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.
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...
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/