Judicial Appointments in a Limbo: The Executive’s Unchecked Veto

The Judiciary is frequently criticised for keeping judicial appointments an opaque affair. However, the process is facing a silent crisis of executive delay. Recently, the Supreme Court released a list of candidates who were recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, but were not appointed as High Court Judges by the Ministry of Law and Justice since 2022. This systemic issue was further underscored by research conducted by the Supreme Court Observer, which found that the Central Government did not accept 24% of all recommendations by Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Collegium. This piece aims to argue that this unnecessary practice of the Central Government not only exacerbates the predicament of vacancies in the High Courts, but also constitutes a grave violation of the principle of Separation of Powers.

The Gavel Should Rest: Judicial Ethics and Post-Retirement Appointments in Non-Judicial Avenues

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 →

Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness: Moving Towards A Wider ‘Reasonableness’ Review [Part II]

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.

Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness: Moving Towards A Wider ‘Reasonableness’ Review [Part I]

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.

On the line between judicial activism and judicial legislation

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.

Horizontal Application of Privacy Rights: A Constiutional Tort Framework

This post discusses the critical role of privacy rights in today’s digital landscape, emphasizing enforcement challenges due to privacy’s dual recognition as a fundamental and common law right. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s recent Kaushal Kishor ruling, it advocates for a constitutional tort framework that allows horizontal application of privacy rights within a unified legal structure.

Consent to Die: A Right or a Risk?

This article analyses the validity of consent given in euthanasia and Right to Die by discussing it through a philosophical and logical discourse. It also puts a spotlight on the lack of legislation and regulation on this regard, and analyses if Right to Die is a viable right.

Outlawing Marital Rape: A recurrently validated crime

Till date, marital rape is not considered a crime in India. Through the article, the Author aims to explain why the judiciary needs to urgently intervene and declare marital rape as unconstitutional. Taking the marital status of the perpetrator and the victim as a defence, the consent of a woman to sexual intercourse has been repeatedly de-prioritised by various High Courts in recent times. Further, the Author analyses some cases to show how consent cannot be easily detected, but a look into the totality of the circumstances helps determine the same. Lastly, the Author provides suggestions for dealing with marital rape as an offence.

Wading Through the Fog – Discretionary Clubbing of Cases in India and the Right to a Fair Trial

The article delves into the contentious issue of case transfer and clubbing within the Indian judicial system, highlighting concerns of impartiality and procedural fairness. Justice Hilary Charlesworth underscores the need to eliminate non-legal considerations influencing judgments, echoing international human rights standards. Divergent judgments and discretionary powers raise alarms of potential violations of Article 21 of India’s Constitution and ICCPR Article 14. Drawing insights from international jurisprudence, the article advocates for well-defined criteria to govern case consolidation, ensuring judicial economy and alignment of interests. Upholding procedural fairness is imperative to mitigate arbitrariness and uphold human rights standards in India’s legal landscape.

Up ↑