The Editors Guild of India on Thursday opposed in the Supreme Court the idea of temporary restraint on reporting of court proceedings saying enforcing these guidelines would lead to “infringement” of the right to free speech. Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia that any move to empower courts even to temporarily clamp down on reporting to protect the interests of the parties...
More »SEARCH RESULT
Editors oppose time bar
-The Telegraph The Editors’ Guild today opposed any move to empower courts to temporarily clamp down on reporting to protect the interests of parties in an ongoing case, saying it would amount to “pre-censorship” of news. Arguing for the guild, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan opposed suggestions for a temporary gag on covering court cases — specially criminal cases and high-stakes corporate matters — if the courts felt it was adversely affecting the...
More »Judicial Control of Policymaking and Implementation: Interlinking Rivers by Videh Upadhyay
The Supreme Court has handed down an extraordinary decision with some extraordinary arguments directing the central government to execute the “river interlinking project”. How could the Court which says “it can hardly take unto itself tasks of making of a policy decision or planning for the country on the need for acquisition and construction of river linking channels” then go on to actually take the very same policy decision and...
More »Limited vindication of the rights of women-Flavia Agnes
The proposed amendments to marriage laws lack the detail to guarantee women their full due The cabinet’s decision to clear a bill providing for amendment to marriage laws has evoked mixed reactions within women’s organisations. While the introduction of the notion of matrimonial property within Indian family laws is a welcome move, the manner in which it is being done seems hasty and without due consideration of its implementability. There is...
More »Govt bats for forces act
-The Telegraph The Centre today told the Supreme Court that no prosecution could be launched against armed forces fighting “counter-insurgency” and sought four months to decide whether to grant sanction to prosecute officers over a 12-year-old alleged fake encounter in Kashmir. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, invoked in “disturbed areas”, specifically mandates prior sanction before any prosecution can begin, the government told the court while replying to a notice on the...
More »