The Courts and the Constitution hosted by NALSAR University of Law is all set to begin! Courts and Constitution is an annual conference organized by the NALSAR University of Law and the Law and Other Things blog, highlighting recent developments in the field of public law. We have SCC Online as our exclusive Knowledge Partner and SCC Times as Media Partner. Every year, the conference aims to bring together diverse viewpoints on constitutional issues that have a long-term impact on governance and the rights of the citizenry. For anyone who would like to attend the conference, they can join via the following link for all the panels: https://www.youtube.com/live/RqIdCMV_0no?si=zZOf71mOsQou7GCw
Inaugural Session [ 10:00 – 11:30 AM]
The inaugural session of the 6th Courts and the Constitution Conference commences with Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao (Vice Chancellor, NALSAR University of Law) introducing and welcoming the prestigious panellists. Prof. Rao lauded the academic contribution of the esteemed guest, Sr. Adv. Shyam Diwan’s contribution to the preparation of legal curricula in India. In particular, he referenced Diwan’s contribution to the study of Environmental Law and Criminal Law in India.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy, in his inaugural address, delved into the deep-rooted economic and caste-based inequalities in India, emphasizing how systemic barriers have perpetuated the cycle where the poor remain poor while the rich continue to amass wealth. He traced the evolution of caste and inequality jurisprudence through key constitutional and judicial developments, beginning with the First Constitutional Amendment of 1951, which laid the foundation for affirmative action policies, and moving through the landmark Indra Sawhney (1992) case that upheld OBC reservations while introducing the “creamy layer” exclusion to ensure equitable distribution of benefits. Justice Reddy then shifted focus to the stark disparities in bail jurisprudence, arguing that wealth and influence often allow privileged accused individuals to evade legal consequences, while marginalized individuals languish in prolonged detention due to systemic inefficiencies. Citing Arnesh Kumar (2014), he highlighted the Supreme Court’s effort to curb arbitrary arrests by mandating the issuance of notices under Section 41A CrPC for offenses punishable by less than seven years, a safeguard that, with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), has sparked controversy over whether such notices should extend to witnesses as well. He reinforced the constitutional protections available to the accused under Article 22, particularly the right to remain silent and protection against arbitrary detention, but cautioned against procedural delays that obstruct justice for victims. Ultimately, he reaffirmed the judiciary’s crucial role in interpreting the law in a manner that progressively advances justice, ensuring that constitutional and legal frameworks serve as tools for an inclusive and equitable society.
In his keynote address, Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan honoured the “foot soldiers” who, through civil discourse and the power of words uphold our constitutional values. He paid tribute to Iqbal “Micky” Chagla’s exemplary integrity during the Bombay High Court crisis that led to Chief Justice Bhattacharjee’s resignation. Divan traced the evolution of the Supreme Court from its origins in Princes’ Chambers to recent remodelling controversies. Divan stressed the urgent need to rebuild institutional legitimacy by enhancing gender parity while cautioning against tribunalization and the marginalization of High Courts from shaping jurisprudence. Sr. Adv Divan added, “As foot soldiers committed to constitutional values – you, me, us- we will have to pick ourselves up in defeat, and battle using words and ideas to preserve an open society.” He concluded that in the coming 75 years, the Courts would have to balance the contestation between not just the citizen and the state, but also the citizen and the corporations, which would make up the major chunk.
Panel 1: Caste and Equality [12:00 PM to 1:30 PM]
The first panel for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference on ‘Caste and Equality’ is being moderated by Dr. Sitharamam Kakarala (Professor, NALSAR). The moderator introduced the speakers who would be presenting in the panel. The speakers’ work was highlighted and its contemporary relevance was discussed.
Speaker 1: Adv. Shadan Farasat (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India) opened the panel as the first speaker. He started the discussion by stressing that electoral politics is deeply intertwined with the caste issue, and neither the government nor the courts can prematurely sever this link. He noted that while SCs and STs are fixed under Article 340, further subclassification is allowed within the OBC spectrum but barred for SC/STs by the E Chinnai judgment. Citing the State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh, he argued that factual differences among groups require subclassification to ensure substantive justice, as supported by Articles 15 and 16. He criticized the creamy layer imposition, stating that its enforcement is impractical and mixing it with subclassification is a “complete mix up” that undermines historical benefits.
