Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Court has allowed Rajasthan Assembly Speaker CP Joshi to withdraw his plea against Rajasthan High Court’s order asking him to defer disqualification proceedings till July 24, 2020. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CP Joshi, told the Court that the High Court has passed a detailed order and the ad interim order passed has merged into the final interim order that has been passed by the High Court. Thus, he want to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as against the subsequent order. The Court, hence, dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.

 The Court had, on July 23, 2020, decided to hear the appeal of Rajasthan Assembly speaker CP Joshi against the stay order of Rajasthan High Court that asked the Speaker to not take action against Sachin Pilot and 18 other MLAs till July 24, at length and has said that the Order passed by Rajasthan High Court will be subject to the outcome of the said hearing.

“The case requires prolonged hearing so as to decide the question of jurisdiction. “

The Court had observed that Rajasthan Speaker’s petition against Rajasthan High Court’s order asking him to defer disqualification process till July 24 requires detailed hearing. It, however, refused to restrain the High Court from passing order on pleas of dissident 19 Cong MLAs challenging Speaker’s disqualification notice. The Court made clear that the Order passed by Rajasthan High Court will be subject to outcome of Speakers’ petition pending in the Supreme Court.

“As the High Court has already heard the matter after prolonged arguments and reserved the order, we are not staying the passing of the order, however, whatever order is passed, shall be ultimately subject to the outcome of this petition.”

When the matter was taken up today for hearing, Joshi requested withdrawal of his plea which the Court allowed.

CP Joshi had filed the petition in Supreme Court to avoid contradiction between decisions of Speaker and court. He approached the Supreme Court against the interim order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on the petition filed by Sachin Pilot and 18 MLAs from his camp against the disqualification notices issued against them. Joshi, in his SLP, said that the impugned interim order has interdicted and restrained the Speaker from calling of replies and conducting hearing of the disqualification proceedings pending against the respondents till July 24.

Pilot had also filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to ensure that no orders are passed on Joshi’s petition against High Court interim orders without hearing him and his supporting MLAs. A caveat is a notice seeking that certain actions may not be taken without informing the person who gave the notice.

[Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly v. Prithviraj Meena, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 599 , order dated 27.07.2020]


Also read: 

Rajasthan Political Crisis | HC reserves order on petition by Sachin Pilot along with 18 other Congress MLAs, challenging disqualification notice issued by Assembly Speaker; To be pronounced on 24th July, 2020


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court:  The Court has decided to hear the appeal of Rajasthan Assembly speaker CP Joshi against the stay order of Rajasthan High Court that asked the Speaker to not take action against Sachin Pilot and 18 other MLAs till July 24, at length and has said that the Order passed by Rajasthan High Court will be subject to the outcome of the said hearing.

“The case requires prolonged hearing so as to decide the question of jurisdiction. “

CP Joshi has filed the petition in Supreme Court to avoid contradiction between decisions of Speaker and court. He approached the Supreme Court against the interim order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on the petition filed by Sachin Pilot and 18 MLAs from his camp against the disqualification notices issued against them. Joshi, in his SLP, said that the impugned interim order has interdicted and restrained the Speaker from calling of replies and conducting hearing of the disqualification proceedings pending against the respondents till July 24.

Pilot has also filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to ensure that no orders are passed on Joshi’s petition against High Court interim orders without hearing him and his supporting MLAs. A caveat is a notice seeking that certain actions may not be taken without informing the person who gave the notice.

According to PTI, during the hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued before the Court that Rajasthan High Court cannot direct Speaker to defer disqualification proceedings against MLAs.

“No writ can lie to challenge proceedings before Speaker prior to decision on disqualification or suspension of MLA.”

He further said that the Speaker can be asked to decide disqualification within time frame but the process can’t be interfered with.

Speaker Joshi submitted that the issue whether disqualification process against MLAs is permissible or not cannot be taken note of at this stage.

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that Rajasthan Speaker’s petition against Rajasthan High Court’s order asking him to defer disqualification process till July 24 requires detailed hearing. It, however, refused to restrain the High Court from passing order on pleas of dissident 19 Cong MLAs challenging Speaker’s disqualification notice. The Court made clear that the Order passed by Rajasthan High Court will be subject to outcome of Speakers’ petition pending in the Supreme Court.

