Thread by @barandbench

Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of the #SupremeCourt to shortly hear a plea praying for an extra attempt in the UPSC examination for civil services aspirants who are age-barred and exhausted their last attempt in October 2020.
#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Advocate Naresh Kaushik, for UPSC: On 28 June, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a similar Petition. The file may be perused by this Bench.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Court: The Petitioner Counsel is not here, we may take up the matter at 2 PM.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Matter will now be heard at 2PM.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

ASG Aishwarya Bhati: This case is from the writs which were filed in 2020 prior to the civil services examination in 2020. These were the points you considered. You heard this across several weeks.

ASG Bhati: It was said that granting relaxation to one category would have led to undue benefits. we did not argue this. They did not take the Civils exams 2020.

Justice Khanwilkar: This would be impossible and impractical. There are earlier verdicts. Even if one lakh candidates say. Who will verify and there will be allegations and counter-allegations?

Justice Khanna: We cannot alter the policy. The policy is something which has already been formed. It’s a generic position. It can’t be case-specific. General policy in terms of Rule 6 and it does not permit altering the condition.

Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: A proposal had come and it was dealt. The persons in the parties had said it was discriminatory because a restriction was put for age, then that would be a problem. All the Petitioners were saying that prep for exam was made difficult for COVID

Court: Practically it will be impossible to ascertain when 10 Lakh students are sitting- who has Covid, who has submitted genuine certificates.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

SC: Only manifestly unreasonableness is the reason we can strike a policy down. The question of reasonableness has already been examined. instead of appealing to us, why not appeal to the authority that made the policy ?

Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: A mandamus would lie in this case. Due to COVID19, the same government’s directions were obeyed and they are saying that it’s the same govt which gives us rights and then takes it away. they can use their wisdom

SC: The prayers that you have made, we will record that and ask the government to consider. If they don’t want to go forward with it, we cannot intervene unless it’s arbitrary. this is what we propose to do

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal: this exam is treated as life and death; the First Court has made certain exceptions for the NEET this year. It has been recognised that Covid is an extra ordinary circumstance.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Sr. Adv. Krishnan Venugopal: After the exam was held in Oct 2020, we were asked to make a representation. There are three grounds on which it can be examined - process, irregularity and violation of fundamental rights. There are numerous instances when court gave relief

Court: What is this first court, second court? We are all #SupremeCourt

#UPSC

SC: We have a judgement of 3 Judges. This is our predicament.

Venugopal: That judgment only deals with one class and they were those who made the decision to give the attempt.

Justice Khanna: We are testing the policy on the touchstone of fundamental rights. There is age and limited attempts. Practically it will be impossible to identify who has given a genuine certificate, who is making excuses - it will be an impossible task. you do understand

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh: I am appearing for nine candidates in intervention who have suffered similarly.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Justice Khanna: Every exam has its own peculiarities. You can’t compare not even NEET with this.
#upsc #extraattempt

Sr. Adv. Maninder Singh: i appear for an Intervenor comprising 9 candidates. We suffered in a similar manner. There cannot be any discrimination. I appeal to your magnanimity.

Sr. Adv. Devadatt Kamat: the attempts of my candidates have been exhausted. There was a policy decision which was taken for us. The government agreed we are on a different footing
#UPSC #UPSCExtraAttempt

Sr Adv Kamat: Order said that they were agreeable to the one-time ex gratia relaxation to the candidates. list of conditions were also laid down

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: I am appearing on an intervention. A policy decision was taken for us and the Government decided that we stand on a different footing.

The rules do not permit a relaxation in terms of an age-barred attempt

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Sr Adv Kamat: we were in this category and then the court said that we belong to the age-barred category because Rules didn’t allow this. Please see Note 5 there is a specific bar same as other provisions..

Sr Adv Kamat: age limit prescribed in no case can be relaxed. but now there is no such prohibition. thus observation of this court where both these rules have been equated as far age and attempt may not be the correct position.

Justice Khanwilkar: relaxation was given to the candidates who appeared

Kamat: yes yes we appeared

SC: So you and Mr Singh are on the same side

Kamat: if govt is being nudged for a relook this can be also seen

Court: You and Singh are on the same side, then?

Relief will be given to you if the government is willing to open the window.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

SC: If the govt is not agreeing for another category there is no question for agreeing for another category. these options are closed now

#supremecourt #UPSCextraattempt

"Your Lordship, the Government had opened a window- but the Court closed it", submits Kamat.

#UPSC #SupremeCourt

Sr Adv Malvika Trivedi: my clients face a same predicament as Mr Maninder Singh's. They were all COVID warriors and had no time to prepare. they seek parity with the petiitoners. govt was nudged to bring a policy which could have helped these candidates.

Trivedi: even after Rachna judgment, the government can have a re-look even after the Rachna judgment. Age relaxation will not have a cascading effect at all.

Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: para 11 of Rachna order deals with the statistics and the petitioners constitute about 2 % of the same.

SC: Total applicants were 10.56 lakhs and only 4 lakhs appeared. 6 lakhs remaining will also come under same category

Sankaranarayanan: Most of them are not age-barred. The fourth category is there regarding last attempt my Lord

SC: Please remember that there are two categories.

Justice Khanwilkar to ASG Bhati: only you can rectify this situation.

ASG Bhati: I received instructions yesterday

SC: Candidates state that they wanted to appear but they were denied to move out since either they had covid or due to lockdown.

Bhati: this is the distinction. all of this has been considered.

SC: we are not on whats decied

SC: You cannot expect someone to do something which is impossible to do. someone may choose not to appear but what about someone forced to not appear due to your acts of commission or Commission?

Bhati: maybe this picture wasn't presented when you were considering this issue in a larger bench.

Bhati: This court dealt with an issue of possibility where doctors did not get leaves to attend the exam and that is why you indeed dealt with the issue of impossibility during to the pandemic.

Justice Khanna: this will generate so much litigation and lead to a lot of chaos. In Rachna's case this closes the chapter and what was said their is applicable.

Justice Khanna: we are aware of the practical consequences. This is what it is. It can also happen to a candidate who suffers a sickness but is well prepared.

Justice Khanna: it is not an easy decision and we are also sympathetic. that is why we heard it at length.

ORDER SC: Petitioners made unsuccessful attempts in persuading us that their prayers were not covered in the Rachna Case and they constitute a separate class as they were forced not to appear in exam on account of directions issued by local authorities under Disaster Mgmt Act

SC: According to them, the situation was of forced option but not a case of nonappearance by choice. although we may have sympathy for the situation but these issues raised are covered by the decision in Rachna vs UOI.

SC: We permit a representation to be filed with the government and hope a lenient view may be taken. we are not expressing any opinion regarding the feasibility of all such issues.

Matter over.