#Patna High Court Rulings

[townpostin]

Two-Member Committee Probes NIT Jamshedpur Registrar Appointment

Investigation Focuses On Alleged Violations In Dr. N.K. Rai’s 2020 Hiring Concerns raised over procedural bypasses and financial irregularities at institute. JAMSHEDPUR – A two-member inquiry committee visited NIT Jamshedpur to investigate issues surrounding the appointment of Col. (Dr.) N.K. Rai as Registrar in 2020. The probe follows concerns that Rai’s appointment violated Government of India…

[hindustanmorning]

Patna High Court criticizes Bihar's Nitish government

Patna High The court has criticized the liquor ban in Bihar. Patna High Court stated that the prohibition on alcohol has led to an increase in illegal trading of alcohol and other prohibited goods. In addition to this, it has turned into a way for government officials to make significant amounts of money. In a ruling made on October 19, the Patna High Court stated that these strict measures have…

[seemabhatnagar]

"Unyielding Persistence: Overcoming Time's Play in the Pursuit of Justice"

In the relentless pursuit of a dream, sometimes life throws curveballs that test our resolve and patience. For Rakshit Shivam Prakash, an aspiring UPSC candidate, the journey was marked by unforeseen challenges and unexpected turns. Just when he thought all hope was lost, a twist of fate and unwavering persistence brought him back into the race for justice.

Rakshit Shivam Prakash v. Union of India & Another

WP (Civil)890/2023

Before the Supreme Court of India

Hear by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P S Narasimha J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal J

A Battle Against Time: The Pursuit of Justice

In the intricate journey of aspiring for a position in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Rakshit Shivam Prakash found himself amidst unexpected challenges. The year was 2014, and the rigorous selection process for the Civil Services Examination was underway. Rakshit qualified through the Prelims, Mains, and even the Interview. He was called for a medical examination on April 29, 2015, conducted by the Central Standing Medical Board. However, fate had a different plan; he was declared ‘temporarily unfit’ due to a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 31.75, just above the prescribed standard of 30 BMI. A re-medical test was scheduled for July 14, 2015.

Then, an unusual twist occurred. On July 4, 2015, UPSC published the final result, and Rakshit’s name was absent. Disheartened and assuming the selection process was over, he missed the re-medical test. It seemed that time had conspired against him, leaving him to face the harsh reality of unfulfilled dreams.

But, as they say, the most amazing things happen when you least expect them. On January 19, 2016, a consolidated reserve list of 126 candidates was published to fill remaining posts. Astonishingly, Rakshit secured the 93rd rank in this list. Candidates ranked below him were allocated services, reigniting his hopes and transforming his disappointment into a legitimate claim.

Rakshit approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Patna, seeking equal treatment as others in the reserve list. However, his application was dismissed based on a similar case of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy, who also missed qualifying in the medical examination. Undeterred, Rakshit filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Patna.

During the pendency of his Writ Petition, a surprising development occurred. The High Court of Telangana ruled in favor of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy on April 6, 2021, and the Supreme Court later directed a re-medical examination, finding him fit for all services. This decision rekindled Rakshit’s determination, leading him to withdraw his Writ Petition and make a fresh representation to the Respondent Authorities.

However, his representation was met with a setback. The Department of Personnel and Training upheld the Government’s stance on the time limit for medical re-examination, confirming his status as ‘Unfit for all Services.’ This led Rakshit to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking directions for allocation of service and a re-medical examination.

In August 2023, the Supreme Court entertained his petition. Despite rejecting his plea for allocation of service and consequential benefits, the Court acknowledged the unique circumstances. It directed a re-medical examination to be conducted within four weeks, providing a glimmer of hope amidst the prolonged struggle.

Rakshit’s story exemplifies how unusual circumstances and the passage of time can either thwart or favor our aspirations. Whether it was the unexpected twist of finding his name in the reserve list or the favorable decision for a re-medical examination, it underscores the importance of persistence and vigilance in the face of adversity.

Seema Bhatnagar

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 7.17 (after 1950)

1953 – The largest number of United States midshipman casualties in a single event results from an aircraft crash in Florida, killing 44. 1955 – Disneyland is dedicated and opened by Walt Disney in Anaheim, California. 1962 – Nuclear weapons testing: The "Small Boy" test shot Little Feller I becomes the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada National Security Site. 1968 – Abdul Rahman Arif is overthrown and the Ba'ath Party is installed as the governing power in Iraq with Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr as the new Iraqi President. 1973 – King Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan, while having surgery in Italy, is deposed by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan. 1975 – Apollo–Soyuz Test Project: An American Apollo and a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft dock with each other in orbit marking the first such link-up between spacecraft from the two nations. 1976 – East Timor is annexed and becomes the 27th province of Indonesia. 1976 – The opening of the Summer Olympics in Montreal is marred by 25 African teams boycotting the games because of New Zealand's participation. Contrary to rulings by other international sports organizations, the IOC had declined to exclude New Zealand because of their participation in South African sporting events during apartheid. 1979 – Nicaraguan dictator General Anastasio Somoza Debayle resigns and flees to Miami, Florida, United States. 1981 – A structural failure leads to the collapse of a walkway at the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, Missouri, killing 114 people and injuring more than 200. 1984 – The national drinking age in the United States was changed from 18 to 21. 1985 – Founding of the EUREKA Network by former head of states François Mitterrand (France) and Helmut Kohl (Germany). 1989 – First flight of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber. 1989 – Holy See–Poland relations are restored. 1996 – TWA Flight 800: Off the coast of Long Island, New York, a Paris-bound TWA Boeing 747 explodes, killing all 230 on board. 1997 – After takeoff from Husein Sastranegara International Airport, Sempati Air Flight 304 crashes into a residential neighborhood in Bandung, killing 28 people. 1998 – The 7.0 Mw  Papua New Guinea earthquake triggers a tsunami that destroys ten villages in Papua New Guinea, killing up to 2,700 people, and leaving several thousand injured. 1998 – A diplomatic conference adopts the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, establishing the permanent international court in The Hague, to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. 2000 – During approach to Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport, Alliance Air Flight 7412 suddenly crashes into a residential neighborhood in Patna India, killing 60 people. 2001 – Concorde is brought back into service nearly a year after the July 2000 crash. 2006 – The 7.7 Mw  Pangandaran tsunami earthquake severely affects the Indonesian island of Java, killing 668 people, and leaving more than 9,000 injured. 2007 – TAM Airlines Flight 3054, an Airbus A320, crashes into a warehouse after landing too fast and missing the end of the São Paulo–Congonhas Airport runway, killing 199 people. 2014 – Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a Boeing 777, crashes near the border of Ukraine and Russia after being shot down. All 298 people on board are killed. 2014 – A French regional train on the Pau-Bayonne line crashes into a high-speed train near the town of Denguin, resulting in at least 25 injuries. 2014 – Eric Garner is killed by police officer Daniel Pantaleo in New York City, after the latter put him in a prohibited chokehold while arresting him. 2015 – At least 120 people are killed and 130 injured by a suicide bombing in Diyala Governorate, Iraq. 2018 – Scott S. Sheppard announces that his team has discovered a dozen irregular moons of Jupiter.

[gadgetsforusesblog]

Inter Admission Update: Patna High Court's new order allows matriculation pass students to take admission in their favorite school, know the full report?

Intermediate Admission Update: Do you also Matriculation pass After the Favorite school I want to take admission but education Department Of New rules because of Favorite school In Admission If you are unable to take it then it is for you big news that is, Patna High Court has, Matric pass students To Man Pasand School In to enroll of independence regarding which we have given Report We have…

[freemejob24]

Patna High Court Translator Recruitment 2024>>80 Post Online Apply

Online applications are invited from eligible candidates for appointment to 60 (sixty) vacant posts of Translator (Group-B Post) and 20 vacant posts of Translator-cumProof Reader (Group-B Post) for SUVAS Cell of the Court, both in Level 7 (₹44900/- to ₹142400/-) of pay matrix of 7th PRC plus usual allowances as admissible under the Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Appointment, Promotion and Other Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2021 as amended from time to time in the Establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) initially on probation for a period of one year under the terms and conditions mentioned below :-

