Tomorrow, at 10.30 a.m., Justice G.S.Singhvi will deliver the judgment in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation (SLP (c) 15436/2009) at Court No.1. Justice Singhvi also retires from the Supreme Court tomorrow. We have followed the Delhi High Court judgment in the case closely. It will be of interest to know how Justice Singhvi approaches the issue of standing of the petitioners in this case, as the UOI did not appeal against the High Court judgment.
I would be very surprised if the Court overturned the High Court ruling when the Union itself did not defend its law (and when pushed by the court, expressed substantive agreement with the High Court position). But this is the same bench that gave the atrocious judgment in Bhullar — their support for fundamental rights is clearly not to be assumed.
Blurb: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Section 104 revives the constitutional infirmities of the repealed Section 303 IPC, despite its ostensible reformist intent.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...
In this piece, the author revisits the legacy of Bhulabhai Desai and his masterful defense at the Indian National Army Trials of 1945, exploring how Bhulabhai’s arguments not only reframed the INA’s...
I would be very surprised if the Court overturned the High Court ruling when the Union itself did not defend its law (and when pushed by the court, expressed substantive agreement with the High Court position). But this is the same bench that gave the atrocious judgment in Bhullar — their support for fundamental rights is clearly not to be assumed.
This website is following developments closely: http://orinam.net/377/