indconlawphil.wordpress.com was accessible in India

GET https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/
Alt-Svc:
clear
Cache-Control:
max-age=300, must-revalidate
Content-Type:
text/html; charset=UTF-8
Date:
Sat, 18 Jan 2025 07:56:43 GMT
Host-Header:
WordPress.com
Last-Modified:
Sat, 18 Jan 2025 07:33:48 GMT
Link:
<https://wp.me/3N3Vg>; rel=shortlink
Server:
nginx
Strict-Transport-Security:
max-age=31536000
Vary:
Accept-Encoding
X-Ac:
1.bom _dca STALE
X-Hacker:
Want root? Visit join.a8c.com/hacker and mention this header.
X-Nananana:
Batcache-Set
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
<link rel="profile" href="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
<link rel="pingback" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/xmlrpc.php">

<title>Constitutional Law and Philosophy &#8211; Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law, with a Special Focus on India and Kenya</title>
<script type="text/javascript">
  WebFontConfig = {"google":{"families":["Libre+Baskerville:r:latin,latin-ext"]},"api_url":"https:\/\/fonts-api.wp.com\/css"};
  (function() {
    var wf = document.createElement('script');
    wf.src = 'https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/plugins/custom-fonts/js/webfont.js';
    wf.type = 'text/javascript';
    wf.async = 'true';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
    s.parentNode.insertBefore(wf, s);
	})();
</script><style id="jetpack-custom-fonts-css">.wf-active h1, .wf-active h2, .wf-active h3, .wf-active h4, .wf-active h5, .wf-active h6{font-weight:400;font-family:"Libre Baskerville",serif;font-style:normal}.wf-active h1{font-size:29.4px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active h2{font-size:18.2px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active h3{font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active h4{font-size:11.2px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active h5{font-family:"Libre Baskerville",serif;font-size:9.8px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active h6{font-family:"Libre Baskerville",serif;font-size:8.4px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active .widget-title{font-size:9.8px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active .site-title{font-size:35px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active .site-description{font-family:"Libre Baskerville",serif;font-size:9.8px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}.wf-active .entry-category{font-size:9.8px;font-weight:400;font-style:normal}.wf-active .entry-title, .wf-active .page-title{font-size:21px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h1{font-size:16.1px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h2{font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h3{font-size:11.9px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h4{font-size:10.5px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h5{font-size:9.1px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active h6{font-size:7.7px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}@media screen and (max-width: 782px){.wf-active .site-title{font-size:21px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400}}</style>
<meta name='robots' content='max-image-preview:large' />
<link rel='dns-prefetch' href='//s0.wp.com' />
<link rel='dns-prefetch' href='//fonts-api.wp.com' />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Constitutional Law and Philosophy &raquo; Feed" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/feed/" />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Constitutional Law and Philosophy &raquo; Comments Feed" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" />
	<script type="text/javascript">
		/* <![CDATA[ */
		function addLoadEvent(func) {
			var oldonload = window.onload;
			if (typeof window.onload != 'function') {
				window.onload = func;
			} else {
				window.onload = function () {
					oldonload();
					func();
				}
			}
		}
		/* ]]> */
	</script>
	<script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
window._wpemojiSettings = {"baseUrl":"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-content\/mu-plugins\/wpcom-smileys\/twemoji\/2\/72x72\/","ext":".png","svgUrl":"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-content\/mu-plugins\/wpcom-smileys\/twemoji\/2\/svg\/","svgExt":".svg","source":{"concatemoji":"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-emoji-release.min.js?m=1719498190i&ver=6.8-alpha-59438"}};
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(i,n){var o,s,e;function c(e){try{var t={supportTests:e,timestamp:(new Date).valueOf()};sessionStorage.setItem(o,JSON.stringify(t))}catch(e){}}function p(e,t,n){e.clearRect(0,0,e.canvas.width,e.canvas.height),e.fillText(t,0,0);var t=new Uint32Array(e.getImageData(0,0,e.canvas.width,e.canvas.height).data),r=(e.clearRect(0,0,e.canvas.width,e.canvas.height),e.fillText(n,0,0),new Uint32Array(e.getImageData(0,0,e.canvas.width,e.canvas.height).data));return t.every(function(e,t){return e===r[t]})}function u(e,t,n){switch(t){case"flag":return n(e,"\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\u26a7\ufe0f","\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200b\u26a7\ufe0f")?!1:!n(e,"\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf3","\ud83c\uddfa\u200b\ud83c\uddf3")&&!n(e,"\ud83c\udff4\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc62\udb40\udc65\udb40\udc6e\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc7f","\ud83c\udff4\u200b\udb40\udc67\u200b\udb40\udc62\u200b\udb40\udc65\u200b\udb40\udc6e\u200b\udb40\udc67\u200b\udb40\udc7f");case"emoji":return!n(e,"\ud83d\udc26\u200d\u2b1b","\ud83d\udc26\u200b\u2b1b")}return!1}function f(e,t,n){var r="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope?new OffscreenCanvas(300,150):i.createElement("canvas"),a=r.getContext("2d",{willReadFrequently:!0}),o=(a.textBaseline="top",a.font="600 32px Arial",{});return e.forEach(function(e){o[e]=t(a,e,n)}),o}function t(e){var t=i.createElement("script");t.src=e,t.defer=!0,i.head.appendChild(t)}"undefined"!=typeof Promise&&(o="wpEmojiSettingsSupports",s=["flag","emoji"],n.supports={everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},e=new Promise(function(e){i.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",e,{once:!0})}),new Promise(function(t){var n=function(){try{var e=JSON.parse(sessionStorage.getItem(o));if("object"==typeof e&&"number"==typeof e.timestamp&&(new Date).valueOf()<e.timestamp+604800&&"object"==typeof e.supportTests)return e.supportTests}catch(e){}return null}();if(!n){if("undefined"!=typeof Worker&&"undefined"!=typeof OffscreenCanvas&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&URL.createObjectURL&&"undefined"!=typeof Blob)try{var e="postMessage("+f.toString()+"("+[JSON.stringify(s),u.toString(),p.toString()].join(",")+"));",r=new Blob([e],{type:"text/javascript"}),a=new Worker(URL.createObjectURL(r),{name:"wpTestEmojiSupports"});return void(a.onmessage=function(e){c(n=e.data),a.terminate(),t(n)})}catch(e){}c(n=f(s,u,p))}t(n)}).then(function(e){for(var t in e)n.supports[t]=e[t],n.supports.everything=n.supports.everything&&n.supports[t],"flag"!==t&&(n.supports.everythingExceptFlag=n.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&n.supports[t]);n.supports.everythingExceptFlag=n.supports.everythingExceptFlag&&!n.supports.flag,n.DOMReady=!1,n.readyCallback=function(){n.DOMReady=!0}}).then(function(){return e}).then(function(){var e;n.supports.everything||(n.readyCallback(),(e=n.source||{}).concatemoji?t(e.concatemoji):e.wpemoji&&e.twemoji&&(t(e.twemoji),t(e.wpemoji)))}))}((window,document),window._wpemojiSettings);
/* ]]> */
</script>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-0-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/jetpack-plugin/sun/modules/infinite-scroll/infinity.css?m=1685115060i&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='wp-emoji-styles-inline-css'>

