We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
The kind of behaviour expected and accepted in our law is different between civilians and members of the armed forces.
The problem is that, in its opinions, the constitutional courts of our land do not explicitly acknowledge this very principle that informs their reasoning. And because they do not acknowledge it, the principle itself remains significantly under-defined and prone to vagueness bordering on arbitrariness.
I haven't found any reasoned article criticising the Supreme Court decision, until I came across this link: https://medium.com/@indiansamson/the-curious-case-of-lt-samuel-kamalesan-and-what-it-tells-of-todays-india-53ecc5ea94f8
Do you folks agree with the Supreme Court or with the critique ?
The same author has written a critique of the FCRA too: https://medium.com/@indiansamson/how-the-indian-government-is-weaponising-investment-laws-against-minorities-49def16db560
I am looking for arguments for and against, invoking provisions of the Constitution and the Army Act 1950.