New Delhi, May 23: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant interim relief to a Delhi University law student who was detained in Semester IV for lecture shortage owing to her pregnancy.
A bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Navin Sinha denied her plea to allow her to write her exams, one of which was scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.
The bench, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy from the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, where an appeal is already pending.
On Monday, the Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief to second-year student Ankita Meena to sit in the examinations, saying it needed to go into the details of the matter first.
Meena's counsels Ashish Virmani and Himanshu Dhuper then approached the apex court on Tuesday and sought urgent hearing of the case urging that the student be allowed to take the ongoing exams.
As the DU counsel was not present before the court during the hearing of the case in the morning, the apex court bench sought the presence of University's counsel.
It, however, noted that by the time the court hears the DU's counsel arguments, the exam would have been over.
"How can we pass an order without hearing the other side? The exam is at 2 p.m. and by the time we hear the other side what can be done," the bench asked.
The University counsel appeared before the bench at 1 p.m. and raised objections to allowing the student to appear for her exam.
Advocate Mohinder J.S. Rupal, appearing for DU, said the specific laws applicable to the Faculty of Law as well as rules laid down by Bar Council of India require a minimum attendance of 70 per cent.
Pointing out that the petitioner had not applied for maternity leave, the court said: "It's very incongruous. We are not very comfortable with the idea that the Supreme Court passes an order at 1 p.m. and the student sits for the exam at 2 p.m. This is a hard case and the law is not in your favour."
A single Judge of the High Court last week dismissed her plea for relaxing the attendance norm. On Monday, she approached a Division Bench of the High Court to challenge this order but could not get relief to sit in the examinations.
Her counsel raised fundamental questions relating to equality before law and the fundamental right of a woman to procreate.
As per the petition, Meena is a regular student studying in law courses Semester IV. She had 86 per cent attendance in Semester III. During Semester IV, she delivered a baby boy on February 2. On that account, she could not attend part of the Semester IV classes, the petitioner averred.
On May 11, the DU released a revised list of detainees, who did not have 70 per cent attendance which included Meena's name.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.