	img.wp-smiley, img.emoji {
		display: inline !important;
		border: none !important;
		box-shadow: none !important;
		height: 1em !important;
		width: 1em !important;
		margin: 0 0.07em !important;
		vertical-align: -0.1em !important;
		background: none !important;
		padding: 0 !important;
	}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-2-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/_static/??-eJydzEEOwiAQheELCVO0xrAwngUoIdQRyMxQw+2tbty5cPny8v3wbCrUIrEINOwpF4bU9+kjpf2hCJux2uoJfM+4gMca7gqzJ0cDWAZGHZgP8DP0UQxrlObe3I3aRSXKy78JcpJL4i+/Pa7mcprPdj6aaX0BOqhP2A==&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='wp-block-library-inline-css'>
.has-text-align-justify {
	text-align:justify;
}
.has-text-align-justify{text-align:justify;}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-4-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/_static/??-eJzTLy/QzcxLzilNSS3WzyrWz01NyUxMzUnNTc0rQeEU5CRWphbp5qSmJyZX6uVm5uklFxfr6OPTDpRD5sM02efaGpoZmFkYGRuZGmQBAHPvL0Y=&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='jetpack-sharing-buttons-style-inline-css'>
.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list{display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:0;list-style-type:none;margin:5px;padding:0}.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list.has-small-icon-size{font-size:12px}.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list.has-normal-icon-size{font-size:16px}.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list.has-large-icon-size{font-size:24px}.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list.has-huge-icon-size{font-size:36px}@media print{.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list{display:none!important}}.editor-styles-wrapper .wp-block-jetpack-sharing-buttons{gap:0;padding-inline-start:0}ul.jetpack-sharing-buttons__services-list.has-background{padding:1.25em 2.375em}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-6-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/plugins/coblocks/2.18.1-simple-rev.4/dist/coblocks-style.css?m=1681832297i&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='classic-theme-styles-inline-css'>
/*! This file is auto-generated */
.wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-8-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/_static/??/wp-content/mu-plugins/core-compat/wp-mediaelement.css,/wp-content/mu-plugins/wpcom-bbpress-premium-themes.css?m=1432920480j&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='global-styles-inline-css'>
:root{--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--square: 1;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--4-3: 4/3;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--3-4: 3/4;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--3-2: 3/2;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--2-3: 2/3;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--16-9: 16/9;--wp--preset--aspect-ratio--9-16: 9/16;--wp--preset--color--black: #000000;--wp--preset--color--cyan-bluish-gray: #abb8c3;--wp--preset--color--white: #ffffff;--wp--preset--color--pale-pink: #f78da7;--wp--preset--color--vivid-red: #cf2e2e;--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-orange: #ff6900;--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-amber: #fcb900;--wp--preset--color--light-green-cyan: #7bdcb5;--wp--preset--color--vivid-green-cyan: #00d084;--wp--preset--color--pale-cyan-blue: #8ed1fc;--wp--preset--color--vivid-cyan-blue: #0693e3;--wp--preset--color--vivid-purple: #9b51e0;--wp--preset--gradient--vivid-cyan-blue-to-vivid-purple: linear-gradient(135deg,rgba(6,147,227,1) 0%,rgb(155,81,224) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--light-green-cyan-to-vivid-green-cyan: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(122,220,180) 0%,rgb(0,208,130) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-vivid-amber-to-luminous-vivid-orange: linear-gradient(135deg,rgba(252,185,0,1) 0%,rgba(255,105,0,1) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-vivid-orange-to-vivid-red: linear-gradient(135deg,rgba(255,105,0,1) 0%,rgb(207,46,46) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--very-light-gray-to-cyan-bluish-gray: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(238,238,238) 0%,rgb(169,184,195) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--cool-to-warm-spectrum: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(74,234,220) 0%,rgb(151,120,209) 20%,rgb(207,42,186) 40%,rgb(238,44,130) 60%,rgb(251,105,98) 80%,rgb(254,248,76) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--blush-light-purple: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(255,206,236) 0%,rgb(152,150,240) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--blush-bordeaux: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(254,205,165) 0%,rgb(254,45,45) 50%,rgb(107,0,62) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-dusk: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(255,203,112) 0%,rgb(199,81,192) 50%,rgb(65,88,208) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--pale-ocean: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(255,245,203) 0%,rgb(182,227,212) 50%,rgb(51,167,181) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--electric-grass: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(202,248,128) 0%,rgb(113,206,126) 100%);--wp--preset--gradient--midnight: linear-gradient(135deg,rgb(2,3,129) 0%,rgb(40,116,252) 100%);--wp--preset--font-size--small: 13px;--wp--preset--font-size--medium: 20px;--wp--preset--font-size--large: 36px;--wp--preset--font-size--x-large: 42px;--wp--preset--font-family--albert-sans: 'Albert Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--alegreya: Alegreya, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--arvo: Arvo, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--bodoni-moda: 'Bodoni Moda', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--bricolage-grotesque: 'Bricolage Grotesque', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--cabin: Cabin, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--chivo: Chivo, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--commissioner: Commissioner, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--cormorant: Cormorant, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--courier-prime: 'Courier Prime', monospace;--wp--preset--font-family--crimson-pro: 'Crimson Pro', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--dm-mono: 'DM Mono', monospace;--wp--preset--font-family--dm-sans: 'DM Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--dm-serif-display: 'DM Serif Display', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--domine: Domine, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--eb-garamond: 'EB Garamond', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--epilogue: Epilogue, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--fahkwang: Fahkwang, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--figtree: Figtree, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--fira-sans: 'Fira Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--fjalla-one: 'Fjalla One', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--fraunces: Fraunces, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--gabarito: Gabarito, system-ui;--wp--preset--font-family--ibm-plex-mono: 'IBM Plex Mono', monospace;--wp--preset--font-family--ibm-plex-sans: 'IBM Plex Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--ibarra-real-nova: 'Ibarra Real Nova', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--instrument-serif: 'Instrument Serif', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--inter: Inter, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--josefin-sans: 'Josefin Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--jost: Jost, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--libre-baskerville: 'Libre Baskerville', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--libre-franklin: 'Libre Franklin', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--literata: Literata, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--lora: Lora, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--merriweather: Merriweather, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--montserrat: Montserrat, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--newsreader: Newsreader, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--noto-sans-mono: 'Noto Sans Mono', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--nunito: Nunito, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--open-sans: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--overpass: Overpass, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--pt-serif: 'PT Serif', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--petrona: Petrona, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--piazzolla: Piazzolla, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--playfair-display: 'Playfair Display', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--plus-jakarta-sans: 'Plus Jakarta Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--poppins: Poppins, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--raleway: Raleway, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--roboto: Roboto, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--roboto-slab: 'Roboto Slab', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--rubik: Rubik, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--rufina: Rufina, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--sora: Sora, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--source-sans-3: 'Source Sans 3', sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--source-serif-4: 'Source Serif 4', serif;--wp--preset--font-family--space-mono: 'Space Mono', monospace;--wp--preset--font-family--syne: Syne, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--texturina: Texturina, serif;--wp--preset--font-family--urbanist: Urbanist, sans-serif;--wp--preset--font-family--work-sans: 'Work Sans', sans-serif;--wp--preset--spacing--20: 0.44rem;--wp--preset--spacing--30: 0.67rem;--wp--preset--spacing--40: 1rem;--wp--preset--spacing--50: 1.5rem;--wp--preset--spacing--60: 2.25rem;--wp--preset--spacing--70: 3.38rem;--wp--preset--spacing--80: 5.06rem;--wp--preset--shadow--natural: 6px 6px 9px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2);--wp--preset--shadow--deep: 12px 12px 50px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4);--wp--preset--shadow--sharp: 6px 6px 0px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2);--wp--preset--shadow--outlined: 6px 6px 0px -3px rgba(255, 255, 255, 1), 6px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);--wp--preset--shadow--crisp: 6px 6px 0px rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);}:where(.is-layout-flex){gap: 0.5em;}:where(.is-layout-grid){gap: 0.5em;}body .is-layout-flex{display: flex;}.is-layout-flex{flex-wrap: wrap;align-items: center;}.is-layout-flex > :is(*, div){margin: 0;}body .is-layout-grid{display: grid;}.is-layout-grid > :is(*, div){margin: 0;}:where(.wp-block-columns.is-layout-flex){gap: 2em;}:where(.wp-block-columns.is-layout-grid){gap: 2em;}:where(.wp-block-post-template.is-layout-flex){gap: 1.25em;}:where(.wp-block-post-template.is-layout-grid){gap: 