Gauhati HC Upholds Assam Law to Abolish State-Run Madrassas

The Gauhati HC upheld The Assam Repealing Act, 2020, under which all government-funded madrassas are to be converted into general schools in Assam.

Guwahati: The Gauhati high court on Friday upheld The Assam Repealing Act, 2020, under which all provincialised (government-funded) madrassas are to be converted into general schools in Assam.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia said the changes brought about by the legislative and executive action of the state are for the provincialised madrassas alone, which are government schools, and not for private or community ones.

It also dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of the Act.

The writ petition was filed by 13 individuals in the HC in 2021 against the state government’s decision to transform the state-funded madrassas to general schools.

The Court had concluded the hearing on January 27 and had reserved its judgement, which was passed on Friday.

Also read: Assam Government Tables Bill to Abolish State-Run Madrassas

“The madrassas which are wholly maintained by the state cannot impart religious instructions in terms of the mandate of Article 28(1) of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its judgement.

It also pointed that the services of the teachers of the provincialised madrassas have not been dispensed away with and they will be trained for teaching other subjects, if required.

“The division bench of the honourable high court has upheld the Assam Repealing Act of 2020, which had repealed the Madrassa provincialisation acts of 1995, 2011 and 2018,” Assam Advocate General Devojit Saikia told PTI.

In the same judgement, the high court also upheld all subsequent notifications issued by the government of Assam to convert madrassa institutions into general educational institutions.

“The court upheld the Act on the basis of Article 28(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that any educational institution cannot impart any religious instruction if such institution is wholly funded from state budget or public funds,” Saikia said.

“The Assam Repealing Act does not affect the privately or community run madrassas and will only impact 397 madrassas and four Arabic colleges run by the government,” he added.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who had pushed the Assam Repeal Bill as the state education minister in 2020, tweeted, “Division Bench of Honble Gauhati high court in a landmark judgment delivered today upheld the Act of 2020 to repeal Madrassa Education Procincialisation Acts and also upheld all other notifications to convert 397 provincialised madrrassas to general educational institutions.”

The Bill was passed by the state Assembly on December 30, 2020, under which all the provincialised, government-funded madrassas were to be transformed into general schools.

It sought to abolish The Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995, and The Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation of Services of Employees and Re-Organisation of Madrassa Educational Institutions) Act, 2018. Following the passage of the Bill another act relating to provincialisation of madrassas, which was passed by the state government in 2011 stood repealed.

The state government has assured that there will be no change of status, pay, allowances and service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the madrassas under the Assam Repealing Act, which was passed during the tenure of the first BJP-led government in the state.

(PTI) 

Three Men Died Cleaning Septic Tanks. Their Widows Ensured Maharashtra Gave Compensation

In a significant judgment, the Bombay HC held the state government accountable despite the fact that they were killed while working on a private contract.

Mumbai: Govind Sangaram Chorotiya, Santosh Kalsekar and Vishwajit Debnath.

These names would have disappeared, like those of innumerable others’ who are killed while cleaning septic tanks in the country, had it not been for their partners who decided to take legal recourse.

The wives of the three men – Vimala Chorotiya, Nita Kalsekar and Bani Debnath – had moved Bombay high court soon after their death in December 2019, seeking compensation and rehabilitation as guaranteed in the Prohibition of Employment of Manual Scavengers Act (PEMSA), 2013.

Calling the case “an eye-opener”, the Bombay high court, on September 17, directed the Maharashtra government to disburse compensation to the families within four weeks, in addition to furnishing an elaborate rehabilitation plan for the families. 

This is perhaps the first case in Maharashtra where the court has held the state accountable when it comes to compensating family members of septic tank cleaners, despite the fact that they were killed while working on a private contract.

Bombay HC orders Maha government to pay compensation by The Wire on Scribd

Along with the compensation, the court, referring to the landmark judgment of 2014 in the Safai Karamchari Andolan vs Union of India case, has directed the state government to impose both “power” and “responsibilities” on local authorities, to ensure that legal provisions are honoured. 

