Tag: Supreme Court

Pardon The Interruption: Silencing Of Judicial Review By §472(7) Of BNSS, 2023 [Part I]

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.

0

Justice at a Crossroads: The Promise & Peril of Judicial Privatization in India

Imagine a justice system where the snake of briskness in business is forever strolling on the crosshairs of the crocodile of justice's sobriety. That is the imagination invoked with the privatization of justice: the makings of a once-in-a-lifetime overhaul of the justice administration system. The question would then be whether, on grounds of judicial inefficiency, such a bold step would offer the key to a resolution or would only serve to open the box of Pandora anew. At the frontier of corporate innovation and justice, this essay analyses India's judicial privatization—looking at how, at one level, privatization holds out prospects for a sea change in efficiency and creativity, and at another level, there are the critical risks of corruption and inequality—along with present global insights and safeguards for this transformative shift.

0

On the line between judicial activism and judicial legislation

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.

0

Battling Digital Disinformation: The Imperative of Fact-Checking in a Participatory Democracy (Part II)

Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as a ‘global risk’, causing ‘information pollution’ that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and political stability. Part – II intends to explore the evolving interpretation of the theory of ‘marketplace of ideas’ under Article 19(1)(a) to point out that disinformation and misinformation on government affairs distorts the foundation of democracy, i.e., truth. Accordingly, the article emphasises on the need to fact-check in order to ensure plurality of views based on factually true information, since discourse based on false information makes the citizen's participation in democracy a futile exercise.

0

Battling Digital Disinformation: The Imperative of Fact-Checking in a Participatory Democracy (Part I)

Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as a ‘global risk’, causing ‘information pollution’ that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and political stability. In light of this, Part – I of this Article aims to expplain the imperative and constitutionality of the Fact-Check Unit (FCU) under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021, through a comparative study. 

0

Speaker’s Inaction No Longer Immune: Telangana High Court’s Purposive Lens on Judicial Review Over Speaker’s Delay in Anti-Defection Pleas

In its recent verdict, the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana Legislative assembly speaker to decide the disqualification petitions pending against the defecting Bharatiya Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs into the ruling Congress Party within four weeks. The judgment, Kuna Pandu Vivekanand v. State of Telangana, pronounced by a Single-judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Vijaysen Reddy underscored that a complete abdication of judicial review concerning the inaction of speaker, as a constitutional functionary, is an anathema and repugnant to the greater democratic values. This article analyses this judgement.

0

FRMB Act 2003: A Source of Fiscal Anxiety, not Prudence

Here, the Author examines the FRBM framework post 2009. It starts with a discussion of the evolution of the Act. It then discusses the logic of fiscal federalism adopted in the Indian constitution - along with its statutory contortions. It problematises the erosion of state fiscal autonomy in the context of the FRBM Act. Finally the piece speaks of the feasibility of balancing fiscal prudence with sub-national fiscal autonomy within the constitutional framework.

0

Deliberation as a Constitutional Requirement: Examining the Judicial Review of Legislative Process in India (Part II)

This article, in two parts examines the constitutional implications of non-deliberative legislative processes in India, focusing on recent controversial laws like the electoral bonds scheme. It argues that deliberation is integral to parliamentary democracy and proposes that courts should be empowered to review legislative processes on grounds of non-deliberativeness to uphold constitutional values and improve democratic outcomes.

0

Deliberation as a Constitutional Requirement: Examining the Judicial Review of Legislative Process in India (Part I)

This article, in two parts examines the constitutional implications of non-deliberative legislative processes in India, focusing on recent controversial laws like the electoral bonds scheme. It argues that deliberation is integral to parliamentary democracy and proposes that courts should be empowered to review legislative processes on grounds of non-deliberativeness to uphold constitutional values and improve democratic outcomes.

0

One Giant Leap for Intersectionality: Analysis of M. Sameeha Barvin v Joint Secretary

The concept of intersectionality continues to elude judges. While the concept has been applied in a few Supreme Court judgements such as Patan Jamal Valli and Navtej Johar, it is still not easy to understand ‘how’ courts should apply intersectionality. In this article, the Author focuses on the M. Sameeha Barvin v Joint Secretary case from the Madras High Court that throws light on intersectionality. The Author argues that the case acts as an instructive manual on how courts can apply intersectionality in matters of discrimination.

0

Up ↑