Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
@gautambhatia88
Aug 26, 2020 • 5 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
1. For a while, some of us have been expressing concern about the role of private, unaccountable legal think tanks in framing important laws. These pieces in the Economic Times and in the Caravan exemplify these concerns.

caravanmagazine.in/technology/vid…

m.economictimes.com/prime/economy-…

(1/5)
2. These pieces show how independent legal consultancy can become a guise for either pushing private interests behind closed doors, or facilitating the political executive in undermining rights.

(2/5)
3. It is important to stress that this is not about a clash of personalities or about any one set of people; but about an exclusionary process of law-making, riddled with secrecy and conflicts of interest.

(3/5)
And lastly, it is a question of conscience. When George W Bush wanted to justify torture, he got lawyers to write the infamous "torture memos." So it is with national surveillance databases like NATGRID. They will always ask the lawyers how best to legally destroy rights.

(4/5)
Responsibility - moral and ethical - lies heavy upon the shoulders of those who wield the law as a weapon against the people that it is meant to protect.

(5/5)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Gautam Bhatia

Gautam Bhatia Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gautambhatia88

Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Aug 1
Pending longer analysis on the blog (not be me), a couple of quick clarifications about today’s sub-classification judgment.

1. SC hasn’t said that states *have* to sub-classify. It has said that they *can* sub-classify, based only on empirical data of relative marginalisation.
2. The only question before the SC in these proceedings was whether the previous judgment in EV Chinnaiah’s case - which said that sub-classification is *unconstitutional* - was correct or not. The SC said it wasn’t correct, based on the wording of Art 341 of the Constitution.
3. There was no other question before the Court, including “creamy layer.” Nor have the four judges who’ve (unnecessarily) talked about “creamy layer” issued any binding or enforceable directives to the State. At the highest I think these have no more legal force than advisories.
Read 7 tweets
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Jun 22
Just re-read the 2013 judgment of the Gauhati HC that declared the CBI to be unconstitutional, primarily on federalism grounds. So well-researched and reasoned.
No wonder it was immediately stayed by the SC, which hasn't touched it in the last 11 years:

indiankanoon.org/doc/133280611/
Interestingly, the judgment of the Gauhati HC came exactly a month after the Bombay HC passed a diametrically opposite judgment upholding the validity of the NIA. The federalism arguments raised in both cases were almost identical (Entry 8 List I, etc).

indiankanoon.org/doc/114121933/
The difference between the two judgments was that the Gauhati HC based its analysis on a close reading of history (including the CA Debates) to arrive at its interpretation of how the federal scheme deals with policing. The Bombay HC did not.
Read 5 tweets
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Jun 5
The judiciary and the 2024 General Election: a thread of the coverage on the ICLP blog.

1. A Critique of the Election Commission’s Order in the “Real NCP” Dispute (17 Feb 2024), by Yogesh Byadwal --

indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/02/17/gue…
2. The Unexamined Law: On the Supreme Court’s Stay Order in the Election Commissioners Case (22 March 2024) -- indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/03/22/the…
3. An Injudicious Judicial Opinion (27 April 2024) --

(on the VVPAT-verification order)indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/04/27/an-…
Read 9 tweets
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Mar 27
Reading this excellent book, which has a lot of resonance with present-day events.

Sharing some of the most striking paragraphs. Image
“Mau Mau had to be eliminated at all costs,” he later recalled, “something had to be done to remove these people from society.”

Thinking about where that kind of language has been used recently. Image
“He and his finance minister, Ernest Vasey, despaired that Mau Mau was not communist. Had it been, the British government would have given them a blank check to suppress the movement, as it had done with General Templar and the communist uprising in British colonial Malaya.” Image
Read 10 tweets
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Mar 10
In light of recent events with respect to the Election Commission, there is persistent confusion about the constitutionality of the current selection process, and the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment on the appointment of Election Commissioners.

A brief thread. (1/n)
Article 324(2) of the Constitution grants to the President the power to appoint the Election Commissioners, subject to Parliamentary law.

The intention of the framers of the Constitution was that the President's power would be transitional, until Parliament made a law.

(2/n)
The text of Article 324(2) of the Constitution:

(3/n)indiankanoon.org/doc/950881/
Read 20 tweets
Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Aug 10, 2023
Have seen some confusion about the new Election Commissioners Bill, and what the SC held in its judgment earlier this year. Here is a brief thread to clear a few things up.

Earlier this year, a 5J-bench of the SC passed a detailed judgment on the independence of the EC. [1/n]
The SC was examining Article 324(2) of the Constitution, which says that appointment of the CEC and ECs shall "subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President."

Article 324: [2/n]indiankanoon.org/doc/950881/
Examining this provision in light of its context, its history, the debates in the Constituent Assembly, and the role of the EC, the Court found that the intention behind Article 324(2) had been that Parliament would soon pass a detailed law securing an *independent* EC. [3/n]
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(