The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, if enacted, would be plainly unconstitutional. It makes unreasonable classifications and it seeks to install an idea of citizenship that violates the core tenets of our Constitution.

Suhrith boosted

replug: if electoral mandates don't turn on Government playing by the rules, it has no incentive to abide by the Constitution.

my piece for Constitution Day on why we need to watch the Government's every move like hawks if we care about the Constitution.

I'll be speaking at National Law School, Bangalore, tomorrow (28 Nov.) at 3 pm on the Supreme Court and its recent decisions. It's open to all:

Suhrith boosted
Suhrith boosted

A compilation of articles analyzing the troubled term of , who retired yesterday.
(Random order)

1. "CJI Gogoi Was to Be ‘A New Hope’, That’s Not How Things Panned Out"
Vakasha Sachdev @VakashaS writes in @thequint

Suhrith boosted
Suhrith boosted

1. Okay, here is a brief thread on Chile. As you know, there have been widespread protests in recent days, driven primarily by economic inequality (Chile is one of the most unequal countries in the world). Counter-intuitively, at the root of this inequality is the Chilean Constitution. The Constitution was drafted in 1980, as part of a transition from military to civil rule.

Suhrith boosted

" There is a crucial distinction between resolving a dispute on the basis of principle, and achieving "peace" simply by endorsing the existing balance of power - or by not proving the strong"

Suhrith boosted

@suhrith and I wrote a piece on the Ayodhya judgment.

We asked if the judgment is legally correct; and if isn't, whether it is nonetheless justified as an act of "judicial statesmanship" that lets the country move on.

We believe that the answer to both those questions is "no".

What can’t issues with respect to other matters be decided based on the verdict in the Sabarimala case? A review petition can be entertained only if there’s a palpable error in the judgment. The reference to the 7-judge bench is, by any account, entirely unjustified.

Show thread

The Supreme Court today is a decidedly majoritarian institution.

Suhrith boosted

Supreme Court's Finance Act 2017 judgment notes that Aadhaar majority judgment didn't properly appreciate the concept of what a Money Bill is u/ Article 110 of Constitution.

Larger bench to consider correctness.

What happens if they also find it is a fraud on the Constitution?

Bizarre, to say the least, that so many are describing the Ayodhya judgment as a political judgment, and therefore as somehow beyond reproach. Aren’t all judgments political? And also isn’t that precisely why the judgment shouldn’t be beyond reproach?

Several op-eds written over the last two days claim that the Ayodhya judgment provides a path for the future. If this is so, one shudders at the prospect of what lies ahead.

Just finished reading Madhuri Vijay’s The Far Field, a dazzling debut novel. Read this review by Somak Ghoshal:

Suhrith boosted
Show older

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit