This blog, among other things, will continue to record Justice M.Katju’s love-hate relationship with the PILs. Here are two reports on yesterday’s hearing in his court, to compensate for my failure to live-blog on this on-going, but fascinating aspect of a contemporary debate on the limits of judicial activism. The Mail Today story is here. The Hindustan Times story is here.. Between 2004 and now, what precisely influenced Justice Katju so as to undergo a genuine introspection on the PILs, and limits to judicial activism? He has grown wiser, according to his own admission, is fair enough. But what precisely contributed to this change in perspective? Are there a series of instances which might have influenced him to look at the PILs more critically than what he would have been earlier?
Justice M.Katju on his changing perspective on PIL
Further reading
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...