TOEHOLD TO FOOTHOLD- EMANCIPATING GENDER DISPARITY FROM POLITICS BY - RUPALI GUPTA & SONAL PRIYA

Authors : RUPALI GUPTA & SONAL PRIYA

Registration ID : 108027 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8027 & IJLRA8028

Year :July-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : guptarupali1124@gmail.com & psonal2626@gmail.com

Page No : 19 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-94817692/TOEHOLD TO FOOTHOLD- EMANCIPATING GENDER DISPARITY

Understanding India’s Approach to Refugee Law: A Comprehensive Analysis by - ROHAN STHANU

Authors : ROHAN STHANU

Registration ID : 108026 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8026

Year :July-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id :rohansthanu2003@gmail.com

Page No : 19 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-33179781/Understanding India’s Approach to Refugee Law: A

Voices Of Courage: Analysing Whistleblowers’ Laws by - Gunjan Sanklecha &JIYA SAHNI

Authors : Gunjan Sanklecha & JIYA SAHNI

Registration ID : 108025 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8025 & IJLRA8042

Year :July-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id :sanklechagunjan@gmail.com & dpsjiy9283@gmail.com

Page No : 20 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-34467389/Voices Of Courage: Analysing Whistleblowers’ Law

Child Marriage: The Indian Historical And Societal Context by - Florine M. Muchokore & Dr Gurpreet Kaur

Authors : Florine M. Muchokore & Dr Gurpreet Kaur

Registration ID : 108024 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8024 & IJLRA8176

Year :July-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : florinemuchokore@gmail.com

Page No : 22 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-37958274/Child Marriage: The Indian Historical And Societal

NAVIGATING THE NEXUS: UNRAVELING THE INTERPLAY OF COMPETITION LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE PHARMACEUTICAL LANDSCAPE. BY - BAHITRA BASU & SHRI DHARSHAN R.V

Authors : BAHITRA BASU & SHRI DHARSHAN R.V

Registration ID : 108022 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8022 & IJLRA2023

Year :June-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : bahitra.basu@law.christuniversity.in & shri.dharshan@law.christuniversity.in

Page No : 16 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-21991352/NAVIGATING THE NEXUS: UNRAVELING THE INTERPLAY OF

"THE VEIL OF CONFIDENTIALITY: NAVIGATING TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGES IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION" BY - ANSHIKA SINGH & KIRTI SHANKAR

Authors : ANSHIKA SINGH & KIRTI SHANKAR

Registration ID : 108020 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8020 & IJLRA8021

Year :June-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : vashisthanshika21@gmail.com & shankarkirti123456@gmail.com

Page No : 18 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-95742365/"THE VEIL OF CONFIDENTIALITY: NAVIGATING TRANSPARE

BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980) BY: SALEHA HANEEF

Authors : SALEHA HANEEF

Registration ID : 108019 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8019

Year :June-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : haneefsaleha959@gmail.com

Page No : 11 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-29547422/BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980)

THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: THE STUDY ON ITS DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA BY - MUSKAN SHARMA

Authors : MUSKAN SHARMA

Registration ID : 108018 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8018

Year :June-2024 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : muskansharma3534@gmail.com

Page No : 16 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link : https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/07.2024-86339856/THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: THE STUDY ON IT

THE QUEST FOR TRUTH IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE- REVISITING THE MALIMATH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY - DR. SUMAN MAWAR

Authors : DR. SUMAN MAWAR

Registration ID : 109817 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA9817

Year : Aug-2023 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : salonisharma2905@gmail.com

Page No : 24 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link :

THE PARADOX OF PREVENTION: INDIVIDUALISTIC ASPECT OF INTERNET SHUTDOWNS BY - HARSH ENANIYA

Authors : HARSH ENANIYA

Registration ID : 108017 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8017

Year : May-2022 | Volume : II | Issue : 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id : salonisharma2905@gmail.com

Page No : 21 | No of times Downloads: 0065

Doi Link :

International journal for legal research and analysis

Abbreviation:IJLRA

ISSN:2582-6433

Website:https://www.ijlra.com/

Accessibility:Open Access

License:Creative Commons 4.0

Submit Manuscript:Click here

Licensing:

All research articles published INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

IJLRA	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 5 Issue 8 2022 Page 1-6
IEEE	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 5(8)

[1] Barbara J Nelson and Najma Chowdhury (eds) Women and Politics Worldwide. London:Yale University Press,1994

[4] D. Syamala Devi,G. Lakshmi, “Political Empowerment of Women in Indian Legislature:A Study”,The Indian Journal of Political Science,Vol. 66,No.1(Jan-March,2005),pp. 75-92(18 pages)

[5] Piyush Mathur,“Women Reservation is Women Empowerment”Times of India,Nov. 26, 2019.

