Reading this excellent book, which has a lot of resonance with present-day events.

Sharing some of the most striking paragraphs. “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.

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)

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/

#MilanKundera, who passed away today, was one of those formative writers in my life. Sharing a thread of some of the most memorable lines from his works, that I've scribbled in notebooks over the years. 🧵 "The dance whirling around them is no longer a dance but barricades yet again, we are in 1848, & in 1870, and in 1945, & we are in Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague & Vienna, & these yet again are the eternal crowds crossing through history, leaping from one barricade to another."

Today, the SC has given one of the worst and most damaging civil rights judgments in its history.

The 2011 judgment in Arup Bhuyan’s case was one of the only checks against executive abuse of the UAPA. Today, the SC has removed that check.

https://twitter.com/theleaflet_in/status/1639135829623730176

The judgment in Arup Bhuyan had understood the simple point that the word “membership” is so broad and vague that State can make completely baseless allegations and keep people in jail for years without trial. So they established a higher threshold. Now that protection is gone.

A care package from Lagos, courtesy @masobebooks and @Ohmstonweth. Also, nice to hold in my hands at last, the blurbed copy.

Recommendations for essential Japanese fiction to read? (not Murakami) Also, a good book on the history of Japan?

Ok wow.

A personal coda to this. As I was doing the final edits on this issue, I heard about the passing of Chandler “Chan” Davis.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_…

Chan was a great many things; in this context, he was a fiercely progressive SF writer at a time not known for progressiveness.

https://twitter.com/strangehorizons/status/1574458570715926556

Earlier this year, @theBekku put together an archive of Chan’s short stories from his active years 1945-1970 (see below).

What you find in these stories is an acute concern with the material power structures that shape our lives, and SF’s ability to interrogate them.

https://twitter.com/thebekku/status/1338947733147664384

From September 13, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing the constitutional challenges to economic reservations (the 103rd Amendment).

Here is the coverage of the issue, from the archives of the ICLP blog. [Thread] 1. "Is the 103rd Amendment Unconstitutional?" (Jan 13, 2019)

indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/is-…

It is possible to simultaneously oppose blasphemy laws while also recognising and opposing the bullying and baiting of individuals and groups. The first is a constitutional claim about how coercive *State* power should not be deployed against speech, including insulting religious speech.

The second is about realising that speech is often used to bully and bait - especially in the public arena - where power is unequal.

Judiciary will sing paeans to democracy, except when it comes to actually protecting the right to vote.

m.thewire.in/article/law/bo… In any random case, judges will cite Krishna Iyer’s rhetoric on “little man going to little booth and casting little vote” (or whatever that was). Then a case will come where there is actual denial of voting, and judges will be like *crickets*

A thread on some of my favourite city-books.

Eric Hazan’s “A Walk Through Paris - A Radical Exploration”: a wonderful political geography of the city, with a special focus on its revolutionary past. When he says a *radical* exploration, he means it. Edmund White, “Inside a Pearl - My Years in Paris”: this is Paris through queer eyes.

Delhi HC's split verdict on the marital rape exception has been uploaded:

http://164.100.69.66/jupload/dhc/RAS/judgement/11-05-2022/RAS11052022CW2842015_190346.pdf On reading the opening pages, struck again by the fact that J Shakder writes beautifully.

There's a huge difference between the Sup Court striking down sedition as unconstitutional, and an executive-led parliamentary repeal of the law (if it happens).

The former would entail the SC overruling its own earlier judgment that had upheld the constitutionality of the law +

https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1523967038884089856

+ reaffirming core constitutional standards that restrict the criminalisation of speech.

It would potentially make it harder for the govt. to abuse other laws that criminalise speech, and constrain its ability to throw people in jail for years for innocuous things.

An eventful life. “I do not have the quality to discuss Mr Cohen’s epistolary fantasies.”

Saving this line to use on my opponents.

In 2009, the Supreme Court handed down a “suo motu” “judgment” where it said that if some destruction of property happened in a protest, and you were present, your property could get attached without needing to show you were responsible in any way. indiankanoon.org/doc/169453366/…

https://twitter.com/shivamshankars/status/1513505423990566920

Incidentally, this “suo motu” “judgment” was based on the recommendations of the amicus curae appointed by the Court, including establishment legal stalwarts such as Fali Nariman.

Judgment was forgotten until CAA protests, when the UP govt dusted it out to go after protesters.

Bleak indeed. Excellent line to be fair.

Lots to think about, but I think one thing to look out for in the judgment is that, now that the SCORK has said that the tiered amendment process is what safeguards the Constitution from dismemberment, how exactly they have interpreted Article 257 to strengthen those safeguards.

https://twitter.com/gautambhatia88/status/1509409372174262277

Are there any interpretive safeguards to ensure that going forward, Article 257 remains an affirmation of bottoms-up direct democracy, or can be hijacked by State organs?

A lot will turn upon what the judgment(s) say - and also, something that history will have its verdict on.

BBI judgment, pronouncement here:

Some guy being interviewed has just said that "the Constitution is not a love letter; it is a double-edged sword."

The never-ending bail hearings in the @UmarKhalidJNU case highlight what @abhinavsekhri10 says in this article about UAPA:

article-14.com/post/how-the-u…

These are not really "bail hearings", but full-fledged trials where the defence has to argue with one arm tied behind its back.

https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1489097756669276160

Because of the UAPA, to get bail, defence needs to show that there is no prima facie case.

But at the stage of bail, defence can't cross-examine witnesses or examine evidence, so it has to take the police version as true and argue entirely on that.