Speaker 2: Dr. Sambaiah Gundimeda (Associate Professor, Krea University) served as the second speaker and emphasized that the inherent contradiction between caste and equality leaves “no space for justice.” He noted that marginal improvements within certain caste groups have spurred demands for further subclassification. On sub-classification, he directly challenged three common counter-arguments: that underrepresentation stems from lack of education, career preferences, or middle-class aspirations. He refuted these claims, arguing that supposed “individual choices” reflect systemic barriers and social conditioning that stifle aspirations among certain Dalit groups. Dr. Gundimeda maintained that dominance of certain castes within reserved positions reflects continued discrimination, not merit differences. He argued that administrative categories in cases like Davindra Singh expose systemic failures and a judiciary disconnected from social realities. Criticizing Justice Bella Trivedi’s dissent against subclassification, he maintained that additional layers are essential to address historical injustice and underrepresentation.
Speaker 3: Mr. Krupakar Ponugoti (Activist, Co-Founder, Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS)) served as the third speaker on the panel. The notable speaker highlighted the vast diversity within SC/ST communities, noting there are 1100 SC castes and 630 ST tribes, with populations ranging from single digits to lakhs. He emphasized existing occupational hierarchies among scheduled communities, where only a few groups dominate reserved positions despite their diversity. Mr. Ponugoti referenced AP government’s attempt to organize consultations where many marginalized communities expressed feeling unprotected. He argued that constitutional principles demand recognizing inequalities within these groups, preventing concentration of benefits, and ensuring distributive justice. Quoting former CJI Chandrachud, he emphasized that reservations may need to continue until dignity and equality are truly achieved.
Speaker 4: Dr. Nandini Sundar (Professor, Delhi School of Economics) served as the fourth speaker on the panel. Dr. Sundar emphasized that reservations are a means to achieve rights, addressing economic backwardness and social discrimination within sub-castes. She critiqued India’s reservation framework by advocating for an “Ideal Bundle” that extends reservations to Christian SCs and STs, underscoring the vital role of a robust Census. She noted the persistence of untouchability in urban areas and the need for regional historical justice. Sundar argued that while the subclassification outcome in the Davindra judgment is beneficial, it rests on faulty logic. Historical and regional realities explain why some SC communities can leverage reservations more effectively than others, a disparity further exacerbated by the dangerous precedent set by the EWS reasoning for economic backwardness.
Panel 2: Bail and Civil Liberties [2:30 PM to 4:00 PM]
The second panel for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference on ‘Bail and Civil Liberties’ is being moderated by Dr. Murali Karnam (Professor, NALSAR). The moderator introduced the speakers who would be presenting in the panel and gave a brief overview.
Speaker 1: Adv. Abhinav Sekhri (Legal Scholar and Lawyer) served as the first speaker on this panel. The speaker started the discussion by deliberating how under UAPA and PMLA jail is the rule and bail is the exception. Right to free trial is constantly infringed because of a hurried trial without bail. The working of the Indian criminal courts does not reflect the word of the book regarding the rule of bail being an exception as judicial discretion is not bound by legislative dictate. He pointed out the contradiction between UAPA & PMLA statutes, which dictate that the court cannot grant bail unless the person so charged convinces us of his innocence, and the maxim of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This makes jail as the rule in these statutes and initiates a separate stream of jurisprudence.
The speaker emphasised that SC enforcing speedy trials under Hussainara Khatun case is not as positive of a development as it is seen to be. This makes us question what is the marker for how much time has passed in the duration of incarceration where somebody’s right has said to have been deprived. He then discussed about the debate of rights vs handouts, where bail has taken on the form of a handout, as a fundamental right is marked out by its consistency in enforcement. He also elaborated on the prominent assumption that only constitutional courts are competent to deal with such matters which further expands the quantum of resources that need to be expended and increased while seeking justice.
