5 August 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Supreme Court Grants Relief to UPSC Aspirant Who Missed Re-Medical Test in 2014, Allows His Appointment On Clearing Test

In the case of a UPSC aspirant who qualified the exam and interview stages, but failed to clear the medial test and was accordingly declared 'temporarily unfit' for services, the Supreme Court recently invoked its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and directed that he be given another opportunity for re-medical test.

If he qualifies the same and is appointed, the court directed that his services shall commence from the date of appointment.

In arriving at the decision, the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal noted that the petitioner-candidate was scheduled for re-medical test in 2015. However, he missed it due to a presumption that he had lost his chance of selected as a final list of successful candidates came to be published by UPSC prior to his re-medical test.

The court also considered that the petitioner was 35 years of age and had exhausted all his attempts.

Facts-

Petitioner appeared in the Civil Services Exam 2014 and qualified the Prelims, Mains and Interview stages, but not the medical exam. As such, he was declared 'temporarily unfit' as his Body Mass Index was found to be 31.75 above the prescribed BMI standard of 30.

He applied for a re-medical test and the same was scheduled for July 14, 2015. On July 4, 2015, however, UPSC published the final result and petitioner's name did not appear in the list. Assuming that the selection process was complete, he did not appear for the re-medical test on July 14.

On January 19, 2016, UPSC published a consolidated reserve list of 126 candidates for filling up the remaining posts. In this list, petitioner secured rank 93 and candidates below him (upto 97th rank) were allocated service.

As such, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna seeking directions to be treated at par. His plea was dismissed by the Tribunal taking note of its own decision in one K. Rajashekhara Reddy's case, who also could not qualify medical test. Against the decision, the petitioner approached the High Court with a writ petition.

While this petition was pending, Reddy's petition was allowed by High Court of Telangana. In an SLP against the Telangana High Court's order in Reddy's case, the Supreme Court directed re-medical. When Reddy was found to be fit for all services, the top Court invoked Article 142 to direct his consideration for appointment.

Based on the top Court's decision, the petitioner withdrew his case from the High Court and made a representation to the respondent-authority for similar treatment. However, the respondent replied that the Supreme Court decision in Reddy's case upheld the stance regarding the prescription of a time limit for medical re-exam of 'temporarily unfit' candidates.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court with the instant case. He prayed for (i) a direction to respondent for allocation of service with all consequential benefits, and (ii) a direction for conduct of a re-medical exam.

Decision of the Court-

Considering the facts, the Court directed the respondent-authority to re-schedule within 4 weeks the re-medical test which was "unfortunately missed" by the petitioner.

However, noting that almost a decade had passed since the time the original re-medical was scheduled, the Court clarified that if the petitioner qualifies in the re-medical, he shall neither claim appointment in the 2014 Batch, nor shall he be entitled to seniority in the Batch in which he could be appointed.

"We also clarify that, upon clearing the re-medical, if he is to be given appointment, his services shall commence from the date of the appointment", it said.

The Court also added that its decision shall not be treated as a precedent.

"This is an exceptional case in which we have exercised our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and as such the present decision shall not be treated as a precedent in any case."

Case- Rakshit Shivam Prakash vs. Union of India

2. Right To Choose Partner: Rajasthan High Court Issues SOP For Police Protection of Major Couples Facing Threats

Rajasthan High Court has issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.

The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain ordered,

Step 1- filing of the representation before the respective police office designated as the Nodal officer for deciding such representations. State authorities should publicize the procedure to file such representations and is also expected to create an online mechanism for the same.

Step 2- Mere lack of territorial jurisdiction not a ground with the Nodal Officer in Step 1 to dismiss the representation. He shall ensure that within 3 days, the applicant is able to file the representation before the appropriate Nodal Officer. In the interim, the applicant must be provided protection, if required.

Step 3- The Nodal Officer should give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and the proceedings should be duly recorded through CCTV cameras.

Step 4- The Nodal Officer should provide interim protection, if required, and complete the proceedings within 7 days.

Step 4.1 If he concludes that extra-legal threats exists- he may deploy police personnel and ensure that applicant stay at shelter homes. If none of these measures are taken, reasons shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant.

Step 4.2 If the threats are being made by the family members, the Nodal Officer may try mediation but should ensure that the applicants are not pressurized or harassed during such mediation.

Step 5- If the applicant is aggrieved by inaction on part of Nodal Officer:

Step 5.1- May file representation before the superintendent of police who shall decide the matter within 3 days.

Step 5.2- If applicant is aggrieved by inaction on part of superintendent of police, representation may be filed before the appropriate level of Police Complaints Authority mechanism that was directed to be set up in every State and District by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others. Under this step, if the allegations against Nodal Officer and Superintendent of Police stands proved, appropriate criminal/civil proceedings to be initiated against them.

Step 6- where the proceedings are not concluded before the Police Complaints Authority within a reasonable period of time, the applicants can invoke Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court directed the State Authorities to appoint and constitute “Police Complaints Authority” at the State and District levels in Rajasthan within a month of the judgment. And if the State fails to do so, the Court shall intervene under Article 226 to make the necessary appointments.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the above procedure was not limited to the major couples but shall be applied mutatis mutandis to anyone who might be apprehending extra-legal threats.

The development comes in a petition filed by a couple who wanted to solemnize their marriage but was facing threat from their families. It was argued that when the couple went to seek help from the police authorities, the representation was not duly considered by the police.

The Court had invited the members of the Bar to put forth the lacunae that might be existing in the current mechanism that was in place to deal with such matters. It was submitted by the members of the Bar that the couples were often hesitant to approach the police authorities because either these representations are not duly considered by the authorities or, on the worse side, the police often colludes with the social actors or the family members to harass the couple. Such police harassment increases in case of inter-faith couples. Hence, the police often legitimizes and entrenches the societal prejudices. And therefore, such couples were compelled to approach the Court.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India in which the choice of one's partner or spouse was recognized as an inherent facet of one's dignity and personal autonomy and thus protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this background, the Apex Court strongly condemned the practice of extra-legal harassment based on societal norms towards such couples.

Further, reference was made to the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP in which the institutional role of the police in safeguarding major couples' personal choices was recognized and directions were issued for police authorities throughout India for ensuring that such couples were shielded from extra-legal harassment and/or violence.

In this light, the Court affirmed the recognition of rights of personal choice in relation to one's spouse to be part of Articles 14 and 21 and thus constitutional guarantees, and also recognized constitutional duty of the State and its instrumentalities to protect such rights. The Court further observed that if the police authorities failed to discharge such duty, there should be appropriate institutional mechanisms for ensuring accessibility of aggrieved persons and also accountability of defaulting police authorities.

Case- Suman Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.