Some thoughts on the Naz decision, here. In many ways, the shameful decision is a consequence of what has been unfolding in India for a few years now, where there an emphasis only on outcomes. The line between the legal process and the political process has been jettisoned and core judicial values like independence, rationality, and finality have been betrayed in the past three decades through forms of adjudication whose culprits are judges, lawyers, and litigants alike. The upshot of this has been that the Supreme Court no longer believes it needs to attend to matters like precedent, the textual content of legal materials, doctrinal coherence, and so forth. The running joke is that there is not one Supreme Court of India but many – the verdict you get will turn on which courtroom your matter gets listed in.
The Court’s Decline
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
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...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...