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
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...
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...