1.25em;}.has-black-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--black) !important;}.has-cyan-bluish-gray-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--cyan-bluish-gray) !important;}.has-white-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--white) !important;}.has-pale-pink-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-pink) !important;}.has-vivid-red-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-red) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-orange-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-orange) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-amber-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-amber) !important;}.has-light-green-cyan-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--light-green-cyan) !important;}.has-vivid-green-cyan-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-green-cyan) !important;}.has-pale-cyan-blue-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-cyan-blue-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-purple-color{color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-purple) !important;}.has-black-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--black) !important;}.has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--cyan-bluish-gray) !important;}.has-white-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--white) !important;}.has-pale-pink-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-pink) !important;}.has-vivid-red-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-red) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-orange-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-orange) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-amber) !important;}.has-light-green-cyan-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--light-green-cyan) !important;}.has-vivid-green-cyan-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-green-cyan) !important;}.has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-cyan-blue-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-purple-background-color{background-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-purple) !important;}.has-black-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--black) !important;}.has-cyan-bluish-gray-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--cyan-bluish-gray) !important;}.has-white-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--white) !important;}.has-pale-pink-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-pink) !important;}.has-vivid-red-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-red) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-orange-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-orange) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-amber-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--luminous-vivid-amber) !important;}.has-light-green-cyan-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--light-green-cyan) !important;}.has-vivid-green-cyan-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-green-cyan) !important;}.has-pale-cyan-blue-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--pale-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-cyan-blue-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-cyan-blue) !important;}.has-vivid-purple-border-color{border-color: var(--wp--preset--color--vivid-purple) !important;}.has-vivid-cyan-blue-to-vivid-purple-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--vivid-cyan-blue-to-vivid-purple) !important;}.has-light-green-cyan-to-vivid-green-cyan-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--light-green-cyan-to-vivid-green-cyan) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-amber-to-luminous-vivid-orange-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-vivid-amber-to-luminous-vivid-orange) !important;}.has-luminous-vivid-orange-to-vivid-red-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-vivid-orange-to-vivid-red) !important;}.has-very-light-gray-to-cyan-bluish-gray-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--very-light-gray-to-cyan-bluish-gray) !important;}.has-cool-to-warm-spectrum-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--cool-to-warm-spectrum) !important;}.has-blush-light-purple-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--blush-light-purple) !important;}.has-blush-bordeaux-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--blush-bordeaux) !important;}.has-luminous-dusk-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--luminous-dusk) !important;}.has-pale-ocean-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--pale-ocean) !important;}.has-electric-grass-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--electric-grass) !important;}.has-midnight-gradient-background{background: var(--wp--preset--gradient--midnight) !important;}.has-small-font-size{font-size: var(--wp--preset--font-size--small) !important;}.has-medium-font-size{font-size: var(--wp--preset--font-size--medium) !important;}.has-large-font-size{font-size: var(--wp--preset--font-size--large) !important;}.has-x-large-font-size{font-size: var(--wp--preset--font-size--x-large) !important;}.has-albert-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--albert-sans) !important;}.has-alegreya-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--alegreya) !important;}.has-arvo-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--arvo) !important;}.has-bodoni-moda-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--bodoni-moda) !important;}.has-bricolage-grotesque-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--bricolage-grotesque) !important;}.has-cabin-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--cabin) !important;}.has-chivo-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--chivo) !important;}.has-commissioner-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--commissioner) !important;}.has-cormorant-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--cormorant) !important;}.has-courier-prime-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--courier-prime) !important;}.has-crimson-pro-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--crimson-pro) !important;}.has-dm-mono-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--dm-mono) !important;}.has-dm-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--dm-sans) !important;}.has-dm-serif-display-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--dm-serif-display) !important;}.has-domine-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--domine) !important;}.has-eb-garamond-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--eb-garamond) !important;}.has-epilogue-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--epilogue) !important;}.has-fahkwang-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--fahkwang) !important;}.has-figtree-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--figtree) !important;}.has-fira-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--fira-sans) !important;}.has-fjalla-one-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--fjalla-one) !important;}.has-fraunces-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--fraunces) !important;}.has-gabarito-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--gabarito) !important;}.has-ibm-plex-mono-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--ibm-plex-mono) !important;}.has-ibm-plex-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--ibm-plex-sans) !important;}.has-ibarra-real-nova-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--ibarra-real-nova) !important;}.has-instrument-serif-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--instrument-serif) !important;}.has-inter-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--inter) !important;}.has-josefin-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--josefin-sans) !important;}.has-jost-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--jost) !important;}.has-libre-baskerville-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--libre-baskerville) !important;}.has-libre-franklin-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--libre-franklin) !important;}.has-literata-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--literata) !important;}.has-lora-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--lora) !important;}.has-merriweather-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--merriweather) !important;}.has-montserrat-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--montserrat) !important;}.has-newsreader-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--newsreader) !important;}.has-noto-sans-mono-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--noto-sans-mono) !important;}.has-nunito-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--nunito) !important;}.has-open-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--open-sans) !important;}.has-overpass-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--overpass) !important;}.has-pt-serif-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--pt-serif) !important;}.has-petrona-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--petrona) !important;}.has-piazzolla-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--piazzolla) !important;}.has-playfair-display-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--playfair-display) !important;}.has-plus-jakarta-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--plus-jakarta-sans) !important;}.has-poppins-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--poppins) !important;}.has-raleway-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--raleway) !important;}.has-roboto-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--roboto) !important;}.has-roboto-slab-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--roboto-slab) !important;}.has-rubik-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--rubik) !important;}.has-rufina-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--rufina) !important;}.has-sora-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--sora) !important;}.has-source-sans-3-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--source-sans-3) !important;}.has-source-serif-4-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--source-serif-4) !important;}.has-space-mono-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--space-mono) !important;}.has-syne-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--syne) !important;}.has-texturina-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--texturina) !important;}.has-urbanist-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--urbanist) !important;}.has-work-sans-font-family{font-family: var(--wp--preset--font-family--work-sans) !important;}
:where(.wp-block-columns.is-layout-flex){gap: 2em;}:where(.wp-block-columns.is-layout-grid){gap: 2em;}
:root :where(.wp-block-pullquote){font-size: 1.5em;line-height: 1.6;}
:where(.wp-block-post-template.is-layout-flex){gap: 1.25em;}:where(.wp-block-post-template.is-layout-grid){gap: 1.25em;}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-10-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/_static/??/wp-content/themes/pub/nucleare/style.css,/wp-content/mu-plugins/jetpack-plugin/sun/_inc/genericons/genericons/genericons.css?m=1685112397j&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<link rel='stylesheet' id='nucleare-fonts-css' href='https://fonts-api.wp.com/css?family=Roboto%3A400%2C700%2C700italic%2C400italic%7CPlayfair+Display%3A400%2C400italic%2C700italic%2C700&#038;subset=latin%2Clatin-ext' media='all' />
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-12-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/_static/??-eJx9y80OwiAMB/AXsjZLMOrB+CyMdAxTWkIhe/0xL+rF2/8jP9wKBJVG0rCtlMmw9BmlByZfCYMZLuMHv5FppvMYTviFcofCPSYxrDSzxhHjm33qPxRJgTX4llR+CizsUz3oMz8md7k7d7tO7rUDjnZBsA==&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='print-css-13-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/global-print/global-print.css?m=1465851035i&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='print' />
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-14-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/pub/nucleare/inc/style-wpcom.css?m=1428690127i&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<style id='jetpack-global-styles-frontend-style-inline-css'>
:root { --font-headings: unset; --font-base: unset; --font-headings-default: -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif; --font-base-default: -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;}
</style>
<link crossorigin='anonymous' rel='stylesheet' id='all-css-16-1' href='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/h4/global.css?m=1420737423i&cssminify=yes' type='text/css' media='all' />
<script type="text/javascript" id="wpcom-actionbar-placeholder-js-extra">
/* <![CDATA[ */
var actionbardata = {"siteID":"56022162","postID":"0","siteURL":"http:\/\/indconlawphil.wordpress.com","xhrURL":"https:\/\/indconlawphil.wordpress.com\/wp-admin\/admin-ajax.php","nonce":"07ca66824b","isLoggedIn":"","statusMessage":"","subsEmailDefault":"instantly","proxyScriptUrl":"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-content\/js\/wpcom-proxy-request.js?ver=20211021","i18n":{"followedText":"New posts from this site will now appear in your <a href=\"https:\/\/wordpress.com\/read\">Reader<\/a>","foldBar":"Collapse this bar","unfoldBar":"Expand this bar","shortLinkCopied":"Shortlink copied to clipboard."}};
/* ]]> */
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" id="jetpack-mu-wpcom-settings-js-before">
/* <![CDATA[ */
var JETPACK_MU_WPCOM_SETTINGS = {"assetsUrl":"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-content\/mu-plugins\/jetpack-mu-wpcom-plugin\/sun\/vendor\/automattic\/jetpack-mu-wpcom\/src\/build\/"};
/* ]]> */
</script>
<script crossorigin='anonymous' type='text/javascript'  src='https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/js/rlt-proxy.js?m=1720530689i'></script>
<script type="text/javascript" id="rlt-proxy-js-after">
/* <![CDATA[ */
	rltInitialize( {"token":null,"iframeOrigins":["https:\/\/widgets.wp.com"]} );
/* ]]> */
</script>
<link rel="EditURI" type="application/rsd+xml" title="RSD" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/xmlrpc.php?rsd" />
<meta name="generator" content="WordPress.com" />
<link rel='shortlink' href='https://wp.me/3N3Vg' />