[legalhub16]

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

SHANKARI PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1951 SC 458

Introduction The Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case is part of the history of "The Doctrine of Basic Structure." This idea came about because of the ongoing battle for power in independent India between the legislature and the courts. It was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of India that Article 368 says that basic rights can be changed. In this case, the First Amendment of the Constitution of 1951, which limited the right to land, was called into question. Article 31 of the Fundamental Rights says that everyone has the "right to property." The main point that was made in this case was that Article 13 says that laws that limit the Fundamental Right cannot be made. Article 13 was made less broad by the Supreme Court.

I. Background

After India got its independence, the Zamindari Abolition Act, a law that changed the way agricultural land was used, was passed in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh. Unfortunately, this meant that the zamindars lost their land, which made them angry. They went to the High Court of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh and said that this rule violates their fundamental rights and they should be able to get back their properties. The Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 was thrown out by the Patna High Court, but in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the laws were supported by the High Courts at Allahabad and Nagpur. With the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, the government came up with a solution to stop all the lawsuits over the same problem. After the case was filed, the zamindars said it was in line with Article 32 of the Constitution and asked if the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was passed by Parliament and added Articles 31A and 31B to the Constitution of India, is invalid and against the constitution.

II. Issues Raised and Laws Involved

Whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 passed by the Parliament is valid.

Whether the word ‘law’ used under Article 13(2) also includes the ‘law of the amendment of the Constitution of India.

Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India.

Article 31A and 31B of the Constitution of India.

Article 368 of the Constitution of India.

Article 132 of the Constitution of India.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

III. Petitioner's Arguments

The Parliament was incapable in exercising its power specified under Article 379 as the power mentioned under Article 368 of modifying the Constitution is not conferred on Parliament but is as a nominative body on the two Houses of Parliament. Under Article 368 the power given on them calls for collegial action from both the Houses of Parliament and could be justly operated only by the Parliament to be lawfully be incorporated as under Chapter II of Part V. That Article 368 is a full code and it neglects for any alterations in the bill after it is being offered in the House for its passing. They further noted that the bill, in this case, which has been altered on multiple occasions before it appeared in front of the House, the Amendment Act has not been passed in compliance as per the established procedures in Article 368. The 1st Amendment Act, 1951 which adds Article 31A and 31B violate and abridges the Fundamental Rights provided by Part III of the Constitution with the constraints of Article 13(2). The article 31A and 31B which is inserted through the First Amendment Act, 1951 also seeks to bring changes in Chapter IV of Part V’s Article 132 and 136 and Chapter V of Part VI’s article 226, these requirements for ratification under clause (b) of Article 368 has to be followed, and it has not been ratified in here and so they are void and unconstitutional. It also ultra vires the items in List II, for which the only the State Legislature and not Parliament have the right to create la

IV. Respondent's Arguments

In the first place, it was argued that the Constitution, being the guiding document of our sovereign nation, should not be subject to revisions dictated by political party majorities. The Constitution's authors intentionally made it difficult to amend by dividing it into three categories: the first category includes provisions that can be changed with the support of a simple majority in order to pass an ordinary law. The second group comprises individuals whose lives are touched by an Article 368 exceptional majority. Included in the third category are those that go above the second class's special majority requirement and the ratification threshold of half of the states listed in the First Schedule's Parts A and B. The third group is requesting revisions to the requirement, as stated in Article 368. The first category of amendments was given upon the Parliament, which comprises the two Houses of Parliament and the President. Since no explicit signals have been provided, it is believed that the ability to change the other two classes has been bestowed upon the Parliament. The only distinction between the classes is a matter of procedure, and they have been given no grounds to believe that another entity can resolve this matter adequately. The claim that Article 368 should be interpreted as a comprehensive code for the procedure was rejected. There is a lack of uniformity in the protocols about what should be done when the notice is introduced, which causes delays. This includes the scepticism and inquiries raised throughout its presentation, its passage through both houses of parliament, and the President's assent. They further argued that constitutional amendments will be a part of the legislative process. Regarding the definition of 'law' in Article 13, it "must be taken to mean rules and regulations made in the exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power." Therefore, Article 13(2) does not impact amendments made under Article 368. The exclusive power to amend the Constitution rests with Parliament, and subject-matter falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature.

