National Law University Odisha
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.
Here, the Author examines the FRBM framework post 2009. It starts with a discussion of the evolution of the Act. It then discusses the logic of fiscal federalism adopted in the Indian constitution - along with its statutory contortions. It problematises the erosion of state fiscal autonomy in the context of the FRBM Act. Finally the piece speaks of the feasibility of balancing fiscal prudence with sub-national fiscal autonomy within the constitutional framework.
This article, in two parts examines the constitutional implications of non-deliberative legislative processes in India, focusing on recent controversial laws like the electoral bonds scheme. It argues that deliberation is integral to parliamentary democracy and proposes that courts should be empowered to review legislative processes on grounds of non-deliberativeness to uphold constitutional values and improve democratic outcomes.
This article, in two parts examines the constitutional implications of non-deliberative legislative processes in India, focusing on recent controversial laws like the electoral bonds scheme. It argues that deliberation is integral to parliamentary democracy and proposes that courts should be empowered to review legislative processes on grounds of non-deliberativeness to uphold constitutional values and improve democratic outcomes.
The concept of intersectionality continues to elude judges. While the concept has been applied in a few Supreme Court judgements such as Patan Jamal Valli and Navtej Johar, it is still not easy to understand ‘how’ courts should apply intersectionality. In this article, the Author focuses on the M. Sameeha Barvin v Joint Secretary case from the Madras High Court that throws light on intersectionality. The Author argues that the case acts as an instructive manual on how courts can apply intersectionality in matters of discrimination.
Constitutional Law Society 