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 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...
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