Tag: supreme court

Categories
India News

No urgent hearing on hijab in Supreme Court

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said this has nothing to do with the exams. The Chief Justice told Kamat not to sensationalise the matter….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to give any specific date to hear a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed all petitions seeking direction for permission to wear hijab in classrooms.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat mentioned one of the cases on behalf of a petitioner, a Muslim girl student, and sought urgent listing of the matter. Kamat insisted that exams were approaching and urged the court for an urgent hearing on the matter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said this has nothing to do with the exams. The Chief Justice told Kamat not to sensationalise the matter.

Ramana
At a ceremony held today (April 24, 2021) at 1100 hrs in the Ashoka Hall, Rashtrapati

Kamat contended that the girl students were not being allowed to enter the schools, and they will lose one year. However, the bench moved on to the next item.

On March 16, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order, which held that wearing of hijab by the Muslim women does not form a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

Then, senior advocate Sanjay Hedge, representing the petitioners, mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana. Hedge said there was urgency in the matter, as several girls have to appear in exams. The bench said others have also mentioned and the court will look into the matter.

Hedge had insisted that the exams are starting and there was urgency in the matter.

The bench said it needed time and it would post the matter for hearing. After brief submissions, the bench said the court may list it after Holi vacations. “Give us time, we’ll post the matter,” said the bench.

The plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal said the high court order creates an unreasonable classification between the Muslim and the non-Muslim female students, and thereby is in straight violation of the concept of secularism which forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners are Mohamed Arif Jameel and others.



The plea said: “The impugned order is also in sheer violation of the Article 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and also violates the core principles of the International Conventions that India is a signatory to.”

It further added, “Being aggrieved by the impugned Government Order, as it is in violation of Indian constitution, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of the same.

“The Hon’ble High Court vide the impugned order had sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student-women by upholding the impugned Government Order which bars Muslim women from wearing the hijab and pursue their education. It is hereby submitted that the right to wear hijab is an ‘essential religious practice’ and falls within the ambit of the right of expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a), the right to privacy and also the Freedom of Conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. The same cannot be infringed upon without a valid ‘law’.”

Another plea, filed by two Muslim students, Manan and Niba Naaz, through advocate Anas Tanwir, said: “The petitioners most humbly submit that the High Court has erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

ALSO READ: Pro-Hijab graffiti surfaces in Karnataka

Categories
-Top News USA

US Senate hearing for Biden’s history making pick begins

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Pic credits Twitter

The 51-year-old Jackson, who currently sits on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court if confirmed….reports Asian Lite News

The US Senate Judiciary Committee has started a series of hearings for the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

In his opening statements on Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin highlighted Jackson’s qualifications, as well as the historic nature of her nomination by President Joe Biden, reports Xinhua news agency.

“President Biden nominated you because he knew your qualifications are outstanding,” the Illinois Democrat said.

“Your professional record and life experience tell us what kind of lawyer, what kind of judge, and what kind of person you really are.”

The 51-year-old Jackson, who currently sits on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court if confirmed.

“In its more than 230 years, the Supreme Court has had 115 Justices,” Durbin continued. “Not a single Justice has been a Black woman. You, Judge Jackson, can be the first.”

Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in his remarks that he’ll be scrutinising Jackson’s legal philosophy.

“I’ll be looking to see whether Judge Jackson is committed to the Constitution as originally understood,” the Iowa Republican stressed.

“Some of us believe that judges are supposed to interpret the laws of what’s understood when written, not make new laws or simply fill in the vacuum.”

Biden announced in late February he would nominate Jackson to succeed liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who is about to retire this summer.

It was one of his major campaign promises to fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy with an African-American woman.

“As Judge Jackson begins her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week, I look forward to the Senate and country seeing how incredibly qualified she is for the job,” the President tweeted on Monday.

“She’s a brilliant legal mind with the utmost character and integrity. I know she’ll make an exceptional Justice.”

Committee members will begin questioning the nominee on Tuesday and the hearings will take place through Thursday.

Born in Washington D.C. but raised in Miami, Jackson received her law degree from Harvard University and graduated cum laude in 1996.

Earlier in her legal career, she worked as an assistant federal public defender in D.C. and served as vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for four years.

“I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously,” Jackson told senators on Monday.

“I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favour, consistent with my judicial oath.”

It requires a simple majority of votes from the 100-seat Senate to confirm Jackson to be the next Supreme Court justice.

The Senate is evenly split between the two parties. Democrats can approve the nomination without Republican support, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tie-breaking vote.

This year, the Supreme Court will rule on cases involving a series of major issues, including abortion, affirmative action, and gun control.

