Madhya Pradesh High Court notice to State govt. over recently notified promotion rules
A Division Bench of acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf on Monday (July 7, 2025) issued the notice while hearing a batch of petitions filed by various government employees who have challenged the constitutional legality of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Promotion Rules, 2025.
The State Government, on June 17, had approved the rules that had been pending for about nine years, with Chief Minister Mohan Yadav saying that the interests of employees from all categories, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, were taken care of while framing the rules.
The petitioners also sought an interim stay on the Rules.
However, the Court has sought the government's response, asking it to clear its stance on the matter before the next hearing, scheduled for July 15.
The court also asked the government to clarify the differences between the fresh rules and the existing rules notified in 2002.
The provisions under the new rules include 20% reservation for the ST and 16% for the SC communities, while the employees from the two communities will also be eligible for promotions based on merit.
Multiple petitions have challenged the provision of reservation in the new rules, citing that the matter of reservation in promotions, made in the 2002 rules, is currently pending in the Supreme Court.
Cabinet Minister Kailash Vijayvargiya, who had briefed the media about the decision taken at a Cabinet meeting, had said that the rules had been made after consultations with the Law Department on various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court so that the process of promotions does not face any legal hurdles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
U.S. Supreme Court clears way for Trump's plans to downsize federal workforce
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs. The Justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency. The Court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Mr. Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a 'demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.' Mr. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Mr. Musk recently left his role. Downsizing of federal workforce Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump's administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illston's order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation's food-safety system and health care for veterans. Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the President's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton. The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labour, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
The ECI does not have unfettered powers
The Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, which will be facing Assembly elections in November. Political parties in the Opposition have alleged that the SIR is aimed at disenfranchising thousands of voters in Bihar by disqualifying them on the ground that they are not citizens of India. The ECI has denied this allegation and justified the revision. In the meantime, many petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the ECI's order. While the controversy centres on the motive behind this exercise being conducted just a couple of months before elections, especially when electoral rolls were revised in 2024, this article focuses on the legality of this exercise and the powers of the ECI to undertake it. Reasons for disqualification Article 326 of the Constitution declares that elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies shall be held on the basis of adult suffrage. This means every adult person is entitled to be a voter provided they are not disqualified on certain specified grounds. There are two essential qualifications of being an elector under this Article: the person should be citizen of India and should be aged not less than 18. The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, lays down disqualifications for registration as an elector. These are namely unsoundness of mind as declared by a competent court, and disqualification from voting as provided in Section 11A of the 1951 RPA. Conditions for registration as a voter are laid down in Section 19 of the RPA: the person should not be less than 18 years of age and they should be ordinarily resident in a constituency. The term 'ordinarily resident' is explained in Section 20, which says a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident merely because they own or possess a dwelling house in that constituency. Also, a person does not cease to be ordinarily resident if they absent themselves temporarily from their ordinary place of residence. The ECI enjoys enormous powers in respect of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, the State Legislatures, and to the offices of the President and Vice President. Article 324 of the Constitution, which empowers the ECI to undertake these tasks, is characterised by the Supreme Court as a 'reservoir of power'. Since the conduct of free and fair elections is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution, the ECI needs to be vested with all the necessary powers to complete its task. Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that the Constitution should confer on any authority unfettered powers. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the ECI can exercise all powers in its discretion in areas which are not covered by any statute but shall act in accordance with the law wherever it exists. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court stated the law as follows: 'Firstly when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition.' The qualifying date Let us look at the relevant provisions of the the RPA to get a perspective on the powers of the ECI in regard to revision of the electoral rolls. Section 21 of the 1950 RPA deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. It speaks of four stages of revisions: (1) before elections to the Lok Sabha or Assembly; (2) before each by-election; (3) on the direction of the ECI in any year; and (4) a special revision for a constituency or part of a constituency with the ECI recording reasons for doing so. All revisions except (4) are done with reference to a qualifying date, which, under Section 14, is the first day of January. The only exception is (4): no qualifying date is mentioned because it can be done any time. The ECI order of June 24 mentions the qualifying date as 01/07/2025 and is a direction under Section 21(2)(b) of the RPA. It can be assumed that the revision being done in Bihar is under the same Section. But under this provision, the qualifying date should be 01/01/2025. The revision then should have been done from January 1, 2025. The qualifying date mentioned in the ECI order has no sanction under the law. Similarly, the term 'special intensive revision' is not found in the law. The only case where a special revision can be ordered by the ECI at any time is in relation to a constituency or a part of it and not in relation to an entire State. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the SIR in Bihar is not in conformity with the provisions of the RPA. The ECI has claimed in its order that it has power under Section 21 to undertake the exercise. True, but that power is limited to a constituency or part of it under Section 21(3) of the Act. While enjoying enormous powers under Article 324, the ECI is responsible to the rule of law and should be amenable to the norms of natural justice as per the Supreme Court. Electoral registration officers cannot summarily reject applications on the ground that foolproof documents are not being furnished to prove citizenship. Rule 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules clearly state that information shall be furnished 'to the best of ability' of the citizens. The ECI cannot ignore this statutory stipulation.
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
CJI Gavai felicitated by Maharashtra Assembly, hailed as
Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], July 8 (ANI): Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was felicitated by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on Monday in recognition of his appointment as the country's 51st Chief Justice. Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde hailed Gavai as a 'jewel of Maharashtra' and a symbol of justice for the marginalised. In his remarks at the event, Shinde said, 'He holds the highest position in the country--it's a joy, and he is a jewel of Maharashtra. He is the pinnacle of our nation's judicial system. He granted rights to Dalits, the oppressed and afflicted. When a true diamond falls, it shines wherever it lands.' Praising the judiciary's role in recent constitutional matters, Shinde referred to the Supreme Court's upholding of the revocation of Article 370, stating, 'Article 370 was removed by Amit Shah--many went to the Supreme Court, and in every judgment, a decision was delivered in accordance with social justice and the law. This will make the justice system even stronger.' CJI Gavai, on Saturday strongly supported the abrogation of Article 370, saying the abrogation was aligned with the ideology of Dr BR Ambedkar. Speaking at an event in Nagpur, CJI Gavai said, '... If the country wants to remain united, the country needs only one Constitution. A separate Constitution for a state was not in line with Babasaheb Ambedkar's ideology, so we unanimously accepted the decision (of abrogation of Article 370) taken by the Parliament, so that the country will be governed by only one constitution.' On August 5, 2019, the Centre decided to strip Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and divide it into two Union Territories. 'Babasaheb Ambedkar was criticised for our Constitution being too centralised... Babasaheb had replied to that criticism by saying... 'We are giving the country a Constitution suitable for all challenges, and I can assure you that it will keep the country united in times of war and peace.' Today, we are seeing in our 75-year journey what the situation around us is. Whenever this country has faced any crisis, it has remained united...' he told ANI. On Friday, Chief Justice of India Gavai also emphasised the importance of the Indian Constitution, stating that it has 'defined the boundaries' of the three branches of government: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. CJI Gavai highlighted that lawmaking is the responsibility of the legislature and state assemblies, while the executive functions within the framework of the Constitution and the law. Addressing the issue of 'judicial activism,' the CJI asserted that it is necessary for 'upholding' the Constitution and rights of the citizens. 'Judicial Activism is bound to stay, and it is necessary for the upholding of the Constitution and the upholding of the rights of citizens. At the same time, I am of the view that the Indian Constitution has defined the boundaries of its three wings, whether it is the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary. The work of making laws belongs to the Legislature, whether it is the Parliament or the various State Assemblies. It is expected that the Executive functions according to the Constitution and the law', CJI BR Gavai said while addressing an event in Nagpur on Friday. However, CJI Gavai opined that despite 'judicial activism' being bound to stay in the judicial system, it should not be allowed to be converted into judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism. 'If the Judiciary tries to interfere in the Executive and Legislative fields in every matter, then I always say, though Judicial Activism is bound to stay, it should not be permitted to be converted into Judicial Adventurism and Judicial Terrorism', BR Gavai said. The Chief Justice further stated that when a law is enacted beyond the authority of Parliament or a State Assembly, and it violates constitutional principles, it is imperative for the judiciary to step in. 'When any law is made beyond the authority of Parliament or the Assembly, and it breaches the constitutional principles at that time, the Judiciary can step in', he said. (ANI)
