Papers by Meenakshi Ramkumar
Comparative Constitutional and Administrative Law Journal, 2022
The interests of various groups in a diverse parliamentary democracy are best represented by the ... more The interests of various groups in a diverse parliamentary democracy are best represented by the plurality of representatives in the parliament, who can broker compromises, extract justifications and highlight the incompetence or apathy of the majority. Parliamentary procedures must safeguard the rights of the opposition to question and exercise oversight over the majority government in order to sustain genuine and substantial deliberation by representatives. Various constitutions have designed legislative bodies in a distinct manner. For instance, the Indian Constitution does not provide any express provision institutionalising the opposition. In contrast, the South African Constitution not only recognises the leader of the opposition as a constitutional functionary but also cements the rights of minority parties to hold the government accountable through deliberation and debate. This article examines parliamentary structures in India and South Africa, focusing on the role of the opposition envisaged under both constitutions. The difference in constitutional design has resulted in ensuring a more definitive system for enforcing the rights of the opposition by the judiciary in South Africa. While the Indian judiciary has developed tools to navigate the lack of constitutional safeguards for the opposition, these may not serve as an effective solution in the absence of a framework for opposition rights.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Jindal Global Law Review, Jan 9, 2024
This review essay explores the themes that emerge from articles published in the Special Section ... more This review essay explores the themes that emerge from articles published in the Special Section on 'Cultural Expertise' in the American Anthropologist. The articles provide relevant insight into the key debates that surround the participation of cultural experts, especially anthropologists, in courtrooms and the use of social science in courts to adjudicate claims. In this review essay, we assess how anthropological knowledge impacts claims made by indigenous people building on the experiences of the contributors to the Special Section. The contributors highlight how anthropological knowledge can support indigenous claims even though it also reinforces culturally essentialist tropes about the indigenous population. This is because it is the judicial system that sets the terms of how anthropological knowledge is to be incorporated in a courtroom. We provide a conceptual vocabulary to categorise this form of complicity between anthropological knowledge and state legal order, calling it 'claim-enhancing complicity'. But we also discuss how the Special Section in the American Anthropologist does not capture another form of complicity-which we classify as 'claim-dismissing complicity'. We find examples of claim-dismissing complicity in the Indian context. We see the operation of claim-dismissing complicity in two areas-first, in the denial of the indigenous status of tribal communities in India, where anthropological knowledge reinforces the Indian state's position in the international arena and second, in the use of anthropological knowledge to set heavy burden on tribal candidates of India's affirmative action programmes to prove the authenticity of their tribal identity.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 2017
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
South Asian Journal of Law and Human Rights (ISSN: 2518-6159), 2017
The right to housing is not an independent and exclusive right. The right to housing encompasses ... more The right to housing is not an independent and exclusive right. The right to housing encompasses a wide range of rights that enable a rights holder to live life with dignity. While the International Human Rights Law regime recognizes and enforces the right to housing and shelter as an economic and social right, the holders of the right continue to form an exclusive category.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Nuclear disarmament falls within the purview of the purposes envisaged in Article 1 of the United... more Nuclear disarmament falls within the purview of the purposes envisaged in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1996 delivered an advisory opinion on legality of use of nuclear weapons and has stated that the states in good faith must strive towards nuclear disarmament. In the Marshall Islands Cases, 20 years later the ICJ had the opportunity to address questions relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. However, the ICJ has failed to foster nuclear disarmament within the international community. The ICJ dismissed Marshall Islands' application on jurisdictional grounds because there was no legal dispute between the parties. The ICJ in determining the existence of a dispute introduced a subjective awareness test. In this case note, we aim to examine the awareness test and its politico-legal effects in the development of international law. While doing so, we also argue that the test has further rendered the enforcement of nuclear disarmament obligations arduous.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The right to vote and the right to contest elections form the basis of any democratic institution... more The right to vote and the right to contest elections form the basis of any democratic institution. Restricting the right to contest elections of irrational classifications and arbitrary criteria defeats provisions of both democracy and rule of law. Amendments made to the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 excludes a large section of the population based on discriminatory qualifications from contesting Panchayat elections. The constitutionality of these amendments was challenged in Rajbala v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality proposing that amendments satisfied the 'Classification' test. In this case comment, the objective is to examine the judgement and conclude that the amendments violate Article 14 of the Consitution. While doing, so we shall also critically evaluate two tests that determine a provision's constitutional validity viz (i) the arbitrariness test (substantive due process) and (ii) classification test.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Meenakshi Ramkumar