Articles for author: Anmol Jain

Judicial Paternalism and Free Speech in India

The Indian Supreme Court has recently decided two cases pertaining to the speech acts of two different individuals—a podcaster and a legislator of the Legislative Council of the State of Bihar. In both cases, the Court chose to reprimand the individuals for their ‘indecent’ and ‘unparliamentary conduct’ and also sanctioned punishments upon them, without any a priori determination of whether their speech acts, in any manner, violated the limits of the right to free speech as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The reprimand and the sanction, I argue, emerged from the Court’s false belief that it is tasked to school the citizens on the appropriate and correct ways of using their speech rights.

Democracy and the Election Commission of India

As I write this review on the eve of 2025, much hasn’t changed when it comes to the status of democracy in India. If anything, there are increasing concerns that the gains of democratic consolidation since the inauguration of the Indian Constitution are withering away and giving ample space for the entrenchment of a majoritarian, anti-democratic political culture. The vile and morally corrupt politics of the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) have struck a chord with the voters, who continue to support its exclusionist vision of India.

The Bombay High Court Dismisses the Ministry of Truth

In 2023, the Indian central government established a Fact Check Unit to monitor online content related to ‘any business of the Central Government’ and order the takedown of any information that it considered ‘fake or false or misleading.’ The FCU itself was envisaged as a public body and a part of the central government. As it seems, the Indian central government wanted to depart from existing liability rules protecting platforms in all cases of online criticism of the Indian State. As the FCU would be the last arbiter of what could be said online in India about the central government, the amendment instituted what could be called a ‘Ministry of Truth’. This was struck down by the Bombay High Court.

Jurisprudence of Convenience

Last month, in Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Film India Private Ltd, the Indian Supreme Court delivered an opinion on the limits of protected speech under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. While the opinion touched upon several important aspects of the free speech right, it is replete with behavioral guidance, and its language makes it hard to discern the binding legal principles. I argue that courts should approach cases involving hard questions of constitutional law with extreme caution in terms of their potential implication on the growth (or absence) of a consistent doctrine.

Uniting the Indian Opposition

More than 35 parties have come together to form a big-tent united opposition bloc called the ‘Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance’ (“INDIA”) to jointly fight the BJP in the 2024 General Elections. They believe that if the opposition could field a single common candidate against every BJP candidate, they could potentially defeat the BJP or at least challenge its ambitious goal of winning a supermajority. The strategy of uniting the opposition against an electorally strong and populist leader is not uncommon, both for India and globally. In the following paragraphs, I’ll discuss how this strategy has played out in the recent past and what lessons INDIA could learn from such a global experience.

Reconceptualizing Legislative Privileges

Earlier this month, the Indian Supreme Court delivered a judgment in a reference pertaining to the law and scope of legislative privileges under the Indian Constitution. The primary question before the court was whether legislative privileges extend to the protection from prosecution of a legislator who receives a bribe to speak or vote in a certain manner in the legislature. In the following sections of this post, I’ll first discuss the existing law on legislative privileges in India, which is unique in its origination and formulation. I’ll then argue that there is a need to reconceptualize the understanding of legislative privileges in order to support the legislative systems in performing their roles and functions in their true essence.

On the Politics of Non-Transparent Electoral Funding in India

Last week, a five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict adjudicating the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme (“EBS”). The EBS introduced a novel method of making ‘anonymous’ donations to Indian political parties, both by individuals and a body of individuals. The judgment makes a democracy-enabling jurisprudential step in extending the right to information of voters to the details of political funding received by political parties in an effort to cement transparency and accountability as the central values of the electoral exercise.

Using the Constitution for Partisan Benefits

Last month, the Indian parliament passed the 106th amendment to the Constitution. It inserted several provisions to the Indian Constitution, collectively providing for horizontal reservation of one-third of directly elected seats of the House of the People, the state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi legislative assembly for women. In this blog, I discuss the political motivations underlying the enactment of this amendment and argue that this amendment is an opportunistic attempt by the incumbent government to reap partisan benefits using the Constitution before the upcoming state and general elections. Such actions demystify the idea that constitutions are a place for high-order politics. The amendment shows that with enough numbers, constitutions could easily be reduced into a political tool for furthering dominant political interests.

On the State of Academia in India

The Economics Department at India’s Ashoka University received an unexpected visit from the Federal Intelligence Bureau. The reason for this visit was a paper titled ‘Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy’ by Sabyasachi Das, an economist. In his research, Das meticulously examined 11 contested seats during India’s 2019 general elections and uncovered imbalanced outcomes that favored the ruling party, BJP. Das noted that ‘the results point to strategic and targeted electoral discrimination against Muslims, in the form of deletion of names from voter lists and suppression of their votes during election, in part facilitated by weak monitoring by election observers.’ The subsequent visit by the Federal Intelligence Bureau is just one among several incidents that highlight the precarious state of academic freedom in India.

An Attack on Indian Democracy

Last week, the Indian government introduced a bill in Parliament providing for, inter alia, the mechanism for appointing Election Commissioners in India. The bill proposes the creation of a three-member Selection Committee composed of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition to make recommendations to the President in this regard. The proposed Executive-dominated Selection Committee raises several questions about the conduct of free and fair elections in India. In the paragraphs to follow, I first discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that preceded the introduction of this bill and how this bill, as a response to the Court decision, is instructive to constitutional drafters. I then discuss the possible approaches the Supreme Court of India could adopt when the new legislation is challenged to push back against the Executive’s undemocratic maneuvers.