‘Democracy’s narrow escape’

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal case has been widely hailed.  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

Join the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.