Editorial Note

In this note, the authors discuss the Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial Conclave organised by West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (‘NUJS’), Kolkata, in collaboration with the Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial Trust and was supported by the Tata Group. As part of the Conclave, NUJS also organised the Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial Essay Competition, 2023 (‘Essay Competition’). The broad theme of the Essay Competition was ‘Application of Basic Structure Doctrine to Contemporary Issues’. Submissions were invited for two sub-themes: Scope of Judicial Review, and Powers of Promulgating Ordinances. The NUJS Law Review here assisted in the organisation of the Essay Competition. The panel of judges that scored the entries included notable legal stalwarts such as Justice M. R. Shah, Professor Upendra Baxi, Professor Rohit De, and Jhuma Sen, to make a few. The authors thereafter navigate through the papers published in Volume 16(4) of the NUJS Law Review, Special Issue on the Basic Structure Doctrine, which were the winning entries of the Essay Competition. Professor Upendra Baxi also contributed through a Foreword to the Special Issue.

In this note, the authors, who are former Editors of the NUJS Law Review, discuss significant advancements made recently to ensure the inclusion of persons with disabilities (‘PwDs’) within multiple institutional structures. These include the Supreme Court Accessibility Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India, approval by the Union Cabinet for Phase III of the E-Courts Project, and direction by the Delhi High Court to embed accessibility features for movies released on Over-the-Top platforms. Thereafter, the authors engage in statistical analysis of the representation of PwDs in law school activities and conclude that confronting the same is the first step towards making the legal profession truly accessible. Finally, they highlight that the current Special Issue on Disability Law conceptualised by the NUJS Law Review attempts to provide an opportunity for PwDs to contribute and helps in the democratisation of academia.

In this note, the authors navigate through the papers published in Volume 16(2) of the NUJS Law Review. The authors succinctly summarise the arguments made in the said papers and conclude by expressing gratitude to the contributors of this issue.

Zoos have become a common feature in all major cities and townships in India. They serve as a means of recreation, revenue generation, and scientific studies. Moreover, with the recent decision of the Supreme Court in on Jallikattu, animal rights have again taken the centre-stage in legal discourse. This note argues for a systematic, step-by-step abolishment of all zoos in India. This is justified by relying on the jurisprudential understanding of animal rights and nature, which is based on placing humans as a part of nature instead of superior or separate from it. The note delves into the legal framework of zoos in India and thereafter explores the jurisprudential flaws that the said framework embodies. Having analysed them, it proceeds to robustly argue for the dismantling of zoos in India in a phased manner.

In this note, the authors discuss the legal privileging of the heterosexual normative structure of marriage in India and navigate the discussion surrounding the legality of same-sex marriages through this lens. In doing so, the authors question the viability of merely recognising same-sex marriages, that impose upon such persons heteronormative characterises of a family, for the cost of similar rights. In this regard, the authors further attempt to characterise the problematic concept of marriage being a source for a bundle of rights and propose to augment this consideration by looking into and taking cues from the jurisprudence in India regarding the existence of alternate protected relationships. 

As the NUJS Law Review enters its fifteenth year of existence, we cannot help but pause and reflect upon our journey as an institution since 2008, when the first issue of the Review was released. Our journal was primarily based on the model of legal journals in the west, having the aim of creating opportunities for young and creative minds to undertake legal research and expound their arguments. Since then, the Review has come a long way in producing quality legal scholarship, not only from students at NUJS but from scholars all around the world. At the heart of the Review, however, still lies the vision of its Founder, Dr. M.P Singh, who conceived the Review to be a medium of expression and preservation of legal research which could guide law and policymaking for the future. In this note, Dr. M.P Singh traces the development of the Review since its inception and charts out his vision for the future.

The authors reflect on the interplay of law, economy and technology culminating in the question of classification of gig workers in labour law currently pending before the Supreme Court of India. They map relevant parameters for law makers and concerned stakeholders to take into consideration in addressing this question, against the backdrop of technology disruptions facilitating evolving forms of work arrangements.

If we truly believe that legal academia guides law and policy making, the abject failure of our institutions to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities strikes at the heart of their assurance of inclusiveness and equal citizenship in the society. A by-product of the lack of such accommodations is the creation of a chilling effect on persons with disabilities which seriously affects their ability to litigate and prevents them from attempting to contribute to legal academia. The result is the creation of a body of legal scholarship which is dominated only by the non-disabled persons. As such, when courts rely on academia while delivering their judgments, they end up overlooking the causes that could have been espoused by such persons with disabilities. This invisibilisation of the scholarship of persons with disabilities is affront not only to their constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, but individual dignity as well. At the NUJS Law Review, we acknowledge that in some way, we too, have been complicit in enabling this chilling effect. We use this note to analyse the noticeable impediments faced by persons with disabilities in India, especially in the context of accessibility to legal academia. This analysis is underpinned with the constitutive reasons for such impediments which, in turn, have created a narrative that has normalised their everyday indignation. Concurrently, we highlight the recent positive developments in the realm of disability regime in India, which has given persons with disabilities, some cautious optimism for a better tomorrow. Lastly, we also announce the incorporation of reasonable accommodations on the website of the NUJS Law Review. This initiative is nothing more than the long-overdue vindication of the rights of our readers, authors, members and professionals, who, we believe, will now be able to access the NUJS Law Review website without having to go through certain access barriers.

The Navtej Singh Johar verdict by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India brought with itself, an affirmation that the values of individual dignity, autonomy and privacy were not just ‘frozen concepts’ which could be eroded at the altar of societal morality. This was a significant holding by the Court inasmuch as it set into motion the process of granting visibility to all those persons who had been living their lives under the shadows of §377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 (‘IPC’). The grant of constitutional protection to these individuals, who had, for the most part of their lives been regarded as ‘un-apprehended felons’ was however just the beginning of the process of restoring their dignity. In coming to its decision of decriminalising homosexuality, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised on two related values. These were essentially the values of self- determination and equal citizenship, each of which was held to be constitutive of the idea of individual dignity under the Constitution. Against this backdrop, the Editorial Note to the Navtej Johar Special Issue had pertinently mentioned that the Johar verdict has created a fertile ground for further enlivening and realising the rights of the marginalised sexual identities. Today, we are witnessing the first of many attempts of the LGBTQIA+ community to realise these rights as they struggle before the Delhi High Court to lay their claims to an institution which forms the bedrock of their most profound hopes and aspirations, i.e. the institution of marriage. In the paragraphs that follow, we shall be highlighting the concomitant aspects that lie at the heart of self-determination and equal citizenship. Through this endeavour, we attempt to apprise the reader as to why the institution of marriage substantially enables such values to reach their logical conclusions, especially in a country such as India.