A Law Student's Contention

Recently a rat race concluded amongst all the major political parties in commemorating ‘father of the Indian Constitution’ on his 127th Birth Aniversary a.k.a 'Ambedkar Jayanti'. Though there are gossips that it was solely to up-ease a substantial segment of voters in the country who take Dr. Ambedkar as their leader but as I said, just gossips. Before I begin advancing my contentions, lets me state some of the facts that even I for one cannot deny. That Dr. Ambedkar played a decisive role in the up easement of the ‘Scheduled Castes’( Scheduled Tribes are deliberately excluded here), In the eradication of untouchability and the making of the Constitution of India but here comes the problem, I certainly feel that the contribution of Dr. Ambedkar in the framing of the Constitution is a hyperbole.  He like many other members of Constituent Assembly played an important role but I doubt that he was anyway near to the role of a ‘Father’. “I Came into Constituent Assembly ju

One of the first subjects that make way into our curriculum in the very early stage of our life is ‘Moral Science.’ I never found anything scientific in morals and I have tangible proof that neither the majority of my countrymen did. Also, being one of the subjects to which kids are introduced to in very early stage, it is also one of the first to be forgotten. This phenomenon has lead to a very sorry state of affairs which in my considerate opinion is an indication that it is ‘Armageddon’, not for humans but for humanity. Though there are a number of such instances I found these three recent instances particularly disturbing. Holi with semen filled balloon in Delhi Protestors outside Delhi Police headquaters, Image courtesy: Zee News First of all a very happy Holi to all and if you are lucky enough to be a girl then on the auspicious occasion of this festival you may be splashed with a water balloon filled with ‘semen’ because this is what is happening on sacred Hindu f

‘So why exactly did you opt for a career in law?’ is a question that has been haunting me for the past three years in law school, maybe not that frequently nowadays but still this question baffles me and my minds keep gliding around it even after I deliver a humorous answer to the interrogator. I am a prospective first-generation lawyer who had science in senior secondary. There is no lawyer, judge or anyone anyhow related to law in my immediate family, extended family and I believe not even in my clan (no pun intended). So, under the above-stated circumstances, this question becomes the personal favorite of everyone and is fired straightaway. It was my Achilles heel in my initial days in law school and will have to sadly admit it still is. Initially, when we join law school we are frequently ambushed with a variety of questions that in their gist have just one query – ‘why law?’ Well, let me make one thing very clear beforehand that telling truth was never an option in my

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence from the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government. -Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of Independence) ‘Independence of Judiciary’, a phrase for which people around the world have sacrificed their lives since time immemorial. It was emphasized by the founding father of our constitution and was made a part of basic structure of the Constitution of India in Keshwananda Bharti v. Union of India (1973) so that it could never be compromised. Supreme Court has been proactive and has been sitting like a watchdog to wreck any attempt made on its independence, NJAC was struck down on the pretext of independence of the judiciary as it was allegedly seen as an attack from the Executive on Judicial Independence. Never to mention, Supreme Court has unpreceded success in recent times also in this mission of theirs. But the question still stands tall, ‘is our judiciary

Well, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 a.k.a Instant Triple Talaq Bill which is a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India has been passed by the Lok Sabha with an overwhelming majority. Supreme Court, in that case, held that instant Triple Talaq ( Talaq-e-Biddat) is unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary for women. Further, Justice Khehar in his minority opinion directed the government to legislate on the subject of triple talaq within six months. Government obediently pretending to be acting under the direction of Supreme Court (though direction was given in minority opinion) drafted this controversial bill which has been ambushed by many scholars, experts, and political parties. This article highlights the real and the alleged issues with the bill and also does a political and legal analysis of it (you cannot separate law from politics, can you?). The statement of objects and reasons of the bill states that

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—  because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. These lines by Martin Niemöller always make me pray that something bad happens with those bystanders who witness lynching in broad daylight, murder in the middle of the road and do nothing. That someday someone comes for them, they adjure for help, people hear them and yet no one responds. This should happen with each and every one of them, maybe including myself because as is famously remarked ‘ watching a crime take place and doing nothing about is as heinous as the crime itself.’ Today, we are celebrating International Human Rights Day yet again, on the same day we have been celebrating since 1948 and nothing much has changed, h

In an era where the human rights activists are fighting for the abolishing capital punishment terming it as 'inhumane', courts revert to this punishment as a matter of last resort and plenty of safeguards have been put in place. The sentence passed by the trial court has to confirmed by the high court. The decisions of the lower court can go into appeal to the apex court and the decision of the court is final and binding over all courts throughout the territory of the country [1] and the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged before any other court. Article 21 of our constitution gives the right to life to every person which cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law and  Constitutional courts in India are the ultimate guardians of this right. Capital Punishment has always been seen as an attack on the right to life and voices have been raised again and again labeling capital punishment as ‘barbaric’ and ‘inhumane’ which should be done away