Articles by Alok Prasanna Kumar

Across India, high courts are interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution to give depth and detail to the “inner” aspects of the right to life, namely, the right to privacy and to make one’s own choices. In the face of increasing state intervention in the matter of personal choices, and questioning of earlier notions of what is a matter of choice, the Supreme Court will be called upon to adjudicate the extent and scope of the life and liberty of a citizen on many crucial issues.

Given the abusive behaviour, harassment and stalking women face from men on the internet, there is a need to take appropriate measures to address this. While the laws criminalise such behaviour, there is a need to put in place adequate mechanisms to ensure that women's concerns are addressed quickly and effectively. The proposed "cyber cell," though very limited at the moment, can become an effective tool if envisioned with a focus on enforcement.

The Maharashtra law prohibiting social boycotts is a progressive one, protecting people from social hierarchies that are trying to punish them for transgressing regressive social mores. Since an earlier law outlawing excommunication was struck down by the Supreme Court for infringing the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, the constitutional validity of the social boycott law raises questions which this article tries to answer.

For those who are aware of the true state of India’s legal profession, the mobs of lawyers attacking Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar within the premises of the Patiala House Court, under the benign gaze of the Delhi Police, would not have come as too much of a

The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill, 2015 does more than violate fundamental civil liberties; it is a dangerous instance of the state transgressing the constitutional limits of its lawmaking powers. The federal distribution of powers between the centre and states under the Constitution ensures that only Parliament can legislate on matters such as terrorism that relate to the security or sovereignty of the nation. States cannot arrogate this power to themselves by devising harsh anti-terror laws that apply only within their respective territories. The unconstitutionality of the Gujarat Bill is not just a sum of its numerous illegal parts, but rooted in a deeper, more fundamental failing, namely, that the Gujarat assembly did not have the power to pass such a law in the fi rst place.