The Court’s recent decision to frame guidelines to regulate reporting of its proceedings raises many important issues. As Siddharth Varadarajan argues, it is both unnecessary and inconsistent with the Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech and expression.
i agree with Siddharth Varadarajan. article 19(6) demands a legislative mandate to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. the court can frame rules in the exercise of its legislative power but a judicial guidelines cannot fall within the scope of article 19 (6). i would say a judgement so passed would be unconstitutional as there is no LIS before the court requiring its decision.
This blog examines whether ‘Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence’ qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 in light of the Supreme Court’s AMU judgment. Applying the...
Summary: The persistent intrusion of work into personal time not only erodes an individual’s temporal boundaries, but also puts to test the inadequacies of the existing labour safeguards...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
What happens when a Constitution promises rights, but the systems built around it keep concentrating power? In this episode, LAOT host Arnav Mathur speaks with constitutional scholar Dr...
In this article, the authors examine whether the Indian Space Research Organisation qualifies as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They argue that space exploration in India...
i agree with Siddharth Varadarajan. article 19(6) demands a legislative mandate to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. the court can frame rules in the exercise of its legislative power but a judicial guidelines cannot fall within the scope of article 19 (6). i would say a judgement so passed would be unconstitutional as there is no LIS before the court requiring its decision.