National Law University Odisha
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.
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.
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.
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.
The author examines the constitutionality of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the State’s intrusion into private familial spheres. Beyond gender discrimination, RCR’s conception of marriage perpetuates inequality. It advocates for a reevaluation of this interpretation, not to negate expectations of intimacy within marriage but to challenge the legal enforcement of sexual relations as a conjugal right. The ongoing plea against the constitutionality of RCR offers an opportunity for the judiciary to redefine conjugal rights and reshape the institution of marriage.
The constitutionality of utilizing voice votes in parliamentary sessions amidst protests raises intricate questions at the intersection of procedural efficiency and democratic governance. Proponents assert that voice votes offer a swift mechanism for decision-making, crucial in the fluid dynamics of legislative proceedings, particularly during protests. They emphasize the necessity of adapting to challenging circumstances to maintain the functionality of the legislative body. To ascertain the constitutionality of voice votes amid protests, a nuanced examination of constitutional principles is imperative. In essence, resolving this issue requires a judicious weighing of competing constitutional values, striving to establish a parliamentary system that not only remains efficient but also upholds democratic ideals, even in the throes of dissent. It beckons a careful calibration to ensure that the mechanisms employed are both expedient and respectful of the democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution.
The article explores the concept of judicial ideology and the three distinct methods employed to measure it, emphasizing the significance of addressing this issue in contemporary legal discourse. Judicial ideology, defined as the set of beliefs and principles guiding judges' decision- making, is a critical factor influencing legal interpretations and decisions. While proxy measures, behavioral assessment, and the transplanting of ideology measures offer ways to gauge judicial ideology, their applicability and limitations vary across different legal systems. As judicial ideologies evolve, the integrity of an independent judiciary is at stake, prompting a call for acknowledgment and definition of these ideologies to ensure fairness and equal protection of rights within the justice system. Ultimately, a comprehensive understanding of judicial ideology is essential to create a legal system that serves all members of society.
The Places of Worship Act was intended to cease communal conflicts over history but it has failed to prevent conflicts such as the Gyanvapi Row. A part of this failure is attributable to the legislature’s omission to succinctly identify the existence of complex religious structures and conflicting historical experiences. This article examines the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions against the backdrop of history and provides an analysis of the ambiguity in the Act that needs rectification to ensure the true realization of justice.
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines “State”. In the initial years of India’s independence, the notion of “state” was defined quite narrowly by the Supreme Court of India. It was only later that the Courts took a liberal view while interpreting “State”. Due to privatisation, there are more private organisations and corporations than ever before. It is essential that they fall under the definition of “State” in order to enforce fundamental rights against them and devolve liability in a way that escorts the devolvement of power and authority from traditional bases like governmental organs to private players. This article examines the evolving interpretation of the term “State” in the Indian Constitution in light of increasing privatization. It emphasizes the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and explains how courts have expanded the definition of “State” to hold private entities accountable.
The recent US Supreme Court verdict asserting race-based reservation unconstitutional has ignited widespread criticism globally. The article delves into analyzing the implications of the judgment on American society and its education system. Drawing parallels with the trend of affirmative action in India, the authors suggest that the US Supreme Court should draw a comparison between the discrimination faced by untouchables and blacks in India and the US respectively. Hence, the authors advocate for reconsidering the recent judgment, arguing that the previous system of affirmative action aligns better with the principles of justice and equality.
The authors, in this article, delve into the speculations about the DPDP Act and analyze the areas of concern to the depth of interpreting expressions used in the statutes with respect to Privacy, Right to Information and its balance National Security. They also discusses possible solutions by drawing cues from other legislations.
The article is premised on the recent GNCTD Act and its impact on federalism. It takes a detour from the popular discourse and explores federalism through the lens of fundamental rights. It argues that the right to vote and self-governance can be considered fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional Law Society 