“As the High Court has already heard the matter after prolonged arguments and reserved the order, we are not staying the passing of the order, however, whatever order is passed, shall be ultimately subject to the outcome of this petition.”

Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on July 27, 2020.

[Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly v. Prithviraj Meena, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 593, order dated 23.07.2020]


Also read: 

Rajasthan Political Crisis | HC reserves order on petition by Sachin Pilot along with 18 other Congress MLAs, challenging disqualification notice issued by Assembly Speaker; To be pronounced on 24th July, 2020


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Rajasthan High Court reserves order on petition filed by Sachin Pilot and 18 other dissident Congress MLAs, challenging the disqualification notices issued to them by the state assembly speaker. Order to be pronounced on 24th July, 2020 and no action to be taken against MLA’s till then.

A Division Bench of Indrajit Mahanty, CJ and Prakash Gupta, J.,  had adjourned the hearing on the petition filed by Sachin Pilot, the former deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan, along with 18 other Congress MLAs, challenging the disqualification notice issued to them by the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Speaker asking them to explain anti-party activities on 17th July, 2020.

Snapshot of the hearings [PTI]

Counsel for the speaker Abhishek Singhvi on Monday argued that the petition was premature as a decision was yet to be taken on disqualifying the MLAs from the House.

There is no scope for interference by a court over the show-cause notices issued by the speaker, he had said.

The speaker is supreme as far as the legislative assembly is concerned and the notices have been issued within the purview of the speaker’s power, Singhvi had said.

A lawyer appearing for the speaker had told reporters that the chief justice asked is the speaker bound to issue a notice on a petition seeking disqualification of such a nature without recording any reason.

Singhvi had argued that there was no requirement to record reasons as it was merely a show-cause notice.

The notices to the MLAs were served after the party complained to the speaker that the lawmakers had defied a whip to attend two CLP meetings last week on Monday and Tuesday.

The Pilot camp, however, argues that a party whip applies only when the assembly is in session.

Congress had sought action against Pilot and the other dissidents under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.

Read more:

Rajasthan Political Crisis | HC allows Sachin Pilot camp to file application for amending the petition challenging the Speaker’s notice

Rajasthan Political Crisis | HC adjourns Pilot camp’s plea till 20th July; Speaker not to take action till 21st July

[Stay tuned in for updated story]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Suspension of Court and office work at Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur; Court staff found COVID-19 positive

A court staff of Principal Seat at Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur is found Covid-19 Positive.

Many staff members have come in direct contact with the affected person which has mandated further sanitization of the entire court premises and taking of other preventive measures by the medical team, therefore, the Chief Justice has directed for suspension of Court and office work for today i.e. 09-07-2020 at Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

NOTIFICATION


Rajasthan High Court

Notice dt. 09-07-2020

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

For effective control and containment over Spread of corona Virus, in supersession of all previous directions, following directions are issued for Subordinate Courts/Special Courts/ tribunals which shall remain in force till 03.05.2020 and/or till further orders:-

1. Only extremely urgent matters be taken up.

i. Subordinate courts of Rajasthan shall take up only the following extremely urgent matters till 03.05.2020:-

(a) Bail Applications, Appeals under Special Acts regarding bails.

(b) Remand matters
(c) Injunction/stay Applications,
(d) Supurdagi Applications.

(e)Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. including dying declarations.

(f)  Any other extremely urgent matter to be decided by the concerned Presiding Officer deputed by the District Judge for hearing urgent matters.

(g)  All other matters shall be adjourned suitably subject to further directions.

ii. The extremely urgent matters shall be taken up through video conference by Video/whatsapp/skype or voice call or any other convenient mode. For this purpose, All-in-one Computer available in each Court and the smart phones with official SIM available in district courts for electronic service of processes (NSTEP) may be used.

iii. In matters having no urgency, common dates shall be given and notice thereof be published on official web site of each judgeship so that the lawyers and litigants would get the next dates without coming to the court. Efforts be also made to update the dates in CIS as far as possible.

iv. As per directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court Vide order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, prescribed limitation for filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals and other proceedings shall stand extended w.e.f. 15‘“ March 2020 til further orders by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

v. Filing of only fresh urgent cases/applications may be made on official email address notified by the concerned District Judge with the condition to present the hard—copy file before jurisdictional court soon after the regular work resumes. The filing through email shall be entertained only when mobile number which is having whatsapp or the skype account address and email address are mentioned. The court deputed for urgent work will forward all the papers to the jurisdictional court after the regular work resumes. A matter filed through email shall be treated to be filed only when it is actually taken up by the court.