Speaker 2: Adv. Nihalsing B. Rathod (Criminal and Human Rights Lawyer) served as the second speaker on the panel. The speaker started the discussion by talking about the instance of Dr. G.N. Saibaba being arrested in Delhi in 2014. Saibaba was then flown to Maharashtra and his house was raided by 50 policemen – all done without following the legal protocols laid out for search and seizure. Prof. Saibaba was then flagged under UAPA and was termed a terrorist without having committed an act of terrorism. The speaker here elaborated about the struggles to avail bail for prof Saibaba and how his bail petition was rejected by the Bombay HC, followed by another tedious six-month long battle to secure bail for medical reasons. The speaker continued on how death of a fellow convict Pandu Narinule while awaiting justice along with prolonged incarceration finally took serious tolls on Saibaba. He concluded how there are numerous other instances of the SC denying bail in cases of UAPA, leading to extensive periods of prolonged incarceration. The speaker also emphasised on the principle of restitution not being adhered to despite having statutory recognition of the principles of justice, equity, and fair trial under Sec 144 of CPC. He then emphatically advocated for bail, and that rule and civil liberties of people have to be protected.
Speaker 3: Ms. Sukanya Shantha (Senior Assistant Editor, The Wire) served as the third speaker on the panel. The notable speaker highlighted their perspectives as a journalist about how such liberty crushing laws trample human rights under the guise of national security. She especially focused on the “human cost” of these draconian laws. In 2006 Malegaon Blast case, the Maharashtra State Anti-Terrorism Squad picked up and retained 9 Muslim men, only to find them innocent and wrongfully subjected to incarceration after years of imprisonment. This points how majority of the prisoners and detainees charged under such statutes are primarily minorities without adequate social support to effectively seek justice. The speaker then elaborated how most of the political prisoners in Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal, are unable to effectively access judicial remedies to secure their civil liberties due to language barriers in courts. She continued by recounting how solitary confinement has pushed these prisoners to the brink of suicide. The speaker also spoke about threat of being attacked and instances of attacks by such prisoners within the jail. She concluded by noting how the state has only tightened its grip on civil liberties with such draconian laws.
Speaker 4: Judge Trijeeb Nanda (Civil Judge, Odisha Judicial Service) served as the fourth speaker on the panel. The speaker analysed the gap between constitutional promises and their practical realization in India’s bail jurisprudence. He traced the evolution of personal liberty protections through distinct phases—from the retention of colonial structures post-independence to the landmark Maneka Gandhi case that redefined liberty, to modern accountability mechanisms. He argued that magistracy still carries colonial legacies despite constitutional reforms, highlighting the paradox where courts advocate for open prisons while new laws like BNS strengthen punitive measures. The speaker explained that judicial orders lack implementation mechanisms compared to legislative enactments and emphasized that inconsistent bail decisions, case backlogs, and external pressures fundamentally compromise constitutional rights. He concluded that meaningful reform requires addressing these structural flaws rather than piecemeal solutions.
Panel 3: Secularism [4:30 PM to 6:00 PM]
The third panel for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference on ‘Secularism’ is moderated by Mr. Aurif Muzafar (Doctoral Fellow, NALSAR).
Speaker 1: Dr. Gurpreet Mahajan (Former Professor, Centre for Political Science, JNU) served as the first speaker on this panel. Her speech examined the evolving judicial interpretation of secularism in India, highlighting the inconsistencies in its application. She noted that while the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in establishing secularism as a constitutional principle, its meaning remains ambiguous. The classical liberal notion of secularism suggests the erasure of religious and caste identities, but in practice, these identities continue to shape judicial decisions. The speaker explored two interpretations of religious non-discrimination: one emphasizing religious freedom and the other focusing on state neutrality. She compared this with the U.S. model, where strict separation initially led religious groups to claim discrimination when denied public benefits, prompting courts to introduce accommodations. India has similarly struggled to balance secularism with state intervention.
Historically, courts allowed government interference only in the secular aspects of religion, such as financial management, but over time, this has expanded to prioritize equality over religious autonomy. The complexities of religious neutrality are further illustrated by how courts determine which practices are integral to a religion. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is not an essential religious practice and has classified multi-faith prayers as cultural rather than religious. This evolving judicial approach reflects a broader shift in secularism, where non-discrimination is upheld but the boundaries between religious freedom, state neutrality, and intervention remain fluid.
