Topic: Supreme Court

Can a constitutionally limited period for holding ministerial office without being a legislator be effectively restarted through reappointment?

Individual liberty remains superior to majoritarian preferences and familial control, a foundational premise reinforced by the judiciary.

The pursuit of short-term electoral hegemony through communal fear-mongering and fiscal populism has exacted a heavy toll on the republic.

The Communal Angle Must be Investigated Considering an Extraordinary Allegation, and the Discipline of Evidence : Examining a Former CBI Chief’s Reported but Baseless Claim Concerning Friday Sermons in Indian Mosques

Judicial self-criticism of this kind, delivered at a public forum and reported in detail, is comparatively rare in India.

Prevention is not merely better than cure. In constitutional preservation, prevention is the only cure.

A court that considers the defense of citizens against police brutality to be an improper use of its time is a court that has lost sight of why it exists.

The failure of disability rights in India is not merely a problem of administrative delay. It is constitutional neglect.

The circular stands as the most detailed statement the Bar Council of India has yet issued on where professional dignity ends and digital self-promotion begins.

When institutions look away, the law must look back with accountability.

The “silent invasion” of the education sector by commercial interests through split-entity structures threatens the very foundation of India’s educational mandate.

Uniform civil codes reveal their true character not in their stated aims but in how they treat religious minorities in practice.

The Supreme Court delivered a decisive constitutional defeat to President Trump’s attempt to redefine birthright citizenship.

The regime of state-regulated, religion-contingent property transactions is not, whatever its sponsors may claim, a neutral instrument of public order maintenance. It is a technology of exclusion.

When courts treat procedural compliance as an end in itself, divorced from the substantive goals it is meant to serve, they do not uphold the rule of law. They hollow it out.

Tragedy and criminal liability are not synonymous. A woman’s death is not, by itself, proof that her husband caused it through punishable cruelty.

There is also a deeper irony. Those who invoke “Swadeshi jurisprudence” frequently describe constitutional liberalism as a foreign transplant.

As of now, seemingly, the executive’s legislative, administrative and punitive actions do not need to survive judicial scrutiny if they can operate long enough to make the judicial scrutiny irrelevant.

A court that is structurally more responsive to the deaths of the socially visible than to the systemic suffering of the structurally invisible is not exercising judicial power in its constitutional sense; it is exercising judicial preference.

When judicial language mirrors contempt, and we all Woke Up As Cockroaches.

A state that invests in bollards to prevent violence values life. A state that deploys bulldozers to raze the historic and sacred spaces of its minority citizens has abandoned the idea of justice.

As long as the law remains a human instrument and faith remains an absolute conviction, these ‘conscience-based’ dilemmas will continue to haunt the Court.

While recent murmurs from the bench reaffirm that bail is the rule, the refusal to dismantle the statutory embargo leaves personal liberty at the mercy of a judicial lottery.

The Supreme Court is debating mandatory college attendance, but the real crisis goes much deeper: a society that rewards virality, misogyny, and toxic ‘icons’ over education. It’s time for structural intervention to save the classroom.