POSH ACT: BOMBAY HIGH COURT BANNED BY WHATSAPP IN NOVEMBER
GUIDELINES CHALLENGED IN SUPREME 2021: COMPLIANCE REPORT
COURT
DELHI HC EXTENDS TIME FOR
CRIMINALISATION OF MARITAL RAPE: FACEBOOK, WHATSAPP TO RESPOND TO
PLEA BEFORE DELHI HC CCI NOTICES IN PRIVACY POLICY
MATTER
BULLI BAI APP, SULLI DEALS AND
ONLINE BULLYING OF WOMEN CCI ORDERS GOOGLE INQUIRY AFTER
NEWS PUBLISHERS COMPLAIN || TRUST
HC CONFIRMS DEATH SENTENCE TO
DEFICIT: ON TECH PLATFORMS AND
MAN FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, MURDER OF
NEWS PUBLISHERS
7-YEAR-OLD GIRL
DELHI HIGH COURT STAYS AMAZON-
FUTURE ARBITRATION

‘ROOH AFZA’ VS ‘DIL AFZA’: CONSUMERS PREDATORY PRICING IS PRISING INDIAN

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, SAYS HC LIVELIHOODS APART
A BILL THAT COULD ALTER THE

MEDIATION LANDSCAPE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: RATIONALE: The Judge had further noted

that a filmmaker has certain rights under
PLEA AGAINST MALAYALAM FILM artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of
‘CHURULI’ A PUBLICITY INTEREST the Constitution. It was also held since the
LITIGATION: KERALA HC movie was broadcast on an OTT platform
and not a movie theatre, there was no
CASE TITLE: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of
question of the viewers being held captive
Film Certification &Ors
audience to the film.
ISSUE: Whether the use of excessive use of
RELEVANT CASE LAWS: The Supreme
abusive language and obscene language in
Court has in the case of Narmada Bachao
a film is violative of the law?
Andolan v. Union Of India, (2000) 10
DECISION: The Court observed that prima SCC 664 has observed that Public Interest
facie, no statutory provision has been Litigation [PIL] was an innovation
violated by the publication of the film and essentially to safeguard and protect the
this petition is merely is a publicity human rights of those people who were
interest litigation. unable to protect themselves. However,
Public Interest Litigation should not be
allowed to degenerate to become Publicity
Interest Litigation or Private
Inquisitiveness Litigation.
PROOF OF PEGASUS USE ON PHONES,

CYBER EXPERTS TELL SC PANEL ||
FRESH PLEA IN SC ON PEGASUS ROW
SEEKS PROBE INTO 2017 INDIA-ISRAEL
DEFENCE DEAL

CASE TITLE: Manohar Lal Sharma v.

Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.
314 OF 2021
DECISION: National security was not a

pass for the Government to spy on its own
citizens. # fundamental right to privacy.
COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED – FOR

INVESTIGATION
Reason for committee:

(a) Right to privacy + freedom of
THE ISSUE| The Pegasus Project
speech are violated
investigations alleged that the Pegasus
(b) The entire citizenry affected
spyware was used on ministers,
(c) No clear explanation by Union of
opposition leaders, Sc judges etc. Thus a
India regarding actions taken by it.
writ petition was filed in SC.
(d) Possibility that some foreign
authority, agency or private entity
is involved in surveilling us.
(e) Allegations that the Union or State
Governments are party to it
LAW APPLICABLE: Article 21 of the
Constitution.
RELEVANT CASE LAW: K.S. Puttaswamy

v. Union of India – Art 21 includes right to
privacy.

CASE TITLE: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi

Narain Gupta and Other Connected
Matters, SLP(c) No.30621/2011
BACKGROUND:
The case is related to issue of reservation

in promotions. The Centre and the State
has approached the Supreme Court for
directions regarding the norms of
reservations as there was confusion on

how to determine inadequacy of
representation..
DECISION:
The Supreme Court laid down following
observations:
(a) No particular criteria can be laid
down by the Courts to decide
whether SC. and STs are adequately
represented or not.
(b) There is an obligation upon the
State to collect the data regarding
SC, ST QUOTA IN PROMOTIONS:
inadequacy of representation of
SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO LAY
SCs and STs.
DOWN YARDSTICK, SAYS STATES
(c) The data collected should be
OBLIGATED TO COLLECT DATA
reviewed periodically.

(d) The period for review should be MAHAASHTRA MLAS’ SUSPENSION

reasonable and is left to the RULING: IN ORDER, SC CALLS FOR
Government to set out. STATESMANSHIP, NOT BRINKMANSHIP
|| EXPLAINED | IS SUSPENSION OF
RATIONALE: The Supreme Court placed
MLAS UP FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW?
reliance on the case of M. Nagraj v. Union
of India, wherein it was held that CASE TITLE: Ashish Shelar And Ors.
discretion of the State to provide Versus The Maharashtra Legislative
reservation is subject to the existence of Assembly, W.P.(C) No. 797/2021
backwardness and inadequacy of
BACKGROUND: The Maharashtra
representation in public employment.
Legislative Assembly suspended 12 BJP
MLAs for a year in July, 2021. This

resolution was challenged before the RATIONALE: In RajaRam Pal v. Hon’ble

Supreme Court on the ground that the Speaker, Lok Sabha &Ors, wherein
assembly does not have the power to following principles were laid down for
suspend. In response the State judicial review in relation to exercise of
government has contended that the Court parliamentary provisions:
does not have the power of judicial review a If the decision by Parliament is
in this case.
DECISION: The
Supreme Court
held that the
resolution passed
by the assembly
can be reviewed
because it suffers
from the vice of
being
unconstitutional,
and irrational to tainted due to illegality or
the extent of period of suspension beyond unconstitutionality, then it can be
the remainder of the concerned (ongoing) reviewed;
Session. Hence it is not just a case of mere b In case the decision does not
procedural irregularity within the comply with principle of natural justice
meaning of Article 212(1) of the and is malafide in nature it is subject to
Constitution. judicial review.
LAW APPLICABLE: Article 212 (1) of the

