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: The article analyses the case of Hari Devageeth v Union of India. It highlights the conflict faced by the court between two constitutional rights: a transgender man’s right to bodily...
Introduction The fifth panel highlighted the multi-faceted dimensions of behavioural accountability within the Indian Judicial system. Moving beyond the constitutional frameworks, the panelists...
Introduction This report summarises the panel discussion titled “Adjudicating the Environmental Juristocracy,” which examined the trajectory of environmental and animal law jurisprudence...
Introduction The panel paid tribute to Professor M.P. Singh by showcasing his academic work, his role as head of NUJS, and his ability to unite diverse groups in legal education. Dr. Satya Prasoon...
This report summarises the panel discussion on the topic “Special Intensive Revision: Contours and Contents of Citizenship”, during the 7th Edition of the Courts and the Constitution Conference at...
Introduction This panel examined the intersection of constitutional text, institutional practice, and judicial intervention, focusing specifically on the controversies surrounding the exercise of...