National Law University Odisha
In this interview conducted by CLS, we talk to Swapnil Tripathi.Swapnil is the Lead at Charkha (Centre for Constitutional Law) at Vidhi. His areas of specialisation are judicial review and constitutional interpretation, with a particular focus on Public Interest Litigation. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Royal Commonwealth Society, nominated in recognition of his work in the United Kingdom.
Shivani Tripathi Introduction The year of 2025 witnessed a fierce debate on the issue of post-retirement appointment of judges. The debate was highlighted by contrasting views of two former Chief Justices of India. On 2nd August 2025, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while speaking at an event in Mumbai, expressed his thoughts on the appointment of judges... Continue Reading →
This blog piece discusses the development of court fees in India and the implications it has on access to justice as a fundamental right of people, especially given the socioeconomic reality of the country.
This blog piece discusses the development of court fees in India and the implications it has on access to justice as a fundamental right of people, especially given the socioeconomic reality of the country.
Tanya Sara George Introduction “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Evelyn Beatrice Hall As vehemently argued by John Stuart Mill, the freedom of speech and expression are the only central facilitators for the search for truth and knowledge. This freedom is an integral facet... Continue Reading →
This piece examines the Patna High Court decision in Youth for Equality v. State of Bihar. It argues against the Court's pronouncement of the Bihar state's legislature's competence to carry out a census and challenges the the manner in which the Court arrived at its decision.
This blog analyses the characterizstion of arbitrariness as an enemy to equality, contending that while the Classification Doctrine and the older Non-Arbitrariness Doctrine both operate primarily as formal, process-based rationality requirements, focused on the means-end connection, the Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine introduces a more normative, effects-based evaluation of both ends and means.
This blog analyses the characterizstion of arbitrariness as an enemy to equality, contending that while the Classification Doctrine and the older Non-Arbitrariness Doctrine both operate primarily as formal, process-based rationality requirements, focused on the means-end connection, the Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine introduces a more normative, effects-based evaluation of both ends and means.
The Constituent Assembly encapsulated the separation of power in numerous provisions to prevent the eclipse of liberties of the citizens. In this architecture, certain provisions like Article 329 stand as near-impenetrable walls, barring judicial scrutiny of electoral and delimitation matters. These provisions which once vanguard the liberties of citizens, now safeguards potential arbitrariness from challenge. The author interrogates this constitutional paradox and navigates the tension between reverence for founding texts and the evolving demands of constitutional morality.
Proportionality test has been used quite often in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence. In the absence of a clearly defined rule or standard, courts resort to proportionality standards, that is, balancing individual interests against broader public or state interests. This article will argue that while proportionality has been the dominant lens through which courts evaluate data privacy infringements, procedural doctrines like the hard look review can serve as a complement to proportionality tests.
The author critiques Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for diluting crucial procedural safeguards originally provided under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By removing key limitations on police custody, the provision enables detentions of up to 90 days, thereby threatening personal liberty and violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
This article explores Supreme Court's implied incorporation of due process within Article 21. Though the text of Article 21 merely mentions ‘procedure established by law,’ 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.
Constitutional Law Society 