Lost in Translation: The Constitutional Case Against Hindi Imposition

In recent years, the Union Governmentโ€™s push for Hindi in governance and education, particularly through the National Education Policy, has triggered constitutional concerns. Though framed as promoting multilingualism, the policy's implementation effectively coerces non-Hindi speakers, especially in Tamil Nadu, into linguistic assimilation. This article argues that such imposition violates fundamental rights and fails the proportionality test outlined in Puttaswamy, undermining Indiaโ€™s federal structure and commitment to linguistic diversity.

Expanding Article 21: The Implied Incorporation of Substantive Due Process and its Challenges

This article explores Supreme Court's implied incorporation of due process within Article 21. Though the text of Article 21 merely mentions โ€˜procedure established by law,โ€™ 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.

70 Years of Ram Jawaya Kapur:ย Analysing the Diminishing Influence of Indian Legislature in Contrast with โ€˜Executive Aggrandizementโ€™ in Constitutional Governance

This article critically examines India's diluted separation of powers, stemming from the *Ram Jawaya Kapur* (1955) ruling that favored executive efficiency over strict separation. It argues that this model, particularly with majority and coalition governments, leads to legislative undermining through mechanisms like bypassing parliamentary scrutiny (guillotine, reduced committee referrals). The article concludes by advocating for strengthening legislative oversight mechanisms to counter this "silent shift" towards executive aggrandizement.

Balancing between Tolerance and Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Freedom of Religion in India and the USA

This article attempts to understand the differences between the concept of religious freedom in India and the United States. It seeks to locate these differences in the context of the nature of religion in the two countries and its relationship with society. Moreover, it highlights the changing social realities which necessitate a review of the secularism in these countries.

In conversation with Shristi Borthakur

In this interview conducted by CLS, we talk to Shristi Borthakur. As an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court, her role in high-profile constitutional cases and her contributions to shaping significant legal principles have greatly influenced both the legal profession and public policy in India. She has particularly been involved in a few landmark cases, such as Dr Sarbesh Bhattacharjee v. State NCT of Delhi and Supriyo & Anr. v. Union of India, which have been instrumental in advancing constitutional principles and shaping the jurisprudence of our country.

Contradictions Unfolded: A Dive into Delimitation Dilemmas

Haryanaโ€™s 2024 elections exposed key delimitation challenges within Indiaโ€™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 judgmentโ€™s implications, it advocates for autonomous delimitation, equitable representation, and judicial consistency to uphold democratic fairness and electoral integrity.

The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Relevance to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Right to Privacy

This article examines the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine in the Indian legal context, where courts have historically admitted illegally obtained evidence if deemed relevant. However, with the recognition of the right to privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, there is a growing emphasis on protecting individual privacy over procedural leniency. This shift highlights the need for a well-defined legal framework that balances investigative authority with constitutional safeguards, ensuring that evidence obtained through unlawful means does not undermine fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Threats to Fundamental Rights in the Digital Era: Analysing Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021

This blog ais to analyse Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 which mandates identification of the first originator of information. Wherein, It threatens userโ€™s privacy, free speech, and intermediaryโ€™s immunity by breaking end-to end encryption, promotes chilling effects, creates arbitrary state actions and violates international principles. Thus, the need of reforms is necessary to balance regulation with fundamental rights in the digital age.

Pardon the interruption: Silencing of judicial review by ยง472(7) of BNSS, 2023 [Part II]

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.

Pardon The Interruption: Silencing Of Judicial Review By ยง472(7) Of BNSS, 2023 [Part I]

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.

Up ↑