Right to Protest: SC Verdict, Challenges

The Supreme Court has recently ruled against the protests at Shaheen Bagh by stating that the right to protest in a public place is not absolute and public places cannot be indefinitely occupied by such protests. While the protest ended in March, the verdict was given in October. This verdict is criticised for the apex court's indifference towards the government's ignorance of the voices of the people, which is the reason behind such lasting protest.

This content is for General Studies (GS) Members only! Join now & access all Static GS Mindmaps (18 Subjects), Current Affairs [Newsbits (For Prelims), Editorials & Articles (For Mains)]

JOIN & ACCESS ALL

 FREE SAMPLES

IE Vs PRELIMS 2020

Related Articles

Lt-Governor (L-G) Vs Puducherry Government – What is the tussle?

The Madras High Court has recently ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of Puducherry should not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government is in place.

The court argued that the continued interference from the L-G would amount to running a “Parallel government”.

Notably, the Supreme Court has also given a similar verdict on Delhi Government Vs Lieutenant Governor (L-G) in July 2018.

This article explains the following in an analytical manner:

  1. What is the background of the issue?
  2. What is the High Court verdict?
  3. What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in this regard?
  4. Significance of the verdicts.
  5. [Table] Comparison between L-G of Delhi and L-G of Puducherry.

    This content is for General Studies (GS) Members only! Join now & access all Static GS Mindmaps (18 Subjects), Current Affairs [Newsbits (For Prelims), Editorials & Articles (For Mains)]

    JOIN & ACCESS ALL

     FREE SAMPLES

    IE Vs PRELIMS 2020

Reservation in Promotion for SC/STs – Supreme Court Verdict & its Significance

Updates *

On February 7th, 2020, with regards to Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Uttarakhand case, the Supreme Court ruled that states are not legally bound to provide reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government jobs. The apex court had stated that individuals do not have the fundamental rights to claim reservations in the promotions. This is based on the provisions of the Indian constitution. This recent judgement is not new. The top court had pointed out the fact that reservations are not fundamental rights in several judgements in the past.

[Updated] Sabarimala Temple Issue – Customs Vs Constitution

Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple issue is about the conflict between women rights and tradition. According to age-old traditions and customs, women from ten to fifty years of age were not permitted into Sabarimala Temple. However, the situation has changed when the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on September 28, 2018, declared that restricting entry of women of menstruating age was unconstitutional. Thus the SC allowed women, irrespective of their age, to enter Sabarimala temple. 

Home
Books
0
Shop
Bookmark
Account