#SupremeCourt hears a plea regarding permanent commission being denied to eligible women candidates
Justice DY Chandrachud: That fact that 217 women have been granted permanent commission out of 615 is a major feat. How do we like to evolve the matter now ?
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia: They say women have been considered today. 98 percent would have been considered in 2003. They have compared us to the last empanelled male officer.
Justice DY Chandrachud: How will you formulate your points?
Patwalia: These ladies will be rudderless at sea if they are not considered. Some of them are in middle of engineering courses. If they don't find a person fit for person for permanent commission in second or third ECR that has to be conveyed.
Patwalia: Our ACR was not written with the same focus by which the ones of male officers was written.
Justice MR Shah: On what basis earlier medical report should be granted.
Justice Chandrachud: How can PC be granted on the basis that you were fit at a earlier point of time
Justice Chandrachud: How can medical report of earlier date be considered for grant of permanent commission?
Justice MR Shah: if you were fit at 25 then how can that report be taken into account for granting PC now
Justice Chandrachud: Best way is to take into account all ACRs of their career. Today what will be the threshold required to continue in service?
Justice Chandrachud: So if a person is under variant five of any fitness category they are out?
Senior Adv R Balasubramanian: Yes. When a person is under category 2 or 3 then they are under a medical category and time is given so that the condition stabilizes.
Patwalia: Today apply the same criteria to me which is being applied to the male officers.
Justice Chandrachud: The idea is not to give women any special dispensation. The question is how can those women who should have been considered for permanent commission in the past is denied the same now on the ground of certain bodily impairments.
Karnataka HC is hearing two petitions moved by Amazon and flipkart seeking to quash the probe ordered by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against them for alleged violations of Competition Law.
ASG Madhavi Divan appearing for CCI continues to make submissions
Divan submits on issue of confidentiality. Says that confidentiality will not apply unless it is a trade secret. This is the ruling of the Supreme Court.
These matters against parties in Competition law are in rem: Divan
#BombayHighCourt will shortly begin hearing the plea filed by #ArnabGoswami assailing his arrest and detention by the Raigad police in the FIR accusing him of abetment to suicide of interior designer Anvay Naik and the subsequent chargesheet filed in the matter.
Justice DY Chandrachud: One of the gravest problems of computer age is cut and paste order. I hate seeing High Court orders only doing cut and paste. If you are upholding something you have to give reasons.
Justice Chandrachud: No independent application of mind. Cutting and pasting from Tribunal judgment may add to volume of pages but does not address the core issue of the appeal.
Justice Chandrachud: Issue was whether respondent was correctly denied admission to IAS noting a disciplinary action was imposed upon him. IAS states DoPT guidelines apply for promotion.
Supreme Court to shortly hear a plea by Andhra Pradesh govt challenging the AP HC order staying the Government Orders pertaining to the constitution of a special investigation team to probe the alleged #AmaravatiLandScam
Justice Ashok Bhushan led bench of #SupremeCourt to shortly peruse the latest OTT regulations passed by Centre in a plea by @AmazonPrime head Aparna Purohit challenging Allahabad HC order denying her anticipatory bail.
Purohit faced a barrage of cases after #TANDAV was aired
Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi: I appear for Aparna Purohit along with Senior Adv Siddharth Luthra
Justice Bhushan: Mr Mehta we went through the Technology intermediary guidelines. But there is no teeth. No power of prosecution. These are just guidelines. No mechanism to control it