<!-- Jetpack Open Graph Tags -->
<meta property="og:type" content="website" />
<meta property="og:title" content="Constitutional Law and Philosophy" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law, with a Special Focus on India and Kenya" />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Constitutional Law and Philosophy" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg" />
<meta property="og:image:alt" content="" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="fb:app_id" content="249643311490" />

<!-- End Jetpack Open Graph Tags -->
<link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/x-icon" href="https://s0.wp.com/i/favicon.ico" sizes="16x16 24x24 32x32 48x48" />
<link rel="icon" type="image/x-icon" href="https://s0.wp.com/i/favicon.ico" sizes="16x16 24x24 32x32 48x48" />
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="https://s0.wp.com/i/webclip.png" />
<link rel='openid.server' href='https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/?openidserver=1' />
<link rel='openid.delegate' href='https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/' />
<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="Constitutional Law and Philosophy" />
<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="https://s1.wp.com/opensearch.xml" title="WordPress.com" />
<meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff" />
		<style type="text/css">
			.recentcomments a {
				display: inline !important;
				padding: 0 !important;
				margin: 0 !important;
			}

			table.recentcommentsavatartop img.avatar, table.recentcommentsavatarend img.avatar {
				border: 0px;
				margin: 0;
			}

			table.recentcommentsavatartop a, table.recentcommentsavatarend a {
				border: 0px !important;
				background-color: transparent !important;
			}

			td.recentcommentsavatarend, td.recentcommentsavatartop {
				padding: 0px 0px 1px 0px;
				margin: 0px;
			}

			td.recentcommentstextend {
				border: none !important;
				padding: 0px 0px 2px 10px;
			}

			.rtl td.recentcommentstextend {
				padding: 0px 10px 2px 0px;
			}

			td.recentcommentstexttop {
				border: none;
				padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;
			}

			.rtl td.recentcommentstexttop {
				padding: 0px 10px 0px 0px;
			}
		</style>
		<meta name="application-name" content="Constitutional Law and Philosophy" /><meta name="msapplication-window" content="width=device-width;height=device-height" /><meta name="msapplication-tooltip" content="Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law, with a Special Focus on India and Kenya" /><meta name="description" content="Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law, with a Special Focus on India and Kenya" />
<style type="text/css" id="custom-background-css">
body.custom-background { background-color: #ffffff; }
</style>
	<style type="text/css" id="custom-colors-css">#wp-calendar > caption, .menu-toggle:focus, .menu-toggle:hover { color: #FFFFFF;}
.social-links .top-search { color: #FFFFFF;}
.widget.wp_widget_tag_cloud a, .more-link, .button, button, input[type="button"], input[type="reset"], input[type="submit"], #infinite-handle span { color: #FFFFFF;}
.social-links .top-search:hover, .button:hover, button:hover, input[type="button"]:hover, input[type="reset"]:hover, input[type="submit"]:hover, #infinite-handle span:hover, .button:focus, button:focus, input[type="button"]:focus, input[type="reset"]:focus, input[type="submit"]:focus, #infinite-handle span:focus, .button:active, button:active, input[type="button"]:active, input[type="reset"]:active, input[type="submit"]:active, #infinite-handle span:active { color: #424242;}
.widget, .widget a:hover, .widget a:focus, .widget a:active { color: #5E5E5E;}
.site-title a:hover, .site-title a:focus, .site-title a:active { color: #5E5E5E;}
.site-info, .site-description { color: #5E5E5E;}
body { background-color: #ffffff;}
.widget.wp_widget_tag_cloud a, .more-link, .button, button, input[type="button"], input[type="reset"], input[type="submit"], #infinite-handle span { background-color: #5d5959;}
#wp-calendar > caption { background-color: #5d5959;}
.social-links .top-search { background-color: #5d5959;}
#wp-calendar tbody td#today, blockquote, .main-navigation div > ul > li > ul > li:first-child { border-color: #5d5959;}
.main-navigation div > ul > li > ul::before { border-bottom-color: #5d5959;}
.entry-featured-image, .menu-toggle:focus, .menu-toggle:hover { background-color: #5d5959;}
.widget a, .site-info a, .site-title a { color: #5D5959;}
.main-navigation a { color: #5D5959;}
.social-links a:hover { color: #5D5959;}
.entry-title a:hover, .entry-title a:focus, a { color: #5D5959;}
</style>
</head>

<body class="home blog custom-background customizer-styles-applied group-blog jetpack-reblog-enabled">
<div id="page" class="hfeed site">
	<a class="skip-link screen-reader-text" href="#content">Skip to content</a>

	<div class="navigation-bar clear">
		<div class="navigation-block">
			<nav id="site-navigation" class="main-navigation" role="navigation">
				<button class="menu-toggle" aria-controls="menu" aria-expanded="false"><i class="fa fa-bars"></i><span class="screen-reader-text">Open Menu</span></button>
				<div class="menu"><ul>
<li class="current_page_item"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">Home</a></li><li class="page_item page-item-1221"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/academic-scholarship/">Academic Scholarship</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-865"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/articles/">Articles</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-367"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/guest-post-guidelines/">Guest Post Guidelines</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-4367"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/constitutional-cases-documentation/">Legal Documentation</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-1843"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/origins-radical-indian-thought/">Radical Thought</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-11304"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/written-submissions-archive/">Written Submissions Archive</a></li>
</ul></div>
			</nav><!-- #site-navigation -->

							<div class="social-links">

											<div class="open-search top-search"><i class="fa fa-search"><span class="screen-reader-text">Search</span></i></div>
									</div>
					</div>
	</div>

			<div class="search-full">
			<div class="search-container">
				<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">
				<label>
					<span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
					<input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search &hellip;" value="" name="s" />
				</label>
				<input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search" />
			</form>				<span><a class="close-search"><i class="fa fa-close space-right"></i>Close</a></span>
			</div>
		</div>

	<header id="masthead" class="site-header" role="banner">
		<div class="site-branding">
							<a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/" rel="home">
					<img src="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/cropped-slide_1-2-3.jpg" width="960" height="211" alt="" class="custom-header">
				</a>
									<h1 class="site-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/" rel="home">Constitutional Law and Philosophy</a></h1>
			<h2 class="site-description">Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law, with a Special Focus on India and Kenya</h2>
		</div><!-- .site-branding -->
	</header><!-- #masthead -->

	<div id="content" class="site-content">

	<div id="primary" class="content-area">
		<main id="main" class="site-main" role="main">

<article id="post-13332" class="post-13332 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-delimitation category-delimitation-federalism category-federalism tag-constituency tag-delimitation tag-elections-2 tag-federalism tag-lok-sabha tag-rajya-sabha">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/14/thinking-through-delimitation-part-ii-design-history-of-the-lok-sabha/" rel="bookmark">Thinking Through Delimitation Part II: Design History of the Lok&nbsp;Sabha</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/14/thinking-through-delimitation-part-ii-design-history-of-the-lok-sabha/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-14T06:14:11+00:00">January 14, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/devadasanv/">Vasudev Devadasan</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/14/thinking-through-delimitation-part-ii-design-history-of-the-lok-sabha/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

The last blog post (<a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/12/17/thinking-through-delimitation-part-i-an-introduction/">here</a>) highlighted how India’s upcoming delimitation exercise creates tensions between the demand for states’ representation in Parliament and the principle of political equality for voters throughout India. States seek representation in the Union Parliament to secure fiscal devolutions, and political equality necessitates that votes in constituencies across states have the same value i.e., one person, one vote.

This post and the next study this tension by examining the design of both houses of Parliament through a historical lens. The intent is not to suggest we are bound by the original design of the houses but rather to understand how the Constitution originally sought to deal with this tension to inform future change. This post studies the constitutional history of the Lok Sabha and argues that the framers were aware of, and consciously gave pre-eminence to, the principle of one person, one vote in designing the Lok Sabha. The question of states’ representation in Parliament was to be addressed through the design of the Rajya Sabha. Thus, the framers (at least implicitly) accepted that the seats allocated to states would fluctuate in the Lok Sabha. &nbsp;

<p><strong>Designing the Lok Sabha</strong></p>

The design of the Lok Sabha was comparatively straightforward and demonstrated the prevailing view in the Constituent Assembly that the lower house would be constituted by direct elections from territorially defined constituencies (as opposed to religious or communally defined constituencies). Meetings of the Union Constitution Committee in June and July of 1947 outlined the design principles. Constituencies were to be delimited based on “homogeneity, continuity and population strengths.” The House of the People was to have constituencies with populations ranging from 750,000 to 1,000,000. India’s population at the time was around 340 million resulting in a House of “between 300 and 400 members.”

On introduction of the Committee’s draft into the Assembly in late July 1947, the constituency size was lowered to between 500,000 – 750,000. A reading of the debates suggests this change was made to ensure smaller princely states, with populations less than 750,000, could be given their own constituency and return an MP. This is supported by the observations in the Assembly, most notably, Jai Narain Vyas who stated, “We support these proposals purely on political grounds. When these proposals are accepted, fourteen more States will come in the Lower House…”

<p><strong>One person, One Vote in the Assembly</strong></p>

The drafting history of the articles concerning the Lok Sabha evidences that the framers were acutely aware of the need for political equality amongst voters and sought to ensure it in the design of the Lok Sabha. The Constitutional Advisor’s draft of December 1947 (Draft Article 60) retained the constituency sizes decided by the Assembly but clearly laid out that constituency sizes throughout India should be uniform. The framers were particularly keen to ensure that constituency sizes in the princely states, that had varied democratic (and undemocratic) traditions adhered to a constitutional standard. Draft Article 60(5) expressly noted that constituency sizes ought to be uniform irrespective of whether the territory was an erstwhile British province or a princely state. The revision of seats by a statutory authority after every decennial census was also incorporated in this draft.

