Government servants should not be appointed Election Commissioners;

Government servants should not be appointed Election Commissioners;

Independence of Election Commission cannot be compromised: Supreme Court  Supreme Court noted that it was a disturbing feature that a government servant, while being in employment with government, was in charge of election commission in Goa.

Election Commission

Debayan Roy  BAR AND BENCH

Published on : 12 Mar, 2021 , 11:26 am

Central and State governments should not appoint persons holding government office as Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday stating that entrusting additional charge of State Election Commissioner to a government official is a mockery of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy upholding the High Court judgment underscored that independence of Election Commission cannot be compromised and that State Election Commissioners have to be independent persons.

None of the states can appoint a person who holds any office with the government (as Election Commissioner), the Court added.

The judgment came on an appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court which had set aside the election notification issued by the Goa State Election Commission in the municipalities of Margao, Mapusa, Mormugao, Sanguem and Quepem.

The top court gave a direction to all states to comply with the constitutional scheme of independent SEC if they are in default.

The High Court had allowed the State Election Commission to continue the election process in other municipalities while disallowing the same in five municipalities for not reserving the wards for women as required under the law.

Supreme Court today held that it was a disturbing feature that a government servant, while being in employment with government, was in charge of election commission in Goa.

The top court further observed that an officer of the government attempted to over rule the High Court decision with regard to holding Panchayat polls.

An Officer Who Did The Assessment Could Only Undertake Re-assessment Under Section 28 (4) Of Customs Act: Supreme Court

An Officer Who Did The Assessment Could Only Undertake Re-assessment Under Section 28 (4) Of Customs Act: Supreme Court: The Supreme Court observed that an officer who did the assessment, could only undertake re-assessment under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act.The issue considered by the Court in this case was whether...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: February 2021

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: February 2021: JUDGMENTS 1. Collusive Commercial Transactions With Corporate Debtor Will Not Constitute 'Financial Debt' Under IBC: Supreme Court [Case: Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial...

I Had To Use Tiger Balm After Reading It', Says Justice MR Shah Over 'Incomprehensible' High Court Judgment

I Had To Use Tiger Balm After Reading It', Says Justice MR Shah Over 'Incomprehensible' High Court Judgment

Mehal Jain12 March 2021 2:55 PM

I Had To Use Tiger Balm After Reading It, Says Justice MR Shah Over Incomprehensible High Court Judgment

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure at the incomprehensible manner in which judgments are coming to be written by High Courts.

The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing a SLP arising out of an order passed by a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a writ petition under Article 226, which in turn arose from an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The High Court had confirmed the order of the CGIT as regards the charge of misconduct against an employee.

"What judgement has been written?!", exclaimed Justice Chandrachud in Hindi.

Replying in Hindi, Justice Shah concurred, "I did not understand anything. There are long, long sentences. Then, there is an odd comma showing up anywhere After reading, I did not understand anything. I started doubting my own understanding!"

"I had to use Tiger balm", quipped Justice Shah.

"Judgments must be such which everyone can understand...And the judge says that the charge of misconduct has been proved!", noted the bench.

"I sat down to read it at 10:10 AM. It was 10:55 by the time I completed! I was like, 'Can you imagine this?' Finally, I had to look for the award of the CGIT itself. Oh, my God! I am telling you, this is unbelievable!", remarked Justice Chandrachud.

"This is a dislocation of justice. In every matter, you find a just judgement like this", continued the judge.

"It is said that the judgement must be as simple as it can be so that everyone can understand. It is not supposed to be a thesis", commented Justice Shah.

"In this regard, we speak of Justice Krishna Iyer. His judgements used to have a profound thought, a profound sense of learning behind the artistry of words", said Justice Chandrachud.

"Reading the order of the division bench of November 27, 2020, we note that the reasons recorded by the High Court in the long judgement of 18 pages are not comprehensible. The kind of reasoning and language employed is inexplicable", the bench stated.

"We are at our wit's end. This is happening repeatedly", expressed Justice Chandrachud.

"Brother, should we say something on how to write judgements? That simple language should be used in conveying what you are trying to say?", said Justice Shah.

"Judgements are needed to convey the reasoning and process of thought underlining the conclusion which is arrived at by the adjudicatory forum.

Judgments must be understandable not only to the members of the bar who have appeared in the matter or to those for whom they hold value as a precedent but must also have meaning to the general litigants who have to approach the courts for the enforcement of their rights. Otherwise, there is a disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to all", added Justice Chandrachud to the order.

'I Had To Use Tiger Balm After Reading It', Says Justice MR Shah Over 'Incomprehensible' High Court Judgment

'I Had To Use Tiger Balm After Reading It', Says Justice MR Shah Over 'Incomprehensible' High Court Judgment: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure at the incomprehensible manner in which judgments are coming to be written by High Courts.The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R.

Delay 2nd dose for more efficacy: Experts

Delay 2nd dose for more efficacy: Experts

Nisha.Nambiar@timesgroup.com

Pune:12.03.2021 

Public health experts, citing emerging evidence, have said that India could consider delaying the second dose of the Covid vaccine to improve immunogenicity. Currently, the follow-up shot is being given 28 days later. Experts TOI spoke to said the country could look beyond that timeline.

Dr Gagandeep Kang, a member of Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), which is advising the World Health Organization, said the decision to delay was not just about supply constraints, but improved efficacy too.

A recently published Lancet study said the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine — made in India by Serum Institute as Covishield — showed greater efficacy when its second dose was administered after a gap of 12 weeks, instead of four. The study was based on results from over 17,000 trial participants. The researchers found that efficacy of the shot had risen from an average of 55.1% (after two doses were given fewer than six weeks apart) to 81.3% when the interval was at least12 weeks.

Dr Lalit Kant, former head of ICMR’s Epidemiology and Communicable diseases division said models have shown a delayed second dose offers better protection, but real-world conditions can differ. “Delayed doses can protect a higher number of people quickly when supplies are limited. But in India, we don’t seem to have a shortage of vaccines. So the benefit is in terms of improving the level of protection.”

Dr Kant added, “A closer look at the Lancet study shows the sample size was too small to draw a meaningful conclusion. Therefore, studies with adequate sample sizes are needed before we can think of changing India’s vaccination schedule for Covishield.”

Covishield to cost less than ₹200/dose

The Indian government has lowered the price at which it buys AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine doses being produced by the Serum Institute of India (SII), the federal health secretary said on Thursday. “The renegotiated price is significantly lower than Rs 200 ($2.75) per dose,” health secretary Rajesh Bhushan said. The SII has licensed the vaccine from AstraZeneca and Oxford University and markets it as Covishield. REUTERS

‘Not trying to win a race with vaccinations’

‘Not trying to win a race with vaccinations’

New Delhi:12.03.2021 

The health ministry on Thursday said the vaccination programme against Covid-19 is being ramped up adequately in a steady manner, even as the government’s efforts are not aimed at winning any race.

Asked if the pace of vaccination has dropped in last few days after achieving the milestone of administering 20 lakh does in a day on March 8, health secretary Rajesh Bhushan said, “What we are looking at is a steady increase. We are not trying to win a race.”

Talking about accelerating inoculations, Bhushan said on March 4, 10 lakh vaccines were administered in 24 hours, while on March 8, 20 lakh vaccines were given in 24 hours. TNN