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
India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention but has historically adhered to international human rights principles. However, recent judicial responses, particularly the Supreme Court’s...
In this article, the author explores the scope of the judicial review of Money Bills by questioning the neutrality of the Speaker’s certification of the Money Bills and analysing Justice...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
Blurb: This article maps the four statutory criteria central to the sex-consent matrix, which render consent peripheral while elevating social control and sexual obligation. Thereafter, it reads the...
Summary: 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 space. What’s...
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