Constitution
-
Discretion Without Doctrine: How Bail Jurisprudence Normalised Constitutional Uncertainty in India
Abstract Bail jurisprudence in India operates at the fault-line between the State’s coercive authority and the individual’s constitutional entitlement to personal liberty. While the Supreme Court has consistently recognised bail as a constitutional safeguard rather than a mere procedural concession, contemporary practice reveals a system marked by doctrinal fragmentation and institutional unpredictability. This article argues…
-
The Development of Representative and Class Action Suits in India
Collective legal action, where groups of persons affected by a similar legal issue seek redress in a single proceeding, is an important facet of modern litigation. Globally, this mechanism has taken many forms, with class action suits particularly associated with the United States. India, though not possessing a formal class action regime identical to those…
-
When Safety Net Becomes A Trap
Abstract This piece is about a feeling most of us recognise but rarely name. The quiet moment when you realise that the liberty you were taught about in school is not in tune with the nerve of the criminal justice system. It is not about dramatic breakdowns or spectacular abuses of power, it is about…
-
The Oxygen Divide: Why India’s Air Pollution is a Crisis of Inequality | Shivanshu K. Srivastava writes for Virtuosity Legal
Abstract Air pollution in India has transitioned from a seasonal environmental concern into a systemic violation of constitutional equality, where the “right to breathe” is increasingly determined by socio-economic status. While judicial interpretation has long recognised the right to a clean environment under Article 21, a significant jurisprudential gap persists regarding the disparate impact of…
-
SARAL or Secrecy? How the DPDP Rules Change RTI’s Promise
Imagine filing an RTI to understand why your local authority denied you a benefit, only to be told that the relevant file is now “personal data” and cannot be shared. That is the quiet shift India woke up to, the following month. On 14 November 2025, the Government of India notified the Digital Personal Data…
-
Witch-Hunting is Real. So Is Legal Apathy.
On the night of July 6th this year, in Tetgama village, Bihar, five members of a family, including three women, were brutally beaten and burned alive by a mob of nearly 200 villagers. The alleged reason: the family had been accused of practicing witchcraft following the death of a child. As per police reports, the…
-
Stunted Higher Caste Judiciary and Social Injustice as Evident from the Calcutta High Court OBC List Judgment | Dr. Ayaz Ahmad writes
Abstract In a constitutional democracy, both the task of interpreting legislative text and the legality of executive action rest on the wisdom of constitutional courts. Cases involving arbitration between competing social interests often become the litmus test of the higher judiciary itself. These are occasions on which the nature of judicial process gets reflected in…
-
Maternity Benefits at the Crossroads: Gender, Class, and Informality in India’s Labour Regime
The Indian Supreme Court has recently made two important rulings, K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu[i] and Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The State[ii]. These decisions have significantly changed the legal framework regarding reproductive rights and maternity benefits in India. Instead of focusing only on employment, these rulings place maternity rights within a wider constitutional…
-
Algorithmic Bias And The Quest For Equal Justice In India
Artificial intelligence is also making inroads into India’s justice delivery system. Courts are looking at digital tools to help manage cases, predict outcomes, and even make decisions. The Supreme Court of India spearheaded projects such as SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficiency) to aid judges in legal research and sorting precedents, and…
-
Bodily Autonomy vs. State Control: Rethinking Abortion Rights in India
In September 2022, the Supreme Court in X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department[i] held that unmarried women are entitled to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971[ii] (“MTP Act”), recognising that marital status cannot dictate access to abortion services. The judgment was hailed as a…