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
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...
The Law and Other Things Blog (LAOT), in collaboration with the Community for the Eradication of Discrimination in Education and Employment (CEDE), is inviting applications for the position of Legal...
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