Speaker 2: Dr. Geetanjali Srikantan (Associate Professor, BITS Law School) served as the second speaker on the panel. The speaker examined how colonial narratives have influenced the legal framing of religion in India, particularly through the language of social reform. She highlighted how British justifications for colonization often portrayed India’s communal conflicts as obstacles to progress, a perspective that continues to shape post-colonial legal discourse. She further highlights that the expansive legal definition of Hinduism has significant legal and political consequences. The Court’s reasoning aligns with constitutional mandates, such as Article 25(2), which guarantees access to religious institutions for all Hindus. However, it also raises questions about the state’s role in defining religious identity and controlling access to places of worship. The speaker also addressed how colonial-era laws recognizing deities as legal entities have contributed to ongoing disputes. The ability of religious shrines to own property has led to legal battles, such as the Karnataka case where both Hindus and Muslims revered the same site. When the local Waqf board attempted to claim control, the Karnataka government intervened, declaring that the site belonged to neither religion. In a 2021 ruling, the High Court mandated that both Vedic and Islamic rituals be followed, effectively altering the shrine’s religious character. This reflects a broader pattern in which Hinduism is legally reinterpreted to accommodate change, while Islamic institutions face greater scrutiny and state intervention.
Speaker 3: Adv. Veena Gowda (Women’s Rights Lawyer) served as the third speaker on the panel. Adv. Veena Gowda’s speech critically examined the debate around the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), highlighting how it has been framed to privilege certain communities while demonizing others. She traced the origins of the demand for a UCC to the women’s movement, which, even before independence, saw religious laws as discriminatory against women. However, after the Shah Bano judgment, the Muslim community drafted and passed its own legislation, removing Muslim women from the secular legal framework under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While this was criticized as a step backward for gender justice, the speaker argued that it was a constitutional process, similar to other instances where legal frameworks were altered to accommodate different communities. Gowda questioned whether uniformity in law inherently leads to justice, emphasizing that national integration—the stated goal of the UCC—has not eliminated societal opposition to inter-religious and inter-caste marriages, as seen in continued instances of honour killings. She cited the 2018 Law Commission’s conclusion that a UCC was not necessary at the time, advocating instead for reforms within personal laws.
A key concern Gowda raised was the failure of the UCC to address matrimonial property rights. While laws discuss maintenance and alimony, they do not ensure an equitable division of marital assets, a crucial factor for gender justice. She also questioned why the UCC grants registrars authority over the validity of relationships when digital records make such oversight unnecessary. Additionally, she pointed to contradictions in criminalizing triple talaq—an act that legally does not dissolve a marriage yet is still treated as a criminal offense. This, she argued, selectively targets Muslim practices while ignoring the widespread issue of desertion among Hindu marriages. Lastly, the speaker connected the UCC debate to anti-conversion laws, which impose bureaucratic barriers on interfaith marriages and reflect an increasing trend of state control over personal lives. The speaker concluded by adding “The intended purpose of UCC was national integration and allow inter-religious marriages. However, inter-caste marriages still face societal opposition, including honour killings. Without a uniform understanding of citizenship, a national law cannot be truly effective. Uniformity does not inherently imply gender justice; laws must be designed with inclusivity in mind.”
Speaker 4: Ms. Rakshita Goyal (Senior Resident Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy) served as the fourth speaker on the panel. She spoke about the intersection of secularism, religious personal laws, and gender justice in India being a complex and contentious issue as a result of coexistence of multiple personal laws. Unlike the Western notion of strict separation between religion and the state, Indian secularism adopts a model of principled distance, i.e. to govern personal matters through their respective laws while ensuring state intervention to uphold fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution enshrines secularism, protects religious freedom and simultaneously guarantees equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity. This sets the stage for conflicts when religious personal laws contravene these principles. She elaborated that the personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and maintenance for different religious communities are critiqued for perpetuating gender inequalities, giving example of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Muslim personal law. Meanwhile, judicial interventions through landmark cases such as Shah Bano and Shayara Bano have played a crucial role in addressing gender injustices within religious personal laws. The abolition of instant triple talaq marked a significant step towards ensuring equality within the Muslim personal law framework.
