PRIYADARSHINI BARUA, SARTHAK MAKKAR & VASANTHI HARIHARAN
DR OLUWAKEMI ADEKILE
Health is a critical aspect of the development status in a modern world. The Sustainable Development Goals articulate a nexus between development and health and the need to promote gender equality. Within the purview of development is a recognition of the impact of poverty, education, culture and social security inter alia on health and reproductive rights and how gender can limit the manifestation and enjoyment of women’s health. Furthermore, the health status of women also forms a critical aspect of their engagement in leadership roles and decision- making process. Women’s political participation can ensure that policies affecting their health are properly situated. These bring to bear the need to analyze women’s status and access to health care and reproductive rights through the lens of gender in order to properly situate them in Nigeria’s development plan. Components of women’s health status such as reproductive health choices, decision making skills, family security, self-esteem among others, must be mainstreamed into all development plans. The issues for legal intervention then become manifested as a tool for development. This work therefore discusses gender, health and development and the role that law plays in the interplay of these variables. This it does in order to identify the appropriate legal and other interventions.
Keywords: Gender, Health, Development, Women
DR. OWAIS HASAN KHAN
Post-divortium child custody is one of the most convoluted issues under family laws across the globe. There is still no unerring or even satisfactory mechanism for deciding the custody question. The purpose of the present paper is twofold. Firstly, it examines the laws regarding post-divortium child custody as applicable in India. Secondly, it proposes and analyses the feasibility of awarding joint custody as an alternative to sole custody in cases of divorce and separation. In the process of evaluating feasibility, the author proposes certain guidelines for deciding the joint custody arrangement.
Keywords: Joint Custody; Shared Parenting; Post-Divortium custody; Parenting Plan; Welfare of the Child; Parent-child relations
DR. ANIRUDDHA RAJPUT
The High Court of Delhi in India declined to issue an anti-arbitration injunction filed by Union of India against the proceedings brought by Vodafone under the UK-India BIT. The High Court has shown great deal of alacrity towards complicated issues of domestic and international law. It noted that since the subject matter of the dispute did not relate to India, it would not have jurisdiction. It noted that the right to arbitrate is not an absolute or unqualified right, yet an anti-arbitration injunction would be issued only in rare instances. The High Court averted the prospects of India being found responsible for the breach of the BIT due to the actions of its domestic courts.
Keywords: investment arbitration, anti-arbitration injunction, bilateral investment treaty, independence of judiciary, tribunal.
ASHISH CHANDRA & ANUPAL DASGUPTA
PRAKHAR CHAUHAN & RAGHUVEER NATH
Article 32 – the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution – has been diluted by the Supreme Court. The fundamental right guaranteeing the right to move the Court for enforcement of one’s fundamental rights has given way to convenience. Despite the clear legislative intent, as evidenced from the Constituent Assembly Debates, highlighting that no restrictions on this right should be imposed, the Court has used the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies to justify dismissal of petitions under Article 32.
While the doctrine is based on the rationale of preserving judicial resources and time, it lacks a sound legal basis when applied in relation to Article 32. In addition to the legislative intent of the drafters of the Constitution, this is further evidenced from the historical development of the doctrine. We explore this development in the United States and the United Kingdom to highlight that the considerations employed by courts in these countries are different from those applied by our Supreme Court. Additionally, we highlight how the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that the doctrine is not based on the rule of law and is rather based on public policy and convenience. Accordingly, we explore the different approaches taken by the Court and the inconsistencies therein. In doing so, we highlight the approach that, in our view, bears the most semblance with the original legislative intent behind Article 32 and which preserves the fundamental right enshrined therein.