[7] Robinson, A.., & Gottlieb, J..(2019).How to Close the Gender Gap in Political Participation: Lessons from Matrilineal Societies in Africa.British Journal of Political Science,51,68-92 http://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000650

[8] Bhalotra,S..,Clots-Figueras, Irma.,&Iyer,Lakshmi.(2013).Path-Breakers: How Does Women's Political Participation Respond to Electoral Success?. Public Choice:Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350805

[9] Milazzo, A.., & Goldstein, Markus. (2017).Governance and Women's Economic and Political Participation: Power Inequalities,Formal Constraints and Norms.The World Bank Research Observer ,http://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKY006

[10] Cascio, Elizabeth U.., & Shenhav, N.. (2020).A Century of the American Woman Voter:Sex Gaps in Political Participation,Preferences, and Partisanship Since Women's Enfranchisement. NBER Working Paper Series http://doi.org/10.3386/w26709

[11] Liu, Shan.,& Banaszak, Lee Ann (2016),Do Government Positions Held by Women Matter? A Cross-National Examination of Female Ministers' Impacts on Women's Political Participation. Politics & Gender ,13,132-162 http://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X16000490

[12] Universal Declaration of Human Rights ,art. 21 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , art. 25.

[13] The effect of women’s representation in parliament and the passing of gender sensitive policies, American Economic Association (aeaweb.org)

[14] United Nations Equal Opportunities Commission,“United Nations targets for proportion of women in leadership and decision-making positions.” Information Paper 556 (2003).

[16] Convention on the Political Rights of Women, Adopted by the Seventh Session of the General Assembly, December 20, 1952, 7 University of Wisconsin Press 173-75 (1953).

[19] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affair, https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5

[20] M. Ameen Nisha & Dr.D. Vezhaventhan,“Political empowerment and participation of women in India”120 International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 4721-4736 (2018).

[21] “Constitutional Law: Constitutional and Charter Provisions:Right of Women to Vote.” 16 Michigan Law Review 125.

[22] Ajit Pal Singh “Women’s Participation at Grass Root Level :An Analysis”,47 Mainstream (2009).

[23] Thakkar, Usha and Gawankar, Rohini. 2004.Women in Panchayat :March towards Empowerment, One India One People-Special Number on Women in Politics.

[24] Jain, Devaki. 2000. The Vocabulary of Women’s Politics. Fredrich Ebert Stiftung, Delhi.

[25] ‘Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women’, Millennium Development Goals,

available at .

[26] Desai, S., \& Temsah, G. (2014). Women in Indian Politics: A Long Road Ahead. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(8), 1-7.

[27] Kishwar, M. (2005). Gender Stereotyping in Indian Media: Implications for Women in Politics. Journal of South Asian Studies, 28(3), 541-565.

[28] Pande, R. (2005). Can Mandated Political Representation Increase Policy Influence for Disadvantaged Minorities? Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1535-1558.

[29] Agarwal, B. (1997). "Bargaining" and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household. Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-51.

[30] Duflo, E., \& Topalova, P. (2004). Unappreciated Service: Performance, Perceptions, and Women Leaders in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(48), 5135-5144.

[31] Newman, K. L. (2012). Gender, Political Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Elective Office. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 498-510.

[32] PRS Legislative Research. (2021). The Women's Reservation Bill: A Comprehensive Guide. Retrieved from [PRS Legislative Research](https://www.prsindia.org).

[33] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2020). Strengthening Women’s Political Participation Through Grassroots Initiatives. Retrieved from [International IDEA](https://www.idea.int).

[34] Centre for Social Research. (2021). Violence Against Women in Politics: A Global Review. Retrieved from [CSR](https://www.csrindia.org).

[35] Jain, P. (2018). Gender Bias in Media: A Study on Women Politicians in Indian Media. Media Asia, 45(2), 112-125.

[36] Impact of Reservation Quotas on Women's Political Participation in Local Governance" (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance,2020

[37] Political Party Mechanisms for Women's Political Participation"(National Democratic Institute, 2020).

[38] "Educational Campaigns and Women's Political Representation"(Gender and Development Journal, 2018).

[39] "Funding Challenges for Women in Politics in India" (Centre for Social Research, 2021).

[40] "Monitoring Women's Political Representation: Frameworks and Tools" (International Development Research Centre, 2019)

[1] Whistleblower Protection The National Endowment for the Humanities, https://www.neh.gov/about/oig/whistleblower-protection (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[2] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 179: THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMERS (2001).

[3] Ani, Three convicted in Satyendra Dubey murder case, Indian Express (March 22, 2010), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/crime/three-convicted-in-satyendra-dubey-murder-case/

[4] Pawan Kumar @Monu Mittal V. State of UP. & Anr, A.I.R. 2015 SC (Cri) 822

[5] SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION, REPORT NO. 4: ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE (2007).

