Gyanant Singh

The apex court would have done better by considering his arguments while deciding the pending review petitions.

While the petitions by Vikas and Vishal Yadav were pending, a Constitution Bench put the controversy to rest.

Justice J Chelameswar's decision to boycott collegium meetings is a good opprtunity.

With the Modi sarkar often facing charges of being against minorities, it has pointed out that Indira Gandhi was also opposed to the university's minority status.

The proposed law, as it stands, may put at risk the lives of the sick, elderly, depressed and handicapped.

SC allows us to file both civil and criminal case for defamation, which has a chilling effect on free speech.

The bar is clearly a hurdle in way of the right of a victim to a fair investigation.

It is not about dividing time between the partners with arithmetic precision, but ensuring bond with both.

Constable Babu Lal Mitharwal in his petition says the rule violates his Fundamental Right to Life.

The idea is to unite and not to divide.

Moulding public opinion in favour of the law in this backdrop will be all the more difficult for BJP government.

The executive and legislative need to review offences in the light of changing outlook of the society.

The archaic Section 295A deters even honest attempts to fight against superstition and prejudices.

It only raises fears of bias in favour of the accused.

'Self-government means a government by the people, and if the people are illiterate, a few leaders have no right to usurp all the power to themselves.'

The SC upheld rules prohibiting bigamy and removal of government employees who have two wives.

In a recent verdict, the Allahabad High Court unnecessarily decided to explore possibility of claim by a child born out of rape in the property of the rapist.

A bench presided over by Justice Dipak Misra has already issued notice on a petition challenging Kerala government's decision to kill stray dogs.

It's likely to increase traffic and also leave scope for misuse of the exemption to bypass the order.

It can be a threat but curbing it at the cost of the right of genuine litigants to move courts is unreasonable.

The argument by the Centre that legal provisions already mandated disclosure of financial details to the I-T department and EC is self-defeating.

AV recording of the proceedings will help to usher in transparency and to deal with the menace of witnesses retracting statements during trials.

The bald claim by some that the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts accused was innocent is meaningless.

It is high time the government acknowledges that thinking beyond 'marriage as a sacrament' is not a taboo.

A judgement replete with such observations only gives the impression that a survivor ought to be ashamed of being a victim.

The manner in which the government seeks to deal with the problem could jeopardise the right to protest.

The use of force while arresting may be justified but to specifically allow causing of death without providing guidelines is clearly wrong.

The proposed government decision may seem convincing but only as long as we do not consider the fact that the social purpose of Section 498A is yet to be achieved.

There is no reason to deny reservation with change in religion as it is provided to Scheduled Castes as recompense for centuries of oppression.

With disruptions in House being cited as one of the reasons for taking the ordinance route to lawmaking, there is hardly any scope for presuming tacit approval by legislature in such circumstances.