2 July 2025 Legal Updates

Under CJI Gavai, Supreme Court Introduces SC/ST Reservations In Its Staff Recruitment For First Time

Overview

The Supreme Court of India has implemented a historic reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in its staff appointments, marking the first such initiative in the apex court's history.

Key Details

1. Reservation Percentages

• Scheduled Castes (SC): 15% reservation
• Scheduled Tribes (ST): 7.5% reservation

2. Positions Covered

The reservation policy applies to direct recruitment for the following positions:

• Senior Personal Assistant
• Assistant Librarian
• Junior Court Assistant
• Junior Court Assistant cum Jr. Programmer
• Junior Court Attendant
• Chamber Attendant 

Constitutional and Legal Significance

1. Historical Context

This policy was introduced during the tenure of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, who holds the distinction of being the second Chief Justice of India from the Scheduled Caste community, adding particular significance to this reform.

2. Legal Precedent

This represents a watershed moment as it extends reservation principles to the judicial branch's administrative structure, demonstrating the Supreme Court's commitment to constitutional values of equality and social justice within its own institutional framework.

Conclusion

This landmark policy represents a significant step toward making the Supreme Court's administrative structure more representative of India's diverse society, while maintaining the institution's commitment to constitutional values and social justice. For law students, it exemplifies how constitutional principles of equality and social justice are implemented in practice, even within the apex judicial institution.

"State Killing Its Own Citizen?" Madras High Court Slams Police In Sivaganga Custodial Death Case, Asks District Judge To Conduct Inquiry

Court: Madras High Court
Case Number: WP(MD) 17949 of 2025
Date: July 1, 2025

Facts of the Case

• Victim: Ajith Kumar, a 29-year-old temporary security guard at Madapuram Bhadrakali Amman Temple, Thirupuvanam
• Incident: Ajith Kumar was initially questioned by police regarding a theft complaint where two women alleged that 10 sovereigns of gold jewelry went missing from their car, which they had asked Ajith to park. After being questioned and released, he was detained again the same day by a six-member Special Team led by Head Constable Kannan. Eyewitnesses testified that Ajith was brutally beaten by police officials, leading to his collapse and subsequent death despite being taken to hospital.

Key Legal Issues

• Custodial Death: Death of a person in police custody without proper legal procedures
• Police Brutality: Excessive use of force by law enforcement officers
• Procedural Violations: Investigation conducted without FIR registration
• Abuse of Power: Unauthorized actions by a Special Team

Court's Observations

The Madras High Court made several scathing observations:

• Termed the incident a "police organized crime" where the state was killing its own people
• Noted that the injuries were so severe that "even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much injury"
• Emphasized that no part of the victim's body was left unharmed
• Criticized the conduct of investigation without FIR registration under the guise of "preliminary enquiry"
• Questioned the lack of respect for a poor man's life

Court Directions

The Madras High Court issued comprehensive directions to ensure a thorough and fair investigation into the custodial death of Ajith Kumar. The court directed the IVth Additional District Judge (Madurai), S John Sundarlal Suresh, to conduct a judicial enquiry into the incident and submit a detailed report by July 8, 2025. To prevent any tampering or destruction of crucial evidence, the court ordered the Superintendent of Police (Sivaganga) and the Investigating Officer to hand over all evidence collected thus far, including CCTV footage and Call Detail Records (CDR), to the enquiring judge. Recognizing the vulnerability of witnesses in such sensitive cases, the court directed the state government to provide necessary protection to all eyewitnesses involved in the case. The court also mandated that the state initiate appropriate disciplinary and legal action against the higher officials who were involved in or responsible for the incident, emphasizing accountability at all levels of the police hierarchy. Finally, the court required the state to submit a comprehensive status report detailing all actions taken in compliance with these directions by July 8, 2025, ensuring judicial oversight of the investigation process.