V. Decision

Honourable Judge M Patanjali Sastri rendered the ruling. The Court ruled unanimously that Article 13(2) will not be able to invalidate the modification even if it is thought to be better than ordinary law. Article 13(2) does not apply to the constitutional amendment carried out by the Parliament in its constitutional power, which includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights. Rather, the term "law" as used there will normally include constitutional amendment provided it is taken into account of ordinary legislative power. “We are of the opinion that in the context of Article 13 law must be taken to mean rules and regulations made in the exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in the exercise of constituent power with the result that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments made under Article 368,” the Court said. The First Amendment Act of 1951 was maintained by the Court by literal interpretation. It further ruled that Article 368 gives the Parliament the authority to change the Constitution to treat the Fundamental Rights differently than they are now. The Court held differently that here the Fundamental Rights can be unalienable. The Supreme Court adopted the progress of the autonomous nation through the acquisition of property, therefore limiting the perspective if Article 13(2).

VI. Overruling of this case

The majority in the case of I.C Golaknath n State of Punjab overruled the said judgement and held that no distinction can be found between the power of legislative and constituent power. Justice Hidayatullah held that the amending power was not to be found as the residuary power of our legislation. The procedure as laid down in Article 368 when compiled resulted in the amending ability of the Constitution. It can be called the legislative power. The majority held that the Fundamental Right has a transcendental approach and position in the constitution and so Article 368 would be incompetent to amend the Fundamental Right.  This added the ongoing controversy and power struggle between the Judiciary and the Legislature.

[nsebell]

ITC can't be claimed till seller pays tax: High court

MUMBAI: The Patna high court, in a recent decision that favours the GST authorities, ruled that input tax credit (ITC) is akin to a privilege or a concession rather than an inherent entitlement provided within the GST framework. The eligibility to claim ITC for a buyer hinges not only on the amount collected by the seller (dealer) via the invoice raised, but also on the timely remittance of this…

[mithilatoday]

Bihar Caste-Based Survey: Patna High Court Dismisses Petitions, Nitish Government Gets Green Signal

In a significant relief for the Nitish Kumar-led government in Bihar, the Patna High Court has delivered a verdict dismissing all petitions challenging the caste-based survey initiated by the Nitish Kumar-led government in Bihar. The ruling paves the way for the Bihar government to proceed with the long-pending caste enumeration in the state. The contentious issue surrounding the caste-based…

[sequelscreen]

Murdered IAS officer's wife appeals to PM Modi after ex-Bihar MP freed from jail

Gangster-turned-politician Anand Mohan Singh walked free from Bihar jail, a move which was mandated following the amendment of the prison rules by Bihar govt

Objecting to the release of Anand Mohan Singh from Bihar's Saharsa jail, the widow of slain District Magistrate G Krishnaiah who was murdered by the gangster-turned-politician, on Thursday appealed to President Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to intervene and ask Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to send him to jail.

This comes after Gangster-turned-politician Anand Mohan Singh walked free from Bihar's Saharsa jail early Thursday morning, a move which was mandated following the amendment of the prison rules by the Bihar government allowing the release of 27 convicts including him.

Speaking to ANI, Uma Devi, wife of late Gopalganj DM G Krishnaiah, said, "I appeal to the President and the PM to intervene in this matter and ask CM Nitish Kumar to send him (Anand Mohan) back to jail."

She called the decision of the Bihar government to release the murder convict, who was initially given a death sentence by the trial court and was later commuted to a life sentence by the Patna High Court, "wrong" and said that the Chief Minister should not "encourage these types of things".

