Panel constituted to examine Supreme Courts verdict's impact on recruitment process of the Tamil Nadu government

The State government has constituted a panel, headed by Justice (retd.) G.M. Akbar Ali, to examine the impact of the Supreme Court's verdict on its recruitment process and propose legal options to overcome issues arising out of the ruling.
Traditionally, the State government had been preparing rank lists for government appointments, following a 200-point roster system. As part of the system, reservations were provided to candidates belonging to Backward Classes (BC), Backward Class Muslims (BCM), Most Backward Classes (MBC) and Denotified Communities (DNC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The system determined seniority and merit within the categories, giving regard for equitable treatment in promotion for all government employees.
However, the practice was sought to be scrapped through the Supreme Court's direction on April 18, 2023. The State government had been asked by the Court to revise the seniority of the candidates directly recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission (TNPSC) after March 10, 2003 on the basis of merit, as determined by the TNPSC in the selection process itself and not on the basis of roster point. Some of the government departments had begun complying with the Court's direction.
To illustrate, in July and November 2023, the office of Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, issued orders revising the entry level seniority as per merit list sent by the TNPSC in respect of Accounts Officers who were directly recruited in the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services (2007-2008).
Hindering social justice opportunities
However, concerns have been raised in certain quarters about 'hindering social justice opportunities' for various categories of government employees in promotion. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, on April 29, made an announcement in the Assembly that a committee would be set up.
To address these concerns, the panel will study the implications of the Supreme Court's direction and come up with solutions. It will have three months to prepare its report, according to an order issued by the State Human Resources Management department on June 11.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

25 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Sharing video of polling station violation of voter privacy: EC officials

Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court. Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.

First Post

2 hours ago

• First Post

Victory for Trump in US Supreme Court, his tariffs allowed to stay amid legal challenges over trade powers

The US Supreme Court refused to fast-track lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs, allowing them to remain in effect for now. The court said that it will wait for the appeal court's order read more US President Donald Trump delivered remarks on tariffs, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. A federal appeals court reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs. File image/Reuters The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory after it refused to put a challenge to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on the fast track. On Friday, the Supreme Court justices rejected a scheduling request from two family-owned businesses seeking to invalidate many of Trump's import taxes . The rejection means that the Trump administration would have the normal 30 days to file a response to the case. The Tuesday court filing stated that the companies involved in the case were seeking a quick response from the Trump administration, a request which has now been rejected by the country's apex court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Bloomberg, the two family-owned businesses wanted the court to take the unusual step of considering the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the matter. Meanwhile, the Trump administration argued that the Supreme Court should let the normal appellate process play out. Trump's tariff went to the Supreme Court for the first time It is pertinent to note that this is the first time the challenge to Trump's reciprocal tariffs came to the US Supreme Court. As of now, the legal cases over tariffs are limited to district and federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal district judge agreed with educational toy makers Learning Resources Inc. and Hand2Mind Inc., the two companies involved in the Supreme Court case, that the POTUS lacked the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue sweeping reciprocal tariffs. In a separate case, a federal appeals court ruled that the tariffs could stay in effect at least until that panel hears arguments on July 31. Both courts are dealing with Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which combine a universal baseline levy of 10 per cent with potentially higher rates for various trading partners. It is pertinent to note that each of these suits also concerns at least some of Trump's separate import taxes over fentanyl trafficking. The case that went to the Supreme Court is titled 'Learning Resources v. Trump'.

The Hindu

4 hours ago

• The Hindu

Moral policing shadows couples in Chennai

Does the sight of young lovers or people of different genders hanging out together irk Chennaites? This February, advocate Thilagavati confronted a patrolman who harassed her for being with a male friend at night on Patinapakkam beach. She had recorded the encounter and uploaded it on social media. This led to much discussion on the topic of moral policing in public places in the city. Uproar over Ms. Thilagavati's experience had led to the officer being transferred. But the woman later faced cyberbullying about which she complained to the cyber police. 'More than men, women are targeted by law enforcement officers in such circumstances,' she says. Courts not supposed to do moral policing: Supreme Court sets aside HC order against Tehseen Poonawalla Many young men and women complain of similar experiences of being victims of the moral police brigade, that have left them traumatised. 'Couples, especially teenagers, are easily targetted. They are then threatened and blackmailed into bribing or assault,' says Ms. Thilagavati. Out with her boyfriend in Anna Nagar Tower Park, Thamizh, a woman in her twenties, says that they too were picked on by policemen. 'It happens all the time. Sometimes they even call up our parents,' she tells The Hindu. Even as she was speaking, a policewoman stared down at the young couple and asked them to 'move ahead.' They silently obeyed. UCC Bill 'introduces moral policing, criminalises autonomy' 'It is not good for young people if their future spouses see them being with another man/woman. Girls should carefully choose good boys that their parents approve of. They can do these intimate things after marriage also. Why now? That too in public,' reasons Meena (name changed), head constable at a police station in Anna Nagar. Meanwhile, a senior police officer of the Greater Chennai Police says, 'Policemen are not instructed to confront couples, unless a safety issue arises. They have the right to be together in public.' The 8.8 acre Thiru. Vi. Ka. Park in Shenoy Nagar has 26 security personnel and reportedly no CCTV camera inside. It is known for its watchful guards who spring into action when men and women sitting together even begin to think of holding hands. They whistle, glare down and show hand gestures before directly confronting the couples. 'We have instructions from the CMRL to interfere when couples sit too close together,' says Surya, a guard there. Sartorial preferences of women should not be subjected to moral policing: HC 'The Thiru. Vi. Ka. Park is designed in a way that there are no hideouts for couples to do inappropriate things. Every corner has high visibility and is covered by guards, who have been told to prevent intimacy between couples,' confirms a CMRL official, on the condition of anonymity. Those facing moral policing can assert their rights under Articles 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to life and liberty). The Supreme Court and Madras High Court have upheld personal liberty under Article 21, affirming adults' rights to consensual relationships and privacy in public spaces. 'They can demand specific legal grounds for intervention, refuse arbitrary demands, and record interactions as evidence. Unlawful detention can be challenged with a habeas corpus and complaints can be filed with the Human Rights Commission or Women's Commission,' says Sonam Chandwani, an advocate. 'Healthy interaction between the opposite sexes should always be encouraged,' says advocate and human rights activist Sudha Ramallingam. 'In Western cultures, couples openly engage in public display of affection and this is not looked upon as vulgar. Why should it be vulgar here? I don't understand what morality or decency people are trying to uphold and impose by moral policing,' she adds.