vi. The District Judges are authorized to depute bare essential judicial officers on rotational basis at each court complex for hearing of urgent matters. Only those bare minimum Judicial Officers are required to come to court who have been deputed by the concerned District Judge for urgent work. Remaining judicial officers would not be required to attend the office but shall remain available at home during office timings.

vii. The District Judges are empowered to depute the officers of District Judge cadre for urgent work of Family Courts/Special Courts/Tribunals in addition to other urgent work assigned to them.

viii. Only bare essential court staff required to manage the above urgent work shall be called on rotational basis. Sitting arrangement of the staff shall be in such a manner so as to maintain required physical distance between them. Remaining staff would not be required to attend the office but shall remain available at home during office timings.

ix. The Presiding Officers deputed for urgent work shall hold court only between 02.00 pm to 04.00pm.

x. The State Government has imposed ban on the private vehicles, however judicial officers and court staff have been allowed to use their private vehicles for attending the office, therefore they are directed to carry official identity card with them.

2. Steps to limit the gatherings in court rooms and court premises

i. Subordinate courts shall not insist on the presence of the parties unless it is very essential and unavoidable.

ii. The requests for personal exemption of accused / complainant / witnesses / parties shall be accordingly considered and adverse orders be avoided for their absence.

iii. Only litigants whose presence is required by the court shall be permitted to attend the court with his lawyer. Litigants who are appearing in person shall be permitted entry.

iv. The processes for service of the witnesses issued for the dates upto 03.05.2020 shall be returned unserved to the concerned court. Concerned police officials shall be requested accordingly.

v. The directions issued for extension of remand vide this office letter no. Gen/XV/43/2020/2600 dated 29.03.2020 shall remain in force till 03.05.2020.

vi. Concerned Bar Associations shall be requested to make the advocates aware to advise and persuade the litigants not to Visit the court premises unless it is very essential and unavoidable.

vii. Entry of Law Students and Interns shall remain prohibited in court premises.

viii.To avoid public gatherings and crowding, no function or other event of mass gathering shall be permitted in the court premises.

ix. Mediation proceedings shall be held only in urgent matters.

3. Other Preventive measures

i. Hand sanitizers shall be provided in all court rooms and offices for use of Advocates, litigants and court staff.

ii. Court staff who deal with files and come in frequent contact with advocates, litigants and Visitors shall be provided with masks and gloves for regular use during working hours.

iii. The advocates are permitted to use masks in courts.

iv. The advocates are exempted to wear coats till 03.05.2020.

v. In all the court rooms and offices, toilets, door handles, chairs, tables, gates, railings and other things shall be disinfected regularly at least twice a day by mopping through 1% hypochlorite and Benzoic Acid.

vi. Court staff suffering from cold/cough or sneezing are advised to take leave and follow the medical advise.

vii. All canteens and shops selling food articles in the court premises shall remain closed till 03.05.2020. However, drinking water arrangements shall be duly ensured. One photocopy shop in each court complex shall be kept open on every working day on rotational basis to be decided by concerned District Judge at District Hq. and Senior most judicial officer on outlying Hqs. All preventive measures shall be strictly observed while maintaining social distancing on these shops.

viii.Director General of Police shall be requested to depute adequate number of police personnel at the entry gates of all court complexes to regulate the entry of visitors in consultation with District Judge/Presiding officer concerned till 03.05.2020.

ix. The State Government has appointed District Collectors as Nodal Officers in each District for effective control over spread of Corona Virus. In co-ordination with these Nodal Officers, para medical personnel be deployed in all the court complexes for primary medical Check up of the entrants of court premises so that appropriate steps for suspected infectants may be timely taken up.

x. The Advocates having Chambers in Subordinate courts are advised against attending their chambers as they would require to be Closed due to lack of Cleaning and conservancy services.

4. Monitoring

A committee of one Judicial Officer, Bar President and one senior court staff be constituted for every court complex to supervise and monitor the situation on daily basis, to ensure compliance of these directions and to take appropriate remedial steps.

