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.
[As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to the public law-themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access all the posts in...
[Ed Note: As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to public law themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access the posts in...
[Ed Note: As part of our New Scholarship section, we have been inviting discussants to respond to the public law themed articles featured in Volume 5 the Indian Law Review. You can access the posts...
The article revolves around the recent order promulgated by China's National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA). The authors examine the same through the lens of international human rights...
Varadaraja Shivaraya Mallar, who taught at seven law schools across India, left us on Saturday. With his ebulliently booming voice, Professor V.S. Mallar introduced generations of students to the...
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.