National Law University Odisha
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.
The Supreme Court recently mulled a mandate to prescribe generic medicines. This Article examines the constitutional validity of such a mandate, highlighting the effect of this law on the public considering the current infrastructure. Ultimately, it calls for a more nuanced approach in balancing the Directive Principles of State Policies and the Fundamental Rights.
The institution of marriage and the acts committed between a husband and a wife witnesses a dilution of the public-private divide. The article focuses on the offence of marital rape in the light of such divide by analysing the split verdict the Delhi High Court delivered in the case of RIT Foundation v. Union of India.
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 article explores how children in India are often subjected to religious coercion—both at home and in educational settings—under the guise of cultural or parental authority. Through constitutional provisions, case law, and international conventions like the UNCRC, the piece argues for a more robust legal and policy framework to uphold children's rights to autonomy, dignity, and cognitive development. It delves into issues such as Bal Diksha, the quality of education in religious institutions like madrasas and gurukuls, and the urgent need for the State to fulfil its parens patriae role. The piece also makes forward-looking recommendations to ensure that religious freedom does not come at the cost of children’s welfare.
The Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan upheld National Awards’ validity, ruling they aren’t “titles” under Article 18(1). However, applying the proportionality test reveals flaws – opaque selection risks bias, undermining equality. Reforms for transparency and inclusivity are needed to align awards with the Constitution’s egalitarian ethos.
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 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.
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.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 