National Law University Odisha
The blog analyzes the inefficiencies arising from frivolous Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in India's Supreme Court, proposing a two-tier system featuring a quasi-judicial panel to assess SLPs, thereby enhancing efficiency while preserving the Court's power.
This blog ais to analyse Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021 which mandates identification of the first originator of information. Wherein, It threatens user’s privacy, free speech, and intermediary’s immunity by breaking end-to end encryption, promotes chilling effects, creates arbitrary state actions and violates international principles. Thus, the need of reforms is necessary to balance regulation with fundamental rights in the digital age.
This article argues for expanding judicial review of political defection cases in India, where speakers’ partisan decisions have undermined the Tenth Schedule’s democratic purpose. It contends that substantive judicial intervention is constitutionally necessary to safeguard democracy, despite challenges to the separation of powers doctrine.
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.
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.
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.
The recent judgement of the SCOTUS in Trump v. United States (2024) has caused quite a stir in both legal and political circles. This article attempts to balance the perspectives by investigating what the judgement has to say on points of law, and what lessons India can learn from it.
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.
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.
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.
This article attempts to explore the growing trend of unconventional bail conditions in Indian courts, focusing on two key cases: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Faizal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. It analyzes the latter on the basis of principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice established in the former, urging the judiciary to re-evaluate its approach.
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.
Constitutional Law Society 