Although prohibited, manual scavenging is rampant across the country. Most municipal authorities nefariously engage sub-contractors in an effort to escape legal liabilities – as in this case where the three men were found dead inside the septic tank. Govind had suffered a head injury; the other two were killed after inhaling toxic gases inside the tank. 

Also read: RTI Reveals Threefold Rise in Number of Manual Scavengers Despite Ban

Vimala Chorotiya, the main petitioner in the case, says the legal fight was in no way easy. “But it had to be fought for the future of my three young children, who were suddenly robbed of a parent,” she says.

Vimala, along with Nita and Bani, is also pursuing a criminal case filed against the treasurer of the housing society at Chembur in central Mumbai for engaging the deceased men in an illegal and dangerous act of cleaning a septic tank. The accused, Pawan, was booked only under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence and was let off on bail immediately. 

The women, through their lawyer Isha Singh, are trying to push for relevant sections under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and PEMSA laws to be applied in the case. The Chorotiyas and Kalsekars belong to the Scheduled Castes. The Debnaths are from an Other Backward Class (OBC) community, originally from a small village in north Bengal.  

Caste location

Vimala, an unlettered woman from Nagaur district in Rajasthan, married Govind when she was barely 16. The couple lived in Mumbai’s Chembur area and did odd jobs to take care of their three children. “My husband was a naka kamgaar who worked at construction sites and buildings. He never did cleaning jobs. I still can’t make sense of what must have happened and how he ended up taking up a septic tank cleaning job,” Vimala says.

However, Vimala is certain that it was simply their caste location that made it easy for the contractor to push her husband into the “gutter”. 

Born in the Mochi (cobbler) community, which is classified as a Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, Vimala says that no one in the family has ever worked as a manual scavenger.

Nita and Bani too say the same thing. Nita’s husband, Santosh, and Bani’s husband, Vishwajit, too had only worked as labourers before this incident. “My husband was a skilled plumber. But on days when he did not get any work, he would work as a loader. Cleaning toilets and gutters were off limits,” says Bani. 

The fact that none of the three had even cleaned septic tanks is crucial.

“They were not equipped, their safety was not taken into consideration, and yet they were sent there to do such a dangerous job,” advocate Isha Singh points out. The women, Singh says, have been wronged on too many levels.

“First, the men were hired to do a job they have never done by some private contractor. Upon their death, the police let the perpetrators off with an ineffective FIR. The state too had shirked its responsibilities by leaving the women in the lurch,” Singh says.

Also read: Rehabilitating Manual Scavengers Must Go Beyond Reinforcing Caste Hierarchies

When the writ petition seeking compensation was filed, the government tried hard to wriggle out of it. Government pleader P.H. Kantharia had pointed to the government resolution passed by the Maharashtra state just a few days before the incident, claiming that the state is not liable to pay compensation in case such a death has occurred while working with a private contractor. The resolution passed by the Social Justice Department on December 12, 2019, states that the government would only help in the process of getting compensation from the private contractor.

“This government resolution clearly goes against the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in the Safai Karamchari Andolan case, which holds the state responsible. It is for the state to ensure that such an abominable practice is brought to an end. Failing to do so, it is on them to ensure the families of those killed are taken care of,” Singh had argued in court.  

Bigger fights

The three widows say that the compensation money will ensure that their children continue their education. Months after the incident, the pandemic broke out and the women had to rely on charity to survive. Over time, they gathered themselves. Now, Vimala makes imitation jewellery with a relative to earn a living. Nita and Bani are domestic workers.

Bani, who is 28 years old, is the youngest of three. Just 20 days before her husband’s death, Bani had given birth to her second child. “I have since moved three houses as I was not able to pay rent. Now, I am living with my husband’s friend’s family who have been kind enough to accommodate us. This money will at least ensure a roof over our heads,” Bani says.

