–Ashish Goel, Advocate, Supreme Court of India Earlier this year, a three-judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court (HC) decided that female Muslim students have no fundamental right to wear a headscarf inside government schools. Given the manner in which the Petitioners put forth their arguments and given the dominance that the ‘essential religious practices’
Indian Anti-Conversion Laws Have No Place in a Constitutional Democracy
—Kruthika R, LLM Student in Human Rights, Central European University, Vienna Three federal states in India have passed laws that criminalise religious conversion for marriage without a prior state permission. And mandates a cumbersome procedure to obtain permission from the state to convert to another religion for marriage. These laws in effect attempt to tackle ‘Love Jihad’:
Special Undergraduate Series–Enforcing Disability Rights: the Indian Supreme Court’s Judgment in Vikash Kumar
Special Series: Perspectives from Undergraduate Law Students LL.B. Student Contribution –Prannv Dhawan and Anchal Bhateja, B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Students, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru (India) In a significant judgment rendered in case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India constitutionally fortified the right
The Indian Supreme Court and the Deportation of Rohingya Refugees: Constitutional Review and the Prospect of Success
–Debarshi Chakraborty, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Candidate, National Law University Odisha, India Despite efforts on the international front – the International Criminal Court had initiated an investigation into Myanmar’s forced deportation of Rohingya and the International Court of Justice imposed provisional measures for preventing genocide – the situation in Myanmar remains precarious for the Rohingya community.
Special Undergraduate Series–COVID-19: The Indian Supreme Court’s Abdication of Constitutional Duty
Special Series: Perspectives from Undergraduate Law StudentsLL.B. Student Contribution —Prannv Dhawan, National Law School of India University, and Anmol Jain, National Law University, Jodhpur Judicial restraint is necessary in dealing with the powers of another co-ordinate bench of the government; but restraint cannot imply abdication of the responsibility of walking on that edge. —Supreme Court
Special Undergraduate Series–The Misplaced Objections Against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019 (India)
Special Series: Perspectives from Undergraduate Law StudentsLL.B. Student Contribution –Anmol Jain, B.A., LL.B. Student (Hons.), National Law University, Jodhpur, India Last month, the Lower House of the Indian Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019 to ‘provide for protection of rights of transgender persons and their welfare.’ This comes after a series
Joint Symposium on “Towering Judges”: Justice P.N. Bhagwati: A Towering Judge with a Divisive Legacy
[Editor’s Note: This is part of the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The author in this post formed part of a panel on “Towering Judges in Transformative Constitutions.” The introduction to
In Defence of Constitutionalism
—Dr. Rohit De, Assistant Professor at Yale University, and Dr. Tarunabh Khaitan, Associate Professor at the Universities of Oxford and Melbourne On the 12th of January 2018, four of the five senior-most judges of the Indian Supreme Court who constitute its ‘collegium’ held an unprecedented joint press conference. They released an open letter they had written
Triple Talaq: Still Not Unconstitutional in India
–Sachin Dhawan, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, India The famous American lawyer and judge Thurgood Marshall used to tell his judicial clerks that the most important principle in law is the rule of five. In its absence, all else was irrelevant. He was referring to the number of judges required to constitute a majority
The Constitutional Burden of the Global Imagination (I-CONnect Column)
—Menaka Guruswamy, Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and Advocate, Supreme Court of India [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more
