National Law University Odisha
In this blog, the authors analyse the recently passed Uttarakhand Minority Education Act, 2025. It is argued that this act is detrimental to constitutionally protected rights of equality and secularism. They argue that what is framed as an emancipatory tool is a way to impose an age-old communal divide.
The Judiciary is frequently criticised for keeping judicial appointments an opaque affair. However, the process is facing a silent crisis of executive delay. Recently, the Supreme Court released a list of candidates who were recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, but were not appointed as High Court Judges by the Ministry of Law and Justice since 2022. This systemic issue was further underscored by research conducted by the Supreme Court Observer, which found that the Central Government did not accept 24% of all recommendations by Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Collegium. This piece aims to argue that this unnecessary practice of the Central Government not only exacerbates the predicament of vacancies in the High Courts, but also constitutes a grave violation of the principle of Separation of Powers.
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.
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.
In recent years, the Union Government’s push for Hindi in governance and education, particularly through the National Education Policy, has triggered constitutional concerns. Though framed as promoting multilingualism, the policy's implementation effectively coerces non-Hindi speakers, especially in Tamil Nadu, into linguistic assimilation. This article argues that such imposition violates fundamental rights and fails the proportionality test outlined in Puttaswamy, undermining India’s federal structure and commitment to linguistic diversity.
This article critically examines India's diluted separation of powers, stemming from the *Ram Jawaya Kapur* (1955) ruling that favored executive efficiency over strict separation. It argues that this model, particularly with majority and coalition governments, leads to legislative undermining through mechanisms like bypassing parliamentary scrutiny (guillotine, reduced committee referrals). The article concludes by advocating for strengthening legislative oversight mechanisms to counter this "silent shift" towards executive aggrandizement.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 