The debates in the Assembly demonstrate that Members of the Assembly were acutely aware of the one person, one vote principle. For example, both Lakshmi Maitra and Shibban Lal Saxena spoke in opposition of an amendment which sought to delimit constituencies based on the state of their communications or infrastructure. Lakshmi Maitra noted that the “idea seems to be that the scale of representation could vary according to different parts of the country because some parts are well developed from the point of view of communications and others not. […] This would be the height of injustice. Democracy demands that one man/one vote should have an equal value.” (6 Jan 1949).

Speaking in a similar vein Shibban Lal Saxena noted, “Therefore, all the constituencies shall be equal and the same throughout India. Similarly I want in the States also the same and when there are various constituencies, they must be nearly equal. I think that unless this is provided for in some of the provinces, there will be grave consequences. There may be provincial jealousies which may play a role…” (6 Jan 1949).

<p><strong>Political Equality and States Representation</strong></p>

Both the drafters and Members of the Assembly were clearly aware of the principle of political equality and the importance of operationalising it by ensuring equal constituency sizes across India. The speeches of Members indicate this was done to ensure the democratic legitimacy of both state and Union legislatures. The trifecta of constituencies determined by population, the emphasis on equality of constituency sizes, and the commitment to decennial revision suggests that the framers consciously committed themselves to a Lok Sabha where the seats allocated to federal units would fluctuate based on the population of the units. In other words, they chose the principle of one person one vote over the principle of states representation in designing the Lok Sabha. &nbsp;

The meetings and debates surrounding the Lok Sabha indicate that limited thought was given to how decennial revision would impact states’ representation in the Union Parliament. However, there are three very good reasons why this may have been the case. First, the federal units of India itself were still in a state of flux and remained unsettled until the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. In a world with erstwhile provinces, princely states, and chief commissioners’ provinces, and where the linguistic reorganisation of states was on the horizon, the importance of states representation in Parliament did not confront the framers in the manner it does us today where federal units are more stable. Second, the Congress Party was (and was expected to continue being) in power both at the Union and federal units. As Austin notes, this meant federal negotiations were conducted through intra-party channels as opposed to constitutional ones, further diminishing the importance of states’ representation in Parliament. Third, there existed the Rajya Sabha.

The clearest evidence that the framers made a clear demarcation between political equality in the lower house and states’ representation in the upper house is found in the speech of Gopalaswami Ayyangar to the Assembly on 31 July 1946. He introduced the Union Constitution Committee’s design of population-based constituencies for the Lok Sabha and justified it on the following basis:

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“The House of the People is essentially a Chamber whose composition is based entirely on the population and it is only reasonable that the ratio which the Members representing the Indian States bears to the total population of Indian states should not exceed the ratio which the number of seats for Provinces bears to the total population in the Provinces. […] Any special treatment which we desire to give to units of the Federation, whether Provinces or Indian States that treatment will be provided for in the composition of the Council of States.” (emphasis supplied) &nbsp;&nbsp;
</blockquote>

This strongly suggests that the drafters envisaged a constitutional scheme whereby the principle of political equality took precedence in the lower, directly elected House, while states representation, to the extent it confronted the Assembly, was to be addressed in the upper House. However, as noted in the previous post, the Rajya Sabha is also largely constituted on the basis of population with tweaks to favour smaller states. How this came to be, is discussed in the next post on the history of the Rajya Sabha.

<p><strong>Postscript: Prescient Asides on Constituency Sizes</strong></p>

It is also worth referring to two prescient observations made by Assembly Members that are of contemporary relevance. As noted in the previous post, the 7th Amendment to the Constitution removed the constituency population cap of 750,000. Today, the country’s population is divided by the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha to establish an average constituency size which is then applied throughout the country. The average constituency size of the Lok Sabha in 2001 <a href="https://www.theindiaforum.in/politics/indias-delimitation-dilemma-challenges-and-consequences">was around 1,890,000</a>. One key reason for growing constituency sizes is the unwillingness to increase the size of the Lok Sabha for fear it would become unruly.

But growing constituency sizes and a smaller Parliament have consequences that were foreseen at independence. Shibban Lal Saxena noted that large constituencies would prevent poorer candidates from effectively contesting elections, and this would disproportionately impact candidates from marginalised communities (4 Jan 1949). Further, K.T. Shah, speaking in favour of a larger Lok Sabha observed, “Anybody interested in expediting things, and in governing the country according to a few people’s will will naturally not like large numbers of deliberation… […] The larger the number the greater, of course, is the chance of deliberation, and the larger the time taken in passing laws or resolutions. The scrutiny of government’s executive actions would also be from a greater variety of angles by interpellations and the like.” (4 Jan 1949).

The speeches hint at the consequences of larger constituencies and a smaller house. They are both design features that entrench the control of political parties (and elites within those parties). Large constituencies (coupled with India’s campaign finance laws that restrict candidate spending but not party spending) make candidates dependent on party tickets to finance election runs. While K.T. Shah was speaking prior to the existence of the anti-defection law, which itself strengthens party control, fewer legislators and smaller houses makes it easier for party elites to control their flock.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">Aside from the issue of states representation in Parliament, the upcoming delimitation exercise should also explore the idea of capping or reducing constituency size and increasing the size of the Lok Sabha. As K.T. Shah noted, a larger house is not necessarily an unruly one. Several countries such as Germany (735), the United Kingdom (650), France (577), Egypt (596), and Indonesia (575) have larger lower houses than India, even with much smaller populations. A larger Lok Sabha and smaller constituency sizes would make running for election more accessible to all Indians and increase the coordination costs for party elites who currently hold outsized power. &nbsp;</p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13326" class="post-13326 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-comparative-constitutional-law category-constitutional-remedies category-kenya category-reading-in category-suspended-declarations-of-invalidity tag-high-court-of-kenya tag-kenya tag-reading-in tag-suspended-declaration-of-invalidity">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/11/guest-post-justice-beyond-nullification-a-call-for-reading-in-as-an-interim-remedy-for-suspended-constitutional-invalidity-in-kenya/" rel="bookmark">Guest Post: Justice beyond Nullification &#8212; A Call for ‘Reading In’ as an Interim Remedy for Suspended Constitutional Invalidity in&nbsp;Kenya</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/11/guest-post-justice-beyond-nullification-a-call-for-reading-in-as-an-interim-remedy-for-suspended-constitutional-invalidity-in-kenya/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-11T12:30:22+00:00">January 11, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/11/guest-post-justice-beyond-nullification-a-call-for-reading-in-as-an-interim-remedy-for-suspended-constitutional-invalidity-in-kenya/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

<p>[This is a guest post by <strong>Samuel Kahura</strong>.]</p>

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />

<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p>

In upholding its supremacy, Article 2(4) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 stipulates that any law inconsistent with it is invalid. The High Court in line with its mandate under Article 165(3)(d) has on several occasions declared laws or certain provisions of Statutes to be unconstitutional. To mitigate disruption, Kenyan courts have often suspended the order of invalidity for a period of time to grant Parliament a window to remedy the defects identified in the constitutionally inconsistent laws. However, this reliance on Parliament has frequently proven to be ineffective. Legislative inertia has become the order of the day, leaving the unconstitutional laws intact and in use.

This post advances a case for adoption of ‘reading in’ as a proactive remedy that would ensure that legislative inertia does not undermine constitutional values. By allowing courts to modify unconstitutional provisions, reading in would ensure immediate delivery of justice and bypassing of Parliament’s unnecessary delays. However, the post focuses only on reading in as an interim order during the period of suspension of invalidity.

<p><strong>The Situation</strong></p>

To demonstrate the extent the extent of the problem, I will consider the decision of the High Court in <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2016/2053/eng@2016-09-15">Joseph Kaberia Kahinga &amp; 11 Others v. Attorney General.</a> In this case, the 12 petitioners had been charged separately with offences of robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, attempted robbery with violence under Section 297(2) of the Penal Code and murder under Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The Petitioners sought a declaration that Sections 295, 296(1) and 296(2) were ambiguous and hence inconsistent with the right to fair trial as enshrined under Article 50 of the Constitution.

The main argument advanced by the Petitioners in this case was that the offence of robbery under Section 296(1) and the offence of robbery with violence under Section 296(2) were ambiguous. The two Sections, they argued, did not create differentiation between the level of violence that would cause a person convicted under Section 296(1) to get a jail term of 14 years, while a person convicted under Section 296(2) would get a death sentence &#8211; when both offences contemplated some form of violence.

The High Court, in agreeing with the Petitioners, stated that with regard to the element of use of violence, it could result in a person being convicted under Section 296(1) (robbery) and being sentenced to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, while the same violence could also lead to a conviction under Section 296(2) (robbery with violence), and attract a death sentence. Due to the ambiguity, the High Court issued a declaration that Sections 295, 296(1), 296(2), 297(1) and 297(2) did not meet the constitutional threshold of setting out with precision and clarity the nature of the offences.

The High Court then pointed out that due to the fact that there were pending trials before courts at various stages of hearing where the accused persons had been charged under the impugned provisions, in order not to prejudice those trials, an order of suspension of invalidity had to be issued. It went on to suspend the declaration of the order of invalidity for 18 months to enable Parliament, the Attorney General and the Kenya Law Reform Commission to remove the identified ambiguities.

The judgement was delivered on 15th September, 2016. The period of suspension therefore ended on 15th March, 2018.  Fast forward to 2024, you are met by the case of <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/296654/">Katiba Institute (On its Own Behalf and on Behalf of all Individuals Arrested, Charged or Convicted of Robbery with Violence or Attempted Robbery With Violence Since 15th March, 2018) v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions &amp; 5 others</a>. The Petition filed by Katiba Institute challenged the continued arraignment and charging of suspects with robbery with violence. What could have gone wrong, one may ask. It so turns out that Parliament and other relevant bodies did not dispense their duty prior to 15th March, 2018. The consequence was that over <a href="https://katibainstitute.org/press-release-robbery-with-violence-petition/">ten thousand people were convicted of the unconstitutional offence of robbery with violence.</a>

<p><strong>‘Reading In’: What does it mean?</strong></p>

<a href="https://www.gcbsa.co.za/law-journals/2011/april/2011-april-vol024-no1-pp41-44.pdf">Reading in</a> involves reading additional words into a Statute. The order operates in such a way that once the Court makes an order of constitutional invalidity, it then makes a second order declaring the specific words that must be read in. South Africa has the most developed jurisprudence in this area in the continent. The case of <a href="https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1999/17.pdf">National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</a> stands out as the most instructive on issues of reading in and the twin remedy of severance. There, Ackermann J was categorical that reading in does not give the judiciary a final word on what the law is but merely starts a conversation between Parliament and the Courts. The legislature would still be able to amend the Statute in question, in a constitutionally compliant manner.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>The Effect of a Suspension of an Order of Invalidity&nbsp;</strong></p>

Since this post focuses only on reading in as an interim remedy during the period of suspension of invalidity, it is important to consider what effect a suspension of invalidity has. In <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2017/8539/eng@2017-03-14">Law Society of Kenya v. Kenya Revenue Authority</a>, the Court pointed out accurately that an unconstitutional law is not law and that once a law is declared unconstitutional, it has no business remaining in the law books. A suspension of invalidity may however be issued if striking down the legislation would <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/278880/">pose a danger to the public, threaten the rule of law or &#8230; deprive benefits from deserving persons without benefiting the persons whose rights are violated.</a>

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Does the Constitution Permit a ‘Reading in’ Remedy?</strong></p>

Pursuant to Article 165(3) (d) (i) of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this Constitution. The remedial power of the courts in cases of vindication of the Bill of Rights is ring-fenced by Article 23(3) of the Constitution. Article 23(3) calls for appropriate relief and then gives a non exhaustive list of examples of remedies. The Supreme Court in <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/101689/">Communications Commission of Kenya &amp; 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited &amp; 5 Others</a> made it clear that:

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> “… a close examination of these provisions (article 23(3) and 165(3)(d) of the <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong><mark style="background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)" class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">Constitution</mark></strong></a>) shows that the Constitution requires the court to go even further than the US Supreme Court did in the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong><mark style="background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)" class="has-inline-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color">Marbury</mark></strong> </a>, and that article 23(3) grants the High Court powers to grant appropriate relief “ including” meaning that this is not an exhaustive list.”</p>
</blockquote>

In <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2021/34/eng@2021-01-11">Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority &amp; 2 others</a>, the Supreme Court added that interim reliefs, structural interdicts and supervisory orders may be issued and where necessary, a court of law may indicate that the orders it is issuing, are interim in nature, and that the final judgment shall await the crystallization of certain actions. Therefore, under Article 23(3), the Court is conferred with wide discretion in the fashioning the remedy which would permit interim reading in.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Best Practice: The Case of South Africa</strong></p>

South Africa is one of the jurisdictions that have adopted the mode of interim reading in during the period of suspension of invalidity. To illustrate the point, I will consider two judgements. The first is the case of <a href="https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2018/30.pdf">Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v. Prince</a>. In this case, the Constitutional Court declared Sections 4(b) and 5(b)of the Drug Trafficking Act to be inconsistent with Section 14 of South Africa’s Constitution to the extent that it criminalized the private use or cultivation of Cannabis. It then proceeded to suspend the order of invalidity for 24 months. However, it went on to provide what the sections would read during the 24 months and made it clear that the reading-in would fall away upon the coming into operation of the correction by Parliament.

The second decision is <a href="https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2023/21.pdf">VJV and Another v Minister of Social Development and Another</a>, where the Constitutional Court declared Section 40 of the Children’s Act unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded permanent life partners. The order was suspended for 24 months but the Court went on to provide that during that period, the words ‘or permanent life partner’ would be read into the Section.  It continued to state that if Parliament did not remedy the constitutional defect, the Section would be deemed to read as set out in the reading in.

The advantage that such an approach has is that legislative inertia is effectively curtailed. The threat that an interim reading in will become permanent if Parliament does not do its work ultimately vindicates the rights of the affected group and divorces the enjoyment of rights from the mercy of Parliament.

<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>

If one takes the example of the Joseph Kaberia Kahinga Case, the High Court analysed the Nigerian Criminal Code Act and the Indian Penal Code as Statutes that contain clear calibrations of the offence of robbery. In Kenya’s case, the addition of the word ‘and’ in place of ‘or’ between the second and third ingredient under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code would have removed the ambiguity and made the Section constitutional in the interim.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">The issuance of an order of reading in during the period of suspension of invalidity until Parliament made a correction to the Penal Code would have made all the difference. The ten thousand people that Katiba Institute pointed out had been convicted of an unconstitutional offence would not have been an issue. Further, the offences relating to robbery are capital offences for which we cannot afford to release convicts.  A simple order of reading in would have prevented all this. The <em>Kaberia</em> case is a clear signal that Kenyan Courts must not simply stop at suspension of invalidity but must go beyond to provide a reading in order to serve as an interim relief pending the remedying of the identified constitutional defect by Parliament.</p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13322" class="post-13322 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-article-21-and-the-right-to-life category-comparative-constitutional-law category-dignity category-kenya tag-attempted-suicide tag-high-court-of-kenya tag-suicide">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/guest-post-the-high-court-of-kenya-strikes-down-the-criminalisation-of-attempted-suicide/" rel="bookmark">Guest Post: The High Court of Kenya Strikes Down the Criminalisation of Attempted&nbsp;Suicide</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/guest-post-the-high-court-of-kenya-strikes-down-the-criminalisation-of-attempted-suicide/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-10T16:41:46+00:00">January 10, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/guest-post-the-high-court-of-kenya-strikes-down-the-criminalisation-of-attempted-suicide/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

<p>[This is a guest post by <strong>Miracle Okoth Mudeyi</strong>.]</p>

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />

<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p>

In January 2025, the High Court of Kenya issued a landmark judgment in <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/6/eng@2025-01-09">Kenya National Commission on Human Rights &amp; 2 others v Attorney General; Director of Public Prosecutions &amp; 3 others</a>, signaling a seismic shift in the nation’s approach to mental health. At the core of the petition was Section 226 of the Penal Code, a vestige of colonial-era legislation that criminalized attempted suicide as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both. This blog post interrogates the judgment, contextualizes its implications, and explores the broader conversation on decolonizing Kenya’s mental health laws.

Few remnants of colonial-era law have proven as enduring—or as detrimental—as the criminalization of attempted suicide in Kenya. Rooted in a bygone legal framework imposed by colonial powers, Section 226 of the Penal Code punishes those who attempt to end their lives with imprisonment or fines. This punitive approach, however, fails to recognize suicidal ideation for what it often is: a cry for help from individuals grappling with mental health problems. It criminalizes the vulnerable, deepens stigma, and pushes those at their most desperate further from the support they need.

The Court’s declaration of Section 226 as unconstitutional marks a significant step in dismantling the oppressive legacy of colonial laws that criminalize mental health crises. This landmark decision not only upholds the progressive values of Kenya’s Constitution but also paves the way for a more compassionate, human-rights-centered approach to mental health.

Yet, this victory is tempered by <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/73/eng@2023-09-12">the Supreme Court’s</a> earlier reluctance to embrace similar principles in a related case. The divergence between these two constitutional courts underscores the stakes of Kenya’s legal transformation: will we cling to outdated punitive frameworks, or will we rise to the constitutional promise of dignity, equality, and justice for all?

<p><strong><em>The High Court: A Beacon of Progressive Jurisprudence</em></strong></p>

The High Court’s decision in Petition E045 of 2022 demonstrates an untiring commitment to constitutional principles. The petitioners, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and the Kenya Psychiatric Association, argued that Section 226 violates Articles 27, 28, 43 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, dignity, the highest attainable standard of health, and the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court concurred, holding that criminalizing attempted suicide stigmatizes mental illness and deters individuals from seeking help, exacerbating Kenya’s mental health crisis.

The High Court’s decision in Petition E045 of 2022 is a testament to its role as a defender of constitutionalism and human rights. By declaring Section 226 of the Penal Code unconstitutional, the Court confronted the colonial relic that criminalized attempted suicide, a provision that perpetuated stigma and failed to address the underlying issue of mental illness. This judgment is rooted in the recognition that suicidal ideation is not a crime but a manifestation of mental health challenges requiring empathy and medical intervention. <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/6/eng@2025-01-09">(Para. 92).</a>

Key to the Court’s reasoning was the recognition of suicidal ideation as a manifestation of mental illness, as defined under the <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/2022/TheMentalHealth_Amendment_Act_2022.pdf">Mental Health (Amendment) Act, 2022.</a> The Court’s reliance on Article 2(4) of the Constitution—which invalidates any law inconsistent with the Constitution—and its emphasis on Kenya’s obligations under international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reflect a progressive, human-rights-based approach to mental health. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the application of <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398">Articles 27, 28, 43, and 54 of the Constitution. Article 27</a> guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination, while Article 28 affirms the inherent dignity of every individual. The criminalization of attempted suicide violates these principles by stigmatizing individuals with mental health issues and subjecting them to punitive measures instead of care. Moreover, Article 43’s guarantee of the right to the highest attainable standard of health—including mental health—underscores the state’s duty to provide supportive rather than punitive responses to mental health crises.

The Court’s judgment also drew on international law, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which obligates states to eliminate discriminatory laws and practices. Kenya’s ratification of the CRPD and its recognition of mental health as a disability under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act, 2022, reinforced the Court’s determination that Section 226 was out of step with both domestic and international legal standards <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398">(Para.86).</a>

Importantly, the judgment acknowledged the societal stigma surrounding mental health and the chilling effect of criminal sanctions on individuals seeking help. Through the framing attempted suicide as a health issue rather than a legal infraction, the Court affirmed its commitment to transformative constitutionalism, a doctrine that prioritizes the lived realities of marginalized groups and seeks to advance substantive equality. <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398">(Para.84)</a> This decision contrasts sharply with the Supreme Court’s earlier reluctance to adopt a similar approach in cases involving mental health. By anchoring its reasoning in the Constitution’s progressive values and Kenya’s international obligations, the High Court set a precedent for compassionate and forward-looking jurisprudence.

The judgment’s impact extends beyond the legal sphere. It challenges policymakers to adopt a holistic approach to mental health, emphasizing prevention, care, and rehabilitation. It also signals a broader shift in Kenya’s legal culture, one that seeks to dismantle colonial-era laws and replace them with frameworks that reflect contemporary human rights standards.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>A Missed Opportunity in Mental Health Jurisprudence for the Supreme Court of Kenya</strong></p>

By contrast, the Supreme Court’s judgment in <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/73/eng@2023-09-12">MMG v Tribunal Appointed to Investigate the Conduct of Hon. Lady Justice MMG</a> represents a significant missed opportunity to engage with the transformative promise of Kenya&#8217;s 2010 Constitution. Instead of applying a progressive, compassionate jurisprudence that addresses the intersection of mental health and justice, the Court borrowed from colonial-era laws, specifically the Mental Health Act and UK-based frameworks, to assess mental incapacity. This reliance on outdated colonial relics contradicts the transformative intentions of the Constitution, which demands a more localized, human rights-centered approach (<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/73/eng@2023-09-12">Para.90)</a>

The judgment failed to adequately consider how contemporary Kenyan jurisprudence might have evolved to recognize the complexities of mental health, particularly in public office. The Court’s adherence to the British Mental Health Act 1983 and the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, which were designed for different legal, cultural, and historical contexts, represents a failure to craft an indigenous response to mental health issues within the judiciary. Such an approach undermines the Constitution&#8217;s commitment to dignity, equality, and non-discrimination, particularly for individuals with mental health challenges.

The Supreme Court failed to address systemic barriers faced by persons with mental disabilities in professional settings. Instead, it perpetuated the notion that mental illness inherently undermines competence, a perspective increasingly discredited in global human rights discourse. This decision’s implications extend beyond the petitioner. It signals to employers and institutions that punitive responses to mental health challenges remain acceptable, undermining efforts to foster inclusive environments. Moreover, the Court’s reliance on outdated principles, despite referencing international instruments like the CRPD, exposed a reluctance to embrace transformative jurisprudence.

The decision missed the chance to set a higher evidentiary threshold for proving incapacity. While the court acknowledged the petitioner’s prior professional competence, it relied heavily on generalized observations and untested medical opinions. A rigorous analysis of the petitioner’s performance and accommodations—or lack thereof—could have illuminated pathways for supporting judges with mental health conditions while preserving judicial integrity.

<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>

The High Court’s judgment in Petition E045 of 2022 signals the twilight of Kenya’s colonial relic mental health law regime. Through the alignment of its reasoning with constitutional principles and international obligations, the Court has set a precedent for compassionate jurisprudence. However, the Supreme Court’s earlier reluctance to embrace similar reasoning serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the need for judicial coherence.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">As Kenya charts its path toward a more inclusive and rights-based legal framework, the Constitution remains a guiding light. The decriminalization of attempted suicide is not merely a legal issue but a moral imperative, reflecting our collective humanity and commitment to justice. The dying embers of punitive colonial laws must be extinguished to ignite the flames of a brighter, more compassionate future.</p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13314" class="post-13314 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-the-police tag-command-responsibility tag-national-security tag-police">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya-ii-the-sirens-are-calling-guest-post/" rel="bookmark">Command Responsibility, National Security, and the High Court of Kenya &#8211; II: The Sirens are Calling [Guest&nbsp;Post]</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya-ii-the-sirens-are-calling-guest-post/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-10T07:46:08+00:00">January 10, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/10/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya-ii-the-sirens-are-calling-guest-post/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

<p>[This is a guest post by <strong>Joshua Malidzo Nyawa</strong>.]</p>

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />

<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p>

If there is one state agency that has yet to grasp or even tried to understand the demands, provisions, and leitmotifs of the 2010 Constitution, it is the National Police Service. The agency operates as if the Constitution is a mere suggestion and that the State grants rights. Further, the agency walks and lives as if it is an extension of the executive branch.

Contrary to the expectation of the people and the constitutional scheme which designed the National Police Service to be independent under the Inspector General of Police (IG), subsequent IGs have kowtowed the service to the presidency and transformed the service into an entity to execute the wishes of the presidency. As such, the National Police Service has consequently been used to disperse protests on flimsy grounds, violently. Yesterday’s <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31#top">High Court’s Nchebere Judgment</a> ended this trend by entrenching an extra layer of constitutional accountability and opening up the window to hold the Inspector General of Police personally liable through the command responsibility doctrine. <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya/">Gautam</a> has provided an elaborate background to the case on this blog, and this piece entirely adopts that background.

<p><strong>Elusive Police Accountability in Kenya</strong></p>

To fully understand the judgment’s impact, it is necessary to put context to the decision. Before 2010, the national police service was known as the Police Force and was domiciled within the executive. This had a historical context. Colonialists, the Imperial British East Africa Company, used the police to protect the company’s commercial interests and the settlers.

