ID
stringlengths 4
7
| para_id
int64 0
26
| newJudgement
stringlengths 0
34.1k
|
|---|---|---|
id_997
| 0
|
Reportable Writ Petition (Civil) No 961 of 2021 Neil Aurelio Nunes and Others Petitioners versus Union of India and Others Respondents. Writ Petition (Civil) No 967 of 2021. Writ Petition (Civil) No 1002 of 2021. Writ Petition (Civil) No 1021 of 2021. And with Writ Petition (Civil) No 1105 of 2021. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice., There is a challenge, in this batch of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, to a notice issued by the Directorate General of Health Services in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 29 July 2021. The notice implements a twenty‑seven percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (non‑creamy layer) and a ten percent reservation for the Economically Weaker Section, while filling up fifteen percent undergraduate and fifty percent postgraduate All India Quota seats in pursuance of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. The notice takes effect from the current admission year 2021‑2022. The petitioners are doctors who appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Post Graduate 2021 examination., The petitions were instituted on 24 August 2021 to challenge the validity of the notice dated 29 July 2021. A notice was issued by the Supreme Court of India on 6 September 2021. The NEET‑PG results were announced on 28 September 2021. Arguments were heard in part on 7 October 2021. It was argued that there cannot be any reservation for the Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Section categories in the All India Quota seats in NEET‑PG and that the criteria for the determination of the Economically Weaker Section category notified by Office Memorandum 36039/1/2019 was unconstitutional., By an order dated 21 October 2021, the Supreme Court of India sought clarifications regarding the criteria provided by the Office Memorandum of 2019 of using eight lakh rupees as the cut‑off income limit for identifying Economically Weaker Section. Two weeks were granted to the Union Government to file an affidavit in this regard. When the batch was taken up for hearing on 21 October 2021, the Union Government had not filed the affidavit. The Additional Solicitor General, Mr K M Nataraj, informed the Supreme Court of India that an affidavit would be filed within two days. By an order dated 21 October 2021, the Supreme Court of India then formulated issues requiring the Union Government to disclose the rationale for the adoption of the criteria used to identify the Economically Weaker Section., On 25 October 2021, the Union Government of its own accord deferred the counselling due to the pendency of the petitions. Thereafter, the Union Government filed an affidavit justifying the Economically Weaker Section criteria on 26 October 2021, stating that the criteria was adopted after due deliberation within the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and all concerned stakeholders. When the matter was listed for hearing on 28 October 2021, the Solicitor General sought an adjournment and requested that the petitions be heard after Diwali. On 25 November 2021, the Supreme Court of India was informed by the Solicitor General that the Union Government had taken a considered decision to revisit the criteria for determining the Economically Weaker Section and requested four weeks to complete this exercise, which was acceded to by the Supreme Court of India. The Union Government formed a Committee on 30 November 2021 to review the criteria for identifying Economically Weaker Section. The Committee submitted its report on 31 December 2021. Thereafter, the Union Government filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court of India accepting the recommendations of the Committee, including the recommendation that the existing criteria for identifying Economically Weaker Section be retained for the present admission year., The petitions were taken up for urgent hearing by the Supreme Court of India on 5 January 2022 after a request was made by the Solicitor General. It was submitted on behalf of the Union Government that the Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Section reservation (with the old criteria according to Office Memorandum 2019) be allowed to be implemented for the current admission year of 2021. We have heard Mr Arvind Datar, Mr Shyam Divan and Mr Anand Grover, Senior Counsel, and Mr Shrirang Choudary, Ms Archana Pathak Dave, Mr Apoorva Karol, Mr Subodh Patil and Mr Varun Thakur for the doctors and intervenors challenging the validity of the reservations for Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Section categories. On the other side, we heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, Mr P Wilson for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Mr Mariarputham for the State of Tamil Nadu, and Mr Biju and Mr Shashank Ratnoo for the intervenors., The submissions urged before the Supreme Court of India over a span of two days necessitate a detailed interim order on the applicability of the Economically Weaker Section criteria as notified by Office Memorandum 2019 for NEET‑PG 2021. The formulation of the reasons in the interim order on the Economically Weaker Section reservation will take some time. The validity of the Other Backward Classes reservation in the All India Quota seats in NEET‑PG and NEET‑UG is upheld for reasons to follow. In the meantime, there is an urgent need to commence the process of counselling. We are therefore issuing the following operative directions at this stage: (i) We accept the recommendation of the Pandey Committee that the criteria