The Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009 is attracting a lot of attention, especially for the puzzling (and disappointing) official stance adopted on it by the judiciary (recounted in this recent post). I found the commentaries offered by Fali Nariman and Pratap Mehta on the fracas in the Rajya Sabha particularly insightful and thought-provoking. Nariman’s sincere advice to the judiciary offers it a dignified way out of this mess. However, it is not clear if the judiciary perceives the damage its stance is doing to its own prestige and power.
Nariman and Mehta on the Judges’ Bill
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...