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‘
[As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to the public law-themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access all the posts in...
[Ed Note: As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to public law themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access the posts in...
[Ed Note: As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to the public law themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access the posts...
The article revolves around the recent order promulgated by China's National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA). The authors examine the same through the lens of international human rights...
Varadaraja Shivaraya Mallar, who taught at seven law schools across India, left us on Saturday. With his ebulliently booming voice, Professor V.S. Mallar introduced generations of students to the...