ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Supreme CourtSubscribe to Supreme Court

Economic Worth of Homemakers

The Supreme Court’s recent decision recognising unpaid domestic and care work’s pecuniary value is welcome.

An Act of Judicial Disingenuity

The Supreme Court’s intervention ( Rakesh Vaishnav v Union of India 2021) in the ongoing protests and debate over the three controversial “farm laws” 1 has been met with a storm of criticism (Hegde 2021; Yamunan 2021). It has “stayed the implementation” of the three farm laws “until further orders...

Farmers Reject Supreme Court Committee

Farmers’ refusal of the Supreme Court committee marks an astute recognition of democratic values.

Predicament of the Social Media Ordinance

Using ordinance to protect freedom of expression from foul speech may result in damaging decent communication.

God as a Litigant: Examining the Contradictions and Biases of the Ayodhya Verdict

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment on the Ayodhya dispute enables the triumph of a majoritarian claim—backed by a long, venomous communal campaign—over minority rights. The fact that the majority Hindu community managed to successfully claim a minority religion's sacred place purely based on faith and belief comes out luridly in the judgment. While the god or deity as a juridical person may have legal validity, filing a suit in god’s name and projecting god as a litigant has the potential to bring in biases and conflicts.

The Singur Movement

​ Land Dispossession and Everyday Politics in Rural Eastern India by Kenneth Bo Nielsen, London and New York: Anthem Press, 2018; pp 221, £70, hardcover.

India’s First Per Curiam

A per curiam opinion seeks to project the court as a resolute bloc in unanimous verdicts by concealing the identity of the author(s). However, arbitrarily employing anonymity, without due regard to legal tradition and reason, adversely impacts accountability and transparency in the judiciary. As such, it is important to evaluate the Supreme Court of India’s choice of anonymity in the momentous Ayodhya decision.

Women’s Right to Property Ownership

Women’s right to property ownership becomes right when it yields concrete results in women’s favour.

Clarifying the Rights of Daughters as Coparceners

By clearing the confusion over the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020) has secured for Hindu women the right to be coparceners in joint family property with retrospective effect from 1956. The three-judge bench has restored the progressive intent to the 2005 amendment, but has based it on a conservative interpretation that reinforces the basic concepts of the Hindu joint family and coparcenary ownership of property.

Understanding Citizenship and Refugees’ Status in India

The recent Rohingya crisis in South Asia raised questions regarding the refugee policies of the Indian state, which seem to take a very diplomatic position on the refugee problem. This article seeks to argue that India’s kindness for some refugee communities and ignorant behaviour for Muslim refugees has raised a doubt on its way of refugee dealings, and has posed question on the very secular face of the Indian state. How the Supreme Court as well as the Indian government has viewed and handled the refugee problem has been discussed in detail in this article.

Pages

Back to Top