The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the MBBS students seeking extending one-year internship deadline beyond May 31, criteria for aspirants for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-PG-22, to make a representation to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath said that looking at the hardship faced by the aspirants, the MoHFW may decide on the representation within one week from the date of its submission. The bench said that it is not expressing any opinion on the issue at this stage. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the MBBS Students, said that the examination has been extended but there is one important criterion that needs to be looked into. He said that the criteria are that students appearing for the examination have to complete a one-year mandatory internship by May 31, 2022, to be eligible for the NEET-PG-22 examination. This May 31, the deadline can be extended by a month or two, he said. The bench said that it would be like stepping into the policy decision as there is no uniform date for commencement of the internship. Suppose, even if we extend the May 31, deadline by a month or two, there may be a group of students who still miss out on the one-year deadline. It is more of a policy decision, let the government consider your representation, the bench said. The top court noted that the date of NEET-PG-22, which was earlier scheduled to be held in March, has now been extended. Source: Business Standard

Bank employees hold the position of trust where honesty and integrity are essential conditions and any irregularity on their part should not be dealt with leniently, the Supreme Court said on Friday. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka made the observation while upholding an order of dismissal against a bank clerk for serious irregularities in discharge of his duties. Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently, the bench said. The apex court said that looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate. The employee joined service as a Clerk-cum-Typist in 1973 and while in service committed serious irregularities in discharge of his duties and was placed under suspension by an Order dated August 7, 1995. He was later served with the charge sheet along with the statement of allegation on March 2, 1996. After the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with the disciplinary rules of the bank, the inquiry officer found the charges proved. He was dismissed from service by an order dated December 6, 2000 and the appellate authority also rejected the appeal by the employee. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the record of the domestic inquiry, finally arrived at the conclusion that inquiry was fair and proper and the charges stood proved. It, however, observed that the punishment awarded to the employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him and substituted the punishment of dismissal with an order of reinstatement after lowering down of two stages in his basic salary. The order was upheld by the Patna High Court which was challenged by the bank before the apex court.  Source: Business Standard

The Supreme Court on Friday asked whether parties connected with cases involving quota in private sector – based on domicile – can be heard together. A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R, Gavai said: “If the matters are pending before other high courts, we can hear the larger issue after calling for the papers from high courts…” The top court was hearing an appeal by the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court interim stay, on its law to give 75 per cent reservation to the youths belonging to the state in the private sector. The bench said Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh government policies granting reservation on the basis of domicile have been challenged in the high courts. It further queried the parties in the Haryana matter, whether matters of other states could be brought to the top court for adjudication along with Haryana government’s policy. The top court asked parties, including the Haryana government, to find out the pending cases in high courts and inform it on Monday whether they are agreeable on hearing matters together. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Haryana government, submitted at the beginning of the hearing that only a handful of people are opposed to the state’s policy. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said he will consult with his clients. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing one of the parties, emphasised that the matter requires examination by the top court. In a special leave petition, the Haryana government contended that the interim order was passed in the teeth of law laid down by the top court in Bhavesh D. Parish vs Union of India (2000), and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. “It is submitted that the hearing granted by the High Court was mere empty formality, whereby, the High Court with a predetermined conclusion opened the hearing by saying that they Act is liable to be stayed and thereafter did not afford any opportunity to the law officer appearing on behalf of the state of Haryana,” said the plea. “Violation of principles of natural justice is manifest from the fact the entire hearing in the matter concluded within one minute,” it added. On February 3, in a setback to the BJP-JJP government in Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the state government law to give 75 per cent reservation to the youths belonging to the state in the private sector. The law under the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 is applicable in industries having more than 10 employees. In a petition, the Faridabad Industrial Association said the impugned Act was against the provisions of Constitution and also against the basic principle of meritocracy that acted as the foundation for businesses to grow and remain competitive. Source: Business Standard

The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the real estate developer Supertech over non-payment to the homebuyers for the flats, which were ordered to be demolished. A Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud told Supertech to keep their office in order and to make the payment to home buyers by January 17. It said that no amount should be deducted while giving back the money. The bench told the counsel appearing for Supertech, “Interest cannot be charged on return of investment. You are looking for all sorts of reasons to not comply with the order of the court. Ensure that the payments are made by Monday, else there would be consequences.” The top court was hearing a contempt plea by home buyers who paid for the flats on which apex court judgment of August 31, 2021, directed demolition of the twin-tower 40 storeys building of Supertech’s Emerald Court project at Noida. Homebuyers alleged that Supertech invited them to collect their money. However, when they approached the company, they were told that the money would be paid back in installments together with certain deductions which were not indicated by the court. The top court further asked Noida Authority to finalise the name of the agency that would be given the task to demolish the twin towers of the Supertech Emerald Court housing project. The top court has now posted the matter for hearing on Monday. Earlier, the apex court had dismissed a plea of Supertech seeking modification of its August 31 order by which it was directed to demolish two of its 40-storey towers at its Emerald Court housing project in Noida. While directing the demolition of two towers over grave violations of building norms, the court had said that it was a result of “nefarious complicity” between Noida Authority and the Supertech and ordered that company shall carry out the demolition at its own expense within three months under the supervision of the Noida Authority and an expert body like the Central Building Research Institute. The order had come on a batch of petitions filed by homebuyers for and against the April 11, 2014 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which had ordered the demolition of the two buildings within four months and the refund of money to apartment buyers. Source: business-standard.com