Constitution of India. RIGHTS, DUTIES TWO SIDES OF SAME
COIN: PRESIDENT RAM NATH KOVIND

primacy in the form of

Fundamental Rights and
Fundamental Duties.
These Rights and duties
are two sides of the same
coin.
(ii) Observance of
Fundamental duties
creates an environment
for enjoyment of
Fundamental Rights.
(iii) By participating in
Swaccha Bharat Abhiyan
and COVID Vaccination
BACKGROUND: Recently on the eve of the drives the people have
Republic Day, the President of India Mr. fulfilled the fundamental duty to render
Ram Nath Kovind addressed the nation. national service. [Article 51-A (d)]
During his address the President spoke (iv) It is a sacred duty of every citizen to follow
about the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan the precautions suggested by our
Initiative, Covid Vaccination Drive, scientists and experts in order to beat
Fundamental Right, and Fundamental COVID.
Duties. LAW APPLICABLE: The relevant

Constitutional provisions from the
KEY POINTS OF THE ADDRESS: President's address are:
(i) The Guiding principles of the Constitution Fundamental Rights: Part III (Article 12 to
have been summarised in the Preamble 35) of the Constitution of India deals with
itself and form the bedrock of Indian the Fundamental Rights. The most
Republic. These guiding principles find important fundamental right is the Right

to Life and Personal Liberty as provided BACKGROUND: A Plea has been filed in
under Article 21. the Supreme Court challenging the validity
Fundamental Duties: Part IV-A deals with of Section 2 (c) of the National
the Fundamental Duties of every citizen in Commission of Minorities Act, 1992. The
India. This part was introduced by 42nd Petitioner claims that so far 6
amendment, 1976 on the basis of communities have been declared as
recommendation of Swaran Singh minorities. However, Hindus, Baha’is and
Committee. Jews who are actually minorities in some
of the states have not been declared as
minorities.
DECISION: The Supreme Court has

informed the respondents (Union of India)
that it is their last opportunity to file
counter affidavit(s). The affidavits are to
CENTRE GETS ‘LAST CHANCE’ TO

RESPOND TO PLEA FOR DECLARING
HINDUS A MINORITY IN SIX STATES
CASE TITLE: Ashwini Kumar Upadyay v.

Union of India &ors, Transfer Petition
(CIVIL) NOS. 1211-1213/2020
ORDER DATE: 7th January, 2022

be filed within four weeks from the date of Bill, 2021, popularly called as Anti-
the order. Conversion Bill.
LAW APPLICABLE: The Social Democratic Party of India

(SDPI) is planning to oppose the bill on the
The law relating to rights of minorities
ground that it violates the Right to
is dealt with under following
Freedom of Religion provided under the
Constitutional Provisions:
Constitution of India.
(i) Article 29 of the Constitution of
India: Article 29(1) provides that any LAW APPLICABLE: The Indian
sections of citizens have a right to Constitution deals with Right to Freedom
conserve their distinct culture or of Religion under Articles 25 to 28.
language.
(ii) Article 30 of the Constitution of
India: Article 30(1) provides that all
religious or linguistic minorities shall
have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of
their choice.
The Fundamental rights provided under

KARNATAKA: SDPI OPPOSES ANTI-
the Constitution are not absolute. Certain
CONVERSION BILL, TERMS IT
reasonable restrictions have been placed
‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL
on such rights. Even the freedom of
WHY IN NEWS? religion is limited by constitution itself.

The limitations are:
Last year the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly passed the Karnataka (i) Freedom of religion is subject to public
Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion order, morality and health. There terms

are not defined under the Constitution. Articles 217 and 224 of Constitution of
Terms will be interpreted by the Supreme India after Chief Justice of India.
Court on a case to case basis. The Judges appointed are:
(a) Madhav JayajiraoJamdar, Additional
For example: In Re: Noise Pollution, the
Judge, Bombay High Court
Supreme Court has held that use of
(b) Amit BhalchandraBorkar, Additional
loudspeakers in the religious places is not
Judge, Bombay High Court
allowed as it affects public health.
(c) Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni,
(ii) State can regulate or restrict any Additional Judge, Bombay High Court
economic, financial, political or other
LAW APPLICABLE: The relevant
secular activity which may be associated
provisions of the Constitution of India
with religious practice.
dealing with the appointment of
(iii) Also State can make any law providing abovementioned judges are Article 217
for social welfare and reform. and Article 224.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT GETS THREE Article 217 deals with appointment and
PERMANENT JUDGES conditions of office of judges of High Court.
WHY IN NEWS:
Recently, the Centre vide notification

dated 03.01.2022, notified the
appointment of three additional judges of
Bombay High Court as permanent judges
and extended tenure of another additional
judge of the HC by a year.
NOTIFICATION BY THE CENTRE:
The notification states that the
appointment has been made under

Article 224 provides for appointment of 23 NAMES REITERATED BY SC

additional and acting judges. of High Court. COLLEGIUM FOR APPOINTMENT AS HC
JUDGES PENDING WITH GOVT
WHY IN NEWS: Recently, the Supreme

Court has made recommendation for
appointment of 23 judges, whose names
were already pending with the
government since last year. These names
were sent for reconsideration by the
Government. However, the apex Court has
reiterated these 23 names again.

provisions of the Constitution of India
dealing with the appointment of
abovementioned judges are Article 217
and Article 224.
RELEVANT CASE LAW:
In the case of PLR Projects Ltd v.

Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt. Ltd; the
Supreme Court observed that the High
Courts are in a crisis situation as there are
almost 40% vacancies in the High Courts.
To reduce the vacancies the Supreme
Court has directed the High Court to make
recommendations 6 month in advance.

The Supreme Court further directed that HOW DELHI JUDGES JUDGES HELPED
the High Court should issue fresh SAVE LIVES DURING CORONA
recommendation even if there are pending
WHY IN NEWS? The new year brought
recommendations.
with itself a new wave of Covid Cases, this
time of Omicron Variant. Last year during
the Second Wave, the various High Courts
in India passed various guidelines and
directions to help those suffering from
Covid-19. The Delhi High Court in
particular made great efforts to save lives.
NOTABLE CASES:
1. Streamlining Supply of Oxygen
The High Court of Delhi held an urgent
hearing on April 21 and asked the Centre
to protect the right to life of every
seriously ill citizen in need of medical
oxygen. The Centre was directed to make
adequate arrangements and divert Oxygen
supply from steel and petroleum
industries to hospitals to tide over the
emergency.
2. Direction to increase the number of
tests [Jaideep Ahuja v. Govt, N.C.T of
Delhi ]
On April 26, the Bench requested the
government to ramp up the infrastructure

for conduct of RT-PCR tests in a timely

manner.
3. Availability of Remdesivir Drug
[Vinay Jaidka v. Chief Secretary]
On April 27, the Court observed that the
patients in a number of hospitals will not
be able to obtain the Remdesivir drug as
they are facing an acute shortage of the
drug. Therefore the High Court directed
the government to provide the drug once
the police seized it from hoarders and HC ALLOWS WOMAN TO TERMINATE
black-marketers. 28-WEEK PREGNANCY
4. Contempt of Court
CASE TITLE: Pratibha Gaur v.
On May 1, the Bench warned the Centre of
Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C)
initiating contempt proceedings against its
14862/2021
officials if they failed to procure Delhi's
DATE OF THE DECISION: 31.12.21
daily allocation of 490 metric tonnes (MT)
of oxygen. The High Court noted that there DECISION: The Court observed that the
was a lack of supply of oxygen and other Petitioner is justified in her contention
important drugs to hospital, which has that continuing with the pregnancy would
resulted in death of patients have a negative impact on her mental
health as the foetus suffers from a rare
congenital heart disease, which is a
‘substantial foetal abnormality.
Therefore, Petitioner is permitted to
undergo medical termination of
pregnancy at a medical facility of her

choice. The Court further observed that

the decision now rests solely with the
petitioner as she has been informed by the
Medical Board about all the possible
complications and risks.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS: In Suchita

Srivastava v. State, the Supreme Court
observed that a woman's right to make
reproductive choices is also a dimension of
`personal liberty' as understood under A SOBERING REMINDER TO THE
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. POWERS THAT BE
BACKGROUND: In the Year 2003, then

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made
a statement that India will always remain
an open inclusive and tolerant nation. The
statement was made in the reference to
the attacks against minorities back then.
The PM was of the view that these
In Shaikh Ayesha Khatoon v. Union of
incidents are merely some aberrations and
India, the Court took the view that the
will not last long. The Statement assumes
freedom of a pregnant woman of making a
significance again due to recent attacks on
choice of reproduction which is an integral
minorities in India.
part of personal liberty, whether to
PLURALISM IN THE CONSTITUTION:
continue with the pregnancy or otherwise
The preamble of the Constitution of India
cannot be taken away.
provides that the citizens shall be secured
justice, equality and liberty of all kinds.

Further there shall be promotion among In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
all the fraternity which assures the dignity the Supreme Court observed that the
of individual and unity of the nation. Constitution prohibits the establishment
In addition to the Preamble, Part III of the of a theocratic state and therefore the
Constitution provides for Fundamental State is prohibited from promoting any
Rights in India. Article 25 to 28 in religion.
particular provides the Right to
Freedom of Religion in India.
Fundamental Duties were added by
an amendment in the year 1976.
Article 51-A (a) provides the duty
to abide by the Constitution and
respect its ideals and institutions.
However, the recent incidents of
attack on minorities or on people
practising different faith, is just in
stark contrast to the notion of
pluralism inherent in the
ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS
Constitution.
(EWS) AND INCOME CRITERIA
LAW APPLICABLE: Chapter XV Offences
against the religion- Section 295A and CASE TITLE: Neil Aurelio Nunes &Ors. v.
298 of IPC. 1860. Union of India &Ors., Writ Petition (C) No
RELEVANT CASE LAWS: In Ahmedabad 961 of 2021
St. Xavier’s College v. the State of
BACKGROUND: The Parliament has
Gujarat (1974), observed that India is a
introduced reservation on the basis of
mosaic of different religions, languages
economic status by virtue of 103rd
and cultures and India today represents a
Constitutional Amendment in 2019.
synthesis of them all.