Court watchers have argued Jackson is expected to vote very similarly to Breyer and her ascension won’t change the Supreme Court’s ideological balance, in which conservatives have a 6-3 majority over liberals.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate court of the US judicial system, with the power to review and overturn lower court decisions, and is also generally the final interpreter of federal law, including the country’s constitution.

The Justices have life tenure and can serve until they die, resign, retire, or are impeached and removed from office.

ALSO READ: China compares Ukraine with Indo-Pacific

Categories
India News

SC for early release of prisoners serving over 10 yrs

It was informed that nearly 1.83 lakh criminal appeals are pending before the high court, and the counsel argued that there should be some policy to release prisoners who have served more than 10 years….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the government and the courts should adopt a reformative approach for those who have spent 10-14 years in prison, while serving a life term, and explore the possibility of releasing them either by granting bail or remitting their sentence.

It made these observations while granting bail to nearly two dozen petitioners, who have been languishing in jail for more than 10 years.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh observed that the poor and the underprivileged suffer in the jail, however the rich and the influential can secure bail and also escape the law by fleeing from the country.

Senior advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, representing 20 petitioners languishing in the jail, submitted that the criminal appeals were pending in the Allahabad High Court between 8-10 years and emphasised that a reformative approach should be taken towards people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment and have already served over 10 years.

The top court was unhappy with a deluge of petitions, where prisoners have not been granted relief by the Allahabad High Court, and asked the court to decide bail plea of all prisoners, who have served more than 10 years in jail.

It was informed that nearly 1.83 lakh criminal appeals are pending before the high court, and the counsel argued that there should be some policy to release prisoners who have served more than 10 years.

The top court asked the high court to prepare a separate list for those who have undergone 10-14 years in custody along with those who have spent 10 years in custody. It added the high court should release all such prisoners at one go in a scenario where lawyers do not appear for the convict and also the state government has not objected to their plea for release.

It noted that if there is no adverse report on a prisoners’ conduct, then they should be given a chance to blend with society. “There may be cases where for whatever reasons, a lawyer is not present. But if they (the prisoners) have completed 14 years in prison, the state itself can take a stand and the high court judge can pass orders to examine the case for release,” it observed.

The top court cited an example where an accused has been in prison for 17 years and bail plea was rejected by the high court. “Since counsel was not prepared, the plea was rejected, and thereafter, four times the plea was not heard even when counsel was ready,” it said. It asked the high court to find a template on granting bail in such situations.

The top court granted bail to all the 20 petitioners and scheduled the matter for further hearing in the last week of March.

ALSO READ: Govt extends visa, immigration modernisation scheme

Categories
India News

Supreme Court slams ‘knee-jerk’ appointments of tribunal vacancies

The bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, said the court is getting requests for the extension of time for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) matters etc….reports Asian Lite News

 Expressing its discontent with the vacancies in the tribunals, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said some “knee-jerk” appointments were made by the Centre to fill up vacancies across the country, and the bureaucracy has been taking up the issue “lightly”.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana observed that after a few appointments made initially, nothing substantial happened.

The bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, said the court is getting requests for the extension of time for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) matters etc.

“Some knee-jerk appointments took place and nothing happened after that. We do not know the fate of members and many are retiring,” it said, emphasising that the bureaucracy is taking the issue lightly.

Earlier, the apex court had made some strong observations in connection with vacancies in tribunals across the country. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal contended before the court that he could show the list of vacancies and the steps taken to fill them up. After a brief hearing in the matter, the top court scheduled the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

In August last year, the top court had cited data to show that around 250 posts are lying vacant in various key tribunals and appellate tribunals across the country. The bench read out the long list of vacancies across the tribunals and added that 19 presiding officers, 110 judicial members, and 111 technical numbers are pending in all the tribunals.

“This is the scenario of the tribunal. We do not know what is the stand of the government…”, said the Chief Justice.

The top court had said the delay by the Centre in filling up vacancies in various tribunals is effectively crippling their functioning and leaving people without legal remedies.

“The impression we are gathering is that it appears the bureaucracy does not want the tribunals. The Centre should clear its stand whether it really, really wants to continue the tribunals or close them down.”

Later in September, last year, the Central government had informed the top court that 84 appointments have been in six tribunals including the ITAT and the NCLT and no recommendations of the Search cum Selection Committees (SCSC) is pending then.

