British Colonial censuses did not merely record caste, they froze it, standardised it, and permanently tied it to governance. Independent India inherited this mechanism.
Indian judiciary has a corrosive imbalance between the bar and the bench. Those who supervise the district judiciary do so without the lived experience that is essential for meaningful reform.
Article 124(2) and Article 200 did not have words now imported into them by the Supreme Court. “Consultation” has already become “concurrence” and now appointment could be “deemed”.
The Tamil Nadu vs Governor judgment deserves reconsideration by a Constitution Bench—not because the Supreme Court’s motives were flawed, but because its methods exceeded constitutional bounds.
SC was hearing a suo motu cognizance matter over a controversial Allahabad HC order in a POCSO case. It also took note of a judge's remark that complainant 'herself invited trouble'.
He also said Supreme Court set a timeline for restoring democratic process in J&K, and that its dispensation is not the same as the Union govt is evidence 'democracy succeeded' there.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Property Owners Assn. v. The State of Maharashtra reaffirms the doctrine of automatic revival of Article 31-C, impacting India's constitutional framework.
In FY 2025-26, AoN for 55 proposals amounting to Rs 6.73 lakh cr has been accorded by DAC. Both the quantum of AoN given and capital contracts signed, so far, have been the highest in any FY.
The issue is that India does not have a common civil code. So this is not about one law being changed, it is one per religion, plus special marriage act. And if it is religion based what is the authority of the Supreme Court of any country to decide what is allowed for a religion. Hence the dilemma. In order to do this, there should be a uniform civil code that gives the courts the authority to decide on this or issues like this in a denomination non specific manner
The fact that there are no comments here shows that this isn’t a subject too many people care deeply about, as opposed to the west, where it has been co-opted by one side of their cuture wars. I think the most sensible thing would be to have a civil union kind of thing which disregards sex and orientation. But can the court mandate that it exist to safeguard queer rights under India’s constitution? Governments may just ignore the court, as they have before. The time for this idea has just not come yet in India.
The issue is that India does not have a common civil code. So this is not about one law being changed, it is one per religion, plus special marriage act. And if it is religion based what is the authority of the Supreme Court of any country to decide what is allowed for a religion. Hence the dilemma. In order to do this, there should be a uniform civil code that gives the courts the authority to decide on this or issues like this in a denomination non specific manner
The fact that there are no comments here shows that this isn’t a subject too many people care deeply about, as opposed to the west, where it has been co-opted by one side of their cuture wars. I think the most sensible thing would be to have a civil union kind of thing which disregards sex and orientation. But can the court mandate that it exist to safeguard queer rights under India’s constitution? Governments may just ignore the court, as they have before. The time for this idea has just not come yet in India.