The President of India Ms.Droupadi Murmu has nominated the Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

The ministry of Law and Justice has issued a notification on the same dated November 25, 2022, which reads,

In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the President is pleased to nominate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Executive Chairman, National Legal Services Authority, with immediate effect”

As per the Legal Services Authority Act of 1987,the Chief Justice of India is NALSA’s Patron-on-Chief .

The President of the country with the help of the Chief Justice of India, appoints an active or retired Supreme Court Judge as the Executive Chairman.

As per convention, the post of Executive Chairman of NALSA is always taken  by the second senior judge of the Supreme Court. 

It was earlier held by CJI DY Chandra during the tenure of UU Lalit, whereas Justice UU Lalit held this post during the tenure of former  CJI NV Ramana.

Justice Kaul is the senior most judge after CJI. He has held the position of former Chief Justice of Madras High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

Justice Kaul has also served as former judge of Delhi High Court, where he also served as an acting Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court has adjourned to August 25, a batch of petitions seeking permission to appear in the TGT/PGT examination for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the state of Uttar Pradesh, under Article 32.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy adjourned the order on Wednesday, as the Counsel for the Secondary Education Board was to take instructions and consider the representations.

 
The Court heard the submissions of Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, who sought benefit of past service and could not have applied as fresh candidates. The Court observed that it was “not able to appreciate the submission of the senior counsel for the petitioners that because such candidates could not upload their forms as persons with past experience, they would not even be interested in applying as fresh candidates to take the examination.”

Another issue before the Bench was that of disruption in one exam center, but it also noted that there were contradictory versions and actual facts were not verified.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court denies bail to man accused of raping minor, says increase in rape incidents in a country that worships girls, is worrisome

The petitioners also submitted that if fresh examination is to be held on account of disruption of the examination in that centre, then such candidates, who could not apply earlier on account of problem in uploading their applications as candidates with past service, may also be given a chance. To this, the Court directed the counsel for the Board to consider such cases sympathetically. 

The matter relates to an advertisement, which provided that the period of service as an ad hoc teacher is to be counted on the basis of the date of the first disbursal of salary from the State treasury till the last date of submission of online application. The grievance was that no opportunity was given to submit applications and the portal had been closed on May 20, 2021. On August 6, the Supreme Court decided to hold inquiry into the issue. 

The petitioners said they were appointed under Section 16E (11) of the UP Intermediate Act, 1921 and had been working continuously, when their salaries were arbitrarily withheld. 

Also Read: Supreme Court directs MP to prepare list of schools that charged tuition fee during pandemic

The apex court had directed on August 26, 2020 that the salaries should be paid and they may be permitted to appear in one single examination for appointment of teachers. On July 28, 2021, the Supreme Court had clarified that the date of disbursal of salary cannot be a condition for applying for the examination. 

However, the petitioners were not allowed to submit their forms, despite being eligible as the online form had the mandatory requirement of details of salary. The Allahabad High Court had also decided a writ petition concerning the non-payment of salaries and directed that the ad-hocism in the education system should be brought to an end.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to quash the summons issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee of the Delhi Legislative Assembly to Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan, in relation to the Delhi Riots, 2020.

A Special Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted, “The Assembly admittedly does not have the power to legislate under the issues which fall under the domain of the Union government. However, the objective of peace and harmony goes beyond law and order and police.”

Mr Mohan had approached the Supreme Court against a notice issued by the Assembly panel asking him to appear before it regarding the site’s alleged involvement in the February Delhi riots. The notice had asked Mohan to appear on September 23.

Previously, notices were issued to Facebook India executives by the Assembly’s Committee for Peace and Harmony, headed by Raghav Chaddha, Aam Aadmi Party spokesperson, based on a news report that alleged involvement of Facebook in Delhi riots by deliberately not acting on hateful content.

The Bench had reserved its order on February 2. Earlier, during the previous hearings, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Counsel for Facebook, argued that the committee doesn’t have any authority to process such an enquiry or to decide that Facebook was involved in the Delhi riots.

The Court observed, “Technological age has created digital platforms which can be uncontrolled at times… One such creation is of an intermediary which states that they have no control over the content posts.”

“We are of the view that Committee would be entitled to get information on the incident,” the bench added. However, the bench further observed that the Committee cannot be a prosecuting agency and Facebook would be well within its rights while answering the questions before the committee.

Also Read: Supreme Court hears UP Assembly appeal against Bombay HC order in TCS-initiated arbitration

Senior Counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan, submitted that the right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) also includes the right not to speak. The Committee does not have the power to undertake such an enquiry and if Article 239AA (3)(a) of the Constitution is referred to, it’s clear that law and order and the police don’t fall in Delhi Assembly’s domain. He added that coercing a private citizen such as his client to appear before the panel with the threat of penalty was violative of his fundamental rights.

Whereas, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the chairman of the Assembly panel, submitted that the panel has the power to undertake the enquiry, after reports of Facebook being misused to incite communal violence were received. The panel has neither accused Facebook, nor did it intend to take any coercive action against it, noted Singhvi.

Read order below: