We are excited to announce the joining of two Equality Fellows: Shahenaz Begum and Priyanka S Bhat.
Centre for Law & Policy Research invites you to the TRANSFORM 2020 Art Exhibition …
At CLPR we focus on addressing discrimination at the intersections of caste, gender, sexuality,…
The Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) is excited to announce the 5th edition of…
On May 6th, the Uttar Pradesh government issued an ordinance suspending the operation of 35 out of 38 labour legislation for the next three years. While the ordinance will only come into effect if it receives Presidential assent, this is almost a given due to the constitutional requirement that the President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, and that UP is a BJP-ruled state.
CLPR is looking to engage an Research Associate for CLPR’s Constitutional and Civic Citizenship project. The Research Associate/Associate Editor will be engaged in research, writing and producing a range of content for on themes that include constitutional law, constitutional history and political history.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, every citizen of this country has the right to constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights have been violated by the State. These remedies may be accessed by approaching the respective High Court. However, during the lockdown imposed due to the outbreak of COVID-19, these constitutional guarantees remained only on paper in Tamil Nadu. Both the Chennai and Madurai benches of the Madras High Court and their Subordinates Courts have shut their doors, of course with the primary intention of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, the courts and the legal process have become completely inaccessible for the common man, especially the most vulnerable sections of the society like individuals from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.
The COVID-19 outbreak has severely impacted labourers in India especially those working in the informal sector who constitute 90% of India’s workforce. The recent cases in Surat and Mumbai of the unemployed migrant labourers seeking to go back to their hometowns are worrisome. According to the International Labour Organization’s report, Indian informal economy is looking at a job loss for 400 million people.
A cursory look at the development of trans rights indicates that the world has made significant progress in addressing the recognition of gender identity rights. These regional and domestic developments do not, however, recompense the reality that transgender persons still suffer some of the most pervasive forms of violence and discrimination. In the absence of concrete universal standards, States are free to formulate laws that grant limited or arbitrary rights to transgender persons.
The mark of a democracy is to let people express their dissent without any reprehension or threat. Democracy itself can only work so long as the differences between groups do not impair a broad substrate of shared values.
The right to assemble peacefully has been enshrined in Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. Amid the increasing police brutality against the anti-CAA protestors, the Allahabad High Court’s recent decision of directing the state to give compensation to the AMU students who were injured during lathi-charge and asking the authorities to take action against the erring police officials is nothing less than the silver lining in this saga of despair.
As the Corona pandemic rages across the world, another scourge has gripped the internet ever so strongly – misinformation. The hard task of fighting misinformation has become even harder as the human content moderators are forced to sit at home due to the outbreak. Privacy-related restrictions mean that such moderators are unable to work from home and Artificial Intelligence has taken over the bulk of the work. This, in turn, is leading to arbitrary moderation of even content which is legitimate.
The NALSA Judgment (2014) and the Navtej Johar Judgment (2018) both produced a subject of gender and sexuality in a present-in-history. Both judgments presumably did not announce the recognition of new identities but traced histories of identities built on sexual and gendered differences from ancient India onwards.
India’s ballooning under-trial population is a serious challenge to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system. The most recent, yet dated Prison Statistics released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2018 pegs India’s under-trial prison population at around 67 % or two-thirds of the total prison population. Academic and policy literature on prisons and under-trial detention have conventionally focused on a doctrinal analysis of provisions on bail or on the conditions of detention, relying primarily on data from prisons and police stations, compiled by the NCRB. However, the crucial point of entry of a person into the prison system at first production in the courts after arrest has received no research attention.
India has witnessed a rise in intolerance over the past few months. From intolerance towards dissent, housing decisions taken based on political leanings to violence towards minorities (religious or socio-economic), show a growing unease and divide in the citizens of India. These acts of violence, discrimination or unequal treatment can be divided into two categories.
Recently, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) released the Crime in India Reports for 2017 and 2018 in quick succession, after drawing criticism for the inordinate delay in releasing these statistics. These reports are the primary source of data to track the incidence and reporting of crimes in India and the performance of the police and courts in investigating and adjudicating cases, including those related to crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Transgender rights are at the forefront of gender inclusivity in India since the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India. These dialogues gained significant momentum when the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted. Taking into consideration the vehement opposition to the legislation, CLPR held a community meeting “Conversations on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019” to discuss the legal issues and challenges to the law. The meeting saw participation from the transgender community, lawyers, and human rights activists alike. Strong voices of Anindya Hajra, Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, Grace Banu and Akkai Padmashali guided the conversation through the various issues that are constitutionally and procedurally problematic.
