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”.
This article explains the following in an analytical manner:
- What is the background of the issue?
- What is the High Court verdict?
- What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in this regard?
- Significance of the verdicts.
- [Table] Comparison between L-G of Delhi and L-G of Puducherry.
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.
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.