ALSO READ: Apex court grills central govt on One Rank, One Pension

Categories
India News

Apex court grills central govt on One Rank, One Pension

Supreme Court of India

The bench asked the ASG to show the figure when MACP was introduced, how many got benefit of the scheme and how many are eligible to get benefit of OROP….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday shot a volley of questions at the Centre in connection with its current policy on One Rank, One Pension (OROP) in the armed forces.

A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath told the Centre’s counsel, “How have you implemented OROP, and what happens after…give us some examples, how people have benefitted.”

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkatraman, who represented the Centre, pointed out that the petitioners have raised three contentions — they say it should be automatic, not periodic; review once in 5 years is not acceptable; and third is the chart which he will present before the court. He added that the chart shows that one should take the scale and not go by the mean. The bench said the government has taken the mean, but no one is brought down? The ASG agreed.

Venkatraman referred to a tabular chart citing a comparison between sepoys, who retired after 2015 and before 2015. The bench queried suppose somebody retired in 1990 and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme came in 2006, the rank will still remain but the officer will get the different pay scale. The ASG urged the top court not to bring MACP into the matter.

The bench asked the ASG, OROP is a benefit that comes after a service period and MACP comes during service? “We want to know how many people have got MACP. You are saying persons who have MACP are a different specific class,” it queried further.

The ASG replied that MACP is not the subject matter of the writ petition before the court. Justice Kant replied, but it is important for OROP, and if 80 per cent of sepoys get MACP, then will they get OROP? The bench said: “It seems MACP is a barrier for OROP…”

Justice Chandrachud said petitioners’ contention is regarding the discrepancy between parliamentary discussion and the policy, which ultimately came. “Problem is your hyperbole on the policy presents a much rosier picture than what is actually given,” said Justice Chandrachud. The ASG emphasised that the decision on the policy has been taken by the Union Cabinet. Justice Chandrachud said: “As I said OROP is not a statutory term, it is a term of art”.

The ASG replied, “Yes, it is a term of art which we have defined with nuance and without any arbitrariness.”

Justice Kant said the petitioners are claiming that by connecting OROP with MACP the government has reduced the benefits substantially and the principle of OROP gets defeated.

The bench asked the ASG to show the figure when MACP was introduced, how many got benefit of the scheme and how many are eligible to get benefit of OROP.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (IESM), said what is the morality of this government after giving a statement that it has in principle agreed to implement one rank one pension. He added that the sum and substance of their arguments is that they are not inclined to give OROP, but they will give one rank different pensions. He added that the ASG said it could have been given at 10 years but they chose 5 years for the review. “What is the morality of a statement made by a minister on the floor of the House,” said Ahmadi. The plea has been filed through advocate Balaji Srinivasan.

After a detailed hearing in the matter, the top court scheduled it for further hearing next week.

On Tuesday, the top court asked the Centre whether it can consider automatic annual revision instead of the existing policy of periodic review, done once in five years.

The petitioners have questioned the November 7, 2015, notification issued by the Centre while implementing OROP, in which the government adopted a modified definition of the expression, under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners were to be bridged at periodic intervals.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the government’s decision is arbitrary and mala fide, as it creates a class within a class and effectively grants one rank, different pensions.

The top court, in July 2016, sought Centre’s response on a petition by IEMS seeking implementation of OROP as recommended by the Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual revision, and not the periodic review of once in five years.

ALSO READ: BJP estimating damage caused by rebels in Uttarakhand

Categories
India News Karnataka

Hijab row: Plea in Supreme Court to implement ‘common dress code’

Muslim women shout slogans during a protest against banning Muslim girls wearing hijab from attending classes at some schools in Karnataka, in Kolkata, on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2022.(Photo: Kuntal Chakrabarty/IANS)

The plea argued that in the US, the UK, France, Singapore and China, all schools and colleges adhere to a common dress code despite frequent challenges to the constitutionality of dress guidelines, reports Asian Lite news

Amid the ongoing hijab row, a plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking direction to the Centre and states to implement a “common dress code” in registered and state recognised educational institutions in order to secure social equality, assure dignity and promote national integration.

The plea filed by Nikhil Upadhyay, a resident of Ghaziabad, said that the role of universal education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provisions of equal opportunity to all has been accepted since the inception of our republic.

“Thus, a common dress code is not only necessary to enhance the values of equality, social justice, democracy and to create a just and humane society but also essential to curtail the biggest menace of casteism communalism classism radicalism separatism and fundamentalism,” said the plea filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey.

The plea argued that in the US, the UK, France, Singapore and China, all schools and colleges adhere to a common dress code despite frequent challenges to the constitutionality of dress guidelines.

It further added that most court rulings support the common dress code because the use of common dress code has many benefits.

