The Supreme Court’s split decision in this case raises some interesting issues. In this article, I touch upon two such issues within the limitations of space. One is why the CJI has never been in a minority. I would agree that the CJI being in a majority in most cases cannot be just a coincidence. But I am equally intrigued what could convincingly explain this phenomenon. The second issue is what I think many have missed in this debate – except those campaigning against death penalty. When the Supreme Court admitted Sangma’s petition against Mukherjee, should it not have restrained Mukherjee from taking irreversible decisions till it disposed the petition?
P.A.Sangma vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Further reading
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...
Summary: In this piece, we continue the discussion on Prof. Nivedita Menon’s latest book, Secularism as Misdirection: Critical Thought from the Global South. The summary of the book by Prof...
Summary: In this piece, we continue the discussion on Prof. Nivedita Menon’s latest book, Secularism as Misdirection: Critical Thought from the Global South. The summary of the book by Prof...
Blurb: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Section 104 revives the constitutional infirmities of the repealed Section 303 IPC, despite its ostensible reformist intent. By maintaining mandatory sentencing...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...
Blurb: This blog discusses the inadequacy of the current refugee law framework in addressing the pressing issue of climate refugees. It subsequently discusses the imminent need to develop regional...