[6] Agencies, Team Anna demands law to protect whistleblowers, Indian Express (March 9, 2012), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/latest-news/team-anna-demands-law-to-protect-whistleblowers/

[7] Press Trust of India, 4 held in whistleblower officer’s murder case, Indian Express (May 22, 2012), https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/4-held-in-whistleblower-officer-s-murder-cas/ .

[8] Express News Service, CBI to probe whistleblower’s death in Kerala, Indian Express (February 18, 2011), https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/cbi-to-probe-whistleblower-s-death-in-kerala/.

[9] False Claims Act, 1863, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3728-3730 (1863).

[10] Lloyd-La Follette Act, 1912, 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (1912).

[11] Whistleblower Protection Act, 1989 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (1989).

[12] Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, 2012 5 U.S.C. §743 (2012).

[14] Sarbanes Oxley Act, 2002 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (2002).

[16] Directive 2019/1937/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 Relating to the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, 2019 O.J. (L 305) 17

[17] Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998, c.23, Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (1998).

[18] Public Servant Disclosure Protection Act, 2005 S.C. 2005, c. 46

[19] whistle-blower, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/whistle-blower (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[20] Section 3, The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014.

[21] Whistleblower Protection Act LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/whistleblower_protection_act (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[22] The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014, Section 11

[23] International Best Practices For Whistle-Blowers: What India Can Adopt?, https://www.livelaw.in/columns/whistle-blowers-protection-act-rti-official-secrets-act-wbpa-corruption-169677 (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[26] The Whistleblowers Protection Bill, 2011, Notice of Amendments, Rajya Sabha, August 5, 2013,

[27] Rajya Sabha Official Debates, February 21, 2014. Any amendments made by Rajya Sabha would have necessitated sending the Bill back to Lok Sabha. Given that Lok Sabha was holding its last sitting that day, the Bill would have lapsed.

[28] The Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015 PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-whistle-blowers-protection-amendment-bill-2015 (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[30] Laws Enacted and Amended in 2014: A Snapshot, https://www.livelaw.in/laws-enacted-amended-2014-snapshot/ (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[32] “Enactment Of Law Is Sovereign Function”: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For Implementation Of Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-whistle-blowers-protection-act-sovereign-function-192652 (last visited Jun 28, 2024

[33] The Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015 PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-whistle-blowers-protection-amendment-bill-2015 (last visited Jun 28, 2024)

[34] Competition Commission of India, Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2024, L-3(4)/Reg-L.P./2023-24 (February 20, 2024).

[35] Competition Act, 2002, §46, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).

[36] Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024, Cl. 5, No, __of 2024 (India).

[37] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 289: TRADE SECRETS AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (2024).

[38] Debby Jain, Law Commission Recommends Whistleblower Protection, Says Amendments May Be Brought To Mandate Test Data Disclosure, LIVE LAW (March 9, 2024), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/law-commission-of-india-289th-report-trade-secrets-economic-espionage 251731#:~:text=In%20a%20recent%20development%2C%20the,government%20use%2C%20and%20public%20interest.

[1] PON STAFF, What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation, PROGRAM ON NEGOTIATION HARVARD LAW SCHOOL (Dec. 21, 2023).

[2] Kaya, S., 2019. Suitability of alternative dispute resolution for shareholders disputes. Corporate Governance: Search for the Advanced Practices, p.68.

[3] Farrar, J.H., Watson, S. and Boulle, L., 2012. Dispute resolution in family companies. Canterbury L. Rev., 18, p.155.

[4] Goldberg, S.B., Sander, F.E., Rogers, N.H. and Cole, S.R., 2020. Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other processes. Aspen Publishing.

[5] Alexander, N., 2022. Mediation and appropriate dispute resolution. Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases, pp.670-709.

[6] Rule, C., 2020. Online dispute resolution and the future of justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, pp.277-292.

[7] Bichia, M., 2020. Legal Regime of Confidentiality Protection in the Mediation Process and Its Meaning. Law & World, 15, p.188.

[8] Laurie K. Dore, Public Courts versus Private Justice: It's Time to Let Some Sun Shine in on Alternative Dispute Resolution, 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 463 (2006).

[1]Devadhe T, “Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 AIR 1325, ‘Rarest of Rare’ Cases- Legal Vidhiya” (Legal Vidhiya-, April 7 2023) <https://legalvidhiya.com/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab-1982-air-1325-rarest-of-rare-cases/> accessed June 18 2024.

