DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (27 FEBRUARY 2025) - Supreme Court rules on key issues: Rakesh Asthana's appointment, pension rights, and election disqualification, reaffirming legal principles while leaving critical questions open for future consideration.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (27 FEBRUARY 2025)
SUPREME COURT DISPOSES OF CHALLENGE TO EX-DELHI POLICE COMMISSIONER RAKESH ASTHANA'S APPOINTMENT
Case Name: Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C)
Recently the Supreme Court disposed of Rakesh Asthan's appointment case as Delhi Police Commissioner. But it raised a legal question regarding the previous judgement delivered in this regard in the Praksah Singh case. Whether Delhi Police Commissioner comes under purview of previous order. The Court held that issue is now infructuous due to Rakesh Asthana's retirement but it allowed further consideration.
Legal Provision & Framework:
- Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006): Guidelines for appointing DGPs
- Union Territories (AGMUT Cadre) Service Rules: Governs postings in Delhi Police
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT: EMPLOYEE CAN'T BE DENIED PENSION IF ABSENCE WAS REGULARIZED AS EXTRAORDINARY LEAVE
Case Name: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Supreme Court decided that if a retired government employee's unapproved absence was approved as extraordinary leave, they cannot be denied their pension. The court ordered officials to finish the pension, ruling that absences that are regularized do not count as "breaks in service" for pension denial.
Legal Provision & Framework:
- Pension Rules: Requirements for government employees to receive pensions
- FR 17-A ( Fundamental Rules): Basic Regulations: Handles Extraordinary Leave
Source:Supreme Court of India
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (27 FEBRUARY 2025)
SUPREME COURT: LIFETIME BAN ON CONVICTED POLITICIANS A MATTER FOR PARLIAMENT
Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court recently heard a plea regarding life long disqualification of politicians from running office even if they have served the jail term. The petition is filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging validity of section 8 and 9 of Representations of People Act, 1951. The Center in response argued against the plea and mentioned disqualification is a matter of legislative policy, petitioner is asking for re-writing of the provisions and this approach is not known to judicial review.
Legal Provision & Framework:
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951: Guidelines for disqualifying MPs with convictions
- Separation of Powers under the Constitution: Parliament's control over election legislation
Source:Supreme Court of India
Also Read-DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (26 FEBRUARY 2025)