{
"authors": [
"Ananth Padmanabhan",
"Madhav Khosla"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India"
],
"topics": [
"Domestic Politics",
"Political Reform",
"Democracy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Over time, the Supreme Court of India has evolved from being a court of law to a major institutional actor in the political arena.
Source: Rethinking Public Institutions in India
Over time, the Supreme Court of India has evolved from being a court of law to a major institutional actor in the political arena. The present chapter analyses this transition by directing external and internal lenses on the court’s functioning. The external lens reveals engagement by the Court with legislative and executive domains of governance, and the current concerns of transparency and accountability that it faces. The internal lens scrutinizes the Court’s success as a court of law and its capability to streamline the judicial process such that the judicial system lives up to the legitimate expectations of the litigant public. Using the insights offered from these dual perspectives, the authors suggest important changes to the court’s functioning and a reorientation of its priorities that can render it a more effective public institution.
Former Fellow, Carnegie India
Ananth Padmanabhan was a fellow at Carnegie India, based in New Delhi. His primary research focus is technology, regulation, and public policy, and the intersection of these three fields within the Indian context.
Madhav Khosla
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Talankin and Borenstein’s documentary is a unique inside look at a regime that threatens the world and has killed thousands of people in its neighboring country. And many critics and general viewers alike draw parallels between the Putin regime and their own governments.
Ekaterina Barabash
The history of Telegram’s relations with the Russian state offers a salutary lesson for international platforms that believe they can reach a compromise with the Kremlin.
Maria Kolomychenko
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
It’s disingenuous to criticize a film for simplifying Russia’s complexities when Russia is waging a brutally simple war of aggression against its neighbor.
Alexander Baunov
The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.
Temur Umarov