In the Last Week at CLPR,
- Assembly Member of the week: This week we highlight the contributions of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai who was born on 18th February 1894. He was part of the Committee for Rules and Procedure of the Constituent Assembly and the sub-committee on migration and its effect on the Constituent Assembly. He was India’s first Communication Minister and then went on to become India’s Agriculture Minister.
- Contemporary Relevance of CAD: In part 2 of the 3-part series on the Constituent Assembly Debates on the Budget, we discuss the amendments that were proposed regarding which expenditure items could be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. These items would not be voted on by the Parliament and could be expensed directly to the Fund.
- Gopal Subramanium started Day 11 of the Aadhaar Act case by laying out the broad outline along which he would be developing his arguments. He stated that his arguments were going to centre on an individual’s right to dignity and prove/show that any Act that violated it had to be held to be unconstitutional.
- On Day 8 of the Hadiya Marriage case, the Supreme Court voiced the opinion that it could not concern itself with the marriage between two capable, consenting adults. They did however continue to hear arguments from Shyam Divan who insisted that terror networks were using marriages as a means to recruit for their organisations.
- Gopal Subramanium continued his arguments on Day 12 of the Aadhaar Act case and debated with Justices Chandrachud and Sikri whether identification which was made compulsory by Aadhaar impinged on the identity granted by the Constitution. Subramanium clarified that he agreed that minimal identification was permissible but it could not be used to recognizing an individual’s rights.
- On Day 13 of the Aadhaar Act case Gopal Subramanium finished his arguments in the case. He referred to various sections of the Act to point out that the burden of updating their data fell to citizens (which he posited was excessively burdensome) and that while there was a clause in the Act that specifically stated that the Court could not pass any order without listening to the Authority no such provision had been to listen to the individual.