In a new book published this month, “Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India” (Penguin, 2017), I argue that the enactment of the Constitution in 1950 made little substantive difference to the right to free speech since many of the colonial-era restrictions on free speech (sedition, hate speech, obscenity, contempt of court, and defamation) were retained and even strengthened in independent India. I would like to invite interested readers to read further.
Freedom of Speech
Further reading
Blurb: In this two-part series, Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya revisits the UCC’s roots in the Constituent Assembly debates and traces its evolution within India’s legal framework. He emphasises...
Blurb: In this two-part series, Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya revisits the UCC’s roots in the Constituent Assembly debates and traces its evolution within India’s legal framework. He emphasises...
The Electoral Bond scheme allowed individuals and companies to anonymously purchase bonds to fund political parties, under the guise of transparency by mandating the use of regular banking channels...
This blog post replies to Sarthak Sahoo’s claim against intellectual bias as a ground of recusal. The author provides a rejoinder to his arguments while simultaneously revisiting his...
This article emphasizes that the core of the Electoral bond judgment lies not merely in election reform but in reinforcing equal access to political processes, a foundational aspect of Representative...
Several High Courts have granted prisoners the right to procreate with their spouse, including it within the ambit of “personal liberty.” The article analyzes such jurisprudence as detrimental to the...
Read Abhinav Chandrachud book. Summary of law reports have been condensed in the para and passages. A good compliation of case laws on particular article of constitution and sections of penal code.Abhinav needs to read Willis. Original thoughts are expected rather than quotes of Jackson or Holmes.