whatsapp x

WhatsApp Number

8750970582

Message
phone x
8750970582
email x
info@lawminds.co.in

Remembering Pulwama: Honoring Martyrs, Vowing to Fight Terrorism: Know Facts

The reprehensible act of terrorism targeted a convoy of vehicles transporting Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. Here are key details about the incident:

Magnitude of the Attack: The attack resulted in the tragic loss of more than 40 CRPF jawans, marking it as one of the deadliest terrorist assaults on Indian security forces in the region.

Method of Attack: The assailant executed a vehicle-borne suicide bombing by driving an explosive-laden vehicle into one of the convoy buses, causing a massive explosion. The terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the attack.

International Condemnation: The attack received widespread international condemnation. Countries worldwide expressed condolences and solidarity with India, unequivocally denouncing the act of terrorism.

Impact on India-Pakistan Relations: The Pulwama attack significantly escalated tensions between India and Pakistan, leading to further military and diplomatic confrontations in the subsequent weeks.

Response and Counter-terrorism Measures: In response, India conducted air strikes against a suspected Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp in Balakot, Pakistan, on February 26, 2019. Domestically, India intensified counter-terrorism measures, implementing legislative and security enhancements.

Memorial for the Martyrs: A memorial for the CRPF martyrs of the Pulwama attack was inaugurated at Lethpora camp on February 14, 2020. The memorial bears the names of all 40 personnel who lost their lives, serving as a tribute to their sacrifice.

Security Reforms: The Pulwama attack prompted a comprehensive review and reinforcement of security measures for the protection of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, including the use of bomb-proof vehicles and enhanced intelligence-sharing mechanisms.

This tragic event remains a somber reminder of the persistent threats posed by terrorism and the ongoing challenges faced by nations in ensuring the safety and security of their citizens and defense personnel.

‘Arbitrary, impermissible,’ SC quashes HC’s resolution raising aggregate cut off marks on district judges appointment [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has invalidated the Jharkhand High Court’s resolution, which introduced a fresh requirement of 50% aggregate marks for candidates in examinations for the selection of district judges. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar held that altering the aggregate marks post-examination is arbitrary and impermissible.

The court instructed the High Court to recommend candidates who have succeeded based on merit or select lists for filling existing vacancies without enforcing the full court resolution mandating a 50% aggregate mark for each candidate.

Highlighting that the High Court’s resolution on March 23, 2024, deviated from statutory rules and was therefore impermissible, the court stated that preventing a candidate’s appointment without finding them unsuitable violates recruitment rules and fails the Article 14 test, deeming it arbitrary.

The court clarified that determining cut-off marks is within the High Court’s authority, but such decisions must be made before the commencement of the examination. The bench emphasized that the High Court administration cannot use rules to make a blanket decision deviating from the specified selection criteria.

Maintaining the “no change in the rule midway” principle as integral to service jurisprudence, the court rejected the validity of the full court resolution.

A group of candidates led by Sushil Kumar Pandey contested the resolution’s validity, arguing against the imposition of a 50% aggregate mark as a qualifying criterion for district judge posts.

The High Court, in its defense, claimed that applying a higher aggregate mark is not prohibited by rules or regulations. It argued that being on the select list does not confer a legal right to appointment, justifying the resolution by stating the need to find better candidates without considering a candidate unsuitable for the appointment process.