This has got to be one of the most interesting back-and-forth during a Supreme Court argument. Gone are the days of judges passively listening to senior advocates drone on and on. This bench, at least, seems to be in a combative mood.
A Lakhman Rekha for The Judiciary
Further reading
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...
The blog analyses the Mineral Area Development Authority decision, specifically analysing the question of when states can start taxing mining entities, along with an analysis of the doctrine of...
Blurb: The article argues for disability-inclusive prison reforms, emphasizing the right to reasonable accommodation and the right to dignity for incarcerated persons with disabilities in light of...
Blurb: The article argues for disability-inclusive prison reforms, emphasizing the right to reasonable accommodation and the right to dignity for incarcerated persons with disabilities in light of...
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...
It is very sad to see that such ludicrous arguments are advanced by the Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court. Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides enormous powers to the Supreme Court to take up such steps as are necessary to meet the ends of justice. Those who always talk about Lakshman Rekha are timid and Luddites. If the Supreme Court had failed to evolve certain novel methods like the PILs to address the problems of the general public, the society would have, by now, been festering with stinking rots. Lakshman Rekha is meant for those who indulge into wrongdoings and they are not supposed to cross it. But take an example: Traffic lights should not be violated is a general rule, however, if a dacoit is escaping after looting somebody, then in that case whether the policemen should wait for the traffic light to turn green or simply jump the red light and catch him? Policeman should be awarded for apprehending the culprit or be punished for violating the signal? Obviously, any right thinking would support the cause espoused by the policeman instead of delving deep into technicalties.
Parmanand Pandey, Advocate