[5]Rajendra Prasad v State Of Uttar Pradesh [1979]

[9]Jagmohan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1972]

[10]Sreelakshmi M. “BACHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB” (Law Essentials, 13 October 2021) <https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab> accessed 8 June 2024

[11] “Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab – The AmikusQriae” (The Amikus Qriae) <https://theamikusqriae.com/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab/> accessed 8 June 2024

[1] See David Landau and Rosalind Dixon, ‘Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy’ (2020) 53 UC Davis L Rev 1313; Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Z Huq, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy (Univ Chicago P 2018); Stephen Gardbaum, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice (Cambridge UP 2013). See also Mark Tushnet, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Princeton UP 2009); Katherine Young, ‘A Typology of Economic and Social Rights Adjudication: Exploring the Catalytic Function of Judicial Review’ [2010] Int’l J Const L 385.

[2] E. Delaney, ‘The Federal Case for Judicial Review’ [2022] Oxford Journal of Legal Studies; Giuliano Amato, Benedetta Barbisan, and Cesare Pinelli (eds), Rule of Law vs. Majoritarian Democracy (Bloomsbury 2021).

[3] See pt II of this article; Nick Robinson, ‘Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court’ (2009) 8 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 1.

[4] V. Narayan and J. Sindhu, ‘A Historical Argument for Proportionality under the Indian Constitution’ (2018) 2 (1) Indian Law Review; A. Chandra, ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere’ (2020) 3(2) University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal; T. Khaitan, ‘Beyond Reasonableness’ (2008) 50(2) Journal of India Law Institute.

[5] J.H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Harvard UP 1980) 102.

[6] R. Dixon, Responsive Judicial Review—Democracy and Dysfunction in the Modern Age.

[7] P. Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (Oxford UP 1982).

[13] S. Gardbaum, ‘Comparative Political Process Theory’ (2020) 18(4) ICON; Ittai Bar-Siman- Tav, ‘The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process’ (2011) 91 Boston UnivLR 1915; SR Ackerman, Stefanie Egidy, and James Fowkes, Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany and the European Union (Cambridge UP 2015).

[14] See pt III of this article; Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41; Ram Krishna Dalmia v S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538 (on reasonable classification and presump- tion of constitutionality); A.K. Roy v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 (upholding preven- tive detention even after the recognition of the due process under art 21 in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597); N.B. Khare v State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 211 (upholding externment on grounds of subjective satisfaction); Babulal Parate v State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 884 : (1961) 3 SCR 423; Madhu Limaye v SDM, Monghyr (1970) 3 SCC 746 : AIR 1971 SC 2486 (upholding s 144 of the CrPC giving broad discretion to the Executive to determine when prohibitory orders on gatherings should be imposed). See also See P.K. Tripathi, Some Insights into Fundamental Rights (University of Bombay, 1972) where he critiques the reasonable classification test; K.G. Kannabiran, Wages of Impunity: Power, Justice and Human Rights, (Orient Longman 2004); S. Shankar, Scaling Justice: India’s Supreme Court, Anti-Terror Laws, and Social Rights (OUP India 2012).

[15] Subhash C. Kashyap, Our Parliament (2001); M.R. Madhavan, Parliament’ in Rethinking India’s Public Institutions (OUP 2017) 81; Kaushiki Sanyal, ‘Who Gains from Parliamentary Disruption’ (2015) 50(35) Economic and Political Weekly.

[16] M. Verma, ‘Diminishing the Role of Parliament: The Case of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill,’ (2019) 54(45) Economic and Political Weekly.

[17] See art 110 of the Constitution. When a Bill is passed as a Money Bill, the Upper House can only recommend amendments that may or may not be accepted by the Lower House; Arvind

P. Datar and Rahul Unnikrishnan, ‘Making a Money Bill of It’ Indian Express (Delhi, 12 January 2016); S. Parthasarathy, ‘Trickeries of the Money Bill’ The Hindu (Delhi, 11 April 2019).

[18] See rr 252–54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, which together provide that once a member asks for actual counting, the Chairman shall pro- ceed with the same. It is pertinent to note that the Parliament was forced to repeal these laws following concerted protests by for farmers more than a year on the outskirts of Delhi.

[19] ‘Election Laws (Amendment) Bill Passed in Lok Sabha Amid Din’ Indian Express (Delhi, 20 December 2021).

[20] See for instance, V. Bhandari, ‘Why the Electoral Reforms Bill is a Problem’ The Hindu

(Delhi, 21 December 2021).

[21] Art 122 states “[t]he validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure” See notes 28 to 31 and accompanying text.

[22] David Landau, ‘A Dynamic Theory of Judicial Role’ (2014) 55 BCL Rev 1501.

[23] See generally, A. Kavanagh, ‘The Constitutional Separation of Powers’ in D. Dyzenhaus & M. Thorburn (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law (OUP 2016).

[24] Mattias Kumm, ‘Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review’ (2007) 1(2) European Journal of Legal Studies.

[25] V. Narayan and J. Sindhu, ‘A Case for Judicial Review of Legislative Process in India?’ (2020) 53 VRÜ/World Comparative Law 358, 383-401.

