National Law University Odisha
This article argues for expanding judicial review of political defection cases in India, where speakers’ partisan decisions have undermined the Tenth Schedule’s democratic purpose. It contends that substantive judicial intervention is constitutionally necessary to safeguard democracy, despite challenges to the separation of powers doctrine.
This two-part essay examines Section 472(7) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which seems to bar judicial review of constitutional pardon powers of the executive. It highlights how the provision undermines constitutional principles, including separation of powers, rule of law, and fundamental rights. The first part discusses the current, pre-BNSS, judicial and constitutional framework, emphasizing the need for a limited judicial review to prevent executive arbitrariness. The second part critiques the new provision and proposes a harmonized interpretation to preserve judicial oversight and safeguard democratic principles against executive overreach.
This two-part essay examines Section 472(7) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which seems to bar judicial review of constitutional pardon powers of the executive. It highlights how the provision undermines constitutional principles, including separation of powers, rule of law, and fundamental rights. The first part discusses the current, pre-BNSS, judicial and constitutional framework, emphasizing the need for a limited judicial review to prevent executive arbitrariness. The second part critiques the new provision and proposes a harmonized interpretation to preserve judicial oversight and safeguard democratic principles against executive overreach.
Imagine a justice system where the snake of briskness in business is forever strolling on the crosshairs of the crocodile of justice's sobriety. That is the imagination invoked with the privatization of justice: the makings of a once-in-a-lifetime overhaul of the justice administration system. The question would then be whether, on grounds of judicial inefficiency, such a bold step would offer the key to a resolution or would only serve to open the box of Pandora anew. At the frontier of corporate innovation and justice, this essay analyses India's judicial privatization—looking at how, at one level, privatization holds out prospects for a sea change in efficiency and creativity, and at another level, there are the critical risks of corruption and inequality—along with present global insights and safeguards for this transformative shift.
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 examines the constitutional architecture governing the regulation of state borrowing in India by studying Article 293 of the Indian Constitution. It looks at court decisions and fiscal federalism as well as using examples such as the Kerala case to underscore the extent of the control of the central government on matters related to borrowing. The article then turns to a discussion on striking an optimal balance between state financial autonomy and national economic stability.
Judicial activism can be broadly perceived as judicial interpretation and review of statutes or other state action. Judicial legislation, on the other hand, lays down new in case of a legislative insufficiency. The relation and conflict between the two can be studied in the context of the call for a liberal interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, applicability of judicial review in money bills or even in the electoral practice of freebies and whether it is akin to a corrupt practice.
This article analyses the proliferation of misinformation in light of growth in technology and its implications on the erosion of the democratic process. It highlights the constitutional aspects involved and the vacuum in the current regulatory framework. The article proposes reforms to counter the challenges posed by the digital era.
For a while now, an eternal debate has existed on the issue of freebies and welfarism. Their nature is so close that it becomes impossible to differentiate between the two and draw a clear line of demarcation. While welfare policies are deemed to be irreplaceable and for the goodwill of society, freebies are understood to be vicious and a method of manipulation used to win political support at the expense of fiscal prudence. Freebies or welfare policies as may be referred to by both sides of the argument undoubtedly have political, economic and social implications. The question that then arises is whether their benefits exerted on society are sufficient to overcome the looming dangers that hide behind the veil of welfare. As this discussion reaches the Supreme Court, this blog highlights a few challenges that lie ahead.
Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as a ‘global risk’, causing ‘information pollution’ that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and political stability. Part – II intends to explore the evolving interpretation of the theory of ‘marketplace of ideas’ under Article 19(1)(a) to point out that disinformation and misinformation on government affairs distorts the foundation of democracy, i.e., truth. Accordingly, the article emphasises on the need to fact-check in order to ensure plurality of views based on factually true information, since discourse based on false information makes the citizen's participation in democracy a futile exercise.
Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as a ‘global risk’, causing ‘information pollution’ that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and political stability. In light of this, Part – I of this Article aims to expplain the imperative and constitutionality of the Fact-Check Unit (FCU) under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021, through a comparative study.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 