S.N. Sahu

The SCOTUS’s rejection of Trump’s tariff regime highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional limits on executive power, offering lessons for the Indian Supreme Court’s review of the SIR process.

The Supreme Court of India upholding the insertion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble of the Constitution affirms the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly, writes S.N. Sahu.

Sardar Patel would have asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to revisit his ideas on secularism and a secular state articulated in the Constituent Assembly, writes S.N. Sahu.

The genesis of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution lies in the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly and Supreme Court judge Justice J.R. Mudholkar’s 1964 judgment, writes S.N. Sahu.

Two months ago, the Supreme Court, itself, dismissed a series of petitions challenging the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Constitution, ruling that the document envisaged a “welfare State" committed "to ensuring equality of opportunity." In a country where inequality has reached unprecedented levels of misery, Justice B.R. Gavai’s oral remarks seriously undermine the Constitution’s promise to the masses.

Earlier this month, the 125 year old website published a cartoon of Prime Minister Modi shackled, with U.S. President Donald Trump ridiculing him, as a satirical commentary on the Indian government’s silence over undignified deportation of various Indians from the U.S. Days later, the website went invisible. The government’s blocking of the website without supplying any reasoning is another blow to press freedom in the country.

On M.K. Gandhi’s Martyrdom Day, S.N. Sahu takes a look at his perspective linking dictatorship with control of media by the ruling party.

In April 1947, in a meeting of a sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly chaired by Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, Ambedkar batted in favour of affirmative action for minority groups

The Election Commission’s intensive revision exercise in Bihar diverges from Ambedkar and Gandhi’s articulate imaginations of mass enfranchisement.

We need to salvage this great republic. Only jana gana can do it, writes S.N. Sahu.

Rahul Gandhi’s statement on the fight against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party— who have captured the country's institutions— as being a fight against the Indian State reflects B.R. Ambedkar's vision, writes S.N. Sahu.