THE LEAFLET BULLETIN

Denial of reservations for Dalit Christians/Muslims is in the teeth of substantive equality

What is the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and why was it in the news recently?

THE?Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which is presently subject to its?second constitutional challenge, holds that only the persons belonging to the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religions shall be eligible to constitute the constitutionally designated category of Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government to?take a stand?on the question of the discriminatory nature of the 1950 Order, and the government has proposed?constituting a committee?to undertake a fresh study on the backwardness of Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims.

The first challenge to the 1950 Order was made in?Soosai versus Union of India & Ors.?(1985), in which the Supreme Court upheld it based on evidentiary grounds and the deferential nature of its enquiry.

Blanket ban on commercial surrogacy would lead to exploitation of women, says PIL in Supreme Court

ON?September 26, a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) challenging the vires of the?Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021?(‘SRA’) and the?Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021?(‘ART Act’), came up for admission hearing before the Supreme Court division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T Ravikumar in?Arun Muthuvel versus Union of India & Ors.

The bench, after hearing the petition, issued notices to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Indian Council for Medical Research, for their responses.

The petition primarily challenges Sections?2(1)(e),?14(2),?21,?22(4)?and?27(3)?of the ART Act, Rules 3, 7 and 12 of the?Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022, Sections?2(1)(h),?2(1)(r),?2(1)(s),?2(1)(zd),?2(1)(zg),?4(ii)(a),?4(ii)(b),?4(iii),?4(c),?8?and?38(1)(a)?of the SRA, and Rules 3(1), 5(2), 6, 7 and 10 of the?Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.

Delhi High Court refuses stay of termination of IPS officer who probed Ishrat Jahan encounter case

THE?Delhi High Court on September 26 refused to stay the Union Government’s order?dismissing Gujarat cadre Indian Police Service officer Satish Chandra Verma, who was once part of the special investigation team that probed the?Ishrat Jahan encounter case. A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela said,?“We have perused the contents of the transcript of the interview that has been placed on record as also the enquiry report. We are of the view that at this stage the order of termination dated 30.08.2022 does not warrant any interference as petitioner is to superannuate, in any event, on 30.09.2022.”

On September?19, the Supreme Court?had?stayed?Verma’s termination for a week, leaving it for the High Court to decide whether the stay of the order was to continue beyond a week

Unregistered document/agreement to sell is not admissible as evidence in permanent injunction suit: Supreme Court

A?division bench of the Supreme Court held on September 23 that in a suit seeking permanent?injunction, the unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper would not be admissible in evidence.

?“Having conscious [sic] of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance”,?held the judgment written by Justice M.R. Shah, on behalf of himself and Justice Krishna Murari.