29 August 2024
Lights, Camera, Inclusion?
On July 8th, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a case challenging the movie "Aankh Micholi" for allegedly reinforcing harmful stereotypes about disabilities. The Court declared that “disabling humor” which demeans persons with disabilities would not be fully protected as freedom of speech. While the judgment provided an in-depth analysis of creative freedom and the rights of persons with disabilities, it stopped short of issuing binding directives, thus lacking the teeth necessary to effect meaningful change in how disabilities are portrayed in media. Continue reading >>
0 
29 August 2024
Jurisprudence of Convenience
Last month, in Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Film India Private Ltd, the Indian Supreme Court delivered an opinion on the limits of protected speech under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. While the opinion touched upon several important aspects of the free speech right, it is replete with behavioral guidance, and its language makes it hard to discern the binding legal principles. I argue that courts should approach cases involving hard questions of constitutional law with extreme caution in terms of their potential implication on the growth (or absence) of a consistent doctrine. Continue reading >>
0
07 May 2024
The Genre-Bending of Climate Litigation in India
In a widely acclaimed judgment, India recently saw its first climate ruling issued by the Supreme Court. The Court derived the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change from Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution. The ruling of the Supreme Court has been classified in this blog as an important step in connecting human rights and climate change. In this blog post, I offer another overarching route that cases connected to climate change in India have taken, which is genre-bending in that they use environmental litigation as the pathway to also address climate change. Continue reading >>13 March 2024
Privileges Constrained
Last week, the Indian Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India, holding that parliamentary privilege – the constitutionally recognized legal immunity of legislators – does not extend to bribe-taking for exercising their legislative vote or speech a certain way. In this blog post, I discuss the Court’s formulation of the essentiality test, as well as its conclusions on the availability of privilege for bribe-taking. I argue that while the ruling can strengthen democratic institutions since it protects the integrity of legislative processes, certain risks in the essentiality test’s composition – which risk depriving important legislative functions of privilege – must be addressed. Continue reading >>
0
21 February 2024
On the Politics of Non-Transparent Electoral Funding in India
Last week, a five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict adjudicating the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme (“EBS”). The EBS introduced a novel method of making ‘anonymous’ donations to Indian political parties, both by individuals and a body of individuals. The judgment makes a democracy-enabling jurisprudential step in extending the right to information of voters to the details of political funding received by political parties in an effort to cement transparency and accountability as the central values of the electoral exercise. Continue reading >>
0
27 January 2023
The Indian Supreme Court Collegium Picking its Battle
In an unprecedented move, the collegium of the Supreme Court of India on the 17th and 18th of January, 2023, passed resolutions calling out the executive’s delay in the judicial appointments of five advocates by publicly countering the government’s objections against their appointment. In this piece, I discuss how the Supreme Court collegium has confronted the discriminatory treatment of persons who openly identify as a part of the LGBTQIA+ community in the process of judicial appointments by standing up to the executive’s bullying. The piece also looks into how the collegium has confronted the union government’s attempt to suppress dissent among advocates and why these resolutions are highly consequential. Continue reading >>05 November 2022
Regressive, Sexist, and Unconstitutional
On 31 October 2022, a two judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a crucial order, reiterating its ban on the so called “two finger test”. The continued usage of the test, the Court stated in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, is professional misconduct. To enforce the ban of this practice against survivors of sexual violence the bench issued a slew of directions. In this post, I discuss the impact of this order on the constitutional rights of survivors of sexual violence. While the Court’s judgment is a progressive one, it might not have the desired effect, namely the complete ban on the conduct of the ‘two finger test’. Continue reading >>
0
02 February 2021
No Court When Needed
For months, Indian farmers have been protesting against the so-called “farm bills”. With the government unwilling to give in to demands and with farmers determined to keep on protesting until the laws are repealed, India’s Supreme Court has ventured into the political fray. On 12th January it passed an order staying the laws as well as setting up a mediation committee. The Supreme Court’s response fits neatly into a destructive pattern, particularly in the past years under the Modi government, in which it has abnegated its core functions in favor of politically expedient (in-)actions. Continue reading >>
0
27 July 2020
No Country for Dissent
On July 25, Twitter ‘withheld’ or disabled access to two tweets made by activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan had posted two tweets in the end of June, criticizing the Supreme Court and especially its current Chief Justice. Based on the Tweets, the Supreme Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Bhushan on July 21 and Twitter’s withdrawal comes two days after the first hearing in the case. Continue reading >>
0
13 January 2020
Kashmir: A Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy
On 10 January 2020, the Indian Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the ongoing internet shutdown in Kashmir. While the Court did reprimand the government to some extent, at the time of this writing Kashmir is still cut off from the internet. Anyone who had banked on the Supreme Court to make good on the promise of fundamental rights will be disheartened. Continue reading >>
0