In regards to a  case of custody battle between a US resident and his wife for their minor boy, the Supreme Court noted that welfare of the minor are of predominant consideration. It further stated  that the rights of the parties to a custody dispute are irrelevant. It said the consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents. “The principle that the welfare of the minor shall be the predominant consideration and that the rights of the parties to a custody dispute are irrelevant has been consistently followed by this court,” a bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said. “The consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents,” the bench said. It said that a custody dispute involves human issues which are always complex and complicated and what is in the welfare of the child depends on several factors. There can never be a straight jacket formula to decide the issue of custody of a minor child as what is in the paramount interest of a minor is always a question of fact, it said. ( With PTI Inputs)

New Delhi [India], December 21 (ANI): A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a fresh national accreditation policy that ensures the optimum doctor to patient and nurse to patient ratio is adhered to in all the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) hospitals and those who apply for accreditation. The plea filed by the Indian Professional Nurses Association, a non-governmental registered body working for the welfare of the nurses across India, also prayed to direct the Quality Council of India and the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) to place on record the documents it peruses while granting accreditation. The plea also sought direction for forming a committee to monitor the quality of patient care, patient safety and satisfaction. The petitioner said that the plea has been filed in light of the RTI responses and also in the context of the overburden put on medical staff during the ongoing pandemic. In the RTI response, Quality Council of India admits that it has no specified norms related to the patient-nurses ratio and it has further stated that it has not conducted any survey or study to monitor the quality of patient care, patient safety and patient satisfaction. “Most important, this petition is trying to emphasize that adherence of patient-nurse and the patient-doctor ratio is extremely significant from the point of view of patient safety,” it stated. Quality Council of India and NABH themselves claim to be the apex body that sets the basic standards for healthcare quality and patient safety has never conducted a survey or study to see if hospitals are ensuring patient safety. “There is a dire need of a fresh policy of accreditation as respondent number one and two are relying on the documents submitted by hospitals,” it added. There is also a need for NABH to conduct surprise visits along with pre-informed inspections in hospitals to monitor if the safety standards are being complied by the said hospitals, said the plea. (ANI)

Supreme Court: In a case where the NCDRC had condoned a delay for a period beyond the prescribed statutory outer limit just before the decision of the Constitution Bench on 4 March 2020 wherein it was held that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that the Constitution Bench judgment would not affect applications that were pending or decided before 4 March 2020. The Court made clear that such applications for condonation would be entitled to the benefit of the position in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd.,  (2021) 3 SCC 673, which directed consumer fora to render a decision on merits. Factual Background While entertaining a Consumer Complaint, the NCDRC has condoned the delay of 100 days in filing a written statement. The order of the NCDRC was a few days before the judgment of a Constitution Bench dated 4 March 2020, in New India Assurance company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 which held that the limitation period under Section 13(2)3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 could not be extended beyond the statutorily prescribed period of forty-five days. The appellants filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC on 3 December 2018 based on two insurance policies on the ground of an alleged fire that took place at the factory of the appellant. The respondent received the summons on 20 May 2019 together with the order of the NCDRC and a complete set of papers consisting of the consumer complaint and documents. The respondent filed its written statement on 23 September 2019 together with IA No 15390 of 2019 for condonation of a delay of 100 days. The NCDRC, by its order dated 25 February 2020, condoned the delay subject to the respondent paying costs of Rs 50,000. What led to the confusion? A series of judgments, before and after the Constitution Bench verdict, gave contradictory views with respect to discretion of NCDRC to condone the delay beyond 45 days. Here’s how the various Supreme Court verdicts created uncertainty: Reference to the Constitution Bench The decision in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, which was a three Judge Bench decision, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five Judge Bench. During the pendency of the matter before the Constitution Bench Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Grand Venezia Buyers Association, (2018) 17 SCC 255 Parties were permitted to file written statements beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to payment of appropriate costs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd.,  (2021) 3 SCC 673 The consumer fora may accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter. Constitution Bench Verdict New India Assurance company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 [Constitution Bench] The Constitution Bench reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J.Merchant and held that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all. “28. It is true that “justice hurried is justice buried”. But in the same breath it is also said that “justice delayed is justice denied”. The legislature has chosen the latter, and for a good reason. It goes with the objective sought to be achieved by the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide speedy justice to the consumer. It is not that sufficient time to file a response to the complaint has been denied to the opposite party. It is just that discretion of extension of time beyond 15 days (after the 30 days’ period) has been curtailed and consequences for the same have been provided under Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It may be that in some cases the opposite party could face hardship because of such provision, yet for achieving the object of the Act, which is speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, hardship which may be caused to a party has to be ignored.” The decision was rendered on 11 February 2021 after the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra). That was a case where the NCDRC in a judgment dated 4 September 2020, had confirmed the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 26 September 2018 rejecting an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Ultimately it was left to the concerned fora to accept written statements beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case. Conclusion Having regard to the prospective effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited and the orders in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Bhasin Infotech, which had recognized an element of discretion pending the reference, the Court held that no case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits. [Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1241, decided on 14.12.2021] Source: scconline.com