The debate over T.S.R. Subramanian continues in the pages of the Indian Express. On Friday, Pratap Bhanu Mehta wrote a whithering critique of the judgment, which takes steps to increase bureaucratic independence, labeling it judicial overreach that allows a middle class agenda to undercut representative democracy. Today, Menaka Guruswamy, one of the primary lawyers for the bureaucrats who brought the case, struck back, arguing in an op-ed that Mehta fundamentally misreads the judgment, which she argues is actually an example of restrained judicial intervention grounded both in sound policy and a careful reading of constitutional text and history. I recommend reading both pieces to gain insight not only into this case, but the larger debate over the Court’s role in shaping the Indian polity.
T.S.R. Subramanian Debate Continues
Further reading
In this article, the author explores the scope of the judicial review of Money Bills by questioning the neutrality of the Speaker’s certification of the Money Bills and analysing Justice...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
Blurb: This article maps the four statutory criteria central to the sex-consent matrix, which render consent peripheral while elevating social control and sexual obligation. Thereafter, it reads the...
Summary: 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 space. What’s...
Summary: In this piece, we continue the discussion on Prof. Nivedita Menon’s latest book, Secularism as Misdirection: Critical Thought from the Global South. The summary of the book by Prof...
Both, Mr. Pratap Bhanu's critique and Menaka Guruswamy's reply to it are a treat to read.
However, I think we are still missing something. My point is that the Supreme Court did not give adequate weight and consideration to the arguments raised by the Union of India and the other states.
The state tried to show how it is implementing the recommendations of these committees and commissions. In fact, most of the recommendations have already been implemented. But, Supreme Court did not go into those details.
My personal opinion regarding this case can be found here. http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2013/11/supreme-court-judgment-on-good_1.html