National Law University Odisha
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.
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.
The Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan upheld National Awards’ validity, ruling they aren’t “titles” under Article 18(1). However, applying the proportionality test reveals flaws – opaque selection risks bias, undermining equality. Reforms for transparency and inclusivity are needed to align awards with the Constitution’s egalitarian ethos.
This article explores Supreme Court's implied incorporation of due process within Article 21. Though the text of Article 21 merely mentions ‘procedure established by law,’ the author argues that the recognition of unenumerated rights can be justified through historical intent and the relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The author however also shows the challenges with such an approach like excessive judicial discretion, lack of hierarchy among rights, and conflation of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Haryana’s 2024 elections exposed key delimitation challenges within India’s electoral framework. This article examines vote-share disparities, the North-South seat imbalance post-2026 delimitation, and judicial oversight in constituency mapping. Highlighting the Kishorechandra judgment’s implications, it advocates for autonomous delimitation, equitable representation, and judicial consistency to uphold democratic fairness and electoral integrity.
The recent judgement of the SCOTUS in Trump v. United States (2024) has caused quite a stir in both legal and political circles. This article attempts to balance the perspectives by investigating what the judgement has to say on points of law, and what lessons India can learn from it.
This article attempts to explore the growing trend of unconventional bail conditions in Indian courts, focusing on two key cases: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Faizal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. It analyzes the latter on the basis of principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice established in the former, urging the judiciary to re-evaluate its approach.
In its recent verdict, the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana Legislative assembly speaker to decide the disqualification petitions pending against the defecting Bharatiya Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs into the ruling Congress Party within four weeks. The judgment, Kuna Pandu Vivekanand v. State of Telangana, pronounced by a Single-judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Vijaysen Reddy underscored that a complete abdication of judicial review concerning the inaction of speaker, as a constitutional functionary, is an anathema and repugnant to the greater democratic values. This article analyses this judgement.
The concept of intersectionality continues to elude judges. While the concept has been applied in a few Supreme Court judgements such as Patan Jamal Valli and Navtej Johar, it is still not easy to understand ‘how’ courts should apply intersectionality. In this article, the Author focuses on the M. Sameeha Barvin v Joint Secretary case from the Madras High Court that throws light on intersectionality. The Author argues that the case acts as an instructive manual on how courts can apply intersectionality in matters of discrimination.
The Supreme Court gave a landmark decision in the Delhi water crisis case. The Author attempts to decode certain aspects of the judgement, focusing on its directive to release Yamuna river water amid acute scarcity in the capital. It examines the legal intricacies surrounding the Court's jurisdiction, the implications for water management, and the dynamics of inter-state water disputes. Central to the discussion is the debate over whether the Court's intervention signifies judicial activism or exceeds its constitutional mandate. By analyzing these complexities, the Article underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable outcomes and protecting fundamental rights in critical public interest matters.
The Supreme Court gave an historical verdict that ended the brief but significant era of the Electoral Bonds Scheme. This article aims to clarify the arguments presented by all parties involved and offers an accessible interpretation of the court's judgment. It also aims to delineate suggestions that may be considered as the next step in the overall mission of conducting free and fair elections in the world's largest democracy.
The right to freedom of speech and expression under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution, one of the three stars in the ‘Golden Triangle’ of the Constitution, occupies a climacteric position in the Indian constitutional discourse. However, this right has always been linked to Art.19 of the Constitution, and seldom has this been seen in onjunction with one’s right to life and personal liberty under Art.21. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, such an intriguing nexus between Art.21 and the right to dissent is brought up. Based on this decision, the article seeks to analyse the possibility and the pertinence of such a nexus.
Constitutional Law Society 