Last year the government has declared ‘Rs. including many income tax-paying middle-
8 lakh’ as the annual income criterion to and high-income families into the EWS.
identify EWS among forward classes of PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUPREME
society for grant of 10% reservation in COURT:
NEET medical admissions under the All The Supreme Court raised a query as to
India Quota (AIQ) category. This has been how the government was able to finalise
challenged before the Supreme Court. the Criteria of Rs.8 lakh within three days
COMMITTEE TO REVISIT THE EWS of announcing the 10% EWS reservation.
CRITERIA: In response to the plea, the The Solicitor general responded by saying
Government has stated in the Court that it that the criteria is determined after
has formed an expert committee, under conducting required study. He referred to
the Chairmanship of Ajay Bhushan the report by the expert committee
Pandey, to review the EWS criteria. The mentioned above.
Committee presented its report of DECISION: The Supreme Court directed,
December, 31. inter alia, that:
(i) We accept the recommendation of
As per the Report, most selected
the Pandey Committee that the present
candidates who got the benefit of EWS
criteria should be used for 2021-2022 to
reservation had annual family income
ensure that the admission process is not
lower than Rs. 5 lakh. That is why the
dislocated;
committee has come to the conclusion that
(ii) Counseling on the basis of NEET-PG
the existing annual income criterion of Rs.
2021 and NEET- UG 2021 shall be
8 lakh is not over-inclusive.
conducted by giving effect to the
The figure ensures that most low-income reservation as provided by the notice
people who are not required to pay income dated 29 July 2021; and
tax are not excluded and are covered in (iii) The validity of the criteria
EWS and at the same time it should not be determined by the Committee for
so high that it becomes over inclusive by identification of EWS would prospectively

for the future be subject to the final result

of the petitions.
THE WAY FORWARD:
It is important to note that the present
directions of the Supreme Court are only
passed keeping in mind the delay caused
in the NEET PG Counseling. Further delay
will cause great harm keeping in mind the
prevalence of pandemic in the Country.
The Supreme Court has directed that these
petitions shall be listed for final hearing in
the third week of March 2022. Only then a
final decision regarding the validity of
EWS and income criteria will be made.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF DAM (iii) Parliament cannot make a

SAFETY ACT CHALLENGED IN HC declaration in relation to a subject matter
of List II entries when such power is
WHY IN NEWS? Last year the Parliament
conspicuously absent in List I subjects.
passed the Dam Safety Act, 2021 in order
LAW APPLICABLE:
to provide for surveillance, inspection,
Article 245 to 255 of the Constitution of
operation and maintenance of the
India deals with the Legislative relations
specified dams and to provide for
between the Centre and States. The
institutional mechanism to ensure their
relevant provisions in particular
safe functioning.
applicable to the present case are:
The act is challenged before Madras High
(i) Article 246: Deals with subject
Court on the ground it violates the
matter of laws made by Parliament
principle of federalism and is beyond the
and by the Legislatures of States.
Centre's legislative competence. The
(ii) Relevant Entries in the Seventh
Madras High Court has issued notice to the
Schedule: Entry 56 in List I and
Centre in response to the plea.
Entry 17 and 35 in List II.
PLEA BY PETITIONERS:
PLEA BY PETITIONERS:
The Petitioner made following important
contentions against the Act:
(i) The impugned (under challenge)
Act is a legislation passed by the Union
through brute majority to blatantly usurp
the States’ power.
(ii) Entry 56 cannot be stretched to
include dams and embankments
exclusively within the control of the States.

AWAITING LAW PANEL REPORT ON The Government further contended that

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: CENTRE TO the direction to the Centre to enact
DELHI HC uniform Civil Code within 3 months is
against the Constitutional scheme as only
WHY IN NEWS?
parliament has the power to enact the Law
WHY IN NEWS? A plea has been filed and it cannot be directed by any other
before the Delhi High Court for issuance of authority to enact legislation.
directions to the Centre to make a Uniform
LAW APPLICABLE:
Civil Code as provided under Article 44 of
the Constitution of India. Article 44 of the Constitution of India
deals with the subject of Uniform Civil
GROUNDS UNDER THE PLEA: The
Code for all the citizens throughout the
Petitioner contended that the Government
territory of India. However, Article 44 is
has failed to fulfill its obligation as
not justiciable i.e., party cannot approach
provided under Article 44 of the
the Court for enforcement of this principle.
This is provided under Article 37 which
RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT: states that the provisions contained in Part
IV shall not be enforceable by any court.
In response to the plea, the Government
said that they are waiting for a report from
the Law commission to India on the
subject of Uniform Civil Code and as and
when the report of Law Commission in the
matter is received, the Government would
examine the same in consultation with the
various stakeholders involved in the
matter.

changes brought by the Amendment Act,

2019. However, the failure to notify the
rules affects those who are waiting to
apply for citizenship.
LAW APPLICABLE:
The law governing citizenship in India is
dealt in accordance with provisions of
Constitution of India as well as Citizenship
Act, 1955. The scope of these laws is as
follows:
Pre Constitution Era: Part II of Indian
Constitution deals with citizenship related
CENTRE YET TO NOTIFY RULES OF matter from pre constitution era till 1955.
CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT The relevant constitutional provisions are
Articles 5 to 11.
WHY IN NEWS? The Parliament passed
Citizenship Act, 1955: Post 1955 the
the Citizenship Amendment Act, in the
matters related to citizenship are
year 2019 amongst nationwide protests.
governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955. The
However the act is yet to come into effect
relevant provisions are Sections 3 to 7
because the act cannot be enacted
(Modes of Acquiring Citizenship) and
CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019:
Sections 8 to 10 (Modes of Losing
The amendment introduces citizenship for
Citizenship.)
6 undocumented non-muslim from
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh
who entered India on or before December
31, 2014.
The rules provide the procedure to deal
with application of citizenship as per the

Recently, an application was filed by

Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee
seeking a direction to the authorities to
provide monthly dry rations and cash
transfer to sex workers who were
struggling to survive during the pandemic.
LAW APPLICABLE: Article 21 of the

Constitution which provides that all
people have a right to life. This right to life
includes within its ambit the Right to live
with dignity.
WHY NO AFFIDAVIT ON RATION DECISION: The Supreme Court observed

SUPPLY FOR SEX WORKERS, SUPREME that Right to dignity is a Fundamental
COURT ASKS STATES Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of
this country irrespective of his/her
CASE TITLE: BudhadevKarmaskarv. The
vocation. There is a bounden duty cast on
State of West Bengal &Ors., Criminal
the government to provide basic amenities
Appeal No(s).135/2010
to the citizens of this country.
BACKGROUND: In year 2011, the
Supreme Court had directed the State and
Union Territories to implement the
suggestions of Supreme Court appointed
Committee, in relation to issuance of
ration cards and voter identity cards for
sex worker.

