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
Summary: The persistent intrusion of work into personal time not only erodes an individual’s temporal boundaries, but also puts to test the inadequacies of the existing labour safeguards...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
What happens when a Constitution promises rights, but the systems built around it keep concentrating power? In this episode, LAOT host Arnav Mathur speaks with constitutional scholar Dr...
In this article, the authors examine whether the Indian Space Research Organisation qualifies as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They argue that space exploration in India...
The Law and Other Things Blog (LAOT), in collaboration with the Community for the Eradication of Discrimination in Education and Employment (CEDE), is inviting applications for the position of Legal...
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