Also read: When it Comes to Manual Scavenging, Enacted Laws Have Persistently Failed

This case, lawyer Singh says, is only the beginning of a larger fight ahead.

“The state has to both stop manual scavenging and also take the responsibility of rehabilitating the families,” says Singh, who also has a public interest litigation pending in the Bombay high court. In the course of arguing her petition, she had sought information on the number of deaths caused while cleaning septic tanks and sewers. The Bombay Municipal Corporation had blatantly lied in its response. “It claimed no one died since 2014,” Singh says. 

Similar claims were recently made by the Union Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry too. In response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, the social justice minister Ramdas Athawale claimed that 66,692 persons have been identified as manual scavengers in the country, but no deaths have been reported due to manual scavenging.  

Singh, in her petition, has sought implementation of the 2014 Supreme Court ruling. “The apex court has given an exhaustive list of measures that need to be taken. From setting up a vigilance committee to chalking out an elaborate rehabilitation plan. But for that, the states will have to first acknowledge that there is a problem. Only then would any of this be possible,” she says.

Karnataka HC Chastises State Govt For Failing to Implement Manual Scavengers Act

The court gave the government a final opportunity to file an affidavit compliance and has listed the matter for February 10.

New Delhi: The Karnataka high court on Tuesday, February 2, chastised the state government for failing to implement provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act (Manual Scavengers Act) in spite of the court’s directions.

Bar and Bench has reported that the high court had issued several directions in December 2020, noting that the practice of manual scavenging is inhuman.

The 1993 law banning manual scavenging in India was amended in 2013, providing for punishment for engaging any person for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks. A third amendment is on the anvil.

However, the practice is rampant across India, as are deaths that result from it. Multiple analyses on The Wire and its award-winning series #Grit, attempt to hold up a picture of the practice which is overwhelmingly casteist.

Hearing petitions that sought the abolition of the Manual Scavengers Act, a bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Vishwajith Shetty said that the government had neglected to comply with the court’s directions.

The court gave the government a final opportunity to file an affidavit compliance and has listed the matter for February 10.

In a recent article on The Wire, Shiva Shankar and Kanthi Swaroop had written that enacted laws have persistently failed to come to the aid of those pushed generationally into the profession due to a host of reasons, primary among which is government apathy in arriving at foolproof figures.

SC Turns Down UP Govt’s Application to Transfer Pleas Challenging ‘Love Jihad’ Law to Itself

“If the Allahabad high court is seized of it, we are not going to hear before it, why should we stop the HC?”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to transfer to the apex court all petitions challenging the ‘love jihad’ ordinance filed in the Allahabad high court.

“If the Allahabad high court is going to decide the cases, why should we interfere?” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde was quoted by LiveLaw as having said.

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, brought by the Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh, attempts to criminalise forced religious conversion on paper. However, it has in reality been used to give legal credence to rightwing Hindutva groups’ claim of ‘love jihad’ – an imagined conspiracy by Muslim men to marry and convert unsuspecting Hindu women.

So far, several detentions and arrests have been made under the ordinance, and several of them have affected consenting interfaith couples.

Also read: ‘My Boy Is Mentally Unstable Minor’: Mother of Muslim Teen Accused of ‘Love Jihad’ in UP

Faced with several pleas from interfaith couples and women coerced into living with her parents who are against an interfaith match, the Allahabad high court has given rulings favourable to such couples in over 200 cases since the ordinance was brought.

In the month of November, 2020, alone the Allahabad high court had granted protection to 125 interfaith couples. In the same month, the court denounced a previous single-judge bench decision that religious conversions only for the sake of marriage are unacceptable, saying that decision was “bad in law”.

On January 6, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and A.S. Bopanna had refused to stay the ‘love jihad’ laws brought by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, while hearing petitions challenging the laws’ constitutional validity, by advocate Vishal Thakre and others and an NGO run by Teesta Setalvad, ‘Citizen for Justice and Peace’.

