Top News Headlines 16th Feb 2022: Grant Reservation To Transgender Persons In Public Appointments And Educational Institutions Within 4 Months

Grant Reservation To Transgender Persons In Public Appointments And Educational Institutions Within 4 Months: Rajasthan HC

• The Rajasthan HC has, in the case of Ganga Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan directed the State government to treat members of the transgender community as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and to extend all kinds of reservations to them in cases of public appointments and admissions to educational institutions.
• It is also to be noted here that the Hon’ble Apex Court has, in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India AIR 2014 SC recognised transgenders as a third gender and had also discussed gender identity at length, a much needed discussion in our country.
• The impugned order was made in a writ petition by Ganga Kumari, who sought effective reservation for the transgenders in compliance with the mandate of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision (NALSA vs. Union of India).
• The Counsel for the State had opposed the said plea on the ground that reservation is a prerogative of the State as to the manner or to the extent that the same is to be provided. It was also argued by the State that the petitioner cannot seek that reservation in a particular manner and to a particular extent should be provided.
• Citing various directions of the Apex Court in the NALSA case, the HC clearly mentioned that in para 135.3 of the judgment, the Apex Court has clearly directed the Centre as well as State governments to take steps to treat transgenders as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend to them all kinds of reservations in educational institutions and for public appointments.
• The HC observed that such a direction clearly casts an obligation upon the State to work out reservation for the transgender community in such a manner and to such an extent on the basis of the relevant data available.
• The Court also noted that much time has elapsed since the said directions were issued and the State should have already come out with proper rules and regulations to give effect to the orders of the Supreme Court. Hence, the HC directed the State to carry out the same within a period of four months.

Section 30 Of The Partnership Act Will Be Applicable Only If The Minor Is A Partner Of The Firm On The Date Of Attaining Majority: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), in the case of State of Kerala v Laxmi Vasant, has held that sub section 5 of Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act) shall apply only if a person who was admitted into partnership when he was a minor, continues to be a partner on the date of attaining majority.
• The SC held that the such person shall not be liable for any past dues of the firm when he/ she was a partner, being a minor.
• Brief facts are that the Respondent, Laxmi Vasanth and one J. Raj Mohan Pillai were inducted as partners of a partnership firm, when they were minors. The firm was later reconstituted and the two minor partners were removed. Thereafter, a sales tax demand was raised against the partnership firms and the two minors, who had then attained majority.
• The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the minor duo quashing and setting aside the tax demand against them.
• Before the SC, the Appellant contended that the minors did not give any notice required under Section 30(5) of the Act and upon such failure, they became deemed partners of the partnership firm. The Respondents, in their argument, stated that a notice must be given if they still the partners on attaining majority. However, since they were removed as partners, they cannot be deemed to be the partners on account of non-compliance of Section 30(5).
• Disagreeing with the contentions raised by the Respondent and dismissing the appeal, the SC observed that in the instant case, Section 30(5) shall not be applicable at all.

Condition To Deposit 50% Of Amount To Appeal Against Order Of NCRDC Not Applicable For Complaints Filed Under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), in the case of ECGC Limited v Mokul Shriram EPC JV, has held that the onerous condition to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the award shall not be applicable if the complaint was filed before the commencement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘New Act’ or ‘the 2019 Act’).
• The complaint in the present case was before the New Act came into force. However, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowed the complaint only after the commencement of the new Act.
• The Court also decided on the retrospective application of the 2019 Act (discussed later).
• The question for the adjudication before the SC was whether the appeal would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Old Act) or under the New Act since both the Acts prescribe different pecuniary conditions to file an appeal before the SC.
• The Appellant submitted that the condition prescribed under Section 51 of the New Act with regard to deposit of award for an appeal to be filed before the SC is more onerous than the condition provided under the Old Act and demanding a sum equal to 50% or more from the Appellant would be in violation of the principle that the law which is applicable at the time of initiation of lis would be applicable.
• Further, the appellant also submitted that Sec 107 of the New Act and Sec 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (General Clauses Act) unequivocally operate against retrospective application and this legal position has not been changed under the New Act. Section 106 of the New Act protects actions taken under the Old Act insofar as they are not inconsistent with the New Act. Unless a different intention appears, repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability under any enactment so repealed.
• To support its arguments, decisions in case of Nagendra Nath Bose v Mon Mohan Singha Roy & Ors , Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd v State of MP & Ors and Garikapathy Veeraya v N Subbaiah Choudhary & Sons were relied upon by the Appellant.
• Allowing the appeal, the SC held that in view of binding precedents, the onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act.
• With regards to the retrospective applicability, SC affirmed the ratio laid down in earlier cases which states that if one condition that was already available in the statute for the exercise of a right of appeal, is merely replaced by another condition, the same cannot be said to be retrospective, unless it is definitely shown that the amended condition is more onerous than the unamended condition.