This article examines the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine in the Indian legal context, where courts have historically admitted illegally obtained evidence if deemed relevant. However, with the recognition of the right to privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, there is a growing emphasis on protecting individual privacy over procedural leniency. This shift highlights the need for a well-defined legal framework that balances investigative authority with constitutional safeguards, ensuring that evidence obtained through unlawful means does not undermine fundamental rights and the rule of law.
The Boundless โIndiaโ: Why Section 152 May Silence More Than Section 124A
This blog piece examines the implications of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India's new sedition law, which replaces "Government established by law; with the amorphous concept of 'India'. It critiques the potential for increased censorship and arbitrary interpretation, posing threats to free speech and democratic dissent.
Reforming Special Leave Petitions: A Two-Tier Approach to Streamline the Supreme Court’s Workload
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 theย Court'sย power.
Threats to Fundamental Rights in the Digital Era: Analysing Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021
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 userโs privacy, free speech, and intermediaryโs 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.
Beyond the Speaker’s Discretion: Expanding Judicial Review in Disqualifications
This article argues for expanding judicial review of political defection cases in India, where speakersโ partisan decisions have undermined the Tenth Scheduleโs democratic purpose. It contends that substantive judicial intervention is constitutionally necessary to safeguard democracy, despite challenges to the separation of powers doctrine.
Pardon the interruption: Silencing of judicial review by ยง472(7) of BNSS, 2023 [Part II]
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.
Pardon The Interruption: Silencing Of Judicial Review By ยง472(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.
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 privatizationโlooking 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 inequalityโalong with present global insights and safeguards for this transformative shift.
Ave Rex Populi: The Horizons of Presidential Immunity in Trump v. United States
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.
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.
Battling Digital Disinformation: The Imperative of Fact-Checking in a Participatory Democracy (Part II)
Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as aย โglobal riskโ,ย causing โinformation pollutionโย that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and politicalย stability.ย Part โ II intends to explore the evolving interpretation of the theory of โmarketplace of ideasโ 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.
Battling Digital Disinformation: The Imperative of Fact-Checking in a Participatory Democracy (Part I)
Disinformation and misinformation has been earmarked as aย โglobal riskโ,ย causing โinformation pollutionโย that adversely impacts decision making and socio-economic and politicalย stability. In light of this, Part โ I of this Article aims to expplain the imperative and constitutionality of the Fact-Check Unit (FCU) underย Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021, through a comparativeย study.ย