On the day as well, the top court had asked the petitioners to approach the Allahabad high court. However, the apex court had issued notices and sought response from both the state governments within four weeks after the petitioners said that the matter should be heard by the apex court.

Also read: Woman’s Autonomy Can’t Be Denied Under the Garb of Protection: Petition Opposes UP Ordinance

In the meantime, reports LiveLaw, the Uttar Pradesh government filed a counter-affidavit before the Allahabad high court and requested Chief Justice Govind Mathur to adjourn the matter sine die, citing that the apex court had already taken up the matter.

The Supreme Court bench, on January 25 remarked, “We have issued notice does not mean [that] high court cannot decide. People are making light of high courts these days. High court is a constitutional court.”

“If the Allahabad high court is seized of it, and we are not going to hear before it, why should we stop the HC? We would like to have the judgment of the high court also,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General P.S. Narasimha, who had urged the apex court to allow the Uttar Pradesh government’s transfer application.

Several public interest litigations challenging the law are listed for hearing by the Allahabad high court today, January 25 as well.

Madhya Pradesh Police Make First Arrest Under New ‘Love Jihad’ Law

The complaint was filed by a woman in Barwani district, who alleged that the man hid his religion, beat her up and raped her on the pretext of marriage, news reports said.

New Delhi: The Madhya Pradesh Police arrested a 25-year-old man in Barwani area on Monday under the newly enacted MP Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020 which attempts to penalise religious conversions through fraudulent means and promises 10 years’ jail in some cases.

The complaint was filed by a woman in Barwani district, who has alleged that the man hid his religion, beat her up and raped her on the pretext of marriage, news reports said.

“On the basis of a written complaint filed by a 22-year-old woman, a 25-year-old man was arrested on Monday on charges of rape and under provisions of the Freedom of Religion ordinance,” Barwani police station in-charge Rajesh Yadav told PTI.

This is the first case registered in the state under the new law.

According to a report in the Hindustan Times, the accused is a truck driver and a resident of Palsud village. He was charged under the MP Freedom of Religion Bill, 2020, and under sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The woman in her complaint alleged that the accused had introduced himself to her as Sunny, when they met four years ago. She later came to know that he was a married Muslim man. After finding out about the man’s marital status and religion, the woman allegedly began distancing herself from him, but he allegedly continued to pressure her for marriage and conversion to Islam, the official told PTI.

Also read: Madhya Pradesh’s So-Called ‘Anti-Love Jihad Law’ Is Old Wine in a New Bottle

Talking to reporters after filing the complaint, the woman on Monday said: “This is an issue of ‘love jihad’, so I made a complaint. The man is a Muslim and got into a relationship with me by posing as a Hindu. He beat me up. He physically exploited me for four years.”

Madhya Pradesh’s new law – similar to Uttar Pradesh’s – is being seen as a ‘love jihad’ law through which the Bharatiya Janata Party government in both states has attempted to give credence to the rightwing coinage of the phrase ‘love jihad’, which refers to a non-existent conspiracy to convert Hindu women into Islam by forcing them into marriage.

The arrests which have already been made under the law in Uttar Pradesh have been questioned, as has the law. Several reports suggest the Uttar Pradesh Police has been stopping interfaith marriages between consenting adults under the ordinance.

The new anti-conversion law in Madhya Pradesh came into effect on January 9. The law provides for imprisonment up to five years a minimum penalty of Rs 25,000 for carrying out forced religious conversions. There is a provision of three to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000 in cases of marriage carried out by hiding religion.

In cases involving religious conversion of members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and minors, a provision has been made for imprisonment of two to 10 years and Rs 50,000 fine.