She also called for the boycott of the gangster-turned-politician if he contests elections in the future.

"The public will protest against the release of Anand Mohan, demanding to send him back to jail. Releasing him is a wrong decision. CM should not encourage these types of things. If he (Anand Mohan) will contest elections in the future the public should boycott him. I appeal to send him (Anand Mohan) back to jail," she said.

The daughter of the deceased IAS officer, Padma asked the state government to reconsider its decision and urged Nitish Kumar to give his decision a second thought.

"It's disheartening for us that Anand Mohan Singh has been released from jail today. The government should reconsider this decision. I request Nitish Kumar ji to give a second thought to this decision. With this decision, his govt has set a wrong example," she said.

Padma said that the family will appeal against the decision of the government.

"It is unfair not just to a family but to the whole nation. We will appeal against this decision," she said.

He was serving a life sentence in the 1994 murder of then Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah. After the Bihar Government amended the rules of the Jail manual, an official notification stated that 27 prisoners who have served 14 years or 20 years in jail have been ordered to be released.

Supporters of Anand Mohan Singh, welcomed his release from Saharsa jail in Bihar.

The gangster-turned-politician was earlier on parole of 15 days to attend the engagement ceremony of his MLA son Chetan Anand. He had returned to Saharsa jail on April 26 following the end of his parole period.

Earlier on Wednesday, the state prisons department had released nearly 14 convicts from various jails of the state.

Singh was among eight others who could not be released yesterday.

There has been a backlash regarding the former MP's release from jail by the opposition in the state.

Anand Mohan murdered Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah on December 5, 1994, in Muzaffarpur. Krishnaiah was killed by a mob allegedly provoked by Anand Mohan Singh. He was dragged out of his official car and lynched.

G Krishnaiah, a 1985-batch IAS officer who hailed from Mahbubnagar in present-day Telangana.

Anand Mohan was sentenced to death by a trial court in 2007. A year later, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Patna High Court. Mohan then challenged the verdict in Supreme Court but no relief has been granted yet and he has remained in Saharsa jail since 2007.

His wife Lovely Anand has also been a Lok Sabha MP, while their son Chetan Anand is an RJD MLA from Bihar's Sheohar.

[daily-media]

Ex MP Behind IAS Officer's Murder To Be Freed As Bihar Tweaks Prison Rules

Among those who will be released is former MP Anand Mohan Singh who was convicted in the 1994 murder of then Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah.

New Delhi/Patna: The Bihar government today notified the release of 27 prisoners, days after amending the Bihar Prison Manual that triggered a massive opposition backlash. Among those who will be released is former MP Anand Mohan Singh who was convicted in the 1994 murder of bureaucrat G Krishnaiah.

G Krishnaiah, then Gopalganj District Magistrate, was killed by a mob allegedly provoked by Anand Mohan Singh. The gangster-turned-politician was sentenced to death in 2007 by a lower court in Bihar. The Patna High Court, however, commuted it to life imprisonment; that order was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012.

Earlier this month, the Bihar government had removed the clause which had forbidden the remission of jail term for those convicted of murdering a public servant on duty.

In its notification, the state’s law department said that the new rules were for prisoners who have served the actual sentence of 14 years or a sentence of 20 years with remission.

“In light of the Bihar state sentence remission council meeting on April 20, the decision was taken for the release of prisoners having served actual sentence of 14 years or sentence of 20 years with remission,” the notification said.

The change in rules and Anand Mohan Singh’s release has stirred up huge controversy, with Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) terming the change in rules as “anti-Dalit”.

“The move by the Nitish government to prepare the release of Anand Mohan after changing rules in the case of the brutal murder of extremely honest IAS officer G Krishnaiah, who belonged to a poor Dalit family from Andhra Pradesh’s Mehboobnagar (now in Telangana), is being discussed for negative and anti-Dalit reasons in the whole country,” Ms Mayawati tweeted on Sunday.

