25 C theleaflet
Elections 2026Mangalore / theleaflet
ON OCTOBER 16 AROUND two thousand people succeeded in gathering in Delhis Connaught Circus holding national flag to participate in the Lehra Do Tiranga (wave the tricolour) march in spite of the Modi regime unleashing coercive power of Delhi police in an unabashed manner to prevent them and Cockroach Janata Party leader Abhijit Dipke and feisty Neha Vora of All India Students Organisation (AISA) for leading the march. Such blatant use of force and intimidation for crushing dissent did not deter
In 1963, private forest owners in Malabar challenged provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (Act IV of 1962). The question before the Court was whether the State could deprive forest owners of their existing right to capture and own elephants found on their land. In Kuppathode Madhavan Nair v State of Kerala (1963), the Kerala High Court sided with the owners. Applying common-law principles inherited from the colonial period, it held that ownership of land conferred a qualified right over wil
A DEMOCRACY DOES NOT have to formally suspend its Constitution to make dissent difficult. Sometimes, it is enough to close the routes through which citizens reach one another, restrict access to the spaces where they assemble, and make the costs of protest so high that people begin to withdraw before they are stopped. When public infrastructure becomes an instrument for controlling political participation, the suppression of dissent extends beyond the policing of a crowd. The events reported in
THE heavy handed and oppressive measures taken against protesters on October 10 demanding CEC Gyanesh Kumars resignation gave an impression that those operating Indian State apparatus waged a war against We the People. To deal with the call of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) to protest in Delhi on 10 th October asking Kumar to quit office, Delhi police turned the national capital city into a fortress by deploying more than 50,000 security forces to prevent people to exercise their constitutiona
Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant refuses to restrain him from functioning or to insist on unanimous EC decisions for now, and seeks replies from the Centre, the Election Commission and the Commissioners.
LAST MONTH, the Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan of the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Santosh Associate (P) Ltd. v. Haryana SIIDC Ltd. (2026) in which it made reference to a larger bench the question of whether an arbitration clause that requires a refundable pre-deposit to be made by a claimant as a precondition to arbitration is legally valid. The reference was necessitated by the fact that the Division Bench expressed disagreement with a decision of a full bench