Apart from these two BJP-ruled states, Karnataka government is also mulling a law against ‘love jihad’. As per news reports, Karnataka home minister Basavaraj Bommai has said the state will have a law against ‘love jihad’, and officials have been directed to gather information regarding the ordinance promulgated in Uttar Pradesh in this regard.

(With inputs from PTI)

Allahabad HC Says 30-Day Prior Notice in Special Marriage Act No Longer Mandatory

Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed that making such notices mandatory invades the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, and the freedom to choose whom to marry without interference from state and non-state actors.

New Delhi: In an important judgment reported on by LiveLaw, the Allahabad high court has held that publishing a notice and inviting objections before a couple decides to marry under the Special Marriage Act are no longer mandatory. The court observed that these rules went against fundamental rights and infringed upon one’s ability to choose to marry without intervention.

A section of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, requires an interfaith couple to give written notice of the marriage to the district marriage officer.

The judgment assumes significance in the backdrop of Uttar Pradesh bringing the ‘love jihad’ ordinance that criminalises forced religious conversions. A little more than a month since it was first implemented, the law has multiple times been used to harass consenting adult couples looking to enter into interfaith marriages, with disastrous consequences. In such cases, rightwing groups who are opposed to interfaith marriages were alerted by such notices that were made mandatory by the Special Marriage Act.

Considering a habeas corpus plea by an interfaith couple where the woman was being stopped from marrying her partner by her family, Justice Vivek Chaudhary on Wednesday observed that making such notices mandatory invades the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, and the freedom to choose whom to marry without interference from state and non-state actors.

Indeed, the couple who had filed the petition had said that “any such notice would be an invasion in their privacy and would have definitely caused unnecessary social pressure or interference in their free choice with regard to their marriage.”

Also read: No Evidence Against Muslim Man Accused in Forced Conversion Case, UP Tells Allahabad HC

Justice Chaudhary held that it will now be optional for those entering a marriage to publish such a notice. A couple will now have to make a written request to the marriage officer if they want such a notice to be published.

LiveLaw noted the court as having observed that in case the couple do not make such a request for publication of notice in writing, “while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act, the Marriage Officer shall not publish any such notice or entertain objections to the intended marriage and proceed with the solemnisation of the marriage.”

Existing rules under the 1954 Act regarding verification of identity, age, valid consent and competence to marry will still be applicable, the court held.

The Allahabad high court has distinguished itself in recent months by coming to the aid of interfaith couples. On January 8, 2021, the court said while hearing a plea by another interfaith couple that no one is “entitled to interfere in their peaceful life.”

In the month of November, 2020, alone the Allahabad high court had granted protection to 125 interfaith couples. In the same month, the court denounced a previous single-judge bench decision that religious conversions only for the sake of marriage are unacceptable, saying that decision was “bad in law”.

Chart: Global App Spending Passed $100 Billion in 2020

Apple extended an olive branch to its developer community in November by introducing the App Store Small Business Program, which reduces the company’s app store commission from 30% to 15% for developers earning less than $1 million a year.

Faced with antitrust allegations and the wrath of (some) app makers, Apple extended an olive branch to its developer community in November by introducing the App Store Small Business Program, which reduces the company’s app store commission from 30% to 15% for developers earning less than $1 million a year.

Ever since the App Store was launched in 2008, Apple has taken a 30% cut on app sales, in-app purchases of digital content and subscriptions made via iOS apps (the latter dropping to 15% after the first year), which has lately drawn the attention of competition watch dogs, especially in cases where Apple competes with third-party app makers (e.g. Apple Music vs. Spotify).

While Apple’s decision to cut its commission in half for small developers looks like a big concession to make, data suggests that developers eligible for the programme only account for a small fraction of App Store revenue. The following chart explains why Apple is fighting so hard to protect its slice of the app store pie. According to estimates from app analytics firm SensorTower, App Store revenue amounted to more than $70 billion last year. Assuming most of that total qualifies for Apple’s commission, that amounts to roughly $20 billion in revenue last year alone, which even for Apple is no small change.

