This paper examines the idea of the “Right to the City” as a theoretical concept,…
The study titled ‘Reimaging Bail Decision Making’ looks at bail decision making in trial courts in three districts in Karnataka – Bengaluru, Dharwad and Tumakuru. The research focuses on the courts, which are the primary site at which decisions on granting bail are made, to understand what guides the grant or non-grant of bail and what are the factors which decide whether bail is likely to be granted or not. These include the statutory basis for the offence, the nature of offence, its classification as bailable or non-bailable, the punishment prescribed and effective legal representation by lawyers.
The Supreme Court Observer’s Statistics Pack 2018 (“Stat Pack”) is the first in an annual series that aims to collate, analyze and present a quantitative data overview of the work of the Supreme Court of India.
CLPR associate Mathew Idiculla writes for the Hindu about argues that the rights of a legislative assembly of a Union Territory should be seen as an integral element of federalism and that the Supreme Court should affirm the primacy of the elected government.
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.
The Citizens Action Group has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation…
This is a petition in which CLPR is representing a wildlife conservationist Mr. D.V. Girish,…
This is an Appeal filed by the 4 appellants who are wildlife conservationists, against the…
Venue Online (Webinar)
Time 11:30 A.M.-12:30 P.M.
Venue Bangalore International Centre
EBC has recently published a new book, An idea of a Law school – Ideas from the Law school edited by NR Madhava Menon, Murali Nellakantan, Sumeet Malik) on the NLSIU. The panel discussion will focus on ideas raised in the book.Read more
Venue Indian Social Institute, Byadarahalli, Benson Town, Bangalore
Time 3:30 to 7:00 PM
Venue Bangalore International Centre, CA Site, No. 7, 4th Main Rd, Stage 2, Domlur, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560071
Time 10 AM to 4:45 PM
On 8th June this Saturday, Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy will present on the Karnataka Crime Victim Survey at Azim Premji University's workshop on the same. Organised by their Centre for Constitutional and Legal System Reform, the workshop will involve 5 sessions on victimisation, safety, lessons to learn from and strategies for the future.Read more
The Hindu carried a story mentioning CLPR’s study, “Re-imagining bail decision making: An analysis of bail practice in Karnataka and recommendations for reform”. The study emphasizes that bail protocol needs to be standardized and the classification of offenses must be revisited for easing the burden of under-trial prisoners in India.
In a recent interview about their book, Harini Nagendra and Seema Mundoli speak of joined efforts with colleagues from CLPR to “change the narrative of urban ecology by looking at economic growth and development through environment protection.”
The Hindu quotes Sudhir Krishnaswamy on retired bureaucrat V. Balasubramanian’s proposal for a separate Bengaluru Metropolitan Council at the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region level.
Live Mint quotes Sudhir Krishnaswamy in commentary on “abysmal” voter turnout. Points to constituency demarcation and flawed voter roll preparation.
In the last post, we examined the Government of India’s Draft Report on Non-Personal Data, and its justifications for regulating NPD for ‘economic benefit’. This post examines the concept of ‘group privacy’, which has been presented as a justification for the regulation of NPD.
In the previous post, we introduced the Draft Report of the Committee on Non-Personal Data Regulation and analyzed its conception of ‘Non-Personal Data’ (“NPD”) as a category for regulation. There, we wrote about how the contours of NPD (as defined under the Draft Report) will necessarily entail conflicts with the proposed personal data protection regime in India. In this post, we set out to examine and critique the Committee’s justifications for why ‘Non-Personal Data’ should be regulated, in particular, on the ‘economic value’ justification for regulation.
In September 2019, the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India, formed a Committee of Experts (“Committee”) to deliberate on the issue of ‘Non-Personal Data’ and to suggest an appropriate regulatory framework for the subject. The Committee’s initial report, (“Draft Report”) was released for public comment on July 12, 2020. In the next few posts, we will summarise, reflect on and critically analyze the concepts presented in the Committee’s report. This post focuses on the concept of ‘non-personal data’ as a category for regulatory efforts under the Draft Report.
Amid this pandemic crisis and subsequent lockdown, we witnessed images of millions of migrants returning their homes walking hundreds of kilometres. As per data collected by Union Skill Development Ministry, around 67 lakh migrant workers returned to their homes. The predicament of these migrant workers during the crisis could have been significantly averted if they had a financial safety net to rely on – most had lost their jobs after the lock down had come into effect.