stipulated in Office Memorandum 2019 be used for 2021‑2022 in order to ensure that the admission process is not displaced; (ii) Counselling on the basis of NEET‑PG 2021 and NEET‑UG 2021 shall be conducted by giving effect to the reservation as provided by the notice dated 29 July 2021, including the twenty‑seven percent reservation for the Other Backward Classes category and ten percent reservation for the Economically Weaker Section category in the All India Quota seats; (iii) The criteria for the determination of the Economically Weaker Section notified by Office Memorandum 2019 shall be used for identifying the Economically Weaker Section category for candidates who appeared for the NEET‑PG 2021 and NEET‑UG 2021 examinations; (iv) The validity of the criteria determined by the Pandey Committee for identification of Economically Weaker Section will prospectively, for the future, be subject to the final result of the petitions; and (v) The petitions shall be listed for final hearing on the validity of the Economically Weaker Section criteria as recommended by the Pandey Committee in the third week of March 2022. Reasons shall follow., Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. Additional Solicitor General Bopanna.
|
id_998
| 0
|
Messrs. Biovet Private Limited, Applicants, in the matter between Messrs. Biovet Private Limited, Petitioners, The Collector, Pune and others, Respondents. Mr. R.D. Soni as well as Mr. Sujay Gawde in behalf of Shree and Co. for Applicants/Petitioners. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General as well as Mr. P.P. Kakade, G.P., as well as Mr. Akshay Shinde, B Panel Counsel as well as Smt. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat as well as Mr. Zoeb Cuterwala as well as Mr. Vikram Kamat in behalf of Messrs. Phoeni Legal for Respondent No.9. Heard learned counsel for parties., By this Interim Application, the Applicants are seeking direction to the Respondents to hand over the peaceful possession of the ready‑to‑use BSL‑3 vaccine manufacturing unit situated at land bearing Survey No. 27 (Gat No. 136) at village Manjari Khurd, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, comprising land measuring 11.58 hectares, buildings, structures and manufacturing equipment therein, from Messrs. Intervet India Private Limited to the petitioners/applicants along with the requisite rights, responsibilities and obligations to deal with all matters with respect to the vaccine manufacturing property. The Applicants also seek direction to grant appropriate licences, permissions and NOCs in a time‑bound manner to enable manufacture of foot‑and‑mouth disease vaccine, Covaxin against Covid‑19 and other life‑saving vaccines on the said land and unit. The Applicants are also seeking direction to the Respondents to permit the Applicants to carry out appropriate structural changes for enhancement and further manufacturing of life‑saving vaccines, including Covaxin, to utilize the maximum installed capacity., The learned counsel Mr. R.D. Soni appearing on behalf of the Applicants/Petitioners submits that in the present proceeding, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021 challenging the order dated 2 July 2020 passed by Respondent No.5 Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pune, rejecting their application to re‑examine and review the order passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pune dated 21 June 2018. He submits that the said petition is pending for hearing and final disposal on its own merits., The learned counsel for Applicants submits that because of the order passed by Respondent No.4 and Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pune dated 21 June 2018, it is not possible for them to start manufacturing activities of foot‑and‑mouth disease vaccine and vaccine for Covid‑19. He submits that plant and machinery are lying idle because of the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent‑State. He submits that considering the present position of Covid‑19, this Honorable High Court be pleased to direct the Respondent‑State to allow the Applicants to start manufacturing of foot‑and‑mouth disease vaccine and Covaxin, which is very useful in the Covid‑19 period., In the course of arguments, the learned counsel Mr. R.D. Soni appearing for the Applicants/Petitioners, on 4 May 2021 made a statement before this Honorable High Court that Applicants are ready and willing to file affidavit‑cum‑undertaking, stating that they will not claim any equity in respect of the matter involved in Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021, if this Court allows the present application., As per the earlier order dated 4 May 2021, the Applicants through their authorized representative filed affidavit‑cum‑undertaking dated 30 April 2021 stating that they will use the said unit/factory for manufacturing of life‑saving vaccine including Covaxin used for Covid‑19. The affidavit‑cum‑undertaking dated 30 April 2021 is taken on record, accepted and marked as X for identification. The undertaking given by the Applicants reads thus: I, on behalf of the Applicant, hereby give an undertaking to this Honorable High Court to the effect that: (a) The Applicant shall, upon taking over possession of the said BSL‑3 vaccine manufacturing facilities on the said land, use the said manufacturing plant only for manufacturing of life‑saving vaccines, including Covaxin used for Covid‑19. (b) The Applicant shall use the aforesaid manufacturing facility and the said land/property for the aforesaid purpose of manufacturing life‑saving vaccines subject to any further orders which this Honorable High Court may pass in the aforesaid application