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 approach to ‘transformative constitutionalism’ in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union stands in stark contrast to the rationale preferred in Balram Singh. The central issue concerns both...
Summary: The piece analyses the scope of Section 175(4) of the BNSS. The provision requires a Magistrate, before directing an investigation against a public servant, to seek a report from a superior...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
Blurb: In this article, the author critically examines the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate change, unpacking its doctrinal...
Summary: In Murti Devi & Anr. v Balkar Singh, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court denied maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship after considering her male-partner’s conviction for...