On Monday (March 1, 2021), a PIL was dismissed by the
Supreme Court which challenged the constitutionality of Rule 6(1) of the Indian Police Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954. It grants the power to the Central Government to override the states in matters of deputation as well as transfer of IPS Cadre Officers. The PIL had been filed by Abu Sohel, a lawyer based in Bengal which was taken up by the SC bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao.
The rule 6(1) of the Indian Police Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954 states: "6.
Deputation of Cadre Officers:
6(1) A cadre Officer may, with the concurrence of the state government or the state governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government or under a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Government.
Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government and the State Government or State Governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government.
It was urged by the petitioner Abu Sohel, "Such being the prevalent situation in the country, there have been several face offs between Centre and the State which ultimately threatened the federal structure of our constitution.”
He also went on to contend that the intent of the makers behind this rule can be understood, which is to create harmony between the Centre and the State on overlap of power. However, the opposite scenario has been prevailing which raises questions on the establishment of the said impugned rule.
In his contentions, Sohel pointed out, "That in 2001, the infamous and ugly spat took place between the Centre and the Government of Tamil Nadu when the Centre decided to call back three IPS from the state of Tamil Nadu.
The petition highlighted various other instances of conflicts. One of the recent ones was of the calling back of three IPS officers from the State of West Bengal "with utmost political vendetta against the interest of State and State machineries.”
Lastly, the petition alleged that there remains a contrariety between Rule 5(1) and Rule 6(1). Rule 5(1) empowers the Central Government for allocation of officers to various cadres in consultation with the State Government.
Collegium Recommendations Pending with the Center for Over 6 Months Will Be Decided Within 3 Months, AG Tells Supreme Court
Legal Insiders
Apr 16, 2021
Athira Nair
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
4 Shares
In line with the latest announcement by the the Attorney General, the Center will decide the collegium recommendations made by the Supreme Court within three months. They have been pending with the ministry for over 6 months.The bench that comprised of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, have recorded this submission made by the AG.“This case would be brought to a reasonable conclusion if the center tells us the timeline it will be sticking to at every...
Entries in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor sufficient acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act: SC [READ JUDGMENT]
Judiciary
Apr 16, 2021
Mathews Savio
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
1 Shares
The Supreme Court in its judgement in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL NO.323 OF 2021) clarified the question of law and held that entries in the balance sheet can be taken as an acknowledgement of outstanding debt for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The judgement came from a bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy.Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends the period of...
![Bail Granted by Lucknow High Court to Record Keeper of Civil Court revoked by SC in line with the seriousness of accusations [READ JUDGMENT]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/04/lj_6151_high.jpg)
![SC Reserves Order in Bail Plea of Former Karnataka Minister and Mining Baron Gali Janardhan Reddy [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/04/lj_9581_sc.jpg)
Facebook Comments