One of our regular and esteemed readers, Shekhar Hattangadi, has written this interesting piece in today’s DNA, expressing his disappointment with the judgment on Narco tests. Shekhar is a lawyer and an adjunct professor of medical jurisprudence at Mumbai University. Shekhar and I disagree on the import of Supreme Court’s judgment, but readers are welcome to form their own opinion on the issue. My article in Frontline is here.
Supreme Court’s judgment on Narco tests: the debate continues
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...
VV, I think that curiously we are not in disagreement about the judgment's import. Assuming, as far as the meaning of the word import goes, that we agree upon the same thing in the same sense, then "import" would mean significance / importance / consequence. And I'm quite certain that we're both convinced about how important and significant the judgment is for India's criminal justice system, and about the consequences it will have on it. Namely, more criminal investigations yielding evidence that is inadequate for the trial to reach the conviction threshold. There simply is no denying this from any side of the debate.
I believe our disagreement stems from the way we characterize the nature of the judgment itself. Our respective pieces make our stands clear. You think that irrespective of the consequences, it's bold and revolutionary. I think that precisely because of those consequences, it's anything but.