and/or Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021. (c) The Applicant shall not claim any equities in their favour as regards adjudication of the issue raised in the petition due to the Interim Application granted to the Applicant to take over possession of the said property of BSL‑3 vaccine manufacturing unit from Messrs. Intervet India Private Limited (Respondent No.9) and manufacture of vaccine therein, and the Applicant accepts that adjudication of the issue involved in the petition shall be decided on its own merits without the Applicant claiming any equities. (d) The entire responsibility and authority for technically, financially and otherwise for manufacturing vaccines in the said plant on the said land shall be that of the Applicant alone and Respondent No.9 (Messrs. Intervet India Private Limited) shall not be liable for any consequences which may arise due to the operation of the said vaccine manufacturing plant. (e) The Applicant undertakes to take all the requisite rights, responsibilities and obligations to deal with all matters with respect to the ready‑to‑use BSL‑3 vaccine manufacturing facilities as well as to deal with all past, current and future issues related to the said facilities and to indemnify Respondent No.9 (Messrs. Intervet India Private Limited) from any and all rights, obligations and responsibilities in connection with the said facility. (f) The Applicant shall be solely responsible for implementing the activity of producing and manufacturing vaccine in the said plant and undertakes to abide by any orders which this Honorable High Court may pass in this Interim Application or in Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021 in their letter and spirit., The Learned Advocate General Mr. Kumbhakoni appearing on behalf of the State submits that they have no objection if the interim application is allowed to the extent that the Applicants should use the said premises for manufacturing life‑saving vaccines including Covaxin used for Covid‑19 without claiming any right, title and interest in respect of the said property and subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021. He further stated that he received instructions from the concerned officers that they will cooperate with the Applicants for grant of any permission, if required, to start manufacturing activities. He submits that if such application is made by the Applicants, those will be decided without wasting time, considering the present Covid‑19 situation in Maharashtra. The Learned Advocate General submits that the Applicants may be permitted to carry out the manufacturing activities till further orders with liberty to the State to move before this Court for appropriate orders., The learned counsel Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.9, submits that they have already filed their affidavit‑in‑reply dated 26 March 2021 in Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021 stating that the said unit should be kept functioning and running. Paragraph 6.11 reads thus: 'I therefore say that until the larger issue is decided by this Honorable High Court and/or by the Central Government as directed by this Honorable High Court, it is necessary in the national interest to keep the said unit functional and running.' He submits that the reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, if granted, would not amount to a contravention of the common order of this Honorable High Court directing all sides to maintain status‑quo as to possession and use of land passed by this Honorable High Court on 3 September 2019. The learned counsel for Respondent No.9 further states that Respondent No.9 will hand over possession of the said property including the manufacturing unit to the Applicants within seven days from today. He submits that they have no objection if the Applicants carry out some addition or alteration in the said unit for starting manufacturing activities, subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021. He further submits that all contentions of both parties are to be kept open., We heard both sides at length. Considering the present position of Covid‑19 and as the Applicants are ready and willing to start manufacturing activities without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties in the writ petition proceeding, and considering the undertaking given by the Applicants in their affidavit‑cum‑undertaking dated 30 April 2021, and as the Learned Advocate General has no objection to allow the present interim application, we are satisfied that the Applicants have made out a case for allowing this Interim Application., Hence, the following order is passed: (a) The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). (a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above petition, the Respondents are directed to hand over peaceful possession of the ready‑to‑use BSL‑3 vaccine manufacturing facilities situated at land bearing Survey No. 27 (Gat No. 136) at village Manjari Khurd, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, comprising land measuring 11.58 hectares, buildings, structures and manufacturing equipment therein, from Messrs. Intervet India Private Limited to the Petitioners along with the requisite rights, responsibilities and obligations to deal with all matters with respect to this vaccine manufacturing property. (b) Respondents are directed to grant appropriate licences, permissions and NOCs required to the Applicant in a time‑bound manner to enable manufacture of foot‑and‑mouth disease vaccine, Covaxin against Covid‑19 and other life‑saving vaccines in the said plant on the said land. (c) This Honorable High Court may direct the Respondents