The speaker then talked about the demand to replace the fragmented personal laws with Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which its proponents argue would promote gender justice and national integration. However, opponents contend that it might encroach upon religious freedom and undermine cultural pluralism. The challenge lies in harmonizing diverse legal traditions while safeguarding both gender equality and religious autonomy. A balanced approach is necessary to reconcile secularism, religious personal laws, and gender justice. One effective strategy is the codification and reform of personal laws through incremental changes rather than the abrupt imposition of UCC. Additionally, progressive judicial and legislative interventions accompanied with public discourse and awareness through meaningful dialogue can promote consensus-based reforms. She concluded that while constitutional secularism seeks to respect religious diversity, it must not come at the cost of fundamental rights, particularly gender equality.
Panel 4: Digital Freedoms and Technology Law [10 AM to 11:30 AM]
The first panel on second day for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference is on ‘Digital Freedoms and Technology Law’. It is moderated by Adv. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj (Founder, Pravah Law).
Speaker 1: Adv. Vrinda Bhandari (Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India) served as the first speaker on this panel. The notable speaker discussed the intersection of technology and constitutional law, and highlighted how technology both facilitates and restricts fundamental rights. She discussed how the evolution of technology has reduced the friction for mass surveillance. She traced the lack of safeguards in search and seizure in the digital era, where the confiscation of personal devices such as phones raises concerns over constitutional rights such as privacy and the right against self-incrimination. The speaker pointed how the use of Pegasus spyware to hack the phones of the accused by the government is an unconstitutional intrusion. She critiqued the Broadcasting Bill for its vague standards on decency and morality. She discussed how predicating access to schemes like government subsidies on digital methods such as fingerprint scanning disproportionately affects the marginalized communities. Privacy, she argued, is not just an elitist concern.
Speaker 2: Adv. Manu Kulkarni (Partner, Poovayya & Co) served as the second speaker on the panel. The speaker reflects on the early vision of the internet as a borderless space of freedom and contrasts it with increasing legal restrictions. Initially, laws enabled technology and protected intermediaries, but from the 2020s onward, regulations have progressively curtailed online freedoms. Laws like Section 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 primarily target intermediaries rather than the authors or originators, making it harder for the latter to challenge censorship. The constitutional issue of locus standi further limits legal recourse for individuals. Instead of stretching existing laws, the speaker argues for creating new, clear legal frameworks. Looking ahead, the speaker talks about three key emerging concerns: the erosion of national borders in digital regulation, the rise of non-legal decision-making, and the growing inclusion of private entities within the definition of the state, leading to indirect curbs on freedom.
Speaker 3: Adv. Apar Gupta (Lawyer and Co-Founder, Internet Freedom Foundation) served as the third speaker on the panel. The speaker discussed the government’s increasing attempts to regulate fake news and digital media, highlighting conflicts between censorship, openness, and AI regulations. He noted that laws governing digital media are often shaped by executive policies rather than parliamentary processes, lacking constitutional scrutiny. The speaker criticized AI governance frameworks like NITI Ayog’s guidelines for omitting transparency measures such as RTI, arguing that legal principles are surrendering to technological developments. On misinformation regulation, he emphasized that Article 19(1)(a) protects even deliberate falsehoods, with restrictions under Article 19(2) requiring specific grounds like defamation. Adv Gupta concluded by warning against government overreach under IT Rules, which empower authorities to unilaterally label content as “fake, false, or misleading” and issue takedown orders without sufficient safeguards under Article 19.
The session was concluded with Speaker 2, Adv. Manu Kulkarni adding that “The answer to every problem is targeted and proportionate regulation and not an open-ended regulation that can spiral in ways we cannot imagine.”
Panel 5: Fiscal Federalism [12:00 PM to 1:30 PM]
The fifth panel for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference is on ‘Fiscal Federalism’ and is moderated by Prof. Aymen Mohammed (Assistant Professor, NALSAR).
