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 write 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.
Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Deekshitha Ganesan write for the National Law School of India Review, about the consistently high under-trial detention rate in India. Breaking down an empirical study by the Centre for Law and Policy Research, they focus on bail decision making at the pre-trail stage and the natural of the offence as a substantive legal factor.
CLPR associate Kruthika R, writes for TheWire about the FPTP electoral system and why it was chosen in the first place. Looking at the arguments for and against the system as opposed to one of proportional representation and transferable votes, she assesses whether they still stand in today’s context.
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 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
Venue Omidyar Network, SKAV 909, 15th floor, Richmond Circle, Bengaluru 560001
Time 4 PM to 6.30 PM
On Monday 29th April, CLPR's Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Mathew Idiculla will discuss the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill at the Governing Cities consultation. In addition, Andrew Boraine will speak about urban governance in Cape Town. In particular, he will dicuss the Western Cape Economic Development Partnership, of whom he is the CEO. The consultation takes place at Omidyar Network.Read more
Venue Bangalore International Centre (BIC), Domlur, Bengaluru - 560071
Time 10.30 AM to 11.30 AM
CLPR Research Consultant Mathew Idiculla will speak at Unbox 2019. He will sit on the "Burgeoning City" panel with Pavan Srinath, Anjali Mohan and Prem Chandavarkar. What would cities of the future look like and what role can the citizens play to help our cities from bursting at the seams?Read more
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.
The Karnataka High Court example amply demonstrates that the new process of senior designation gives confidence to the young lawyers without ‘connections’ in the legal profession. It gives them hope that if they are deserving, no one can take away their opportunity to be one day considered for the senior designation. Conferral of this distinction has been duly democratised
Noted women rights and child rights lawyer Jayna Kothari — who has worked with Jaising in the past — has also been designated as a senior advocate.
Mahboob Ali Baig moved an amendment proposing that the prime minister and his ministers be selected by members of parliament ‘in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote’. Baig’s amendment was rejected. The Historical Constitution and the Constituent Assembly debates reveal that the constitutional choice regarding the executive was not straightforward – it was preceded by rigorous debate and conflict over alternative systems. While India settled on Article 75, the problems of representativeness of the executive remain in 2019.
The Draft National Education Policy, 2019 (DNEP) released by the government on May 31, 2019 has been described as a much needed attempt to overhaul the prevailing education system in India. Despite the initial uproar about the alleged imposition of Hindi in the curriculum, the policy appears to have found a good balance between retaining the old and ushering in new changes. In this post, we only respond to two crucial issues.
In the previous posts on bail decision making in India, we noted the relationship between decision making in lower courts and the under-trial prison population. We suggested that substantive law should separately recognise pre-trial and under-trial detention as considerations while granting bail should be different at each stage. An extension of this is that conditions of bail should also vary depending on the severity of the offence and the stage of the criminal justice process.
In our study on bail decision making in Karnataka, we also gathered information on the conditions imposed by courts at the pre-trial stage, from court records. In this post, we explore the different kinds of conditions that courts regularly imposed in Bengaluru, Tumakuru and Dharwad.
The practice of manual scavenging was first criminalised in 1993. Since then, it has been replaced by a new act in 2013, which is wider in scope as it provides for rehabilitation and compensation, and imposes stricter penalties. Rehabilitation measures under Sec. 13 of the Act are applicable to a person identified as a manual scavenger under Sec. 12 of the Act. Since identification is the first step towards rehabilitating them, state agencies are required to collect reliable data on the total number of dry latrines (that require manual cleaning) and the number of people engaged in manual scavenging within their jurisdiction. However, it has been 6 years since the introduction of the Act, and the survey and identification of manual scavengers is still not carried out well in many Indian states and there is a mismatch between the number of insanitary latrines and manual scavengers identified.