“Over 1,000 Schools in Texas were studied to look at the impact of uniforms in the classroom and researchers noted that there were significantly higher positive perceptions about the entire community when compared to those who wear whatever they want.”

The plea contended that dress codes have the ability to make students stop fidgeting, stop thinking about why their friend is getting more attention for their looks instead of them, and create a carefree attitude.

“A dress code brings discipline and discipline brings order, peace, and a sense of leadership. Dress code brings uniformity which is interlinked to order and peace.”

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking urgent hearing on petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court interim order in the hijab matter.

The top court asked the petitioners’ counsel, which included Muslim girl students, to think whether it is proper to bring the issue at the national level.

ALSO READ: Karnataka extends holiday for pre-university students

Categories
-Top News Afghanistan India News

MEDIA SCAN: Supreme Court against ‘indefinite’ jail and Afghanistan people faces ‘severe hunger’

The Indian Supreme Court has spoken against handing out an ‘indefinite’ jail term to an accused over fears of national security and more than half the population of Afghanistan are facing ‘severe hunger’ …writes Joyeeta Basu

News in brief from South Asia

India

Supreme Court: Can’t keep someone in jail indefinitely over national security fears: Giving emphasis to “bail, not jail” judicial philosophy, the court said no person can be indefinitely kept in jail on the fear that the accused’s activities could prove detrimental to national security, reports The Times of India.

COVID-19: India reported 2.55 lakh daily new COVID-19 cases, the lowest in a week. The cases in the third wave of the pandemic have started to fall in seven states and union territories, while several others were witnessing a slowdown in the surge, weekly numbers reveal, reports The Times of India.

Air India divestment set to take place on Thursday: In a communication to the airline’s employees, a senior company official wrote: “The disinvestment of Air India is now decided to be on January 27, 2022.” Last month, India approved the acquisition of Air India, Air India Express, and Air India SATS Airport Services by Talace, a subsidiary of Tata Sons, reports IANS.

BJP suspends two showcaused leaders in Bengal: Within a day of sending showcause letters to two BJP leaders in West Bengal, the saffron party has suspended them temporarily. Joy Prakash Majumdar and Ritesh Tiwari were believed to be indulging in anti-party activities publicly, reports IANS.

‘Hindutva, hyper-nationalism and public welfare, biggest strength of BJP’: The BJP has pitched a “formidable narrative” leveraging issues of Hindutva, hyper-nationalism, and public welfare, and opposition parties stand very little chance unless they can outweigh it on at least two of these fronts, election strategist Prashant Kishor said in a special interview to NDTV on Monday.

Financial news

Over Rs 3K crore FII funds outflow plunge Indian equities: A massive flight of foreign capital along with prospects of a global conflict in Europe battered Indian equities on Monday. High oil prices, upcoming budget and lacklustre quarterly results also added to the volatility as some analysts compared the day’s fall to the US ‘Black Monday’ crash of 1987, reports IANS.

Pakistan

Imran Khan lobbied for “old friend” Navjot Sidhu: Punjab’s former Chief Minister Amarinder Singh’s declared his seat-sharing with the BJP with a shocker on Sidhu. Singh said: “The Pakistan Prime Minister had sent a request, saying if you can take back Sidhu into your Cabinet I will be grateful, he is an old friend of mine. You can remove him if he will not work,” reports NDTV.

Punjab’s former Chief Minister Amarinder Singh

Bangladesh

China mega-tech drives Bangladesh mega highway: Work on a joint Chinese-Bangladeshi venture to build a transformational highway bypassing Bangladesh capital Dhaka is well underway. Around 400 million US dollars will be spent on the four-lane artery, reports Global Times.

Afghanistan

More than half of population facing ‘severe hunger’: At least 23 million people, which is more than half of the population in Afghanistan, are facing severe food shortages and about 9 million are on the brink of starvation, the Associated Press reports.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka hopeful of obtaining further Indian aid of USD 1.5 billion: The Sri Lankan government has said that there is a possibility of it obtaining a further USD 1.5 billion in aid from India, weeks after New Delhi announced a billion-dollar assistance package and a balance of payment support to the crisis-hit island nation, reports The Economic Times.

On a lighter note…

Kartik Aaryan threatened to quit ‘Shehzada’ producer reveals why: Manish Shah in a recent interview has revealed that Kartik Aaryan threatened to quit ‘Shehzada’ if the original Telugu film ‘Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo’ was released in Hindi. Talking to IndiaToday.in, he said, “Kartik Aaryan said if the movie was released in theatres, he would walk out of the film, which would have caused Shehzada producers a loss of Rs 40 crores. It was extremely unprofessional of him.”

