The apex court judgment, which also gives a clean chit to the Chhattisgarh chief minister’s son, has raised several questions.
The Wire Analysis
The prime minister used his recent speech in Parliament to mount both an attack on the opposition and a defence of his government. But how well do his claims stack up? The Wire breaks it down.
The survey examines the impact of the Modi government’s push for formalisation but is relatively less silent on what it means for employment and socio-economic development.
In light of the Aadhaar data breach, there are several questions that need to be answered by UIDAI and its enrollment partners.
Senior Congress party leaders and the accused were quick to state that they were falsely accused and that there was no scam.
The court is bizarrely silent on whether Aadhaar enrolment IDs can be made mandatory for all services and also failed to correct the legal contradictions arising from the mobile phone and PAN card linkage orders.
The court has held the petitioner in contempt without following due process or natural justice.
The judgment remains unconvincing, both by the Supreme Court’s own standards of ensuring probity in public life and the requirements of institutional integrity.
If the questions raised by Judge Loya’s family had surfaced earlier, both the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court may have come to a different conclusion on the appeal.
The fact that the charge of attempted bribery was made by the CBI has been conveniently overlooked in the rush to declare that the petitioners had damaged “the great institution”.
Modi blamed the former prime minister, saying that if she had done what needed to be done, “the nation wouldn’t have been in this situation today”. How true is this? The Wire breaks it down.
Ultimately, the bench decided to leave it to the government to decide whether its order needs to be diluted or further cemented.
By making its proceedings public, the collegium has finally realised that it did not need to wait for the Centre to act in order to kick off a reform process.
This is the fourth example of judges or candidates for judgeship paying the price for having contributed to rulings which went against the interests of those currently in power at the Centre.
Denying consent to one section of married women, either adult or minor, is problematic and would suffer from arbitrariness.
Does the right to privacy becoming a fundamental right mean the Aadhaar programme is unconstitutional or will be shut down? The Wire explains.
The Centre was ordered to pay Chellamma Palani her pension three years ago – after which it appealed and appealed until the Supreme Court upheld the order last week.
If the government wants to protect the data of individuals collected by private entities, why does it deny the same under the Aadhaar scheme?
Just how seriously should the prime minister’s strong words be taken?
How will the eminent lawyer perform in key matters such as the collegium system for appointing judges, the Aadhaar privacy case and the cattle sale ban case?
How will India’s sixteen-year-in-the-making tax system overhaul impact the economy, India Inc, the informal sector and the consumer? The Wire breaks it down.
Should India not recognise the contribution of Shivkant Shukla and those countless Indians who suffered loss of freedom because of the Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur?
With Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, one of the seven judges who heard the Karnan case, having since retired and thus not able to sign the judgement, its legality could be challenged.
While the Centre may choose someone who sees eye to eye with it on pending legal issues, it should remember that the attorney general’s role is conceived as independent and non-political – a principle that Setalvad stood by.
Discounting loans, one of the primary grievances the CBI and stockbroker Sanjay Dutt have raised, by itself isn’t criminal or fraudulent. How do the allegations stack up?
It is not often that a single rocket inspires conversations across history, politics, astronomy, engineering, communications and business at once.
Does the Centre have the power to make rules prohibiting the slaughter of animals for food and religious sacrifice, or on their sale for these purposes?
Kejriwal claims to have “irrefutable evidence” that the BJP attempted to effect a leadership change within the AAP and take over the Delhi government.
The Supreme Court Order Sentencing Justice Karnan to Six Months’ Imprisonment Sets A Wrong Precedent
The court has also overstepped its authority by ordering a gag on media coverage of Karnan’s statements without giving the media a chance to put forward its objections.
The bottom line is that the government has not been able to rebut the petitioners’ claim that insisting income tax assessees acquire Aadhaar numbers is inconsistent with the Aadhaar Act, which aims at voluntariness.
Senior lawyer K.K. Venugopal had advised the court to ignore Justice Karnan’s orders since no one was taking them seriously and wait till he retires in June. But Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi wanted strict action against the Calcutta high court judge.
Noorjehan Safia Niaz of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, an intervenor in the Shayara Bano PIL before the Supreme Court, advances a mature and nuanced viewpoint in a vitiated political climate.
An intervener in the case has argued that decisions like making the singing of the national anthem compulsory should rest with parliament and not the judiciary.
While the manner in which authorities have reacted to the cricketer’s issue is commendable, similar attention needs to be paid to other, less prominent breaches of privacy.
It is deplorable that the Unique Identification Authority’s legal attempts at fixing the system come against critics and not true offenders.
A brief look at how the the militant ‘yogi’ has built his political career out of spewing venom against Muslims.
The ongoing contempt case against Justice C.S. Karnan is headed towards an unpleasant denouement
Sharp estimate revisions, channel stuffing and the hypothetical schism between formal and informal sector growth. What makes sense, what doesn’t and what is perhaps slightly questionable?
When there is uncertainty, as there clearly was, incumbent chief minister O. Panneerselvam ought to have been given the first opportunity for a floor test
The Supreme Court has held that the governor has the required discretion to meet exigencies like the current one, and delay the swearing in till he is satisfied she will not be disqualified by the impending judgment in the disproportionate assets case.