In Part I, we looked at the Women’s Indian Association’s (WIA) involvement in constitutional negotiations with the British in the late 1910s. The WIA vociferously demanded equal voting rights for women – but the British did not budge. During this time, Indian leaders were also demanding measures for greater levels of self-government. These too, the British dismissed. Indian legislators across the country were becoming restless.
Unlike the American constitutional founding – spearheaded by men, the Indian Constituent Assembly, that drafted the Indian Constitution, comprised women. Until recently, public memory had discarded the contribution or even the presence of these women. But what about the period before the formal constitution-making process?
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) which is considered to be of the better piece of legislation protecting women’s rights and dignity, seems to be so only on paper in the Chennai, especially in the Collectorate and its subordinate offices. The executive authorities appear uninterested in implementing this progressive law and awareness about this law is lacking among employers, employees, and workplaces including companies, shops, households, and government organizations alike. This scenario does not only hold for rural areas but also to the metropolitan city like Chennai.
Last month the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India dealt with the issue of continued internet shut down in Kashmir. While the Court did not direct the restoration of internet services, it recognised the internet as a mode to exercise one’s fundamental rights. The judgment also addressed the freedom of press claim: even though it was not encoded in the Constitution, the judgment reiterated the fundamental right to freedom of the press within Article 19 (1) (a). While freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, 1950, there were longstanding demands to make it a part of the constitutional text.
On 18 January 2020, CLPR organised a Learning Session for Lawyers on ‘Tackling Caste Discrimination Through Law’ in Ernakulam in association with the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association. The workshop aimed at enabling and facilitating a better understanding of caste discrimination laws such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, The Protection of Civil Rights Act, and 1955, Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSRA) as well as Equality Bill, 2020.
Neel D’Souza, a Public Policy Student from National Law School of India University, Bengaluru who is working as a research intern at CLPR writes a blog on the topic, “The Pervasiveness of Caste Discrimination amongst Muslims”.
On 10th January, 2020, CLPR organised “Tackling Caste Discrimination Through the Law”, a training workshop for civil society organisations and activists working on issues of caste discrimination in various parts of Tamil Nadu.
The course uses academic writing, legal texts, commentaries, personal narratives, fiction and cultural texts to understand how intersectionality affects our study of the law, advocacy, and activism; how the law, legal studies and legal practice is transformed by intersectionality; and how intersectionality challenges, resists, and reimagines legal normativity.
In association with Alternative Law Forum, Amnesty India, CIEDS Collective, Enfold India, Hidden Pockets, PUCL, Prochild Coalition, Campaign Against Death Penalty for Child Rape and SICHREM, CLPR organised a town hall meeting on 5th May 2018 at the Jain University Auditorium to discuss the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 2018.
CLPR participates in the Strategic Multi-Actor Round Table 2018 in Chennai On 23rd April 2018 to discuss issues related to strengthening the implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act”) and Rules in Tamil Nadu.
Here is a summary of last week, 8th-14th April 2018, at the Centre for Law & Policy Research, including work done by the Supreme Court Observer and CADIndia
Last week at CLPR: our coverage of the SC review of the SC/ST Act, of the Aadhaar and Ayodhya cases, and the original Constitution of India.
Last week at CLPR, we designed and conducted numerous activities to celebrate India’s Republic Day.
Last week at CLPR, we published in the Deccan Herald, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Champaka Rajagopalan and Matthew Idiculla wrote about the RMP-2031 and the propagation of development that would result in urban sprawl. In the 2nd article on the subject they wrote in The Hindu about the gap between strategy and implementation and the disconnect between the BDA and the local communities.
Last Week at CLPR (7th-13th Jan 2018), Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Champaka and Matthew Idiculla wrote in the Deccan Herald about the impact of the draft Revised Master Plan (RMP) 2013 published by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). This plan contains regulations and zoning rules that will manage and shape growth of the 1,219 sqkm area under the BDA jurisdiction for the next 15 years and accommodates a projected population 24.7 million.
In the first week of 2018 CLPR previewed the Supreme Court calendar, drew attention to Jaipal Singh Munda and to the debate that decided the structure of the Indian Parliament.
In the last fortnight of 2017 at CLPR we published an article on Subba Rao, a freedom fighter from the Rayalseema region and Constituent Assembly member from the Madras province, received formal education only till the 10th standard but went on to teach himself English, Kannada, Sanskrit, and Telugu.
Last week CLPR continued its efforts to create awareness of the Constitution – by introducing summaries that trace the evolution of the Articles in the Indian Constitution. Efforts to track the present-day interpretation of the Constitution continued with the publishing of the hearings in the Aadhar Act and Parsi Woman Excommunication [Parsi Identity] cases, heard by the Supreme Court in the last week of the 2017 Winter Session.