Recently, the Joint Parliamentary

Committee (JPC) has reviewed the bill and
released a report. This report has led to
discussion about the privacy concerns in
the Draft Bill.
INFALLIBILITY OF STATE: As per Clause
12 and 35 of the Bill, the Government has
been exempted from performing certain
obligations under the Act, which are
otherwise to be followed by private
entities. The effect of Clause 12 is that it
provides wide powers to the Government
to process personal data of an individual
on the grounds mentioned therein.
DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITY:
The Bill provides for constitution of a Data
Protection Authority (DPA) to fulfill the
duties and functions as provided under the
Bill. But the bill fails to provide clarity as to
CONTROL RATHER THAN PRIVACY
how a single entity will be able to perform
WHY IN NEWS? After the Supreme Court such wide variety of functions. Another
declared the right to privacy a concern with the DPA is that its members
fundamental right, Justice B.N. Srikrishna are appointed by the Executive.
committee was constituted to prepare a This has raised concerns around the
report on Data Protection. The report by independence of the DPA since it bound to
the Committee led to Draft Data Protection follow the directions of Central
Bill in 2019. Government as per Clause 86 of the Bill.

The report has raised more questions than PM. This has led to debate around the
it has solved. In its present avatar, the Bill country on the independence and
is more about surveillance and control impartiality of the Election Commission, a
than privacy. Constitutional body.
APPLICABLE LAW: Article 324 of the
Constitution of India deals with the
Election Commission of India. The article
provides the process for constitution of
Election Commission and appointment of
Election Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY VARIOUS
COMMISSIONS: The present process of
appointment is seen as violating the basic
feature of the Constitution. Therefore a lot
of Commissions have present reports to
make the appointment process in
compliance with the Constitution.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS: In Rojer
Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd, the
Supreme Court held that executive cannot
be the sole participant in the appointment
process of Elections Commissioners.
ACT NOW, RECAST THE SELECTION
In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, ,
PROCESS OF THE ECs
(pending since 2015), the Supreme Court
WHY IN NEWS? Last month the Chief observed that the appointment need to
Election Commissioner and his Election made in a more transparent manner.
Commission colleagues held an informal
meeting with the Principal Secretary to the

WHY IN NEWS? Recently, a plea has been

filed in the Supreme Court against the
order of the High Court. The High Court
has held that recording wife telephonic
conversation is a breach of her privacy.
Supreme Court has issued notice and
therefore will decide whether recording
wife's telephonic conversation without
her knowledge is infringement of her
privacy or not?
DECISION BY THE HIGH COURT:
The High Court observed that recording of
telephonic conversation of the wife
without her knowledge is a clear cut
infringement of her privacy.
Furthermore, it cannot be said or
ascertained as to the circumstances in
which the conversations were held or the
manner in which response elicited by a
person, who was recording the
conversations, because it is evident that
these conversations would necessarily
have been recorded surreptitiously by one
of the parties.
SC TO EXAMINE IF RECORDING WIFE'S LAW APPLICABLE:
TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION Article 21 of the Constitution states, “No
WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE IS person shall be deprived of his life or
INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY personal liberty except according to

procedure established by law.” This right CASE TITLE: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v.
to life includes within its ambit the Right to Union of India &anr., Writ Petition(Civil)
Privacy as well. No.43/2022
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONERS:

Petitioner submits that recent trend of
political parties to influence voters by
offering freebies with an eye on elections
is not only the greatest threat to the
survival of democratic values but also
injures the spirit of the Constitution.
Further, the Petitioner submits that
arbitrary promises of irrational freebies
violate the ECI's mandate for free and fair
elections and distributing private goods-
services from public funds clearly in
violation of the Constitution.
Constitutional provisions as discussed in
PLEA IN SUPREME COURT SEEKS
the petition are Article 14, Article 266
ACTION AGAINST POLITICAL PARTIES
and Article 268. As per Article 266(3),
THAT PROMISE ‘IRRATIONAL’
money shall not be taken out of
FREEBIES FROM PUBLIC FUNDS
Consolidated fund except in accordance
WHY IN NEWS? Recently, a plea has been with law and only for constitutional
filed before the Supreme Court challenging purposes.
the practice of political parties to OBSERVATIONS BY THE SUPREME
distribute freebies from public funds COURT:
during the times of elections.

The case is still pending. However the Appellant is a Public trust and they had in
Court has made important observations a meeting decided to sell their immovable
on the issue. As per the Court the budget properties.
for freebies goes beyond the regular As per the law the trust needed Registrar
budget. At this point of time, Court has of Public Trusts' approval to sell their
issued notice to the Centre seeking its properties. The Registrar refused to
response. How the Court will deal with the provide the approval. The Appellant
dispute will be seen from the later stages approached MP High Court challenging the
of the hearing. Registrar's order. The High Court has
upheld the order of Registrar.
LAW APPLICABLE: The Constitution of
India provides certain freedom to its
citizens under Article 19. Article 19 (1)
(c) in particular provides that all citizens
shall have the right to form associations or
unions or co-operative societies.
SELF-GOVERNED SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS Article 19 (4) provides that reasonable
TRUSTS CAN’T BE SUBJECTED TO restrictions can be placed on Article
OVERARCHING STATE CONTROL: 19(1)(c) in the interests of the sovereignty
SUPREME COURT and integrity of India or public order or

morality.
CASE TITLE:Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman,
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT: The
MHOW v. The Sub Divisional Officer/The
Supreme Court set aside the impugned
Registrar of Public Trusts, Civil Appeal
judgment and the decision of the Registrar.
No. 490 of 2022
The Supreme Court also laid down certain
BACKGROUND: The present case is filed observations as mentioned in the image
against the decision of MP High Court. The below:

