One way to bypass the complication of introducing a uniform civil code for a country as diverse as ours is to alter the laws to achieve gender equity.
Re-promulgation of ordinances is illegal, the apex court ruled, in a judgment that will be applicable to all central ordinances, including demonetisation.
The Supreme Court has missed a chance to bring the criminal defamation law within the frameworks required of a liberal, egalitarian state.
“From the courts, the underprivileged expect humane recognition of the inequities of their predicament and wise support for their cause. But what they have received is a demoralising and intimidating signal,” the statement signed by more than 100 academics said.
In a recent case, the judge ruled that the accused, charged with murder, deserved bail because they were provoked in the name of religion.
If the Supreme Court bench had relied on the precedent set by a constitution bench in 2013, it would not have insisted that the evidence – the Sahara-Birla diaries – be cogent in order to qualify for investigation.
Instilling a feeling of national unity can be a legitimate state interest but such a feeling cannot be pursued at the cost of individual liberty.
The 2015 petition from Common Cause questioning the appointment of the current CVC is still being heard, but the appeal to look into the Sahara-Birla groups’ alleged bribes has been dismissed.
Muslims in India live in constant fear. To bring about social reforms, it is first necessary to create a congenial atmosphere. Unfortunately, the Modi government has miserably failed on this front.
Negative experiences with the state’s judicial system have led many to lose faith in it and forced countless others to shy away from seeking legal recourse altogether.
As the judiciary represents the Indian state, showcasing the symbology of one particular religion in courts amounts to violating the principle of secularism
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar led the five-judge constitution bench in the Supreme Court which had struck down the controversial NJAC Act for the appointment of judges.
The outgoing chief justice sided with the majority view because he believed it advances the constitution’s commitment to secularism, which is now recognised as one of its basic features.
The landmark judgment came while the court revisited a judgment from 1995 that called Hinduism a “way of life”.
Instead of a new law, the law ministry has asked the Law Commission to recommend changes to the existing provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sedition, defamation, censorship, internet shutdowns – the year saw the courts being tested on a range of issues related to the freedom of expression.
The hearing for the case was rescheduled in light of a conflict of interest because the case implicates Prime Minister Modi while Khehar’s appointment as chief justice lay in his hands.
Though a recent high court judgment said administrators are not to be held liable, it cannot be seen as conclusive judicial determination on the issue.
Pranab Mukherjee re-promulgated the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance for the fifth time since it wasn’t passed as an Act in parliament in the winter session.
Seniority is not the ideal norm to determine the appointment of the chief justice of India, but there appears to be no alternative at present.
A new rule mandating a judicial inquiry into every case of custodial death does not account for deaths reported between when the law was amended in 2006 and when the circular was issued in 2016.
Although a law exists that criminalises insulting the national flag, national anthem and the constitution, it does not make it mandatory for a citizen to stand up when the anthem is played. The apex court has thus created a new offence without any legislation to back it.
The standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is incorrectly applied due to the prevalence of rape myths – prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims and rape perpetrators.
The Constituent Assembly debates show that those who drafted the constitution did not favour the inclusion of symbols, such as the national anthem, in its text.
The Bill attempts to reflect a change in the perception of institutionalised care but overlooks the wider socio-cultural and psycho-social determinants that impact mental health.
The apex court pronounced the verdict while addressing the petition filed by Karma Dorjee and others following several incidents of hate crimes in Delhi against persons hailing from the northeast.
The manner in which the law is currently being implemented seems to focus more on expeditious operationalisation rather than effective implementation.
The court’s appeal to constitutional patriotism in its order on the national anthem demonstrates a forsaking of intellectual enquiry into political theory and law, and a perilous road to judicial hegemony.
Not only does signal piracy lead to loss of revenue streams for Indian broadcasters, it is also known to have other unintended consequences such as money laundering and violation of foreign exchange regulations.
A report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found that on an average, a law took 261 days to come into force and 14% of laws took up to 1000 days to become implementable.
Indian Muslims have come a long way since the Shah Bano case in the 1980s; today, there is a vibrant debate within the community on the need for respecting the rights of women in marriage and the family.
Parliament must address the flaws in the current process of removing judges from office, which is riddled with systemic flaws such as the inquiry committee becoming invalid if a member retires or is elevated to the Supreme Court, or if the accused judge resigns or retires.
The advocacy group has released a statement saying it is exploring all possible legal options to challenge the government’s order.
While January – March 2017 will be a voluntary trial phase, Aadhaar verification will be mandatory for senior citizen discounts from next April.
By first limiting and now disallowing the exchanging of old notes for new ones, the state is violating the right to property of those without bank accounts.
The Supreme Court order encroaches on the functions of the executive and legislature, bypassing the checks-and-balances system enshrined in the constitution.
Citing the cinema hall precedent, petitioner wants the national anthem to be played before the commencement of proceedings in all courts across the country.
For some judges, substance is inversely proportional to verbosity. If this trend is not stopped, Indian jurisprudence will permanently suffer.
It is clear that the law requires an active act of disturbance to constitute an offence, but does it include a quiet refusal to stand for the national anthem?
The court also directed that the national flag should be shown on screen when the anthem is played.