FEDERALISM is an unstated premise of the Indian Constitution. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it defined by it. However, many provisions in the Constitution are worded around federalism, in particular, the distribution of power between the State Governments and the Union Government, said advocate Shadan Farasat practising at the Supreme Court, during the discussion on the developments in federalism in India. The topic was a sub-theme of The Courts and The Constitution Conference, organised by the Editorial […] The post Panel discussion on the recent developments in federal ..read more

In light of the recent verdict of the Bombay High Court’s Goa bench to uphold the Goa Legislative Assembly Speaker’s decision to dismiss pleas seeking the disqualification of 12 Congress MLAs who had switched to the BJP, NIKHIL PARIKSHITH examines the lacuna in the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule, which was brought in to arrest defections. ———- ON February 24, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a judgement on the concept of ‘deemed merger’ of a political party under paragraph 4 of the Tenth ..read more

THE Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of Shirish Kulkarni as the Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University [SP University], Gujarat after having found the same contrary to the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 [UGC Regulations]. A division bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that Kulkarni did not have ten years of teaching ..read more

YOU could hail from a royal family, be a raja or a nawab – but these titles cannot be used in constitutional courts and public offices, according to a recent ruling of the Rajasthan High Court. The court has held that the use of salutations and titles such as “Raja”, “Nawab” and “Rajkumar” in constitutional courts, other courts, tribunals, and public offices of the State is prohibited in terms of Articles 14 (right to equality), 18 (abolition of titles), and ..read more

YESTERDAY in its judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that denying compassionate appointment to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee is violative of Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Facts Jagdish Harijan, deceased father of the appellant Mukesh Kumar, was employed with the Indian Railways. In his lifetime, he had married twice. The appellant was his son through his second marriage. When Jagdish Harijan died during service on ..read more

THE petitioners’ senior counsel, Devadatt Kamat, on Thursday, explained to the Karnataka High Court that while the State had cited constitutional morality as a benchmark that the practice of hijab-wearing had to meet to be valid, the same did not support the State’s stand. He submitted that constitutional morality was not a restriction on fundamental rights, but rather a restriction on States’ powers. He told the bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S. Dixit, and Justice J.M ..read more

The Indian Constitution provides the right to display religious symbols, bars indirect discrimination, and protects pluralism. On all these parameters, the hijab ban in Karnataka is anti-Constitutional, writes RAHUL MACHAIAH. ——- THE ban on the hijab in some of the colleges in Karnataka has triggered a raging controversy and violence across the state. Though the ban was initially imposed by a few colleges in Udupi, colleges in other parts of Karnataka followed suit. When students aggrieved by the ban protested with the support of certain ..read more

THE Karnataka Government, on Tuesday, urged the High Court to keep the dignity of women into consideration while adjudicating on the bunch of petitions seeking a declaration that hijab is an essential part of Islam. It argued that the petitioners seeking religious sanction by way of a judicial declaration to wear the hijab can tantamount to compulsion even for those Muslim women who do not wear it. This, the government argued, would lower the dignity of those Muslim women who ..read more

Women being humiliated in public by a mob, forcing her to remove their head scarf as a pre-condition to getting an education is not just constitutionally objectionable, but should distress any reasonable person with common decency, writes NANDITA RAO. ——— IN disbelief, the nation watched visuals, on television, of women students and teachers being disrobed at school and college gates in Karnataka, removing their hijabs and burqas in public view. In a country where, even for frisking by security forces in an airport ..read more

In the hijab ban matter being heard by the Karnataka High Court, the focus of the arguments has been what rights, if any, the government’s restrictions might breach and whether those rights are appropriate in the first place. SHAHRUKH ALAM explains why this approach is improper. ———– I remember an incident from when I was a child. Our cook was relating the story of how her grandson had gone to the village tehsildar with a complaint about the headman’s oppressive ways: sometimes he ..read more