Speaker 1: Mr. Alok Prasanna (Co-Founder and Lead, Vidhi Karnataka) served as the first speaker on this panel. The notable speaker discussed the issue of fiscal devolution from the Centre to the States. Traditionally, states borrowed from public savings funds. However, a shift has occurred wherein, instead of the Union taking on debt, the States are responsible for borrowing directly. This implies that States that manage their budgets efficiently incur lower borrowing costs. While the 14th Finance Commission recommended changes in financial devolution, the Centre has the final say in approving these recommendations. Over time, the Union’s share in state finances has declined significantly. In 2022, the combined debt levels of states exceeded 8% of GDP. A notable example is Kerala, which sought approval to borrow ₹2,60,000 crore from the Union government. However, the Centre denied the request, citing Article 293, which allows it to impose borrowing limits. In this regard, Kerala argued that borrowings by its Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) should not be counted within the State’s fiscal deficit. This dispute led Kerala to challenge the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management law in court. The speaker noted that Kerala’s case is not an isolated issue but a broader challenge that other states may face in the future. He emphasized the importance of discussing these financial concerns before they escalate into a full-blown crisis.
Speaker 2: Prof. Pankhuri Agarwal (Assistant Professor, BML Munjal University) served as the second speaker on the panel. The speaker highlighted the question of the state’s autonomy while discussing the issue of GST in India. She elaborated upon how the primary intention behind GST was to curb the problem of tax-on-tax and to prevent a cascading effect of taxation. However, this has come in the cost of the state’s autonomy. The speaker added that Taxation autonomy is central to fiscal federalism, as states need to collect and manage taxes independently. However, GST laws have disrupted the entire landscape of indirect taxation.
Speaker 3: Adv. Suhrith Parthasarathy (Advocate, Madras High Court) served as the third speaker on the panel. The speaker focussed on the constitutional diversion of powers in the context of fiscal federalism. He discussed the 9 judge decision of the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalita Prasad. He highlighted that while discussing the conflict between the overlapping powers of taxation between the Centre and the State, the Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL decision reinforced the balance between the Centre and the State. He further noted that the apex court expanded the scope of fiscal federalism beyond taxation by recognizing that fees, levies, and other regulatory charges also play a crucial role in the financial autonomy of States. The judgment reaffirmed that taxation powers are exclusive, but regulation and revenue generation through mechanisms like royalties, fees, and levies can still be subject to parliamentary oversight.
Panel 6: Shamnad Basheer Memorial Panel: Disability Jurisprudence Strengthening Constitutionalism [2:30 PM to 4:00 PM]
The last panel for the 6th Courts and Constitution Conference on ‘Shamnad Basheer Memorial Panel: Disability Jurisprudence Strengthening Constitutionalism’ is moderated by Dr. Amita Dhanda (Professor Emerita, NALSAR). The moderator introduced the speakers who would be presenting in the panel and discussed about Rajive Raturi case being a step towards making inclusion a reality. She added that accessibility must not be treated as retrofitting and infrastructure should be made accessible from its very inception. She focused on what the judgment has achieved in terms of constitutional rights and the spirit of constitutionalism, bringing to the foreground the subtext of accessibility—its meaning, implications, and relevance. The moderator then posed some questions: Is accessibility only for persons with disabilities, or is it for all? How does it relate to the principles of equality and sexual citizenship? What kind of discourse does this judgment foster in the context of participative democracy?
Speaker 1: Mr. Nilesh Singit (Research Fellow, CDS, NALSAR) served as the first speaker on this panel. He elaborated about an PIL filed for accessibility in buses in Bombay, with court order making 3% of buses disabled-friendly out of the total 1000 buses. Then he discussed about another PIL on railway accessibility, where Disability access was made mandatory. He added about how the guidelines were made gradually, but in the Rajive Raturi PIL, the guidelines were struck down, them being considered only recommendatory. He further elaborated how accessibility, as we understand, is a fundamental right. The rooms, transport, workplace should be accessible, providing dignity to a disabled person. The speaker then discussed about accessibility under Article 9 of the UNCRPD. Rajive Raturi recognized the right to accessibility under Article 21, right to life, of the Constitution. It acknowledged that people with disability can do a lot. His discussion was not limited to physical accessibility and expanded to personal relationships. The speaker then focused on right to vote being a part of civil and political rights, making accessibility then a social right. Adding on the Bombay High Court understanding, without access, one cannot vote. He concluded by saying that there is a need to conduct census and to find the number of people with disabilities.
