Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 30th December 2021

1. Man With Magical Eye' : CJI Ramana Presents 'Journalist Of The Year' Award To Late Danish Siddiqui

• Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Wednesday presented the Mumbai Press Club's RedInk 'Journalist of the Year' award posthumously to Reuter's photojournalist late Danish Siddiqui. Siddiqui's wife Frederike Siddiqui accepted the award at a virtual function.

• Paying tributes to Siddiqui, who was killed in Afghanistan in July this year while reporting the Taliban uprising, CJI Ramana said "he was a man with a magical eye and was rightly regarded as one of the foremost photo-journalists of this era".

• "If a picture can tell a thousand words, his photos were novels", CJI added.

• CJI said that war correspondents have a tough and risky job and Siddiqui's unfortunate passing in Afghanistan again brought to the fore the issue of sufficient safety protocols and protections for journalists in conflict zones.

• CJI offered condolences to the family, colleagues and friends of Siddiqui.

• The Mumbai Press Club bestowed the Journalist of the Year – 2020 to Danish Siddiqui "for his spectrum of the investigative and impactful body of news photography ranging from the Rohingyas and anti-CAA protests to Covid-19 and the Afghanistan Civil War."

• CJI Ramana also congratulated Prem Shankar Jha who was awarded the "Lifetime Achievement Award". He also paid tribute to all journalists who lost their lives while reporting from the ground during the COVID pandemic.

• In his keynote address, the CJI spoke about the pressures faced by journalists in the age of cut-throat competition and social media amplification. Underscoring that press freedom was integral for proper functioning of democracy, CJI Ramana reminded that journalists should resist being co-opted by an ideology or the State.

• "Regardless of the ideology you profess and the beliefs you hold dear, you must do your duty without being influenced by them. You must report only the facts, with a view to give a complete and accurate picture", the CJI said.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. There Cannot Be Two Different Pay-Scales For Employee Appointed On Compassionate Ground & On Regular Basis: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has affirmed that there cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis, and that the moment a person is appointed on a particular post, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the very post, even if the appointment is on compassionate ground.

• The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna was hearing state of UP's SLP against the September decision of the Allahabad High Court where the High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition directing the state authorities to pay Rs.8000-13,500/- pay-scale, which pay-scale was available for the post of Officer on Special Duty. "It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed on the post of Officer on Special Duty, maybe on compassionate ground. However, she was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- which was lower than the pay-scale required to be paid to Officer on Special Duty", recorded the bench of Justices Shah and Nagarathna.

• "Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as such the respondent was appointed on supernumerary post and even she could not have been appointed on the post of Officer on Special Duty on compassionate appointment as the said post was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. The aforesaid submission has no substance at all. Once a person is appointed on a particular post, maybe on compassionate ground, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the same post" observed the bench.

• "Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent could not have been appointed as Officer on Special Duty as the same was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. It is the petitioner – State which appointed the respondent on compassionate ground on the post of Officer on Special Duty. Thereafter, it is not open for the State to contend that the respondent could not have been appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Officer on Special Duty as the same was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. There cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis. The moment a person is appointed on a particular post, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the very post, even if the appointment is on compassionate ground. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in the case of similarly situated employees, the similar benefit was granted".

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Cancellation Of Exams, Conduct Of Online Classes, School Fees : How Supreme Court Dealt With Students' Issues In 2021

• The second wave of the COVID pandemic hit the student community hard. Faced with the unprecedented crisis, student community knocked the door of the Supreme Court seeking various reliefs in relation to conduct of physical classes, exams, fees etc.

• Schools Have Saved Operational Costs During Lockdown; Can't Charge Students For Unused Facilities

• In Indian School, Jodhpur Vs. State Of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that private schools demanding fees from students for the activities and facilities not availed by them due to the lockdown amounts to 'profiteering' and 'commercialization'.

• Taking judicial notice of the fact that classes have been held online during the last academic year, the Supreme Court observed that schools must have saved on overheads and operational costs. The Court reckoned that schools must have saved at least 15% in that way, and hence, they have to give a deduction in annual school fees to that extent. The Court said that the schools "must willingly and proactively" reduce fees to that extent.

• Schools At Liberty To Take Appropriate Legal Action To Recover Outstanding Fee From Students

• In October, the Supreme Court permitted the School Managements to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law for recovery of the outstanding fees from students who have defaulted.

• A Bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar has left it open to the School Management to consider the requests, if any, made by parent or ward seeking some indulgence for just reasons, compassionately.

• The direction has been issued in a miscellaneous application filed seeking clarification that the Supreme Court's directions issued through its order dated 3rd May 2021 did not prohibit the schools from taking coercive action against the students who have failed to pay the instalments as per the arrangement predicated in that judgment.

• The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi and Indira Banerjee had observed that the Covid­19 pandemic has left its footprints for us to learn from the unprecedented situation, which everyone has come across and suddenly changed the lifestyle of every individual in the society, his way of working, from social security to individual human rights, from macro economy to household income and has made us more stronger to face, if any difficult situation arises in future and this is what by experience we learn. There is an old saying "there is good in every evil". Still life has to move on in all situations, and this is what this country has faced, but resiliently fought back this unprecedented situation and the economy and life of the common man is on the path towards normalcy in a short period of time than expected"

• A 3-judge bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari in the batch of cases which challenged the CBSE Bye-laws which imposed restrictions on the rights of students to seek changes or corrections in names, date-of-birth etc., in mark certificates remarked that a realistic time for permitting corrections was very important.

 Source: Bar & Bench