She asked the Nitish Kumar government to reconsider the decision, saying that Anand Mohan Singh’s release would anger the Dalit community.

BJP’s IT Cell head Amit Malviya also hit out at Nitish Kumar. “Can someone who is leaning on a criminal syndicate, to hold on to power, be the face of India, even as opposition leader?” Mr Malviya tweeted on Monday.

The ruling Janata Dal (United) hit back at the BJP, with a “B-team in UP” jibe also at Mayawati. In a tweet, JDU leader Rajiv Ranjan Singh said that the change in rules was aimed at getting the common man and special prisoners on a uniform platform.

The change in the Bihar prison manual benefits Anand Mohan Singh, a Rajput leader with considerable influence on his caste voters.

For the last two years, several politicians from the Rajput community have been demanding Singh’s early release. Even Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has on multiple occasions hinted that he “stands by his former colleague”.

[avitaknews]

कानून का राज कायम करना सिर्फ सरकार का काम नहीं, न्यायपालिका की भी बहुत बड़ी भूमिका- नीतीश

कानून का राज कायम करना सिर्फ सरकार का काम नहीं, न्यायपालिका की भी बहुत बड़ी भूमिका- नीतीश

बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार ने लोगों को न्याय दिलाने के लिए सरकार की ओर से न्यायपालिका की जरूरतों को पूरा करने का वचन देते हुए कहा कि कानून का राज कायम करना सिर्फ सरकार का काम नहीं है, न्यायपालिका की भी बहुत बड़ी भूमिका है। मुख्यमंत्री कुमार ने सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश शरद अरविंद बोबेडे और केंद्रीय कानून मंत्री रविशंकर प्रसाद की मौजूदगी में पटना उच्च न्यायालय के शताब्दी भवन के…

[lalmohanpatnaik]

From Circuit Court to High Court

During the colonial rule, Orissa was part of the Bengal province under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The British government formed the new province of Bihar & Orissa on March 22, 1912. But the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court continued over Orissa till the Patna High Court came into existence.

Records related to the history of Orissa High Court say the territory of Bihar and Orissa were earlier under the jurisdiction of the High Court of judicature of Fort William (Calcutta) in Bengal. A letter patent issued on February 16, 1916, by King George V constituted the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the province of Bihar and Orissa.

Patna High Court started functioning with seven judges including the Chief Justice and a Circuit Court for Odisha began functioning in Cuttack three months later.

The Circuit court in Cuttack was the precursor of Orissa High Court. It had its first sitting on May 18, 1916. It was the first of its kind in India and was somewhat an experiment.

Barrister Madhusudan Das was the president of the Cuttack Bar Association at that time. In his address welcoming the move, Das expressed hope that the circuit court would become a permanent bench for Orissa in future.

On April 1, 1936, Orissa was made a separate province, but it was not given a separate high court. What followed was a growing demand for Orissa to have its own High Court with several representations being submitted to the Government. On July 26, 1938 the High Court Bar Association at Cuttack adopted a Resolution demanding a separate High Court for Orissa.

Subsequently, the Government of Orissa by a resolution on August 15, 1942 constituted a committee to examine a question of establishing a High Court for Orissa. This committee comprised Bira Kishore Ray (the then Advocate General) as Chairman, Bichitrananda Das (Member of Legislative Assembly), Rai Bahadur Chintamani Acharya (President of High Court Bar Association), D.N. Narsingh Rao (Advocate) as Members and J.E. Maher (Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs) as the Secretary.

The Committee’s report was published on December 31 1943. Consequent upon the government accepting the Committee’s recommendations the Governor of Orissa submitted an address to the Governor General of India on March 3, 1948 that a High Court, be constituted for the Province of Orissa.

According to the records the Governor-General of India issued the Orissa High Court Order on April 30, 1948. It provided for constitution of the High Court for the Province of Orissa from July 5, 1948. Then, by Orissa High Court (Amendment) Order 1948 the date of formation was changed and H.J. Karania, the then Chief Justice of the Federal Court of India, inaugurated Orissa High Court on July 26, 1948.

