Hear out the SC on laws and effects
The Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday in a competition-law case is eminently notable. More than a decade after the Competition Commission of India found Schott Glass India guilty of abusing its market dominance, the apex court has put a final stamp on a reversal of that finding, noting firms mustn't be penalized for their size, unless they're shown to have disrupted rivalry in a market.
Also Read: A judiciary that refrains from judicial overreach can better serve the cause of justice
Doing so could cause economic setbacks, to guard against which the court advocated an 'effects-based" standard of adjudication: 'Heavy-handed enforcement, divorced from market effects, would discourage the long-term capital and expertise the economy urgently needs."
Also Read: The SC's JSW-Bhushan ruling will hit both the IBC and investor confidence
The bench made this observation in the global context of protectionist walls going up and the 'prudence" needed for India to emerge as a hub for manufacturing, life sciences and tech. That economic value must generally be taken under consideration in legal cases is a powerful argument.
Also Read: Complete justice: Article 142 should be invoked only in truly rare cases
A counter-argument is that the law might look blurry if rulings are subject to frequent legal relativism. What's clear is that the more context matters, the more we'll need to rely on the wisdom of judges.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
US SC ruling opens door to reverse discrimination lawsuits over DEI
The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that majority-group employees—such as white or straight workers—must not face a higher burden of proof when suing for workplace discrimination. The verdict significantly alters how reverse discrimination claims will be handled across American workplaces, according to The New York Times. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for promotions and later demoted. These positions, she said, went to gay colleagues with less experience or fewer qualifications. Lower courts had dismissed her lawsuit, citing a precedent that required majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate 'background circumstances' showing that their employer was capable of discriminating against members of a traditionally dominant group. The Supreme Court rejected that standard. Title VII protects all equally Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' The law protects every 'individual' equally, she wrote, regardless of identity. The ruling eliminates the need for additional evidence in such cases and sets a uniform standard across US courts. Until now, nearly half of federal appeals courts imposed stricter requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion questioning the logic of defining 'majority groups' in a diverse society. He called the idea that only 'unusual employers' discriminate against dominant groups 'nonsensical.' Thomas specifically pointed to widespread corporate and institutional use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which, he argued, may introduce bias against majority-group employees. Legal tide against DEI The decision comes amid growing political and legal scrutiny of DEI programmes in the US. It follows the Court's 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions. Since returning to office, former President Donald Trump has taken aggressive steps to dismantle DEI efforts across federal agencies, schools, and corporations. Executive orders from his administration have revoked DEI requirements for contractors, ended related federal training programmes, and targeted officials involved in such initiatives. Universities and companies have responded by cancelling DEI events and cutting funding in anticipation of legal and political challenges. The Supreme Court's latest ruling could embolden more majority-group workers to file discrimination claims, creating new challenges for DEI compliance and implementation.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Rijiju launches portal for registration, monitoring of waqf properties
Union minority affairs minister Kiren Rijiju on Friday launched a portal for the registration and monitoring of waqf properties, calling it a symbol of dedication to transparency and good governance. The Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) portal seeks to bring all stakeholders onto a single digital platform and streamline the management of waqf properties by ensuring real-time data collection and open access to verified information. 'We are taking a firm step toward ensuring that waqf properties are used for the benefit of the intended communities,' said Rijiju at the portal launch in the presence of minister of state for minority affairs George Kurian. Waqf properties are required to be registered on the portal within six months of the launch date. Rijiju asked representatives of state waqf boards, who were present at the launch virtually, to ensure adherence to the six-month limit. Respective state boards will have to carry out the registrations. Properties not registered within six months may get up to a two-month extension in exceptional cases such as technical delays. Those that remain unregistered beyond the extended deadline will be classified as disputed and referred to the Waqf Tribunal. Minority affairs secretary Chandra Shekhar Kumar said the portal will allow submission of documents for registering a property to prevent the inclusion of illegal or encroached land. He added the custodians of properties without documentation will be required to approach the tribunal for verification. 'Since land is a state subject, it will ultimately be up to the state governments to confirm or deny whether the land in question is indeed waqf,' Kumar said. Kumar said that women, children, and economically weaker sections will be among the primary beneficiaries of Waqf assets. The portal, which includes a field asking whether a property is on government land, was launched weeks after the passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. Petitions challenging the law's constitutional validity are pending in the Supreme Court. On April 17, the court declined to stay the law after the government submitted that certain provisions would not be enforced for now. Rijiju refused to comment on the challenges to the law, saying the matter is sub judice. 'I hope the court recognises that this is a landmark law... The opposition must accept this and cooperate with the government to ensure smooth implementation. As for the waqf rules, it is a natural process. We are actively working on it.' The waf properties have to be registered with details such as dimensions and geotagged locations. Properties recorded in the names of women will be ineligible to be declared as waqf. The portal will generate a 17-digit unique identification number for each property based on the state and district codes, property type, etc. The portal features dropdown-based structured data input and an online grievance redressal mechanism. The public will have access to the property information. A three-tier user verification process has been instituted for the portal. The mutawalli or an authorised person of a waqf board will initiate data entry. The checker will be a district-level officer or a designated official to verify the data, and the approver will be the CEO or an officer to grant final approval. Data protection and privacy regulations will cover the portal. A toll-free helpline has been made available for technical assistance and support.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Governor Sanjay Malhotra reveals why RBI is concerned about cryptocurrencies: ‘Can hamper…'
RBI MPC: Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Sanjay Malhotra on Friday said that the central bank is 'concerned' about cryptocurrencies as they can 'hamper' financial stability of the country. Speaking to reporters during an interaction after announcing the RBI MPC decisions, Sanjay Malhotra touched upon the topic of cryptocurrencies. He was asked about them in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's observation on crypto currency last month. Malhotra said that there has been no new development on cryptocurrencies. 'There is no new development as far as crypto is concerned. A committee of the government is looking after this.' 'Of course, as you are aware, we are concerned about crypto because that can hamper financial stability and monetary policy,' Malhotra said. The Supreme Court in an observation on May 19 asked the Centre why it is not making a clear cut policy on cryptocurrency. 'Why does Centre not come out with a clear cut policy on regulating cryptocurrency,' a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked. The remarks from the Supreme Court came when it was hearing a bail plea of an accused who was held for illegal Bitcoin trade in Gujarat. The accused, Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, had moved top court for bail. The SC termed Bitcoin trade as an illicit trade more or less like "hawala" business. On May 5, the top court said trading in Bitcoin in India was like "dealing with a refined way of Hawala business" as it lamented the Centre's inability to come up with a clear regime on regulating virtual currency so far. India is currently working on a discussion paper for cryptocurrencies and an inter-ministerial group (IMG), comprising officials from RBI, Sebi and finance ministry, is looking into global norms. In absence of any regulation, cryptocurrency is not yet illegal in India. The discussion paper will give the stakeholders an opportunity to give their views before India decides on its policy stance on cryptocurrencies. In 2022, the government announced a flat 30 per cent tax on gains arising from cryptocurrencies. Taxing income from cryptocurrencies does not necessarily and explicitly legalise cryptocurrencies. Currently, crypto assets are unregulated in India.
