Allahabad High Court Current Affairs - 2020
Category Wise PDF Compilations available at This Link
The Union Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has cleared the ordinance for the Reservation Roster for University Teachers.
What was the issue?
Following an order by the Allahabad high court in April 2017, the University Grants Commission had announced in March last year that an individual department should be considered as the base unit to calculate the number of teaching posts to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
This order of UGC led to a series of protests. The protestors were demanding the restoration of the 200-point roster and the government had filed a review petition against the verdict of the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The ordinance has been brought in by the Supreme Court to nullify the verdict of the Supreme Court.
What is the 200-point Roster System?
200 point roster system is a roster system for faculty positions that includes 99 posts reserved for the SC, ST and OBC communities and 101 posts for the unreserved. Under this roster, in case there is a deficit of reserved seats in one department, it could be compensated by more people from the reserved communities in other departments in the university. It considers college or university as a unit for reservation in teaching posts.
Whereas under the new 13 point roster proposed by the UGC, an individual department should be considered as the base unit to calculate the number of teaching posts to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. This system had drawbacks for small departments of the university or college. Also, the 200 point roster system provided an advantage wherein the deficit in reservation in one department could be compensated by other departments. The government has brought an ordinance to restore the 200-point roster system.
Tags: 13 point roster • 200-point roster • Allahabad High Court • Ordinance • Reservation Roster
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the practice of triple talaq (Talaq-e-bidat) among Muslims is unconstitutional and violates the rights of women enshrined in constitution.
The order was passed by HC Justice Suneet Kumar while hearing a petition filed by a woman who claimed her husband arbitrarily divorced her.
Besides, the High Court also held that No Personal Law Board is above the Constitution i.e. it was indirectly referring to All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).
What is the issue?
- Talaq-e-bidat is Muslim man divorcing his wife unilaterally by pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ thrice in one go.
- Thus, it is oral talaq pronounced for irrevocable instantaneous divorce at one go. Many activists say that this practice is not of Islamic origin.
- AIMPLB, a non-government organisation always has held that Talaq-e-bidat is integral part of Muslims and courts have no role to play in Personal Law as it falls under the Fundamental Right to practice religion.
- Supreme Court is also hearing a petition challenging the validity of triple talaq, as several individuals and NGOs have sought a ban on its practice.
- Even, the National Commission of Women (NCW) considers it “highly misused” custom and asked Government to scrap it to protect the rights of Muslim women.
Why triple talaq should be abolished?
The practice of ‘triple talaq’ has enabled husbands to divorce their wives arbitrarily and unilaterally, devoid of any substantiation. It impact adversely on the rights of women to a life of dignity. It also has been abolished in 21 Islamic theocratic countries including Pakistan. It is also against constitutional principles such as gender equality, secularism, international laws etc. Thus, it must be kept in mind that gender equality is a sacred principle of our constitution and modern society. So it is right time to make necessary changes.
What is Government’s position?
Recently Central Government in its affidavit submitted to Supreme Court held that the practice of Triple talaq is against the principles of gender equality, gender justice and dignity enshrined in the Constitution. It is not integral to the right to freedom of religion. It violates right to equality, non-discrimination on the grounds of sex and the right to live with dignity to women in par with men guaranteed in the Constitution.