The Union government’s assault on free speech

February 27, 2021 | Thulasi K. Raj

In this article in the Frontline, Thulasi K. Raj and Kaleeswaram Raj criticise the Union government’s…

Restricting Free Speech through Bail Orders

January 7, 2021 | Thulasi K. Raj

In this article, Thulasi K. Raj argues that imposing untenable conditions by courts as part…

UP anti-conversion law amounts to discrimination and a violation of the right to equality

December 19, 2020 | Jayna Kothari

In this article published by Indian Express, Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate & Executive Director at Center for Law and Policy Research argues that new UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 leads to serious violation of the right to equality based on religion. She also adds that there is no evidence to support the argument of harms if any, of inter-faith marriages.

Why we can’t have laws curtailing the right to marry

November 24, 2020 | Jayna Kothari

In this article published by Deccan Herald, Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate & Executive Director at…

Child Rights Trust v. Union of India

August 6, 2020 | Almas Shaikh

Child Rights Trust (a Bangalore based NGO working extensively in the area of Child Rights) and Ms. Neena Nayak (a child Rights advocate and activist) filed a Writ Petition seeking enforcement of Fundamental Rights, under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 21A, 39 and 47 of the Constitution, of migrant children and children of migrant families during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petition seeks to ensure that migrant children and children of migrant workers are provided with proper living conditions, nutrition, health care/immunization, access to education and their protection. The Petition highlights that the lack of present-day assessment of the number and essential needs of migrant children, infants and pregnant and lactating women of migrant families has aggravated their vulnerabilities during the lockdown.

Bhavika Pore v. Union of India & Anr.

November 4, 2019

The Centre for Law and Policy Research recently filed an intervening application on behalf of Swati Bidhan Baruah, lawyer and transgender activist, in a case titled Bhavika Pore v. Union of India. The Petitioner through this Petition is invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to direct the concerned authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations with regard to setting up/specifying special Human Right Courts in each district for the better protection of Human Rights and also to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the same, vis-à-vis section 30 and 31 of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

The Print

Mumbai’s Government Law College wins grand finale of ConQuest 2020

October 27, 2020

The Print carried out a story on the recently concluded Grand Finale of ConQuest 2020, India’s Premiere National Quiz on the Indian Constitution, Politics and the Law.

Freedom Gazette

Supreme Court Must Be As Proactive As Before: SC Advocate

June 10, 2020

Senior Advocate & Executive Director at CLPR, Jayna Kothari says Supreme Court must be as proactive as before when interviewed by Freedom Gazette.

The Quint

Internet Shutdowns need to be challenged- Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka

February 20, 2020

The Quint covered a video interview of our Executive Director Jayna Kothari on the issue of internet shutdowns where she argues how internet shutdowns across the country muzzled the freedom of speech and expression of the people and therefore it needs to be challenged.

Hindustan Times

CAA stir spurs demand for copies of Constitution

February 11, 2020

Hindustan Times story mentioned the Constitutional and Civic Citizenship project of CLPR which seeks to enhance public awareness and critical engagement with India’s constitutional tradition.

Why Ambedkar Opposed an Indian Constituent Assembly

April 1, 2021 | Vineeth Krishna

B.R. Ambedkar’s seminal contribution to Indian constitution-making as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is widely celebrated and acknowledged. Less known was his initial critique of an Indian Constituent Assembly in the mid-1940s. On 6 May 1945, Ambedkar addressed a gathering of the All-Indian Scheduled Castes Federation. Instead of speaking about the sectional interests of the Scheduled Castes, he chose to speak on a ‘topic which is general and has wider appeal, namely, the shape and form of the future Constitution of India’.

B.R. Ambedkar’s Idea of Separate Settlements

March 1, 2021

In 1951, the District Collector of Pune requisitioned certain land for the development of a Kashiwadi Harijan Colony for the upliftment of Dalits. This was challenged by several landowners whose plot was listed to be acquired. The Court, in this case, held that such an acquisition would be discriminatory against non-Dalits under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. It stated that several people from different communities were also disadvantaged. Thus, such an arrangement was deemed to be discriminatory and against public purpose. And so, the Collector’s plan to create a separate settlement for the Dalit community was blocked.