National Law University Odisha
The blog analyzes the inefficiencies arising from frivolous Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in India's Supreme Court, proposing a two-tier system featuring a quasi-judicial panel to assess SLPs, thereby enhancing efficiency while preserving the Court's power.
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 user’s privacy, free speech, and intermediary’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.
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.
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.
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.
In its recent verdict, the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana Legislative assembly speaker to decide the disqualification petitions pending against the defecting Bharatiya Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs into the ruling Congress Party within four weeks. The judgment, Kuna Pandu Vivekanand v. State of Telangana, pronounced by a Single-judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Vijaysen Reddy underscored that a complete abdication of judicial review concerning the inaction of speaker, as a constitutional functionary, is an anathema and repugnant to the greater democratic values. This article analyses this judgement.
Constitutional Law Society 