On the second episode of justify – Faith, not Law.
Round up the rationale and decisions of the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew (the Tribunals) case, the RTI Act and the office of the CJI case, the contempt petition against industrialists Malvinder and Shivinder Signh and a Delhi High Court judgement on attendance requirements for annual promotion in LLB courses (is attendance an essential requirement for promotion?). [Starts at 0:32]
Deep dive into the judgement delivered in the Sabarimala review petition. Understand what review jurisdiction entails. Did the court possibly overreach in this particular instance? What are the implications of such judicial innovations? [Starts at 8:45]
Listen in to a Tete-a-Tete between the host and former Law Minister Salman Khurshid. Does the SC judgement in the Sabarimala Review petition re-open an old can of worms? How can we best understand the slippery contours where religion intersects with the law? Is unity assured only by uniformity? Or is unity not just assured, but actually preferred to be assured by way of diversity? An intellectually stimulating discussion with a diversity of opinions awaits. [Starts at 17:36]
As always, write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org with the answer in our weekly legal quiz CLATTER, and stand a chance to win a thousand rupee Amazon voucher. [Starts at 44:12]
The winners of last week’s quiz were Aakash Puttige and Mohan Gowda. The correct answer was Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, writing to Sardar Vallabhai Patel.