Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 4th January 2022

1. NEET-PG Counselling : Supreme Court Agrees To Hear EWS Case Tomorrow After Centre's Request For Urgent Listing

• The Chief Justice of India on Tuesday agreed to list the case related to EWS reservation in NEET All India Quota tomorrow. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before the CJI today morning seeking an urgent listing of the case in view of the protests by the resident doctors against the delay in NEET-PG counselling.

• "It concerns EWS of society. There's a statement made by us which prevents further counselling of resident doctors", SG submitted.

• CJI NV Ramana said that the case was being dealt with by a 3-judge bench. But this week, being a miscellaneous week, only has two-judge benches(except the bench of CJI). However, the CJI said that he will try to constitute a special bench of three judges and post the matter tomorrow. If a 3-judge bench combination is not available, the matter will be listed before a division bench, the CJI assured.

• The problem is it's a 3 judge bench matter, this entire week is a miscellaneous week. Let me see if tomorrow, some judge is available, we'll constitute a bench. Let me see. If possible I'll constitute a three-judge bench or it will go before a Division bench tomorrow", CJI told the Solicitor General.

• "Resident doctors are protesting and their concerns are genuine", Solicitor General added.

• Yesterday, the Solicitor General had mentioned the matter before Justice DY Chandrachud seeking urgent listing of the case tomorrow. Justice Chandrachud then said that he will consult with the Chief Justice of India. However, the matter was not listed today.

• "Under these circumstances, it is completely unadvisable and impractical to apply the new criteria (which are being recommended in this report) and change the goal post in the midst of the ongoing processes resulting in inevitable delay and avoidable complications. When the existing system is ongoing from 2019, no serious prejudice would be caused if it continues for this year as well. Changing the criteria midway is also bound to result in spate Of litigations In various courts across the country by the people/persons whose eligibility would change suddenly.

• The Committee, therefore, after analysing the pros and cons on this issue and after giving serious consideration, recommends that the existing and on- going criteria in every on-going process where EWS reservation is available, be continued and the criteria recommended in this Report may be made applicable from next advertisement / admission cycle, "Committee had said the report in this regards.

• Based on the recommendations, the Central Government has agreed to accept the Committee's recommendation of applying the new criteria prospectively.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Employee Has No Absolute Right To Be Represented In Departmental Proceedings Through Agent Of His Choice: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court observed there is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent employee to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer.

• In this case, High Court has permitted the delinquent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent through ex-­employee of the Bank. It was observed that the Regulation 44 only restricts representation by a legal practitioner, and even that too is permissible of course with the leave to the competent authority, and there is no complete or absolute bar even on engaging a lawyer, the employee cannot be restrained from availing services of retired employee of a Bank.

• The question raised in appeal filed by the bank was whether the employee, as a matter of right is entitled to avail the services of an Ex-employee of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings ?

• The court noted that the Regulation neither restricts nor permits availing the services of any outsider and / or ex­-employee of the Bank as DR and to that extent Regulation is silent. But it noticed that the Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure specifically provides that DR should be serving official / employee from the Bank.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. ISRO Espionage Case : Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Challenge Against Pre-Arrest Bail To 4 Officers After 2 Weeks

• In a special leave petition filed by CBI assailing the anticipatory bail granted by the Kerala High Court to four police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in a 1994 espionage case, the Supreme Court on Monday granted two weeks time to CBI to file rejoinder.

• When the matter was called for hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the CBI sought two weeks' time to file a rejoinder. Accordingly the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar in their order said, two weeks granted for filing rejoinder. List on January 28, 2022."

• Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Sreekumar. Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appeared for Jayaprakash. On November 23, 2021 the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar had issued notice in CBI's SLP against the anticipatory bail granted to police officers S Vijayan, Thampi S Durgadutt as well as RB Sreekumar(who later became Gujarat DGP), and another former IB official S Jayaprakash.

• ASG SV Raju for CBI while apprising the bench of the facts of the case submitted that the officers of IB, who had nothing to do with investigation, took the 4 scientists into custody and tortured them. He further added that because of their being taken into custody, the invention of the technology of the cryogenic rocket engine project went behind 10/20 years.

• Opposing their anticipatory bail, ASG submitted, "Investigation is to be done. If they're given anticipatory bail, the investigation will be derailed."

• In the order granting anticipatory bail, the High Court observed that concerns of the Kerala police at that stage about the espionage case cannot be said to be without basis.

• "Some of the documents which have been produced for perusal indicate that there were certain suspicious circumstances pointing towards the act of the Scientists in the ISRO and that is what induced the officers to proceed against them", Justice Ashok Menon had noted in the order.

• The High Court also remarked that there was "not even a scintilla of evidence" to suggest that the petitioners accused of implicating former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the espionage case were influenced by foreign elements.

• "There is not even a scintilla of evidence regarding the petitioners being influenced by any foreign power so as to induce them to hatch a conspiracy to falsely implicate the Scientists of the ISRO with the intention to stall the activities of the ISRO with regard to the development of Cryogenic Engine", the High Court order said.

Source: Bar & Bench