A recent post on this blog covered the Karnataka High Court decision on anti-defection law. Two recent op-eds, one by C. V. Madhukar in the Indian Express and the other by Sudhir Krishnaswamy in the Sunday Guardian, present very different views on the judgment. Krishnaswamy’s op-ed covers the important question about the admissibility of the petition; Madhukar’s does not do so though I think it lies at the heart of the case. The other important question, which both consider at length, is of course whether an independent member who joins the government should be disqualified, what the wording implies in para 2(2) of the 10th schedule, and what kind of controlling precedent Jagjit Singh actually is.
Anti-Defection and the Karnataka High Court
Further reading
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long standing...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnects weekly What’s New in Public Law feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal space. What’s new at...
Speakers and Schedule of the Fourth Edition of the Court and Constitution Conference, 2023 at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.