We are collecting authors'profile. As soon as we get, we update it. Please note this is not official profile. The information including photo is collected from web.
| Contact |
| twitter |
| Linkedin |
...Justice Chandrachud, speaking on behalf of four judges, termed the court’s views on the “so-called rights” of the LGBTQI community in Koushal “unsustainable”, and clarified that the “right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution”. Justice Kaul, in his separate opinion, concurred with Justice Chandrachud’s views, thus forming the majority opinion of the court on this count. However, since the challenge to Section 377 is currently pending consideration before a larger bench, the court stopped short of declaring it unconstitutional. ...TOI on Sept. 4, 2017, 2 a.m.
...I’d like to caution against what the celebrated Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie terms the “danger of a single story” — understanding an idea only from a single perspective, ignoring a diversity of views. We must respect differences — not silence those who hold a different view… Our current state is especially sad when we consider that the freedom struggle gave us a Constitution committed to democracy, free speech, civil liberties and secularism. Free speech is not a privilege the government bestows on us — it is our right, won after decades of struggle by the people. Free speech, though, is under attack… Even the Bombay High Court on occasion failed to protect it. ...Indian Express on April 21, 2017, 12:38 a.m.
...But this piece is not about Justice Katju or the judgment on which he made remarks. Instead, two aspects of this episode stand out: the manner in which the court has handled the issue of contempt, and the relevance of contempt law today. In the Soumya case the Supreme Court acquitted the accused for murder but convicted him to life imprisonment for rape, which Justice Katju criticised in his writing. The subsequent incidents were wholly unwarranted. The court invited the former judge to defend his statements in person, then chose to take umbrage at his writing, issued a contempt notice against him, and then asked security staff to escort him outside the premises. Why did the court have to go through this theatrical public confrontation, when it could have issued a contempt notice on the basis of the blog post alone? ...TOI on Nov. 18, 2016, 2 a.m.
...Public debate often gets hijacked by discussions on the number of judges, but it rarely considers the quality of judges themselves. The real question at hand is whether the judiciary is in a position to recruit the best talent required for fulfilling the role that is demanded of a judge. Here, the judiciary must introspect on some issues. For instance, why are there always 20 per cent vacancies in the courts? Vacancies are never filled in time. Why do these positions remain empty? The answer is simple. Because the judiciary is unable to attract talent. To compound things further, today the subordinate judiciary depends entirely on state recruitment. But the brighter law students do not join the state judicial services because they are not attractive. ...Indian Express on Nov. 4, 2016, 12:17 a.m.