India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention but has historically adhered to international human rights principles. However, recent judicial responses, particularly the Supreme Court’s...
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...
this is not a comment on the substance of the argument. only, your piece made me wonder if there is a distinction between dhavan the lawyer and dhavan the public intellectual? we see no problem for criminal lawyers defending ppl they might find distasteful personally and politically. do/should we have different standards for constitutional lawyers? indeed, dhavan himself may claim that he only argues for a position he feels comfortable with and that there was a real change in his beliefs between 1991 and 2008. but at a general level, i wonder what makes an ethical public lawyer – one who makes the best legal case for the client before him, or one who only chooses briefs whose politics he agrees with? can we criticise lawyers for positions they take in the courtroom? of course, the counter-argument is perhaps that senior advocates do in fact have a choice (do they?) and given the stakes involved in public law cases, criticising them for their legal arguments is fair game.
My understanding is that the judgment in Nagaraj case did
not address the issues adequately.
It gave some general principles and
left it for the courts to decide on the individual cases.It did not strike down the amendments made in the constitution to protect reservations for SCs/STs
in promotions. The reservation in
promotions is not a simple issue
and the rules in Centre and states may not be uniform.
Till 1997 OBCs also enjoyed reservation in promotions.Now there is a demand to restore this.
Arun Shourie addresses this issue
in his book and provides a critique
of the judgments, particularly the
judgment in Thomas case.Given the
number of cases and the complex
nature of rules and their interpretation this question
of reservation in promotions
deserves a indepth study.