Infographic: Global App Spending Passed $100 Billion in 2020 | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista.

Allahabad HC to Hear PIL Challenging ‘Love Jihad’ Ordinance in UP on January 15

The PIL alleged that the ordinance impinges upon the fundamental right to choice and the right to change of faith.

Allahabad: The Allahabad high court (HC) on Wednesday fixed January 15 for hearing a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh’s new ordinance against forced and dishonest religious conversions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice S.S. Shamshery was hearing the plea contending that the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 was morally and constitutionally invalid.

The PIL alleged that the ordinance, which the state government said was enacted to check ‘love jihad’ (forced conversion for interfaith marriages involving a Muslim man), impinges upon the fundamental right to choice and the right to change of faith.

The petition filed by advocate Saurabh Kumar and others have asked the court to declare the ordinance as ultra vires of the Constitution.

Besides, they have also sought direction for authorities not to take any action under the ordinance during pendency of the petition.

The court tagged the petition along with other petitions filed earlier in which the state government has already filed an affidavit stating that the Ordinance is aimed at preventing any form of unlawful conversion actuated by elements of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, etc and the Constitution abhors any form of forceful conversion particularly in matters of religion.

2020 Was the Eighth Warmest Year Since 1901, Past Two Decades Saw Highest Temperature Rise: IMD

However, this is substantially lower than the highest warming observed over India during 2016 (plus 0.71°C), it said.

New Delhi: The year 2020 was the eighth warmest since 1901 but it was “substantially lower” than the highest warming observed in 2016, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said on Monday.

The IMD said the past two decades 2001-2010 and 2011-2020 were also the warmest decades on record with anomalies of 0.23°C and 0.34°C respectively, indicating the overall rising temperature.

Twelve out of the 15 warmest years since 1901 were during the past 15 years between 2006 and 2020, according to IMD data.

The country’s averaged annual mean temperature during 1901-2020 showed an increasing trend of 0.62°C/100 years with significant increasing trend in maximum temperature (0.99°C/100 years) and relatively lower increasing trend (0.24°C/100 years) in minimum temperature.

During the year (2020), annual mean land surface air temperature averaged over the country was 0.29°C above normal (based on the data of 1981-2010). The year 2020 was the eighth warmest year on record since nationwide records commenced in 1901,” the IMD said in a statement on climate of India during 2020.

However, this is substantially lower than the highest warming observed over India during 2016 (plus 0.71°C), it said.

The monsoon and post-monsoon seasons with mean temperature anomalies of 0.43°C and 0.53°C, respectively, mainly contributed to this warming.

Also read: Review: A Book That Engages With the Greatest Existential Threat to the Human Race

Mean temperature during the winter was also above normal with an anomaly of plus 0.14°C, the IMD report said. Incidentally, several parts of north India witnessed below normal temperatures during October-December.

However, during the pre-monsoon season temperature was below normal (minus 0.03°C).

The global mean surface temperature anomaly during 2020 (January to October as per World Meteorological Organisation state of the global climate) is 1.2°C.

The country’s averaged mean monthly temperatures were also warmer than the normal during all the months of the year except March and June.

The mean temperatures exceeded the normal during September (by 0.72°C, warmest since 1901), August (by 0.58°C, second warmest), October (by 0.94°C, third warmest), July (by 0.56°C, fifth warmest), and December (by 0.39°C, seventh warmest).

The five warmest years on record in order were: 2016 (0.71°C), 2009 (0.55°C), 2017 (0.541°C), 2010 (0.539°C), and 2015 (0.42°C).

The 2020 annual rainfall over the country as a whole was 109% of its long period average (LPA) based on the data of 1961-2010.

The monsoon season rainfall over the country as a whole was above normal and was 109% of its LPA.

The country’s averaged seasonal mean temperatures were also above the average during all the seasons except pre-monsoon season.