Houthi (Islamist Political and Armed

Movement). On the Ship, 7 Indian have
been captured among others. In response,
India approached UN Security Council and
T S Tirumurti, India’s Permanent
Representative to the UN Ambassador, has
said that India is extremely concerned by
the continued intensification of military
operations in Yemen.
LAW APPLICABLE: The ongoing situation
in Yemen is governed by the United
Nations Charter and the 4th Geneva
Convention dealing with Protection of
Civilians in times of War. The Relevant
provisions are:
a. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits
use of force or threat against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any
state.
INTERNATIONAL LAW b. Article 10 of the Geneva Convention
provides that the activities undertaken by
INDIA AT UNSC: DEEPLY CONCERNED
International Red Cross Society in times of
ABOUT SAFETY OF 7 INDIANS ON
war are not barred.
HOUTHI-SEIZED SHIP; CALL FOR
c. Article 14 provides for establishment of
IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF CREW,
hospital and safety zones to protect
VESSEL
civilians. Article 18 provides that Civilians
BACKGROUND: Recently, Cargo ship hospitals shall not be the subject of attack
bearing the flag of UAE was seized by at any times.

d. Article 15 provides for establishment WHY IN NEWS? Recently, the Chinese

of neutral zones to provide shelter from Government has release a list of
the effect of war. standardised names for various
territories. The list includes Arunachal
Pradesh as well, by the name of South
Tibet. In response to this, the Indian
Government took the view that assigning a
new name will not changes the fact that
Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of
the territory of India.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW LAW: The
New Border law lays down various
responsibilities for civilian and military
authorities in China to take steps towards
safeguarding its territories. This includes
conducting military drills, and to
resolutely prevent, stop and combat any
invasions, encroachments and
provocations on its territory.
The effect of this law is that since China
views Arunachal Pradesh as part of its
territory, it will take measures to
safeguard this territory. In October 2021,
EXPLAINED | WHAT WILL BE THE India expressed concern over the new law,
IMPACT OF CHINA’S BORDER LAW? and the Chinese acts of making an LAW
APPLICABLE:
WHY IN NEWS?
The actions of the Chinese Authorities
violate both National Laws of India as well

as International Law. The Relevant WORLD POWERS VOW TO STOP

provisions are: SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ||
1. Constitution of India: CHINA TO ‘MODERNISE’ ITS NUCLEAR
Article 1 provides that India shall be a ARSENAL || THE STATUS OF NUCLEAR
Union of States. The First Schedule NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
contains list of States and territories of
WHY IN NEWS? Recently, the Five
India. Item No. 23 of the First Schedule
Permanent Members (P5) of United
states that Arunachal Pradesh is a part of
Nations Security Council (UNSC), who are
Territory of India. Article 3 provides the
also nuclear powers, released a joint
Parliament of India with the power to
statement pledging to stop spread of
make law to amend, alter, increase or
atomic weapons and to avoid nuclear war.
diminish the boundary of any State.
The Statement was released at the
Therefore, these changes can only be
occasion of review of Nuclear Non-
brought by India and not by any other
Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
country.
JOINT STATEMENT:
2. International Law:
Important points from the statement are:
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits
1. The P5 consider the avoidance of
use of force or threat against the territorial
war between Nuclear-Weapon States and
integrity or political independence of any
the reduction of strategic risks as our
state.
foremost responsibilities.
2. We affirm that a nuclear war
cannot be won and must never be fought
as it would have far-reaching
consequences. Further the P5 affirm that
nuclear weapon should serve defensive
purposes, deter aggression, and prevent
war.

3. The P5 remain committed to their ISSUE: Conflict of Interest from the point
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of view of the Judge
obligations.
BACKGROUND: Justice L Nageswara Rao
NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION
has recused himself from the hearing of
TREATY:
appeal filed by Journalist Tarun Tejpal
against the decision of Bombay High Court
wherein the High Court has rejected
Tejpal's plea to conduct the trial in-
camera. The reason for recusal given by
the Judge was that he had at some point
The NPT was formulated by State parties represented the State Government in the
after considering that the nuclear war matter.
would result in devastation of mankind CHARGES: Tarun Tejpal was accused of
and therefore the State parties need to committing Sexual Assault and rape on her
make every effort to avert the danger of colleague. The provisions under which
such a war. charge was filed are Sections 354, 354A,
In addition to NPT, some other treaties 354B, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k).
dealing with Nuclear ban are Partial Test
Ban Treaty (PTBT), the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons (TPNW).
LAW OF CRIMES
SC JUDGE RECUSES FROM HEARING

TEJPAL’S PLEA IN SEXUAL ASSAULT
CASE

Law University, Delhi. The Report

highlights the conditions of prisoners on
death row.
FINDINGS OF REPORT:
The Report made following findings:
(i) In 2021, the numbers of prisoners on
death row was at 488, highest since
2004. The reason for such a high
number was the limited functionality
of Courts due to the pandemic.
(ii) While trial courts imposed a total of
144 death sentences in 2021, high
courts decided only 39 matters in the
same period. The Supreme Court,
despite listing death penalty cases on
priority in September last year,
decided only 6 cases in 2021 compared
to 11 in 2020 and 28 in 2019.
(iii) The report stated that of the 39 cases
involving death penalty decided by
high courts, only four resulted in
confirmation of the death sentences.
NUMBER OF DEATH ROW PRISONERS (iv) The report stated that the majority of
488, HIGHEST IN 17 YEARS, SAYS cases in which trial courts imposed the
REPORT death sentence involved murder and
sexual crimes.
WHY IN NEWS: Recently, a report has
been published by Project 39A, National

