India’s Supreme Court has long sought to protect itself, mostly through an insulated appointment system, from political pressures. Judicial independence seems to be the catchphrase for the Indian Judiciary when it is under pressure or attack. But how far has the Court been successful in navigating and managing the problems caused by judicial hierarchies and politics within its very own walls?
In ihrer Heimat gelten sie ab sofort als illegale Einwanderer. Das Land, in das sie ausgewiesen werden sollen, versinkt langsam unter dem steigenden Meeresspiegel. Fast zwei Millionen Menschen, die im indischen Bundesstaat Assam leben, gelten aufgrund der Veröffentlichung eines Nationalen Bürgerregisters durch die indische Zentralregierung seit dem 31. August 2019 als illegale Einwanderer aus Bangladesch. Tatsächlich gelten die Betroffenen bereits jetzt als Staatenlose. Den Menschen droht eine Situation rechtlicher und territorialer Bodenlosigkeit – verloren zwischen nationalem Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht und internationaler Verantwortungslosigkeit.
The move of India’s Government to nullify Article 370 of the Constitution not only broadened the legislative powers of the Union Parliament over the Jammu & Kashmir but also demoted J&K to the position of a Union Territory. Apart from doubts about the Government's power to bring about these changes and their legitimacy, it is an open question whether Article 370 is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Given the sacrosanct political arrangement it encapsulates as well as its role as an exemplar of Indian federal asymmetry, it is now upon the Supreme Court to formally acknowledge the constitutional basis of India’s delicate distribution of powers.
On August 5, India revoked Article 370, a controversial provision in the Indian Constitution, which happened to be the only link between the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian Union. After its revocation, the Union parliament passed a bill to reorganise the State into two federally administered Union Territories, a move which some have labelled as “illegal occupation” of the State.
In what was nothing short of a Constitutional heist, the Indian government has effectively extended the entirety of the Indian Constitution to the state of Kashmir.
India's Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has been accused by a former staffer of sexual harassment. In a glaring transgression of judicial procedure, Gogoi staged a 23-minute suo motu hearing, in which he presided over a bench made up of Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna. Gogoi feels justified to adjudicate his own case because of extraordinary circumstances.
Does the right to consular access also apply to imprisoned spies abroad? The International Court of Justice in The Hague will decide.
The Indian Supreme Court's ruling on LGBTQ rights signals a court willing to play an unabashedly partisan role in the ongoing battle over the idea of India. The Indian Supreme Court, however, remains a complicated, polyvocal, court, and cannot be attributed any coherent ideological or jurisprudential worldview. This, at a time when the defining role of inclusive pluralism to India’s constitutional identity is at stake and majoritarian nationalism is waging a spirited battle, not just for continued political relevance but for reshaping the very idea of India.
Am 6. September 2018 erklärte der indische Oberste Gerichtshof das sogenannte „Sodomie-Gesetz“, das u.a. den Analverkehr zwischen Männern unter Strafe stellte, für verfassungswidrig. Dabei verwiesen die Richter auf den transformativen Charakter der indischen Verfassung und die ihr innewohnende "konstitutionelle Moral". Die Entscheidung fügt sich ein in eine breitere Bewegung in den Commonwealth-Staaten, die sich für die Aufhebung der Kriminalisierung von Homosexualität stark macht und die von den Obersten Gerichtshöfen ausgeht. Die vorliegende Entscheidung dürfte dieser Bewegung neuen Schwung geben.
What worth is a Constitution if it does not seek out the emancipation of a society’s most marginalized and excluded? Indeed, what vision ought a Constitution espouse if it isn’t a commitment to basic fundamental rights and freedoms? Ultimately, what polity must a Constitution nurture if it isn’t towards imbibing the widest and most deepest sense of inclusion and pluralism in society? All these searching questions and much more came to form a distinct part of the decision of the Indian Supreme Court (Court) when it was called upon to rule on the constitutional validly of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters