National Law University Odisha
In this interview conducted by CLS, we talk to Swapnil Tripathi.Swapnil is the Lead at Charkha (Centre for Constitutional Law) at Vidhi. His areas of specialisation are judicial review and constitutional interpretation, with a particular focus on Public Interest Litigation. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Royal Commonwealth Society, nominated in recognition of his work in the United Kingdom.
Shivani Tripathi Introduction The year of 2025 witnessed a fierce debate on the issue of post-retirement appointment of judges. The debate was highlighted by contrasting views of two former Chief Justices of India. On 2nd August 2025, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while speaking at an event in Mumbai, expressed his thoughts on the appointment of judges... Continue Reading →
This blog piece discusses the development of court fees in India and the implications it has on access to justice as a fundamental right of people, especially given the socioeconomic reality of the country.
This blog piece discusses the development of court fees in India and the implications it has on access to justice as a fundamental right of people, especially given the socioeconomic reality of the country.
Tanya Sara George Introduction “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Evelyn Beatrice Hall As vehemently argued by John Stuart Mill, the freedom of speech and expression are the only central facilitators for the search for truth and knowledge. This freedom is an integral facet... Continue Reading →
This piece examines the Patna High Court decision in Youth for Equality v. State of Bihar. It argues against the Court's pronouncement of the Bihar state's legislature's competence to carry out a census and challenges the the manner in which the Court arrived at its decision.
This blog analyses the characterizstion of arbitrariness as an enemy to equality, contending that while the Classification Doctrine and the older Non-Arbitrariness Doctrine both operate primarily as formal, process-based rationality requirements, focused on the means-end connection, the Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine introduces a more normative, effects-based evaluation of both ends and means.
This blog analyses the characterizstion of arbitrariness as an enemy to equality, contending that while the Classification Doctrine and the older Non-Arbitrariness Doctrine both operate primarily as formal, process-based rationality requirements, focused on the means-end connection, the Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine introduces a more normative, effects-based evaluation of both ends and means.
The Constituent Assembly encapsulated the separation of power in numerous provisions to prevent the eclipse of liberties of the citizens. In this architecture, certain provisions like Article 329 stand as near-impenetrable walls, barring judicial scrutiny of electoral and delimitation matters. These provisions which once vanguard the liberties of citizens, now safeguards potential arbitrariness from challenge. The author interrogates this constitutional paradox and navigates the tension between reverence for founding texts and the evolving demands of constitutional morality.
The Supreme Court recently mulled a mandate to prescribe generic medicines. This Article examines the constitutional validity of such a mandate, highlighting the effect of this law on the public considering the current infrastructure. Ultimately, it calls for a more nuanced approach in balancing the Directive Principles of State Policies and the Fundamental Rights.
The institution of marriage and the acts committed between a husband and a wife witnesses a dilution of the public-private divide. The article focuses on the offence of marital rape in the light of such divide by analysing the split verdict the Delhi High Court delivered in the case of RIT Foundation v. Union of India.
Proportionality test has been used quite often in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence. In the absence of a clearly defined rule or standard, courts resort to proportionality standards, that is, balancing individual interests against broader public or state interests. This article will argue that while proportionality has been the dominant lens through which courts evaluate data privacy infringements, procedural doctrines like the hard look review can serve as a complement to proportionality tests.
Constitutional Law Society 