The High Court started functioning with four Judges including  B.K.Ray as the Chief Justice with 1900 cases. As of January 31,2021, the sanctioned number of judges stood at 27. By the time of its 75th foundation day on July 26th, 2022, it stands further increased to 33 (22 permanent judges and 11 additional Judges) and the number of cases pending before it was over 1.8 lakh.

According to the annual report published by the high court in February 2022 after a gap of six years the formal alteration of the name of the state from ‘Orissa’ to ‘Odisha’ was made effective by the Orissa (Alteration of Name) Act, 2011. The Government of Odisha on 21st March 2012, issued the Odisha Adaptation of Laws Order, 2012 making it effective from 1st November 2011. The above change was reflected by the corresponding changes in the text of the Constitution of India. However, the corresponding change in the name of the High Court awaits the change to the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, the report said.

A new building of the Orissa High Court was inaugurated on November 11, 2012. Functioning of court proceedings was shifted to the new seven-storey building on January 2, 2014. With 1.68 lakh sq ft carpet area, the new building has 22 courtrooms and 22 chambers for judges along with lounges for them and other state-of-the-art facilities. The century-old court building has now been designated as a heritage building.

[seemabhatnagar]

Reformatory Punishment

Distinctive way of dealing with the accused. It is more of reformative and constructive approach by the State and the Court. Normally, State opposes bail application. Here, instead of opposing the bail State came out with reformative suggestion and simultaneously imposing responsibility. Radhe Sharma v. The State of Bihar Crl. Misc Case No. 57511/2022 Before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, Patna High Court This a case where alleged accused Radhe Sharma is seeking anticipatory Bail before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, for the offences punishable u/s 21AA of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1972 & Section 15* of the Environment Act 1986. Section 15* if any person fails to comply with or contravenes any provisions of this Act, or rules made or orders or directions issued, he would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine up to Rs. 1 Lakh, or with both. Contention of the petitioner's Counsel He is falsely implicated in the case. The allegation levelled against him are general not specific. Distinctive approach of the State Counsel Mr. Naresh Dixit If the petitioner plants 500 trees in the area specified by the District Mines Officer, Sheikhpura and undertakes to take responsibility for their up-keeping for a period of six months, the State has no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, for which plants will be given to the petitioner free of cost by the District Mines Officer, Sheikhpura. Order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court Petitioner is released on bail. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to abide by the terms and conditions as submitted by the State's Counsel and recorded by this Court, the Mines Department will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner before the Court below.

[iaseasy-world-blog]

Saddler University Commission

Prologue to the Saddler University Commission

In 1917, the Government of India named a Commission to study and give an account of the issues of the Calcutta University following the order of The Universities Act of 1904. The commission was predominantly built with the express witticism to esquire into the condition and prospects of the college of Calcutta and to consider the subject of a useful approach according to the inquiry it presents. The commission was selected under the chairmanship of M.E. Saddler who was the bad habit Chancellor of the college of Leeds. The Saddler University Commission likewise included two Indian Members, specifically Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee and Zia-ud-noise Ahmed. The Saddler University Commission detailed that the state of the optional training should be improved so as to improve the standard of college Education.

The commission visited all the college focuses and following 17 months, presented its report in 1919. It is an extremely long and noteworthy report. The report comprise of 13 volumes, giving a basic and far reaching overview of instructive issues of auxiliary, university and college training in India. In spite of the fact that it manages the Calcutta University just, the issue that it considered were pretty much basic to the next Indian Universities moreover. The proposals, in this way, were similarly pertinent to different colleges in the nation. Consequently, the report of the commission had broad outcomes upon the advancement of college instruction in India overall.

Proposals of the Saddler University Commission

In the assessment of the Saddler University Commission, it was unrealistic to achieve progressive changes in the field of advanced education without making changes in optional instruction. In this way, some crucial changes were recommended in the optional training for improving the advanced degree.

The Saddler University Commission consequently prescribed that the isolating line between the college and the optional courses ought to be drawn at the Intermediate assessment as opposed to at the Matriculation and the Government ought to make another sort of foundation called Intermediate Colleges.

The educational program of these Intermediate universities ought to comprise courses identified with Arts, Science, Engineering, Industrial training and so forth.

In the wake of clearing the middle of the road assessment as opposed to the Matriculation Examination, the understudies would be qualified for enter the college.

The span of the degree course after the middle of the road state ought to be restricted to three years. For these two unique branches was made in the Intermediate schools. For the qualified understudies the arrangements of respects degree and for the general understudies, there was the arrangement of Pass Course.

Leading body of Secondary and Intermediate Education, comprising of the agents of Government, University, High Schools and Intermediate Colleges be built up and endowed with the organization and control of Secondary Education.

The commission likewise suggested less unbending nature in the confining the principles and guidelines of the colleges.

It likewise suggested the foundation of an Inter University Board for organizing the exercises of various Indian colleges.

Independent organizations were to be given greater support.

Brought together private training colleges were to be energized. These organizations were additionally to be offered self-sufficiency to encourage their everyday working.

Ladies training was to be energized in a major manner. The foundation of an extraordinary Board of ladies Education in the Calcutta University other than numerous different offices that would enable an ever increasing number of ladies to take up course in school, universities and Universities.

Arrangements of offices was to be made for preparing educators and setting up the Department of Education at the Universities of Calcutta and Decca.

The Saddler Commission suggested for the brought together unitary showing self-ruling bodies. A unitary instructing college was prescribed for Dacca so the weight of understudies can be diminished from the Calcutta University.

Further the Saddler Commission likewise underscored the development of schools in the towns.

It supported the development of new college focuses with the goal that the advanced education could be spread appropriately.

Its Impact

It prompted increment in the quantity of colleges. Because of the recommendations of the Saddler University Commission, various new colleges were opened in the nation. Of these, the colleges at Patna, Osmania, Aligarh, Dacca, Lucknow, Delhi, Agra, Nagpur, Hyderabad and Annamalai might be referenced. The number expanded upto 30 inside 1930.

It prompted beginning of showing work by the colleges. It not just expanded in numbers, training work likewise began in various colleges. It merits referencing that the elements of the first three colleges built up in Quite a while, to be specific, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were restricted to association, assessment and presenting degrees. Instructing was the capacity of degree schools and there was no arrangement for post-graduate training. Be that as it may, after the proposal of the commission the quantity of instructing colleges and private colleges expanded. The majority of the recently settled colleges were instructing colleges.

The suggestions of the Saddler University Commission demonstrated productive in the improvement of scholastic standard. Scholarly exercises expanded in the colleges and schools with the presentation of Honors courses. The investigations of various Indian dialects began and offices for higher examinations and research were additionally made. The post of educator was made is the colleges and the way toward welcoming took in resources from abroad to expand the scholastic standpoint was likewise begun. The branch of Education was opened in Calcutta and Dacca colleges.

Improvement of inside organization of the colleges can likewise be seen because of the means proposed by the Saddler University Commission. Interior organization of the colleges improved because of the arrangement of college court and Executive Council in lieu of past Senate and Syndicate. Next to these, the formation of the Academic Council to manage scholastic issues, such, as, educational program development, assessment, inquire about and so on incredibly helped in improving the scholarly standard of the colleges. As proposed by the commission an Inter University Board was likewise set up in 1925 for association and coordination among the distinctive Indian colleges.

Additionally the Saddler University Commission had an arrangement for Students welfare. Just because consideration of the colleges were coordinated towards understudies welfare. A Board of Students Welfare was framed in every college.

[publictaknews]

HC quashes Bihar's PG medical bond clause for central government, PSU employees

HC quashes Bihar’s PG medical bond clause for central government, PSU employees

The Patna High Court on Wednesday ruled that the three-year service bond imposed by the Bihar government on post-graduates (PGs) of state-run medical colleges will not be binding on those already employed in central government departments, its corporations or other authorities, even if Only they took admission under state quota through NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test). A Single Bench…