In this article, the author critiques the CUTS report on Economic Impact of Judicial Decisions through a cost-benefit analysis. The author argues that the report has a flawed methodology, its recommendations do not pass muster on weighing the costs and benefits and the separation of powers doctrine is being violated. The core contention of the author is that the report favours ease of doing business over adherence to environmental regulations and its recommendations are myopic when a balancing of costs and benefits is done.
In the context of the recent USSC judgment overturning Roe v Wade, this piece looks at the use of textualism as employed by the bench therein and contrasts it with the Indian use of Textualism as a tool for Constitutional interpretation. Having often been at the receiving end of most criticism, Textualism, this piece argues can be revived as a valid and legitimate tool of interpretation.
Vanshika Arora Introduction The regulation, protection, disclosure, and transfer of personal data in India, is not governed by a robust, broad-gauge, and comprehensive law. The recently retracted Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, was expected to change the law of the land in this respect; however, what awaits the Data Protection policy of India is a […]