5. All concerned shall ensure the preventive and remedial measures as instructed or advised from time to time by the Central/State Governments and other competent authorities.


Rajasthan high Court

[Circular dt. 14-04-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President is pleased to appoint the following as Judges of Rajatshan High Court:

(i) Devendra Kachhawaha

(ii) Satish Kumar Sharma

(iii) Kumari Prabha Sharma

(iv) Manoj Kumar Vyas

(v) Rameshwar Vyas and

(vi) Chandra Kumar Songara


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 04-03-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Manish Shishodia, Advocate as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.


[Supreme Court Collegium]

[Resolution dt. 22-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court:

  1. Shri Devendra Kachhawaha,
  2. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
  3. Ms. Prabha Sharma,
  4. Shri Manoj Kumar Vyas,
  5. Shri Rameshwar Vyas, and
  6. Shri Chandra Kumar Songara


[Supreme Court of India]

[Resolution dt. 22-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 9 Advocates as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, but only 2 Judges were recommended to be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.

Following are the names that were suggested:

1. Shri Mahendra Goyal
2. Shri Anurag Sharma
3. Shri Farzand Ali
4. Shri Manish Shishodia
5. Shri Ashvin Garg
6. Shri Rajeev Purohit
7. Shri Sachin Acharya
8. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar and
9. Smt. Anita Aggarwal

On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.

As regards Shri Manish Shishodia, the Collegium is of the considered view that his name deserves to be deferred.

As regards S/Shri (1) Anurag Sharma, (2) Ashvin Garg, (3) Rajeev Purohit, (4) Sachin Acharya, (5) Sanjay Jhanwar and (6) Smt. Anita Aggarwal, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court.

Therefore, Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates, be appointed
as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. 


[Collegium Resolution dt. 24-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appointed Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat, Judge of Delhi High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


[Order dt. 30-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appointed Justice Mohammad Rafiq, senior most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Justice Pradeep Nandrajog relinquishes charge of the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court consequent upon his transfer as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

[Notification dt. 03-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following eleven Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court:

  1. Shri Abhay Chaturvedi
  2. Shri Devendra Kachhawaha
  3. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma
  4. Ms. Prabha Sharma
  5. Shri Manoj Kumar Vyas
  6. Shri Rameshwar Vyas
  7. Shri Devendra Joshi
  8. Shri Chandra Kumar Songara
  9. Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena
  10. Shri Narendra Singh Dhaddha
  11. Shri Hemant Kumar Jain

As regards Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for the present and would be taken up after additional information is received from the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Devendra Kachhawaha, (2) Satish Kumar Sharma, (3) Ms. Prabha Sharma, (4) Manoj Kumar Vyas, (5) Rameshwar Vyas, (6) Devendra Joshi, (7) Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, and (8) Shri Hemant Kumar Jain (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7, 9 and 11 above) consideration of their proposal for elevation is deferred for the present. The same would be taken up upon receipt of detailed information from the Department of Justice in respect of certain unconfirmed inputs pointed out in the file.

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Abhay Chaturvedi, and (2) Narendra Singh Dhaddha, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

[Notification dt. 01-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in  exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to be a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Ministry  of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (l) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed S/Shri Justices (i) Ganga Ram Moolchandani, (2) Deepak Maheshwari, (3) Vijay Kumar Vyas, (4) Goverdhan Bardhar, (5) Pankaj Bhandari, (6) Dinesh Chandra Somani  (7) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (8) Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, (9) Dinesh Mehta and (10) Vinit Kumar Mathur, Additional Judges of the Rajasthan  High Court to be Judges of the Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Ajay Rastogi, Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Ministry of Law and Justice

(Department of Justice)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Applying the principle of rarest of rare case, the Court upheld the decision of trial Court and confirmed death sentence awarded to the accused for committing rape and murder of 8-year-old girl.

The present case was filed by the State of Rajasthan for confirmation of the capital punishment awarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide judgment dated 18.9.2015 in Sessions Case No.149/2013 to the accused for committing offence under Section 302 Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court stated that the accused has crushed all the parameters of trust by committing rape and murder of a 8 year old yound girl who treated accused as maternal uncle. It is also evident that the deceased tried to resist but helpless girl was killed by the accused appellant, therefore, it is not only a case of murder and harassing sexually of young girl of 8 years but it is a case in which all the parameters of trust are crushed by the accused. The accused murdered helpless minor girl only to satisfy his physical desire.

The Court upon consideration of the entire evidences and the fact that accused has crushed all limits of trust and committed offence under Section 302 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act, confirmed death sentence awarded by the learned trial court. [State vs Prahlad, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 5842, decided on September 1, 2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a writ petition the Court has stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable to the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as it was submitted as Primary evidence, since Section 65 B it deals only with Secondary evidence.  The present writ petition was filed by the wife challenging the admissibility of the electronic record (Pin hole Camera, memory and recordings) filed by the husband in a family court, along with the affidavit in evidence in support of the divorce petition. The Court and also held that the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of Evidence Act would not attract in Family court proceedings.

The Court observed while rejecting the contention of the wife that, “Section 65B of the Act of 1872 only deals with the secondary evidence qua electronic records. It does not at all deal with the original electronic records, as in the instant case, where the pinhole camera, with a hard disk memory on which the recording was done has been submitted before the Family Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 has held that if an electronic record is produced as a primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence without compliance with the conditions of Section 65B of the Act of 1872. That evidence would take the colour of primary evidence, subject no doubt to its credibility based on forensic examination and cross examination.”

The single judge Bench comprising of Alok Sharma, J. observed that “Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides that a family court may receive any evidence, report, statement, documents, information or matter which in its opinion will facilitate the effective adjudication of the disputes before it, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The aforesaid section therefore makes it pellucid that the issues of relevance and admissibility of evidence which regulate a regular trial do not burden proceedings before the family courts. It is the discretion of the family court to receive or not to receive the evidence, report, statement, documents, information etc. placed before it on the test whether it does or does not facilitate an effective adjudication of the disputes before it.”  The bench further observed “the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of the Act of 1872 would also not attract, as Section 14 of the Family Court Act eclipses Section 122 of the Evidence Act in proceedings before the Family Court. Section 14 aforesaid is a special law, so to say, as against the general law, which Section 122 of the Act of 1872 encapsulates vis-a-vis privileged communications between husband and wife.” [Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 2838 Decided on 27.05. 2016]

High Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dismissing a petition, a division bench comprising of Amitava Roy, CJ and Vijay Bishnoi, J concluded that there should be no separate category of the physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation.

In the present case, a physically handicapped  candidate who appeared for the preliminary examination of the Rajasthan Judicial Service was seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court for violation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, contending that there is an error in the decision of the examination committee in rejecting his representation, as the physically handicapped candidates construe to be a separate category independent of General/SC/ST/OBC categories under the Rules, and any omission thereof would be contravention of the Rules, professed advertisement, and Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 215 , where the Court clarified the concept of reservation and explained that suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons, if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC/women category he will be placed in that quota, so that the percentage reservations in favour of that class remains the same.  The Court held that law does not permit that there should be a separate category for physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation. The Court found that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on merits by the examination committee, and suspended the challenge of the petitioner and opined that in this case the exercise of the power of judicial review is not warranted. The results of the preliminary examination cannot be faulted and the insistence for the cut-off marks for this category of candidates is ex-facie absurd and preposterous, the Court held. Vikram Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115 of 2014, decided on May 16, 2014.

To read the full judgment, click here

High Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dismissing a petition, a division bench comprising of Amitava Roy, CJ and Vijay Bishnoi, J concluded that there should be no separate category of the physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation.

In the present case, a physically handicapped  candidate who appeared for the preliminary examination of the Rajasthan Judicial Service was seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court for violation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, contending that there is an error in the decision of the examination committee in rejecting his representation, as the physically handicapped candidates construe to be a separate category independent of General/SC/ST/OBC categories under the Rules, and any omission thereof would be contravention of the Rules, professed advertisement, and Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 215 , where the Court clarified the concept of reservation and explained that suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons, if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC/women category he will be placed in that quota, so that the percentage reservations in favour of that class remains the same.  The Court held that law does not permit that there should be a separate category for physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation. The Court found that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on merits by the examination committee, and suspended the challenge of the petitioner and opined that in this case the exercise of the power of judicial review is not warranted. The results of the preliminary examination cannot be faulted and the insistence for the cut-off marks for this category of candidates is ex-facie absurd and preposterous, the Court held. Vikram Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115 of 2014, decided on May 16, 2014.

To read the full judgment, click here