1. The US Supreme Court’s latest opinion in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (available here) maps the trajectory of substantive due process doctrine, while holding that the second amendment right to bear arms for self defense applies against the states.
2. I had discussed in this op-ed piece in the Hindu some time ago how the Selvi and R Gandhi cases were Indian substantive due process cases.
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...
how can it be said that r gandhi used substantive due process?
due process in terms of A. 14 always existed in the sense of reasonable classificantion, object of the Act or discrimination
but saying that due process of r gandhi is like due process of selvi is fallcious because r gandhi uses a. 14 and not A. 21 while selvi uses A. 21.