The writer is a former attorney general of India.
There are judges and judges and lawyers and lawyers, and as Charles Dickens wrote, “if the law supposes that, the law is a ass”. I wonder what would be Dickens’ reaction to this incident.
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court judgment should finally settle any controversial issue, but not in our country. This is evident from the heated debates on the issue on TV channels and in public meetings.
Ambedkar emphasised that this caution is far more necessary in the case of India. For in India, bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in politics, unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country.
If we do not trust judges of the Supreme Court, then God save the country. We must put a lid upon the unfortunate controversy and save the institution, the office of the Chief Justice of India, from further damage.
Ambedkar believed that unless the moral values of a constitution are upheld, the grandiloquent words in it will not protect the freedom and democratic values of the people.
Constituent Assembly debates were full of disagreement, humour and hope. Will the dreams of the founding fathers come true?
Invocation of the section (on sedition) should only be in cases of slogans which incite violence and have a tendency to create public disorder. Our state rests on solid foundations which cannot be disturbed by ill-tempered or pungent or stupid slogans.
The movie Kedarnath, which depicts the love story, has sparked a controversy. There are shrill demands for banning its exhibition. The Uttarakhand High Court observed that those who do not like the movie need not watch it.
Dissenting judgments on Sabarimala and Bhima Koregaon speak to the future.
Atalji made friends and disarmed his opponents
Our founding fathers were driven by the learnings of the past, the turmoil of the present and the possibilities of the future.
Sedition law has been misused by over-zealous agencies. That’s no reason to scrap it
And other memories starring leaders and lawyers
Why the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ‘An Insignificant Man’ shows the way.
The rise of intolerance is alarming. Dissent is smothered and self-censorship takes its place, endangering democracy itself.
That is the state’s responsibility. It must punish those who violently target dissent
One salutary consequence is that the right to privacy cannot be curtailed or abrogated by merely enacting a statute but can be done only by a constitutional amendment after complying with certain constitutional prerequisites.
This erudite book illuminates how judicial review of legislation empowers and protects democracy.
It should be expressly included and highlighted in the list of fundamental duties in our Constitution
Fundamental rights are no gifts of the state, the Constitution only confirms their existence.
Intolerance has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and discussion. It places democracy under siege.
It is the need of the hour to contain the forces of bigotry and intolerance which pose a grave threat to our democratic secular republic.
The temples of justice are also home to moments of laughter.
Rule of law must become a part of people’s everyday lives if it is to be safeguarded .
Pakistan must stop offering specious alibis against prosecuting Hafiz Saeed.