The Supreme Court’s split decision in this case raises some interesting issues. In this article, I touch upon two such issues within the limitations of space. One is why the CJI has never been in a minority. I would agree that the CJI being in a majority in most cases cannot be just a coincidence. But I am equally intrigued what could convincingly explain this phenomenon. The second issue is what I think many have missed in this debate – except those campaigning against death penalty. When the Supreme Court admitted Sangma’s petition against Mukherjee, should it not have restrained Mukherjee from taking irreversible decisions till it disposed the petition?
P.A.Sangma vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Further reading
What happens when a Constitution promises rights, but the systems built around it keep concentrating power? In this episode, LAOT host Arnav Mathur speaks with constitutional scholar Dr...
In this article, the authors examine whether the Indian Space Research Organisation qualifies as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They argue that space exploration in India...
The Law and Other Things Blog (LAOT), in collaboration with the Community for the Eradication of Discrimination in Education and Employment (CEDE), is inviting applications for the position of Legal...
India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention but has historically adhered to international human rights principles. However, recent judicial responses, particularly the Supreme Court’s...
In this article, the author explores the scope of the judicial review of Money Bills by questioning the neutrality of the Speaker’s certification of the Money Bills and analysing Justice...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...