to permit the Applicant to carry out appropriate structural changes for enhancement and further scaling up of the manufacturing of life‑saving vaccines, including Covaxin, to immediately utilize the maximum installed capacity. (d) It is made clear that all activities of the Applicants shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021. (e) If any addition or alterations are made in the manufacturing unit by the Applicants, that will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. (f) The Applicants will not claim any equity on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the present interim application at the time of hearing of the writ petition. (g) All contentions of both parties are kept open. (h) Liberty is granted to the Respondents to move before this Court for modification of this order depending upon the Covid‑19 situation in future. (i) The Interim Application is disposed of with these directions. (j) No order as to costs.
|
id_999
| 0
|
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13177-DB WA No. 100406 of 2023 – correctness of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 105614/2022, whereby the petition filed by the wife was allowed, setting aside the endorsements issued by the appellants/Authorities and rejecting the application of the wife seeking information contained in the Aadhaar Card of her husband under the Right to Information Act. Further direction was issued remitting the matter back to the third respondent – Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, Unique Identification Authority of India, to issue notice to the petitioner’s husband, hear him and thereafter reconsider the application filed by the petitioner/wife seeking information to enable her to enforce the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 312/2012., The petitioner married on 18 November 2005 and they have a female child. In connection with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 312/2012 before the Family Court, Hubballi, which was allowed directing her husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to the petitioner and Rs 5,000 to their daughter. Enforcement of the Family Court order was difficult because the whereabouts of her husband were not ascertainable as he was absconding., Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer of the Unique Identification Authority of India seeking, in particular, the address details as found in the Aadhaar Card of her husband. The information sought was: (i) a copy of the Aadhaar Card of her husband by cross‑checking his name in the data maintained by the Authority; (ii) personal information as furnished by the applicant while obtaining the Aadhaar Card from the regional office; and (iii) the mobile number entered in the data form furnished by the applicant while obtaining the Aadhaar Card. The application was rejected by an endorsement at Annexure‑C dated 25 February 2021, stating that under Section 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Act, 2016, there could be no disclosure of such information and the matter had to be decided by a Judge of the High Court, among other grounds., The statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority confirmed the earlier order, and a second appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the correctness of the refusal to furnish information by the authorities as sought in her Right to Information application. She also sought a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent – Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, Unique Identification Authority of India – to furnish the details and particulars of her husband’s Aadhaar Card. The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned endorsements and remitting the matter to the third respondent to issue notice to the petitioner’s husband, hear him and thereafter reconsider the application filed by the petitioner/wife for the purpose of enforcing the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 312/2012. The order is now under challenge before the High Court of Karnataka., The respondents contend that the direction of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka violates the mandate of Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, which provides that no order of the Court relating to disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, can be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. They further contend that the amendment to Section 33, which requires that a hearing before an order divulging the information of an Aadhaar number holder be made by a Judge of the High Court, was made pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Another (Aadhaar) v. Union of India & Another. Accordingly, strict adherence to the procedure for disclosure of Aadhaar information after hearing the Aadhaar number holder, with the hearing conducted by a Judge of the High Court, is required., The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the information sought pertains to her husband and that the restrictions under the Right to Information Act cannot be applied, as such restrictions are confined to applications for information sought by a third person. It is submitted that the relationship of husband and wife after marriage results in a merging of identity, and therefore there can be no objection to divulging the information of a spouse at the instance of the other spouse (K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1). The counsel further submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka complies with the statutory mandate that the Aadhaar number holder must be heard before disclosure, and since the matter has been remitted to the third respondent with a direction to hear the husband, no prejudice will be caused. Additionally, because the husband’s whereabouts are unknown as he is absconding, the only way to enforce the maintenance order is to proceed against him, and such rights, though affirmed by the Court’s order, cannot be effected without the necessary details of her husband., Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, prior to amendment by Act 14 of 2019, reads as follows: “33. Disclosure of information in certain cases.