[27] Indeed, the dissenting opinion in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1 found such a violation. It is pertinent to note that the majority ruling on this point, finding that the law satisfied the definition of a Money Bill, has been doubted in Roger Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd (2020) 6 SCC 1 and has been referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.

[28] See references to constitutional construction in Dixon (n 6).

[29] See arts 32, 131-9, 143, 225-8 of the Constitution of India.

[30] For instance, arts 243-O, 262, 363. See the opinion of Justice Chandrachud in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (n 27) [1069]; V. Narayan and J. Sindhu (n 4) 70-73.

[31] Art 118(1) states, “Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulations, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.”

[32] See arts 110, 190, and 194 of the Constitution of India as illustrations.

[33] It is pertinent to note that the provision for a voice vote provided for in parliamentary rules cannot override constitutional provisions as art 118 stipulates that procedural rules devised by Parliament are subject to the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, the rules of procedure also provide that when a member asks for a division of the votes following a voice vote, the chairman and speaker are obligated to ensure the counting of votes. See V. Narayan and J. Sindhu (n 25) 393–94.

[34] Raja Ram Pal v The Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184.

[35] Ashish Selar v Maharashtra Legislative Assembly 2022 SCC OnLine SC 105.

[36] Ashish Selar v Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (n 35).

[37] Ashish Selar v Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (n 35).

[38] V. Narayan and J. Sindhu (n 25) 394-99.

[39] Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v Union of India (n 14) [Mukherjea J]; State of Bombay v F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318.

[40] See V. Narayan and J. Sindhu (n 25) 397-9.

[41] See V. Narayan and J. Sindhu (n 4); A. Chandra (n 4); T. Khaitan (n 4).

[42] In this regard, see for instance Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 1: AIR 1998 SC 602 (“Social Legislation is treated with deference by the Courts not merely because the Legislature represents the people but also because in representing them the entire spectrum of views is expected to be taken into account. The Legislature is not shackled by the same constraints as the courts of law. But its [sic] power is coupled with a responsibility.”) In fact, one of the crucial arguments against judicial review in the United States is based on the premise that there is an obligation on the Legislature in the American Constitution to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation which the Court cannot interfere with. See JB Thayer, ‘The Original and Scope of Judicial Review’ (1893) 7(3) Harvard L R 129135. Thayer’s seminal albeit dated work is often cited by the Indian Supreme Court to jus- tify judicial restraint. For a recent example see Rajeev Suri v DDA 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7.

[44] For an explanation of these steps that constitute the proportionality test, see D. Grimm, ‘Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence’ (2007) 57(2) Univ of Toronto LJ.

[45] However, the Law Minister did not explain how the proportionality test was satisfied and this instance therefore cannot qualify as deliberation meriting deference.

[46] See the dissenting opinion of Justice Chandrachud in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (n 27) [1066-8, 1076] examining the commitment of judicial review in the Indian Constitution.

[47] D. Kyritsis, ‘Constitutional Review in a Representative Democracy’ (2012) 32(2) Oxford JLS; Ely, Democracy and Distrust (n 5) 102-3.

[48] The judiciary will also be free to consider the law on substantive grounds once the law is passed in a procedurally sound manner.

[49] See discussion in negative and positive rights in Mark Tushnet, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Princeton UP 2009).

[50] See for instance, B.N. Rau, ‘Preliminary Notes on the Fundamental Rights’ in Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution, Select Documents II 33 (Indian Institute of Public Administration 1966). See Sindhu and Narayan, ‘A “Weak” Justification for Justiciability of Socio-Economic Rights’ (unpublished, on file with the author).

[51] Constituent Assembly Debates, 19 November 1948; See Sindhu and Narayan (n 50).

[52] Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corpn (1985) 3 SCC 545; Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 408 : AIR 2000 SC 3751, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2011) 12 SCC 675.

[53] Francis Coralie Mullin v UT of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 : AIR 1981 SC 746

[54] See orders passed in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2011) 12 SCC 675 over the course of 16 years.

[55] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.

[56] Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corpn (1985) 3 SCC 545.

[57] U. Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics (Eastern Book Company 1985).

[58] For the phases of the PIL movement see Shyam Divan ‘Public Interest Litigation’ in S. Choudhry, M. Khosla and P.B. Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016).

[59] See Lawyer’s Voice v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) 142/2019 order dated May 8, 2019 where the Supreme Court issued notice in a petition seeking criminal investigation into funding activities of an NGO; Wildlife First v Ministry of Forest & Environment WP (Civil) 109/2008, order dated 13.02.2019 where the Court directed the eviction of tribal persons from forest land; MC Mehta v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 10329/2015, order dated 2.9.2019, where the Court laid down guidelines on parking.

[60] Shyam Narayan Chouskey v Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1411 which the court later walked back.