Kartik Aaryan

Bhumi Pednekar and Rajkumar Rao’s Badhaai Do’s trailer out: Sharing the screen space for the first time, Rajkummar and Bhumi will be seen portraying interesting characters they have never played on screen before. The movie directed by Harshavardhan Kulkarni, reports AsianLite.

Katrina Kaif shares gorgeous pictures of herself from Maldives: Katrina Kaif has shared some beautiful pictures of herself from Maldives. The actress looked stunning as she sunned herself while dressed in a cool and casual outfit, as she called it her happy place.

Katrina Kaif (Instagram)

ALSO READ: MEDIA SCAN: Plea to clear NGO foreign funds today and Nepal protests China projects

Categories
-Top News India News

Supreme Court forms panel to probe PM Modi security breach

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's convoy stuck on a flyover for around 20 minutes at Hussainiwala as some protestors blocked the road in Ferozepur district on Wednesday, January 05, 2022. (Photo: Twitter via IANS)

Supreme Court has asked both the Central and Punjab governments to not move ahead with their respective inquires into the matter, reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to set up a panel, headed by a former apex court judge, to probe the Prime Minister Narendra Modi security breach in Punjab last week.

After a detailed hearing in the matter, a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said the court will set up a committee headed by a retired top court judge to probe the PM’s security breach and asked both the Centre and Punjab government to not move ahead with their respective inquires into the matter.

The bench said it will pass a detailed order in the matter. During the hearing, the bench orally proposed that other members of the committee would be Director General of Police (DGP) Chandigarh, Inspector General (IG) National Investigation Agency (NIA), registrar general (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and Additional DGP (security) Punjab.

Supreme Court of India

The bench said: “We are taking the PM’s security breach very seriously”. The bench added that it will ask the committee to submit its report to it within a short span.

Advocate General D.S. Patwalia, representing the Punjab government, complained against show-cause notices to its chief secretary and DGP. He urged the top court to form an independent committee to probe the matter. “Hang me if I am guilty… but don’t condemn me unheard,” submitted Patwalia.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defended the show-cause notices issued by the Central government. However, the top court expressed its displeasure at Centre’s stand, questioning what is the point of asking the court to examine the matter if the Centre wanted to go ahead on its own.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Delhi-based petitioner Lawyer’s Voice, emphasised on the importance of protection to the PM of the country and cited previous top court ruling that looked at the SPG Act.

Convoy of PM Modi stuck on a flyover in Punjab. (Photo ANI)

The plea sought an independent probe into the PM’s security breach in Punjab. It sought a direction to the District Judge Bathinda to collect, preserve and present all material pertaining to the movement and deployment of Punjab Police in connection with the visit of the Prime Minister, and fix responsibility of the DGP and the Chief Secretary, Punjab.

On January 6, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a three-member committee to enquire into the “serious lapses in the security arrangements” during the PM’s visit to Ferozepur, in poll-bound Punjab. The MHA said: “The committee will be led by Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Secretary (Security), Cabinet Secretariat, and comprising Balbir Singh, Joint Director, IB, and S. Suresh, IG, SPG.”

ALSO READ: Supreme Court directs to secure all records on Modi’s Punjab visit

Categories
-Top News India News Legal

SC for same treatment to ayurvedic, allopathic doctors

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation had argued before the top court that classification of Ayush doctors and doctors under the CHS in different categories is reasonable…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the doctors, both under Ayush and the central health services (CHS), render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish between them as it held that ayurvedic doctors are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), at par with allopathic doctors.

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation had argued before the top court that classification of Ayush doctors and doctors under the CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law.

A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy said: “This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients.”

It emphasised that the only difference is that Ayush doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using allopathy for tending to their patients.

“In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia,” said the bench, in its 19-page judgment.

It added that such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench said the municipal corporation not paying the ayurvedic doctors their salary and benefits, while their counterparts in CHS received salary and benefits in full, “must be seen as discrimination”.

It emphasised that ‘no work should go unpaid’ should be the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where the service rendered by the ayurvedic doctors have been productive both for the patients and also the employer.

The top court said they must be paid their lawful remuneration, arrears and current salary, as the case may be. “The state cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise, it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution,” it said.

It directed that doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from Tuesday, and any late payment will carry 6 per cent interest from the date of this order until the date of payment.

The top court judgment came on an appeal by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation against a Delhi High Court judgment which had upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal order holding that applicants, who were ayurvedic doctors under Ayush, are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, like allopathic doctors.

ALSO READ: India takes over UNSC presidency