Taking The Constitution Away From The Supreme Court of India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amal Sethi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court

scholarly journals Admissibility And Perplexity Of Digital Evidence: An Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (IV) ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Prashant Bhadu,
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Digital Evidence ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court

The research paper has been started with the concept and meaning of digital evidence. In addition, the principles of the Evidence Act have been explained with amendments with respect to digital evidence. Several judgments of the Supreme Court of India have been cited in the context of admissibility and perplexity of digital evidence. Lastly, the safeguards and procedures to be followed by the Indian judiciary in handling digital/electronic evidence are also mentioned in the research paper.

The Supreme Court of India and Inter-State water dispute: an analysis of the judgments on Mullaperiyar Dam

Water Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1003-1018
Author(s):  
M. P. Ram Mohan ◽  
Krittika Chavaly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Tamil Nadu ◽  
The State ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Water ◽  
Inter State

This paper addresses the issue of the Mullaperiyar Dam dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu with specific reference to the two judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India on the matter. This paper attempts to examine the arguments, facts, and the judgment of the Court on each of the primary issues raised during the course of the dispute. The first case was filed by the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum in 2001, wherein the Court adjudged the case in favour of the respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu. Consequently, due to certain developments, examined in the course of the second case, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a petition before the Supreme Court against Kerala in 2006 seeking relief for the actions on the part of the latter after the judgment in the first case. A Constitution Bench was constituted to adjudicate this case, which re-examined certain issues raised during the first case and conclusively laid down its decision in favour of Tamil Nadu.

Foreign Arbitral Awards and Foreign Judgments Based upon Such Awards

2018 ◽  
pp. 126-143
Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New York Convention

The New York Convention on foreign arbitration, by Article V (1) (e) lays down a procedural norm that an arbitral award, duly rendered, attains finality if, and only if, a domestic court endorses it. This procedural norm was endorsed by the Supreme Court of India in two leading cases. The ratio that the Supreme Court employed in the above-mentioned cases is in accordance with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Such an endorsement by a local court of the forum that was required under Article V (1) (e) of the New York Convention was done away with by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under Section 35. The forum for the conduct of arbitration in the country of the applicable law also is not indispensable; and it is for the court exercising jurisdiction to determine, on the basis of balance of convenience, the place for the conduct of arbitration, taking into consideration the local status of the parties, such as that one of the parties cannot afford to go to the country of the applicable law, coupled with the availability of evidence, oral and documentary, at the place where the court is exercising jurisdiction.

Scandalizing the judiciary: An analysis of the uneven response of the Supreme Court of India to sexual harassment allegations against judges

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-590
Author(s):  
Sanjay Jain ◽  
Saranya Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Systematic Pattern

Abstract The Supreme Court of India (SC) pronounced a momentous judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan in 1997, categorically recognizing the menace of sexual harassment (SH) at workplace and constitutionally rendering it as being in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950. The Court also provided a mechanism for redressal against SH, which was ultimately reinforced by Parliament with the enactment of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act). However, when it comes to allegations of SH against judges in the SC and High Courts by its employees, interns, or lower court judges, the response of the SC has been abysmal to say the least. There is a systematic pattern to suggest foul play and conspiracy in each such allegation, and judges, including even the Chief Justice of India (CJI), have not hesitated to openly indulge in victim-shaming and-blaming. In other words, the court has not been able to uphold its own jurisprudence on sexual harassment, which it expects to be scrupulously adhered to by other organs of the state. It is submitted that in not supporting the cause of victims alleging SH against judges, the other organs of the state are also party to this constitutional decay and serious infraction of fundamental rights. It leads us to ask the question, how can we guard against the guardians?

The Need for ‘Nudges’ by the Supreme Court of India: The Case of the Appointment and Removal of the Governors in India

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-408
Author(s):  
Siddharth Peter de Souza ◽  
Aayush Agarwala
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Indian States ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Intractable Problem ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion

Recent instances of improper exercise of discretion by governors of Indian states have once again underscored the need for a critical appraisal of the manner in which such governors are appointed and removed under the Indian Constitution. The gulf between what the role of a governor was envisaged to be by the Constituent Assembly and what has actually played out in reality is a matter of grave concern. It would not be wise for us to expect the legislature to provide any solution to this problem, since the prevailing scenario plays to the advantage of whichever party holds the reins at the Centre. The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the B. P. Singhal case made some important interventions as far as this vexed issue is concerned. However, the much-needed panacea to the ills of the process of appointment and removal of governors is still eagerly awaited. In this article, we recommend that the Supreme Court of India adopts a more contextualised approach to solving this intractable problem and considers adopting the ‘nudge theory’ to provide a framework to encourage important actors in this context to take more responsible and fair decisions in order to protect and preserve the democratic structures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document