[61] See orders in Harsh Mander v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 1045 of 2018. See also G. Bhatia, ‘The NRC Case and the Parchment Barrier of Article 21’ (Indian Constitutional Law And Philosophy, 26 April 2019) and-the-parchment-barrier-of-article-21/> accessed 10 January 2021.

[62] Amit Sahni v Commr. of Police (2020) 10 SCC 439 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 808.

[63] P. Chitlakar and V. Gauri, ‘The Recent Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court’ in S. Krishnaswamy and others (eds), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change (Cambridge UP 2019) 77–91, 85.

[64] The approach of the Court in the midday meal case was notably not followed in Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India (2018) 12 SCC 170. In this case, the Court dealt with a petition seeking relief of rations in states where there were drought-like conditions. The Petitioner also sought the appointment of court commissioners to monitor the implementation of the Court’s orders. The Court refrained from granting this prayer on the ground that the State had pro- vided for such authorities to ensure implementation under the National Food Security Act 2014 but these positions remained vacant. The Court passed orders to ensure that these vacan- cies were filled.

[65] J. Sindhu and V. Narayan, ‘The Supreme Court Has Failed in Its Duty in Handling of Migrant Cases’ (The Quint 18 May 2020) www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/supreme-court- migrant-workers-crisis-no-judicial-review-high-courts-show-way-coronavirus-lockdown> accessed 10 January 2021.

[66] On how constitutional interpretation can support such a position, see J. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard UP 2011).

[67] See Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During the Pandemic, In re (2021) 7 SCC 772 the Supreme Court’s order with respect to the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine policy, where the Court sought data from the Government about the Government’s purchase orders and persons vaccinated till date, which led the Government to modify its vaccination policy to make it more equitable, serves as an important illustration of how the Court can respond to democratic inertia in matters of individual rights without transgressing its own limitations of legitimacy and competence.

[68] See, generally, Katherine Young, ‘A Typology of Economic and Social Rights Adjudication: Exploring the Catalytic Function of Judicial Review’ [2010] Int’l J Const L 385.

[69] See orders passed in Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India (2018) 12 SCC 170. Sindhu and Narayan (n 50).

[70] M. Tushnet, ‘Thayer’s Target: Judicial Review or Democracy’ (1993) 88 Nw U L Rev 9, 17.

[71] Indeed, there is copious scholarship on the counter-majoritarian difficulty posed by judicial review in the United States. For a survey of this scholarship see, S.B. Prakash & J.C. Yoo,‘The Origins of Judicial Review’ (2003) 70(3) 887, 894-898.

[72] See R.A. Dahl, Democracy and its Critics (Yale UP 1989). Terri Peretti, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Alexander Bickel’s The Least Dangerous Branch’ in Kenneth Ward and Cecilia Castillo (eds), The Judiciary and American Democracy (State University of New York Press 2006).

[73] See the rights provided in pt III of the Indian Constitution.

[75] State of Madras v V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196; State of Punjab v Khan Chand AIR 1974 SC 543; Om Kumar v Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386; Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9SCC 1.

[76] See G Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (Harper Collins 2019).

[77] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2018 SC 4321.

[78] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; State of Maharashtra v Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn (2013) 8 SCC 519 : AIR 2013 SC 2582.

[79] See Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41; Ram Krishna Dalmia v S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538.

[81] Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Assn (2020) 2 SCC 1.

[82] On how this precedent made it to India see Narayan & Sindhu (n 4) 57-62.

[83] On the method of constitutional interpretation see P. Bobbitt, (n 7); C. Chandrachud, ‘Constitutional Interpretation’ in S. Choudhry, M. Khosla and P.B. Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016).

[84] Art 32(2); In fact, the provision was amended to ensure discretion of remedies to the Supreme Court, see Constituent Assembly Debates, 9 December 1948.

[85] For instance, in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 : AIR 2020 SC 1308, the Court failed to strike down the internet shutdown imposed in Jammu and Kashmir, which became the longest internet shutdown in a democracy, despite finding that the Government was wrong to not produce the orders before court and that strict standards of proportionality had to be applied. Instead of striking down the measure, the Court, without explanation, passed a direction to the Government to produce the orders and review the situation. The internet in the region was only restored a year after the Court’s decision.

[86] This technique ought to have been applied in the face of protests against the decision of the Court in Indian Young Lawyers Assn v State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1 allowing the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple. Instead, the Court agreed to review its decision, See Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Assn (n 82).

[87] A good example of a considered approach to standards of review is the Court’s decision in State of Gujarat v Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656 : AIR 1974 SC 1300, where the Court held that in matters of economic decisions promoting welfare (unlike identity-based classifications) the State government should have more leeway to make classifications so as to first determine the success of the welfare measure.

[88] See notes 38 to 45 and accompanying text.

