The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal case has been widelyhailed. The title of this post is drawn from one such commentary carried in Telegraph, which also exposes the players and the factors that went into the making of S.66A of ITA. The Court had before it 10 petitions, including that of Shreya. This site gives an overview of all the petitions. Although the petitions were listed before different Benches since 2012, the present Bench began to hear the case only from January 13 this year, and heard it for eight days, before concluding on February 26. If the listing of the case before this Bench is explained by chance, then perhaps the title of the post – despite the eclipse of democracy since 2009, when S.66A was inserted into the ITA – is fully justified. Considering the inordinate delay in hearing the matter by the Supreme Court, democracy’s agony could have been longer, but for the current Bench which heard it expeditiously.
Update: Telegraph continues its coverage, with a story on what it calls the ‘Congress’ 66A gene‘
Summary: In this piece, we continue the discussion on Prof. Nivedita Menon’s latest book, Secularism as Misdirection: Critical Thought from the Global South. The summary of the book by Prof...
Blurb: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Section 104 revives the constitutional infirmities of the repealed Section 303 IPC, despite its ostensible reformist intent. By maintaining mandatory sentencing...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test is scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India. This piece highlights the inadequacies of the ERP Doctrine, and argues for a change...
Blurb: The article advocates extending euthanasia to non-terminally ill patients, emphasizing autonomy and dignity under Article 21. Critiquing current laws, it highlights ethical dilemmas and...