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.
Summary: The approach to ‘transformative constitutionalism’ in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union stands in stark contrast to the rationale preferred in Balram Singh. The central issue concerns both...
Summary: The piece analyses the scope of Section 175(4) of the BNSS. The provision requires a Magistrate, before directing an investigation against a public servant, to seek a report from a superior...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
Blurb: In this article, the author critically examines the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate change, unpacking its doctrinal...
Summary: In Murti Devi & Anr. v Balkar Singh, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court denied maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship after considering her male-partner’s conviction for...
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.