[89] Aharon Barak, Proportionality Constitutional Rights and their Limitations (Cambridge UP 2012), 396–99.

[90] Cora Chan, ‘Proportionality and Invariable Baseline Intensity of Review’ (2013) 33 Leg Stud 1.

[1] ‘Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022’,

ill%2C%202022.pdf>.

[2] GS Bajpai and Saurabh Sharma, ‘Demystifying the Draft Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022’ (2023) SSRN Electronic Journal.

[3] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[4] Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology (2021-22), Ministry of Communications (Department of Telecommunications), 17^th Lok Sabha

ormation_Technology_26.pdf> accessed 22 August 2022.

[5] Soumyarendra Barik, ‘Draft Telecom Bill: Negative impact on digital ecosystem, say tech companies’, The Indian Express (Mumbai, 12 November 2022).

[6] Shashi Shekhar Vempati, India and The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2016).

[7] Saket Modi, ‘India in 10 years: Cyberspace, the new frontier’, LiveMint (3 February 2022).

[8] ‘How does the Internet work?’ (Cloudfare), www.cloudflare.com/learning/network-layer/how-does-the- internet-work/> accessed 13 August 2022.

[9] Steven Feldstein, ’Government Internet Shutdowns Are Changing. How Should Citizens and Democracies Respond?’ (2022) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shutdowns-are-changing.-how-should-citizens-and-democracies-respond-pub-86687> accessed 13 August 2022.

[10] Cassondra Mix, ‘Internet Communication Blackout: Attack Under Non- International Armed Conflict?’ (2014) 3 Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare 70, 70-102.

[11] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[12] Diksha Munjal, ‘In India, are internet shutdowns in accordance with law? Not always’(newslaundry, 29 October 2021)

www.newslaundry.com/2021/10/29/in-india-are-internet-shutdowns-in-accordance-with-law-not-always > accessed 13 August 2022.

[13] The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v Ram Manhar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633.

[15] Kuso Sah v State of Bihar (1974) 1 SCC 185.

[16] Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970) 3 SCC 746.

[17] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[18] Outlook Web Bureau, ‘Fundamental Right: All You Need to Know About Longest Internet Shutdown In Kashmir’ (OutlookIndia,13 February 2022).< https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-sc-says-internet-fundamental-right-all-you-need-to-know-about-kashmirs-longest-internet-shutdown/345478 > accessed 14 November 2022.

[20] Tina Gurnaney, ‘Estimated internet penetration in India reaches 27% with 355 million internet users: Kleiner Perkins’ (ETTelecom, 1 June 2017) perkins/58942667> accessed 22 August 2022.

[21] Tanushree Basuroy, ‘Internet usage in India’ (Statista, 22 September 2022)

<www.statista.com/topics/2157/internet-usage-in-india > accessed 10 November 2022.

[22] Ani Petrosyan, ‘Internet users worldwide 2022’ (Statista, 13 February 2022),

www.statista.com/statistics/271411/number-of-internet-users-in-selected-countries> accessed 10 November 2022.

[23] Tanushree Basuroy, ‘Internet usage in India’ (Statista, 22 September 2022)

<www.statista.com/topics/2157/internet-usage-in-india > accessed 10 November 2022.

[24] Scroll Staff, ‘India had world’s highest number of internet shutdowns for fourth straight year in 2021, says report’ (Scroll, 28 April 2022)

accessed 8 November 2022.

[25] Nitish Arya, Internet Shutdowns in India: Understanding and Impact (2022).

[27] Pranav Mukul, ‘Economic Impact: “India lost $2.8 bn in 2020 to Internet shutdowns; over double of 20 others’ The Indian Express (5 January 2021).

[29] ‘Not right to resort to Internet shutdown every time: Parliament panel’ Business Standard (2 December 2021).

[30] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[32] The Constitution of India, 1950 art 19(2).

[33] State of Madras v VG Row AIR 1952 SC 196.

[34] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1(India).

[35] Babulal Parate v State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 884.

[36] Justice K. S. Puttuswamy (Retd) and Anr v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[37] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[38] Faheema Shirin RK v State of Kerala (2019) SCC Online Ker 2976.

[39] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) SCC Online SC 25.

[40] Aditi Chaturvedi, ‘Digital India Dream and Arbitrary Internet Shutdowns Can’t Go Together. Just See the Loss’, The Print (23 March 2022).

[41] Human Rights Watch, ‘No Internet Means No Work, No Pay, No Food: Internet Shutdowns Deny Access to Basic Rights in “Digital India” (2023)

www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic> accessed 13 August 2022.

[42] Hakeem Irfan Rashid, ‘Many Lose Jobs, Migrate due to Internet Shutdown in Kashmir’, The Economic Times (14 November 2019) < https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/many-lose-jobs- migrate-due-to-internet-shutdown-in-kashmir/articleshow/72057198.cms?from=mdr> accessed 13 August 2023.

