The Leaflet
Comprehensive coverage, analysis, and breaking news on supreme court.
Does the term ‘morality’ in Articles 25 and 26 mean ‘public morality’? We decode the Union’s submissions last week that challenged the Supreme Court’s handling of the notion of ‘constitutional morality’.
Sushovan Patnaik
Staff Writer
As a nine-judge bench begins hearing the review on the 2018 Sabarimala verdict today, our tables summarise the written submissions on both sides across six of the issues framed by the Court.
As a bench led by CJI Surya Kant concluded arguments on whether the government can grant retrospective environmental approval, the Union pressed to relax its ‘straitjacket’ prior EC regime to adapt to changing times.
Over two days of hearings, the Supreme Court grappled with fundamental questions about whether an absolute judicial bar on ex-post facto environmental clearances is sustainable.
The Supreme Court should refrain from interfering with the Bangalore Water Supply’s interpretative approach which, for five decades, has provided a coherent, accessible framework to define industries.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear three high-stakes Constitution Bench cases amidst over 90,000 pending cases, it is worth revisiting long-standing proposals to clearly separate its constitutional and appellate functions.
As appellants conclude submissions, the nine-judge bench grapples with whether the landmark 1978 ruling has stretched the definition of ‘industry’ beyond its intended boundaries.
The Supreme Court also directed that the Government must identify and act against social media accounts it deemed irresponsible.
The Bench also imposed a blanket ban on any further publication and dissemination of the book, summoning records pertaining to the approval of the chapter in question.