The Halsbury’s Law Monthly, the online journal being published by LexisNexis has devoted its latest issue to the discussion of what Constitution of India will look like (or how it should look like) in 2050. The interviews with senior advocates and academics, carried in this issue, are very interesting. Most interviewees, however, pontificate on immediate reforms which they have in mind, but also analyse its current strengths and weaknesses. Raju Ramachandran thus wants PR, Bill of Rights, Constitutional status to Human Rights Commissions, appointment of a distinct jurist as a Judge, as envisaged in the Constitution, and deletion of certain hypocrytic principles, such as Prohibition and Socialism.
Gopal Subramanian seeks adoption of French form of Republicanism, and is in agreement with those who urge periodic review of our affirmative action policies. Ashok Desai dwells on why our Constitution makers rightly rejected the due process clause of American Constitution (Readers who wish to know more about this aspect may find an article written by Madhav Khosla very useful. He calls the rejection of due process by the Constituent Assembly erroneous in an article in Indian Judicial Review,Vol.4:1:2007) and also deplores the lack of specialist Benches to deal with IPR cases and a system of self-restraint from dealing with issues not before the Bench.
The interviews with others are equally illuminating. Indeed, this online monthly journal must be in our regular reading list. The August issue (the first issue) has made the PILs as the cover story, while the September issue deals with conflict of laws.) A great effort, and a source of inspiration on how we could plan our blog-content.
I am a regular reader of this blog and would like to suggest some changes in the way you guys present your stuff.
I humbly request you to change the lay out of the blog primarily as it does not match the richness of the content. The font is too small and the way the content is put does not attract a reader. There are various user friendly lay outs available, as you would obviously be aware of.
I like the content. So please make it more attractive for readers like me.
Anyways, Thanks for the halsbury link.
I know that this might sound like a minor quibble, but why don’t you all migrate to a standalone blog site just for Law and Other Things (like what most of the major legal theory and discussion blogs have)? WordPress might be a good setup to use in the migration.