Dr. Dhanda here added that accessibility, in the Rajive Raturi case, defines a person with disability. The case not only constitutes the passing of a judgment, but includes all excluded groups, as Good for disability is good for everybody.
Speaker 2: Mr. Amar Jain (Co-Founder, Mission Accessibility) served as the second speaker on the panel. Talking about inequality and inclusion, the speaker states the key aspects under Part III of the Constitution: equality, freedom, and the right to life with dignity. He highlights the 1982 resolution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). With references from other jurisdictions, the speaker explains that equality and accessibility go hand in hand, emphasizing the need for substantive equality rather than just formal equality. He argues that accessibility falls under the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution. Lack of accessibility deprives persons with disabilities of their socio-economic, political, civil, and cultural rights, denying them equal exposure to all facets of life.
Referring to the NALSAR report on disability, he emphasizes that Rajive Raturi case clearly state that accessibility is an ex ante duty of the state, meaning it is a pre-existing obligation and includes the provision of reasonable accommodation. Recognizing the right principle of universal design, perspective is to design products and services without the need to adapt, to include a person with disability from the outset, making accessibility a precondition. The rights of persons with disabilities should not be aspirational but must focus on real scaling. The speaker adds that this judgment allows for a differentiated approach to accessibility and reasonable accommodation. Where ex ante duty exists, the state needs to provide for it even before an individual requests it. Reasonable accommodation, despite taking steps for accessibility, if needed for an individual, must be made available, thus providing substantive equality.
Speaker 3: Mr. Abhishek Anicca (Author and Disability Rights Advocate) served as the third speaker on the panel. He speaks about right to form relations in Rajive Raturi, where court is highlighting the emotional and relational challenges of PWDs. He discusses about access to love, desire and intimacy, elaborating on how public discourse on accessibility ignores private intimate means like access to sex and relationships, along with ignoring emotional means like self-pleasure. In India, this happens consciously with conversation about desire having negative connotations. The speaker adds that our right to desire and to express it freely depends on our social positioning, depending on our caste, gender and disability. This makes us forget that we are working within a framework of a society that is not equal. Speaker states that the Raturi judgment operates beyond disability.
Speaker gave example of the Netherlands, where disability benefits pay for sexual purposes, acknowledging the sexuality of disabled people. He adds that this judgment challenges the heteronormative idea that disabled persons don’t contribute to society. The concept of self-pleasure and intimacy needs is a step forward for a marginalised community. He speaks about judgments on Section 377 and the right to marriage discussing positively about the queer community, making them a great step towards having a conversation. Finally the speaker concludes that beneficiary should not be seen only through the lens of being a “beneficiary”— that condition of life seriously reduces their identity. It is essential to expand the idea of personhood and to acknowledge disabled persons properly. This judgment gives us a chance to rethink the way society views disability.
Moderator Professor Amita Dhanda then concluded the panel by adding that persons with disability rights benefits all, it being a Trojan horse. She talks about participatory law-making with Rajive Raturi case being filed in 2005 by a blind person. She speaks about the Report prepared by the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR Hyderabad, being made with a vision of making a participatory law, where every stakeholder is involved and voices are heard. The model of participation here is key to making a democratic constitution. What inclusion will do, or not do, is to create respectful dialogue. The Rajive Raturi judgment allows this Constitution to live — as we claim for ourselves.
Dr. Sitharamam Kaarala gave the valedictory remarks. He discussed how the conference presents critical discussions on constitutional law with the panels including people from a wide range of diverse backgrounds. He added that the panel began with a discussion on equality with Advocate Shadan Farasat, and it concluded with a discussion on equality in another sense—disability rights. He presented his thanks to Vice Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao and Registrar Vasanthi for their support for the 6th edition of the Courts and the Constitution Conference. He extended his thanks to Vikram Raghavan and Professor Siddharth Chauhan, concluding with NALSAR looking forward to a longer shelf life of conversations going further.
The vote of thanks was delivered by Sukrut Khandekar, Vishnu Bandarupalli and Archita Satish, in gratitude to the university administration, professors and student organizing committee for conducting the program.
Thank you to all attendees, panelists and faculty that made this event a huge success!