Last Week at CLPR we continued with our daily reporting on the constitutionally relevant cases being heard by the Supreme Court (SCObserver). We also highlighted the relevance of a Constituent Assembly Debate that took place in the 1st week of December, and the far-reaching influence of a Constituent Assembly Member who participated in that debate (CADIndia).
In the last week at CLPR the CADIndia team, who curate and maintain the Constituent Assembly Debates website (http://cadindia.clpr.org.in) focused on Nov 26th: India’s National Law Day/Constitution Day.
Last week at CLPR saw an analysis on Gujarat Shrine Supreme Court verdict, reports on the Special Status of Delhi case and posts on Constitution Making.
Weekly roundup of the last week at CLPR. The Supreme Court verdict in the Child Marriage and Marital Rape case, Karnataka State Policy for Transgender Persons, Children’s Day and hearings in the Special Status for Delhi case were discussed this past week.
In the last week, CLPR continued it’s efforts to introduce students to the Indian Constitution and traveled to Meghalaya and Assam to conduct workshops.
Last week at CLPR – a round-up of the analyses, research and reporting in the week 29th Oct-4th Nov.
The last week at CLPR was a busy one with Courts resuming work post the Diwali Break and a variety of events being scheduled in the past week.
A pre-requisite for citizens to critically engage with contemporary political, legal and social issues is an understanding and appreciation of India’s rich constitutional tradition. In this regard, civic education in India at various levels has failed. The Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) bridges this gap through carefully conceptualized workshops that communicate India’s rich constitutional tradition to different audiences: schools, colleges, professionals and the general public.
The festive season made the last week at CLPR a short week. The Supreme Court was also closed for the whole week.
The Centre for Law and Policy Research encourages and facilitates civic engagement with India’s Constitution through the CADIndia project and Supreme Court Observer. CADIndia promotes an understanding of the Indian Constitution by enabling easy and intelligent access to the Constituent Assembly Debates and the Indian Constitution at the centre of discussions on contemporary political and economic issues. The SCObserver website endeavors to make the workings of the Supreme Court accessible and understandable to the citizenry by translating the hearings and judgments of a few constitutionally relevant cases into everyday language.
As part of its Monthly Talk Series, CLPR hosted Professor Adam Feibelman where he spoke about ‘The Promises And Perils Of India’s New Personal Insolvency And Bankruptcy Law’ where he discussed India’s new insolvency and bankruptcy regime.
India currently does not have any specific laws for the implementation of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which deals with the protection of public health policies with respect to tobacco control, from commercial and other vested interest of the tobacco industry.
The Karnataka High Court passed an Interim Order directing the State to fill up of vacancies in consumer forums in Karnataka.
Police asked to help her, she suspects she was a child trafficking’s victim Chaya…
Karnataka HC recognises the adoptee’s right to know the identity of their birth mother.
In the Vishakha Judgment the petitioner sought to enforce the fundamental rights of working women. The said…
On 23rd, January 2013 the Justice Verma Committee on amendments to Criminal Law, was constituted to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women. It was constituted a few days after the brutal gang rape in Dehli on December 16, 2012. The urgency of the matter impelled the Committee to undertake the performance of the assigned task within the short span of 30 days, so the Committee has been facilitated in the task by an overwhelming response to the Public Notice, an oral consultation with the women’s social action groups and experts in the field.
Volume No. 642 of ‘Seminar’ published in February 2013, featured an article “The Supreme Court on…
The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the State government, Department of Food, Civil…
Sudhir Krishnaswamy from CLPR and Abhayraj Naik from the Law, Governance and Development Initiative of the Azim Premji University,…
January 5, 2013 must have been a busy Saturday for the members of the Justice…
The internet governance caravan has merrily travelled from Baku to Dubai this week. However, the…
After India ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which came into force in 2008, there was a clear need to overhaul the existing disability laws in India to bring them in compliance with the UNCRPD. It is in pursuance of this that the Mental Health Act 1987 (“MHA”) is sought to be replaced the new Mental Health Care Bill 2012 (“2012 Bill”). This is a brief overview of the 2012 Bill.
The Oxford University Press in collaboration with the Centre for Law and Policy Research is holding a book release cum…
The Global Network Initiative released a Report on Digital Freedoms in International Law earlier this week. The…
The Centre for Culture, Media and Governance of Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi and Alternative Law Forum. Bangalore organised a workshop…
CLPR represented Azim Premji Foundation as an intervenor in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.