BACKGROUND: In the year 2017, the

accused Dileep and his family members
entered into a criminal conspiracy for the
murder of police officers who were
investigating a sexual harassment case
against the accused among others.
DECISION: The Kerala High Court has

recently directed the accused and his
relatives to submit mobile phones to be
handed over to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate Court (JFCM-1 Aluva).
The High Court further observed that the

prosecution has every right to seek that
the accused hand over the mobile phones
in question for the purpose of forensic
examination by an agency identified by the
Central Government as ‘Examiner of
Electronic Evidence’ under Section 79-A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000.
LAW APPLICABLE:
KERALA HC DIRECTS DILEEP AND
RELATIVES TO SUBMIT SIX MOBILE Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
PHONES IN CONSPIRACY CASE provides that no person accused of any
offence shall be compelled to be a witness
CASE TITLE: P. Gopalakrishnan alias
against himself.
Dileep &orsv. State of Kerala &Anr.
Section 79-A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 provides that the

Central Government may, for the purposes investigating a sexual harassment case
of providing expert opinion on electronic against the accused among others.
form evidence before any court or other
DECISION: The Kerala High Court has
authority specify, by notification in the
recently directed the accused and his
Official Gazette, any Department, body or
relatives to submit mobile phones to be
agency of the Central Government or a
handed over to the Jurisdictional
State Government as an Examiner of
Magistrate Court (JFCM-1 Aluva).
Electronic Evidence.
The High Court further observed that the

prosecution has every right to seek that
the accused hand over the mobile phones
in question for the purpose of forensic
examination by an agency identified by the
Central Government as ‘Examiner of
Electronic Evidence’ under Section 79-A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000.
LAW APPLICABLE:
KERALA HC DIRECTS DILEEP AND
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
RELATIVES TO SUBMIT SIX MOBILE
provides that no person accused of any
PHONES IN CONSPIRACY CASE
offence shall be compelled to be a witness
CASE TITLE: P. Gopalakrishnan alias against himself.
Dileep &orsv. State of Kerala &Anr. Section 79-A of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 provides that the
BACKGROUND: In the year 2017, the Central Government may, for the purposes
accused Dileep and his family members of providing expert opinion on electronic
entered into a criminal conspiracy for the form evidence before any court or other
murder of police officers who were authority specify, by notification in the

Official Gazette, any Department, body or (i) India had a Corruption Perceptions
agency of the Central Government or a Index (CPI) Score of 40, same as last
State Government as an Examiner of year.
Electronic Evidence. (ii) The report highlighted concerns over
the risk to journalists and activists who
have been “victims of attacks by the
police, political militants, criminal
gangs and corrupt local officials.”
(iii) “Civil society organisations that speak
up against the government have been
targeted with security, defamation,
sedition, hate speech and contempt-of-
court charges, and with regulations on
foreign funding.
INDIA RANKS 85 IN TRANSPARENCY
LAW APPLICABLE:
INTERNATIONAL’S CORRUPTION
The menace of Corruption is mainly dealt
INDEX
under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
WHY IN NEWS: Recently, the 1988, which was enacted to consolidate
Transparency International has released and amend the law relating to the
its Corruption Perception Index report. prevention of corruption.
The Report places India at Rank 85 among
180 Countries. The CPI ranks countries
and territories around the world by their
perceived levels of public sector
corruption.
KEY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE
REPORT:

WHY IN NEWS: Recently the Chairman of

the Parliament Standing Committee on
Home Affairs has written to Home
Minister Amit Shah, asking to amend
relevant provisions to IPC and CrPC to deal
with the growing menace of Hate Speech
in India.
The above recommendations assume
significance in light of the recent
controversy caused by speeches delivered
in an event in Haridwar organised by Yati
Narsinghanand, and another in Delhi by
‘Hindu Yuva Vahini’.
LAW APPLICABLE:
The Indian Penal Code does not contain
the offence of Hate Speech. However, there
are provisions to punish those engaging in
hate speech such as:
(i) Section 153A- Promoting Enmity
between Different Groups
(ii) Section 153B- Imputation, assertions
prejudicial to national-integration.
(iii) Section 295A- Act intended to outrage
feelings
AMEND IPC, CRPC TO DEAL WITH
(iv) Section 298- Uttering words with intent
HATE SPEECH: HOME PANEL
to would religious feelings
CHAIRMAN TO AMIT SHAH || HATE
(v) Section 505- Statements conducing to
SPEECH IN THE TIME OF FREE SPEECH
public mischief

BACKGROUND: Recently, two doctors in

Gurugram, left cotton swabs in the
stomach of a woman while conducting
surgery on her. After the surgery the
woman complained of pain, but the
hospital disposed the matter by merely
giving her painkillers.
Later on the husband of the woman

approached another hospital where they
RELEVANT CASE LAW:
conducted CT scan on the woman. The CT
In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of
scan indicated that cotton swabs have
India, the Supreme Court defined what is
been left in the stomach of the woman.
meant by Hate Speech. The Court observed
that hate speech is an effort to marginalise DECISION: The Court has ordered the
individuals based on their membership in registration of FIR against the two doctors
a group. Such speech seeks to delegitimise on ground of medical negligence caused by
group members in the eyes of the majority. them.
In Amish Devgan v. Union of India, the
LAW APPLICABLE: The Indian Penal
Court observed that hate speech has no
Code contains several provisions which
redeeming or legitimate purpose other
can be applied to punish the acts of the
than hatred towards a particular group.
doctors. The provisions are:
COURT ORDERS FIR AGAINST
(i) Section 336: Act endangering life or
GURUGRAM HOSPITAL, TWO DOCTORS
personal safety of others
FOR LEAVING COTTON INSIDE
(ii) Section 337: Causing hurt by act
WOMAN’S STOMACH
endangering life or personal safety

