National Law University Odisha
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.
The Indian legal framework governing adolescent relationships presents a fundamental conflict between child protection and individual autonomy. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, criminalize all sexual activities involving minors under 18, disregarding adolescent agency and the evolving understanding of consent. This rigid approach undermines constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. Judicial interventions have attempted to mitigate the law’s harsh consequences by distinguishing between exploitative and consensual relationships, yet legislative inconsistencies persist. Comparative legal analyses reveal that several countries incorporate close-in-age exemptions and focus on restorative justice rather than strict penalization. Indian law must align with these global best practices by recognizing adolescent psychological development and implementing legal reforms that differentiate between exploitation and mutual consent. This article advocates for statutory amendments that introduce close-in-age exemptions, promote non-punitive interventions, and ensure gender-neutrality in legal provisions. A nuanced and balanced legal framework will protect minors from harm while upholding their dignity and autonomy, thereby fostering a more just and equitable legal system.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 