National Law University Odisha
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 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.
Haryana’s 2024 elections exposed key delimitation challenges within India’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 judgment’s implications, it advocates for autonomous delimitation, equitable representation, and judicial consistency to uphold democratic fairness and electoral integrity.
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.
This blog piece examines the implications of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India's new sedition law, which replaces "Government established by law; with the amorphous concept of 'India'. It critiques the potential for increased censorship and arbitrary interpretation, posing threats to free speech and democratic dissent.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 