[43] Jan Rydzak, ‘Of Blackouts and Bandhs: The Strategy and Structure of Disconnected Protest in India’ (2019) accessed 23 February 2022.

[44] James Vincent, ’UN condemns internet access disruption as a human rights violation’ The Verge (2016) www.theverge.com/2016/7/4/12092740/un- resolution-condemns-disrupting-internet-access > accessed 26 February 2022.

[46] Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations, OHCHR (2015) www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2015/05/joint- declaration-freedom-expression-and-responses-conflict-situations#:~:text=Individuals%20who%20expose%20wrongdoing%2C%20serious, sanction%2C%20even%20if%20they%20have > accessed 13 August 2022.

[47] The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet Res 32/13 (2016) A/HRC/RES/32/13.

[48] International Telecommunications Union, ‘Building the Information Society: A Global Challenge in the New Millenium’ (Geneva Declaration of Principles, World Summit on the Information Society, December 2003).

[49] United Nations Millennium Declaration Res 55/2 (2000) A/RES/55/2.

[50] Rec CM/Rec (2007) 16 ‘Committee of Ministers to Member States on Measures to Promote the Public Service Value of the Internet’ [2007] Council of Europe.

[51] David Kaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (2016) UN Doc A/71/373

accessed 22 August 2022.

[52] Soumyarendra Barik, ‘Draft Telecom Bill: Negative Impact on Digital Ecosystem, Say Tech Companies’ The Indian Express (11 November 2022).

[53] Isha Sahai Bhatnagar, ‘No Centralised Data on Internet Shutdowns, Centre Tells Parliament’ Hindustan Times (4 August 2022).

[54] Jan Rydzak, ‘Of Blackouts and Bandhs: The Strategy and Structure of Disconnected Protest in India’ (2019) accessed 23 February 2022.

[55] Mucahid Durmaz, ‘Do African Autocrats Fear the Internet?’ TRT World (2019).

[56] Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Internet shutdowns: trends, causes, legal implications and impacts on a range of human rights’ (2022) UN Doc A/HRC/50/55 www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5055-internet-shutdowns-trends-causes-legal-implications-and-impacts> accessed 22 August 2022.

[57] Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970) 3 SCC 746.

[58] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue (2013) UN Doc A/HRC/23/40 www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf> accessed 22 August 2022.

[59] UN ICCPR, ‘General comment No. 34’ (2011) UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 accessed 22 August 2022.

[60] ibid at para 43; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘UN Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations: Syrian Aarab Republic’ (2005), UN Doc. CCPR/CO/84/SYR, www.refworld.org/docid/43f2ff770.html> accessed 13 August 2022.

TOEHOLD TO FOOTHOLD- EMANCIPATING GENDER DISPARITY FROM POLITICS BY - RUPALI GUPTA & SONAL PRIYA

Understanding India’s Approach to Refugee Law: A Comprehensive Analysis by - ROHAN STHANU

Voices Of Courage: Analysing Whistleblowers’ Laws by - Gunjan Sanklecha &JIYA SAHNI

Child Marriage: The Indian Historical And Societal Context by - Florine M. Muchokore & Dr Gurpreet Kaur

NAVIGATING THE NEXUS: UNRAVELING THE INTERPLAY OF COMPETITION LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE PHARMACEUTICAL LANDSCAPE. BY - BAHITRA BASU & SHRI DHARSHAN R.V

"THE VEIL OF CONFIDENTIALITY: NAVIGATING TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGES IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION" BY - ANSHIKA SINGH & KIRTI SHANKAR

BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980) BY: SALEHA HANEEF

THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: THE STUDY ON ITS DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA BY - MUSKAN SHARMA

THE QUEST FOR TRUTH IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE- REVISITING THE MALIMATH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY - DR. SUMAN MAWAR

THE PARADOX OF PREVENTION: INDIVIDUALISTIC ASPECT OF INTERNET SHUTDOWNS BY - HARSH ENANIYA

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation 2

Citation

Citation

Citation

[3] Ani, Three convicted in Satyendra Dubey murder case, Indian Express (March 22, 2010), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/crime/three-convicted-in-satyendra-dubey-murder-case/

[6] Agencies, Team Anna demands law to protect whistleblowers, Indian Express (March 9, 2012), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/latest-news/team-anna-demands-law-to-protect-whistleblowers/

[7] Press Trust of India, 4 held in whistleblower officer’s murder case, Indian Express (May 22, 2012), https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/4-held-in-whistleblower-officer-s-murder-cas/ .

[8] Express News Service, CBI to probe whistleblower’s death in Kerala, Indian Express (February 18, 2011), https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/cbi-to-probe-whistleblower-s-death-in-kerala/.

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation