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
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
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...