Category: Case Comment

Breaking Bonds: Analysing the Supreme Court’s Verdict in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India

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.

0

Javed Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra: The Intriguing Nexus Between Art. 21 and the Right to Dissent

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.

0

Navigating the ‘Neutrality’ Quagmire: Unpacking Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary and the Nabam Rebia Conundrum  

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors has lately been in news due to its upcoming hearing before a 7-judge-bench. Subhash was set in the context of the political controversy regarding the intra-party dissent and subsequent alleged defections that took place within the Shiv Sena Legislative Party in Maharashtra. This article critically analyses the position propounded in Subhash regarding the reference of Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly to a larger bench. Ultimately, this article argues that there are several inconsistencies present in the application of the reasons specified for referring Nabam to a larger bench. Further, it contends that the interim measure proposed in Subhash is unconstitutional in nature and thus, should be set aside.

0

Up ↑