Two months ago, Judges 2-3-4-5 of the Indian Supreme Court wrote a long letter to the Chief Justice, complaining of assignment of Benches without any rational basis. Last Friday [*January 12, 2018*], The Judges called a Press Conference, irreversibly provoked by the Bench chosen by the Master of the Roster [The Chief Justice of India], to hear […]Read more "An Alleged Judicial Crisis on Swami Vivekananda’s 155"
In July, 2017 a Bench of Three in Nithya Anand, (2017) 8 SCC 454, speaking through Justice A.M. Khanwilkar disapproved of the “First Strike” Principle developed in Surya Vadanan, (2015) 5 SCC 450. It had been argued that since the mother had not sought custody of the child by approaching any competent Indian Court prior […]Read more "The “First Strike” in Child Custody Battles II"
Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman has now clarified it was a majority in The Triple Talaq Judgment (3 out of 5) that held arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation under Article 14. “In so far as “manifest arbitrariness” is concerned, it is important to advert to the majority judgment of […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process III"
“In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 790 a 3 Judge Bench of this Court held that an enactment could be struck down, if it is being challenged as violative of Article 14, only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause, equal protection clause or violative […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process II"
Abhinav Chandrachud, grandson to Former CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, was not incorrect in noting that the doctrine of ‘fairness’/ ‘non-arbitrariness’ laid the foundation of substantive due process in our country. Justice Nariman supports this view. In a CJI K.G. Balakrishnan Judgment in 2010, richly cited in the book, it indeed was held that the ‘standard of substantive […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process I"
My Lord, Should Section 2(1)(d) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 that defines ‘child’ to mean any person below the age of 18 years, engulf and embrace, in its connotative expanse, the ‘mental age’ of a person or the age determined by the prevalent science pertaining to psychiatry so that a […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: The Theory of Creative Interpretation"
“The jurisprudential basis for the ‘rule of widest construction’ is the hallowed belief that a Constitution is drafted with an eye on future providing a continuing framework for exercise of governmental power. Therefore, it must be elastic enough to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by the framers of the Constitution. Chief […]Read more "The Doctrine of Widest Construction"