(iii) Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by

act endangering life or personal safety
(iv) Section 304A: Causing death by
Negligence
The punishment for sedition is

imprisonment for life, to which fine may
be added, or with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, to which fine
may be added, or with fine.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS:
The Courts in India have repeatedly
observed that Sedition is a colonial piece of
legislation, which is not in conformity with
the Constitutional of India. Some of these
cases dealing with constitutional validity
TIME TO COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH
of Section 124-A are:
SEDITION LAW: SC EX-JUDGE
In Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar
ROHINTON NARIMAN
Pradesh, [1958] the Allahabad High
WHY IN NEWS: Recently Retired Judge of Court held that Section 124-A, Indian
Supreme Court, Rohinton Nariman, at an Penal Code, is ultra vires of Article 19(1) of
event in Mumbai observed that there is a the Constitution, because it is not in public
hesitance on the part of the authorities to interest and does not amount to a
arrest those engaging in hate speech but reasonable restriction.
the people who are exercising free speech In Kedar Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar,
are being targeted. [1962] the Court observed that Section
LAW APPLICABLE: 124A is based on the principle that every

State has to be armed with the power to

punish those jeopardize the safety and
stability of the State. Seen in this light, this
is permissible as per Article 19(2) of the
In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, [2021]
the Supreme Court observed that a citizen
has a right to criticize or comment upon
the measures undertaken by the
Government and its functionaries, so long
as he does not incite people to violence.
In Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v.
Union of India, [2021] Section 124-A is
challenged on the grounds that it is
unnecessary and does not serve any public
purpose. The case is still pending before
the Supreme Court.
SC EXPANDS MEANING OF
VULNERABLE WITNESSES, DIRECTS
HCS TO SET UP VWDC COMMITTEES
CASE TITLE: Smruti Tukaram Badade v.

The State Of Maharashtra, Criminal
Appeal No 1101 of 2019
BACKGROUND: The Supreme Court was The issue was regarding the need to set up
hearing a miscellaneous application vulnerable witness court rooms as
arising out of a Criminal appeal.

directed in the case of State of procedures and a hostile environment.

Maharashtra v. Bandu.
In the Bandu case the Court issued
directions to set up special centres for
examination of vulnerable witnesses in
criminal cases.
DECISION: The Supreme Court observed
that there is a need for setting up facilities
which will create a safe environment for
recording the evidence of vulnerable
witnesses.
The Supreme Court highlighted that a
fairness of trial process is dependent upon
the manner in witnesses' statements are
recorded.
The dignity of person, which is an intrinsic
element of Article 21 of the Constitution,
which cannot be left to insensitive



Upsc Law Optional Mains Current Affairs January 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upsc Law Optional Mains Current Affairs January 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAWXPERTSMV

JANUARY 2022 LAW OPTIONAL UPSC

FEATURES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW

FREEBIES FROM PUBLIC FUND CHINA AND NPT

LAW OPTIONAL FOR UPSC

DELHI HC EXTENDS TIME FOR FACEBOOK, WHATSAPP TO

CENTRE GETS ‘LAST CHANCE’ TO

SC, ST QUOTA IN PROMOTIONS: SUPREME HC ALLOWS WOMAN TO TERMINATE 28-

FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW? SAFETY ACT CHALLENGED IN HC

RIGHTS, DUTIES TWO SIDES OF SAME

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

AWAITING LAW PANEL REPORT ON INDIA AT UNSC: DEEPLY CONCERNED

SELF-GOVERNED SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS INDIA RANKS 85 IN TRANSPARENCY

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

AMIT SHAH || HATE SPEECH IN THE TIME MATCH-FIXING IN KPL CRICKET

TIME TO COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH FILL VACANCIES IN CONSUMER COURTS,

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

‘ROOH AFZA’ VS ‘DIL AFZA’: CONSUMERS PREDATORY PRICING IS PRISING INDIAN

A BILL THAT COULD ALTER THE

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: RATIONALE: The Judge had further noted

PROOF OF PEGASUS USE ON PHONES,

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

CASE TITLE: Manohar Lal Sharma v.

DECISION: National security was not a

COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED – FOR

Reason for committee:

RELEVANT CASE LAW: K.S. Puttaswamy

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

CASE TITLE: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi

The case is related to issue of reservation

reservations as there was confusion on

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

(d) The period for review should be MAHAASHTRA MLAS’ SUSPENSION

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

resolution was challenged before the RATIONALE: In RajaRam Pal v. Hon’ble

LAW APPLICABLE: Article 212 (1) of the

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

primacy in the form of

BACKGROUND: Recently on the eve of the drives the people have

about the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan the precautions suggested by our

Initiative, Covid Vaccination Drive, scientists and experts in order to beat

Fundamental Right, and Fundamental COVID.

Duties. LAW APPLICABLE: The relevant

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

DECISION: The Supreme Court has

CENTRE GETS ‘LAST CHANCE’ TO

CASE TITLE: Ashwini Kumar Upadyay v.

ORDER DATE: 7th January, 2022

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

LAW APPLICABLE: The Social Democratic Party of India

The Fundamental rights provided under

WHY IN NEWS? religion is limited by constitution itself.

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

Recently, the Centre vide notification

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

Article 224 provides for appointment of 23 NAMES REITERATED BY SC

WHY IN NEWS: Recently, the Supreme

LAW APPLICABLE: The relevant

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

In the case of PLR Projects Ltd v.

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS

JOIN US | TELEGRAM CHANNEL: HTTPS://T.ME/LAWOPTIONALXPERTS