— (1) Nothing contained in sub‑section (2) or sub‑section (5) of Section 28 or sub‑section (2) of Section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a District Judge, provided that no order by the court under this sub‑section shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority.”, The amendment to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act introduced the following changes: (i) direction for divulging the information must be made pursuant to an order of a Court that is not inferior to a Judge of the High Court; and (ii) no order under sub‑section (1) can be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned Aadhaar number holder., Section 2(b) defines “Aadhaar Number Holder” as an individual who has been issued an Aadhaar number under this Act., The Hon’ble Apex Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), observed at paragraphs 403 and 404 that sub‑section (1) of Section 33 is an exception to Sections 28(2), 28(5) and 29(2) of the Act, which otherwise bar disclosure of information. The provision allows disclosure when a Court of not inferior to a District Judge orders it, provided the Court hears the person whose information is sought. The Court must consider relevant law, including Article 20(3) of the Constitution, privacy rights, and must give the person an opportunity to be heard and to challenge the order in a higher forum. The proviso to Section 33(1) also requires that the Unique Identification Authority of India be heard before such an order is passed, acting as a trustee that may object to the Court’s order., It is submitted that the amendments to the Aadhaar Act, particularly to Section 33, were made to strengthen the privacy regime in accordance with the observations of the Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)., In light of the foregoing, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that strict adherence to Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act is required must be accepted. The proviso to Section 33(1) mandates that an order for disclosure be made by a Judge of the High Court. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka erred in directing the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, Unique Identification Authority of India, to issue notice to a person whose information was sought to be divulged and to decide whether such information should be disclosed. The power to pass an order for disclosure is conferred only on a Court not inferior to a Judge of the High Court under Section 33(1). It is a settled principle that if the Act prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed, or the order must not be made. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have remitted the matter to the third respondent, the Central Public Information Officer (UIDAI)., It is also noted that, by virtue of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), a person whose information is sought to be divulged has the right to put forth his case before such disclosure under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act. The right to privacy of an Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy, which is given primacy and admits no exception under the statutory scheme. The marital relationship, being a union of two partners, does not eclipse the right to privacy of an individual, and the autonomy of that right is recognized and protected by the hearing procedure contemplated under Section 33. Marriage does not eliminate the procedural right of hearing conferred by Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act., The consideration of the case of an Aadhaar card holder must be undertaken by a responsible authority as stipulated under the Aadhaar Act, which emphasizes the importance of the right to privacy and cannot be diluted by delegating it to an inferior authority. The hearing and decision conferred under Section 33 constitute a non‑delegable duty., The discussion leads to the conclusion that a person whose information is to be divulged must be made a respondent in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge, with the petitioner’s husband to be arrayed as respondent. The petitioner has undertaken to amend the writ proceedings to include her husband as respondent. Taking note of this undertaking, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08 February 2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 105614/2022 (GM‑RES) is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh reconsideration in light of the foregoing observations., Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that the rights conferred under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act require an order to be passed by a Court not inferior to a High Court Judge, and to facilitate such right, the High Court must make appropriate provision in the applicable regime for the exercise of this statutory right. With the foregoing observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. A copy of the order is to be marked to the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru for necessary attention.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.