The Court’s recent decision to frame guidelines to regulate reporting of its proceedings raises many important issues. As Siddharth Varadarajan argues, it is both unnecessary and inconsistent with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech and expression.
i agree with Siddharth Varadarajan. article 19(6) demands a legislative mandate to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. the court can frame rules in the exercise of its legislative power but a judicial guidelines cannot fall within the scope of article 19 (6). i would say a judgement so passed would be unconstitutional as there is no LIS before the court requiring its decision.
This article examines India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, focusing on the adequacy of its consent-based framework as the primary mechanism for privacy protection. It discusses...
This article examines the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment on the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, focusing on the Court’s effort to resolve the long-standing definitional ambiguity surrounding the ecosystem...
The article is divided into two parts. Part-I seeks to establish that ASHA workers fulfil conditions to be recognised as workman under the IRC. Part-II aims to show how the feminisation aspect...
The article is divided into two parts. Part-I seeks to establish that ASHA workers fulfil conditions to be recognised as workman under the IRC. Part-II aims to show how the feminisation aspect...
Summary: The article analyses the case of Hari Devageeth v Union of India. It highlights the conflict faced by the court between two constitutional rights: a transgender man’s right to bodily...
Introduction The fifth panel highlighted the multi-faceted dimensions of behavioural accountability within the Indian Judicial system. Moving beyond the constitutional frameworks, the panelists...
i agree with Siddharth Varadarajan. article 19(6) demands a legislative mandate to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. the court can frame rules in the exercise of its legislative power but a judicial guidelines cannot fall within the scope of article 19 (6). i would say a judgement so passed would be unconstitutional as there is no LIS before the court requiring its decision.