The annual rainfall over the country was 109% of LPA of 117.7 centimetres during the southwest monsoon season (June-September), which is the principal rainy season of the country.

The 2020 Northeast monsoon season (October-December) rainfall over the country as a whole was normal (101% of LPA).

The IMD also said extreme weather conditions led to the death of more than 1,565 people last year with thunderstorm and lightning claiming the lives of 815 of them.

It further said cyclones killed 115 people and more than 17,000 livestock in the country in 2020.

How the Pandemic Had Little Impact on Some Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court’s output in 2020 shows that some judges indeed worked hard to deliver more judgments, despite the constraints.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court delivered 696 judgments last year, as compared to 1,369 judgments in 2019.  The sharp decline in the number of judgments, despite the court having 30 judges and just four vacancies, was inevitable considering the impact of the pandemic on the court’s physical functioning.

Collegium’s inexplicable record

But behind this number, there is another story: the Supreme Court collegium did not recommend the appointment of any judge to fill the vacancies in the apex court, although there were many eligible persons in the consideration zone. With as many as five judges retiring this year, the number of vacancies is likely to increase to nine in August, unless the collegium acts fast to recommend new judges.

In 2015, the Supreme Court collegium did not recommend fresh names for appointment, thanks to the self-imposed restraint chosen by the then Chief Justice of India, H.L. Dattu, in view of the hearings by the five-judge constitution bench on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case. Although Chief Justice Dattu was not part of that bench, he expressed his inability to participate in the NJAC meetings despite the absence of any stay. As Justice J.S. Khehar was the presiding judge on the bench hearing the NJAC case, the holding of meetings of the collegium, of which he was a member, was out of the question, even as he had to refuse pleas for recusal on this very ground, because the petitioners had claimed that he might be inclined to vote for the continuance of the collegium.

Also read: RTI Response Shows 931 Bail Petitions Are Pending Before Supreme Court

In 2020, there were no similar circumstances which came in the way of the meeting of the collegium. Indeed, the smaller collegium comprising the first three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court met 22 times last year to recommend names for appointment as high court judges and chief justices. It was, therefore, inexplicable why the larger collegium of five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court did not find it compelling to meet even once last year to fill the existing vacancies in the apex court.

Mixed record

Having said that, however, it is fair to say that the pandemic had had little impact on the number of judgments authored by some judges, as compared to the data pertaining to their output in 2019. Thus the CJI S.A. Bobde authored four judgments in 2019, and four in 2020. He presided over 66 benches which delivered judgments in 2020, as compared to 53 in 2019.  As the CJI is also the administrative head of the court, his record is indeed exemplary.

The following is the record of the number of judgments authored by the other judges of the court in 2020, with the corresponding number of judgments authored by them in 2019.  The table also shows the number of times the judges were part of larger benches, which delivered judgments in 2020, with the corresponding number in 2019 given.

The 2019 appointees

The following 10 judges were appointed in the course of  2019, and therefore, the relatively smaller number of judgments authored by some of them in 2019 must be understood accordingly, in view of their presence in the court only for part of that year.

The three retired judges

Three judges had retired in 2020, as compared to two in 2019. Of the three, Justice Deepak Gupta, who retired on May 6 last year, authored judgments in 24 cases, and was part of 60 benches which delivered judgments. In 2019, he had authored 61 judgments, and was part of 136 benches which delivered judgments.

Justice R. Banumathi, who retired on July 19 last year, authored 22 judgments, and was part of 54 benches which delivered judgments in 2020. Her corresponding data for 2019 shows 108 judgments authored by her, and she was part of 185 benches which delivered judgments.

Justice Arun Mishra, who retired on September 2 last year, authored 17 judgments, and was part of 53 benches which pronounced judgments. His corresponding data for 2019 shows 30 judgments authored by him, and 126 benches which had his presence delivered judgments.

The data for this article is drawn from Judge Analytics at manupatrafast.com.