Postcolonial regimes inherited this idea of the police. The police were used to protect the welfare and interests of the these regimes, including <a href="https://www.matharesocialjustice.org/social-justice-centres/the-unreformable-police-force/">repressing any dissident voices that questioned the authority of the new tycoons</a>. The methods of repression included arrests, enforced disappearances and even assassinations. Therefore, the police were used as agents of brutality and human rights abuses. During the Moi era, a special police branch that executed Moi’s errands was domiciled in his office. The book <a href="https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/kenia/01828.pdf">‘We Lived to Tell: The Nyayo House Story’</a> details how Moi used the Police. The <a href="https://issafrica.org/iss-today/police-reforms-in-kenya-crucial-to-restore-public-confidence">Commission of Inquiry into the Post-Election Violence in Kenya</a> also submitted a damning report on the operations of the police force.

&nbsp;In 2010, Kenyans changed the name of the force. They called the entity National police service with several other reforms, including delinking the National police service from the executive, forming an oversight agency and including human rights principles in their affairs. Despite these reforms, the entity has largely remained unaccountable, with one judge <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/71034">remarking</a>: &#8220;This application is a clear indication that the security arms of this country have not tried to understand and appreciate the provision of this new Bill of Rights. It also shows yester years impunity are still thriving in our executive arm of the government.&#8221;

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Autochthonous Command Responsibility</strong></p>

In this case, the applicants sought to hold the IG &nbsp;personally responsible for the acts of the officers under his command under the <a href="https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/command-responsibility-icrc-eng.pdf">doctrine of command responsibility</a> on two limbs. Firstly, for issuing unconstitutional orders and directives to officers under his command that resulted in unlawful and excessive use of force to disperse protests (<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31#top">Para 86</a>). Secondly, he abdicated his responsibility of effectively controlling police officers under his command who violated&nbsp;the Constitution. The IG failed to take any measures towards investigating and disciplining officers who violated&nbsp;the Constitution&nbsp;by employing unlawful force to disperse the protesters. (<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31#top">Para 88</a>)&nbsp;

The applicants relied on the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals such as ICTY, ICTR, and ICC to ask the court to apply the doctrine. The Kenyan High Court, however, took a rather interesting direction. It located the doctrine of command responsibility within Kenyan law. First, under Article 245, the IG exercises independent command over the National Police Service. Second, Section 8 of the <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2011/11A" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">National Police Service Act</a> also vests the overall and independent command of the national police service in the IG. Based on these provisions, the Judge developed an autochthonous doctrine of command responsibility founded on constitutional and statutory provisions. The judge held as follows:

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
103. Irrespective of whether these provisions are considered from the perspective of the doctrine of command responsibility or any other doctrine, by whatever name called, they all lead to the conclusion that, where, as in the instant case, the Inspector General violently descends upon members of the public exercising their rights to assemble and express themselves in a manner endorsed by&nbsp;<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the Constitution</a>&nbsp;in the Bill of Rights, to curtail or in any other way to disrupt their appropriation of these rights, he will thereby be held accountable and personally responsible for the consequences that may inevitably ensue. The buck stops with him, so to speak.
</blockquote>

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Piercing the Veil of &nbsp;Immunity</strong></p>

Kenyan legislation is replete with provisions granting immunity to state and public officers. Some courts have previously interpreted such provisions as absolute and struck out suits filed against public officers. Even when those public officers have acted on a frolic of their own, some judges have let them escape without being held accountable. Section 66 (1) of the&nbsp;<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2011/11A" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">National Police Service Act</a> is such a provision. The judge, however, held that the provision and the Act are subject to the Constitution, and <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31#top">none of its provisions can be read or interpreted as abrogating the inherent and inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights.</a> By finding so, the judge ensured that no rogue police officer would escape accountability by relying on this provision.

<p><strong>Protecting the Right to Protest</strong></p>

Successive regimes have relied on flimsy grounds to disperse protesters violently. Such claims include a threat to national security, nuisance to the public, and undisclosed security information. In this case, the IG repeated similar claims. The court was quick to dismiss the claims as follows: first, the police have <a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31#top">an obligation to protect not just the people of Kenya but also their rights and freedoms.</a> Secondly, if infiltrators were to join the protest, it was the responsibility of the IG to ensure national security in compliance with the Constitution. Third, the right to protest is a constitutional right not granted by the state. Its limitation must meet the strict test under Article 24 of the Constitution, provided by the law, proportionality and justifiable. The judge, in reminding the police that rights are inherent and not granted by the state, effectively protected the subsequent exercise of the right to protest. In other words, the mere invocation of the word national security or public safety cannot limit human rights. There must be more to this beyond the laundering and selling of fear.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-justify">The decision is a welcome relief as it enforces Kenya’s constitutional architecture. It grants Kenyans another layer to enforce accountability in the police service. By holding that the Inspector General of police can be held personally liable for the actions of officers under him, the Court sent a message to the National Police Service to respect and protect human rights principles in the&nbsp; Constitution. The decision is also another siren reminding the police that the powers granted to the Inspector General of the Police under Kenyan laws are not unfettered, and he can only exercise such powers in accordance with the law. Suppose the Inspector General of Police steps outside the orbit of law or abdicates the responsibility of ensuring that the officers under his command comply with the law in executing their mandate. In that case, Kenyans can hold the Inspector General of Police personally accountable without suing the state, a previously failed remedy to entrench accountability in the national police service.</p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13295" class="post-13295 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-comparative-constitutional-law category-freedom-of-association category-kenya category-national-security category-the-police tag-freedom-of-association-2 tag-high-court-of-kenya tag-kenya tag-national-security tag-police tag-right-to-strike">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya/" rel="bookmark">Command Responsibility, National Security, and the High Court of&nbsp;Kenya</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-08T17:14:54+00:00">January 8, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/command-responsibility-national-security-and-the-high-court-of-kenya/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

In a significant judgment handed down on the last day of 2024 (<a href="https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/16607/eng@2024-12-31">Kenya Human Rights Commission and Ors vs Japhet Koome Nchebere and Ors</a>), the High Court of Kenya held the Inspector-General of Police personally liable for acts of police brutality upon protestors.

The facts were that on April 14 2024, in response to a strike and picket by the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists&#8217; Union (KMPDU) on February 29 2024, where individuals had been gravely injured in police action, the IG of Police stated that he had directed police commanders to deal &#8220;firmly and decisively&#8221; with the strikers, claiming that they had become a &#8220;public nuisance.&#8221; The applicants argued that the IG of Police had violated multiple constitutional rights (such as the freedom of association, the right to strike etc.), and that the violent actions of the police were directly attributable to him, under the international law concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility">command responsibility</a>. Notably, the IG of Police did not file a response to the applicants.

The absence of a response meant that the Court took the facts pleaded by the applicants as established. Thus, while there was no factual contest, the judgment is nonetheless important for setting out certain principles. First, the Court noted that an executive organ (such as the police) was not empowered to interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights, except under and in accordance with an established law. In the present case, as the protestors were exercising their constitutional rights, there was no question of the executive taking cover of any existing law to interfere with those rights. While the IG of Police had cited reports of &#8220;inconvenience&#8221; being caused by the strikers due to holding up traffic, the Court noted that the basis of such information had not been provided, and therefore, the State had failed to discharge its burden of showing that its infringement of constitutional rights was valid (paras 79-80). Indeed &#8211; remarkably &#8211; the Court read these &#8220;reports&#8221; &#8211; as being efforts to &#8220;lay the ground&#8221; for interfering with the medics&#8217; constitutional rights: as close an accusation of mala fides as you will see! (para 81)

Secondly, in a crucial observation, the Court noted that under the Constitution, the IG of Police headed a &#8220;national security organ.&#8221; The Court then gave a very interesting interpretation to this: national security organs, it held, &#8220;have the obligation of not just protecting the people of Kenya but their rights and freedoms as well.&#8221; (para 76) In other words, rather than resorting to the standard gambit of balancing the exercise of rights and freedoms against &#8220;national security&#8221; (in which &#8220;national security&#8221; invariably prevails), the Court interpreted &#8220;national security&#8221; to include the effective exercise of those rights and freedoms. This is a potentially critical interpretive shift, and we wait to see if future judgments will develop on this.

Thirdly, in light of what had transpired, the Court read the IG of Police&#8217;s direction to deal &#8220;firmly and decisively&#8221; with the protestors as a threat to disrupt the demonstration (para 83). In other words, instead of simply taking the words at their literal meaning, the Court looked at them in the context of what had happened, and in the context of who the authority was that had used the words, and to what end. This sensitivity is important: to take an analogy, it is akin to a court being sensitive to dog-whistles in a hate speech case or innuendo in a defamation case. The very reason, of course, why the IG of Police used ostensibly neutral language such as &#8220;firmly and decisively&#8221; was to maintain plausible deniability for what happened; the Court&#8217;s determination to examine his words in their context denied him that plausible deniability.

Fourthly, on the argument that there was information that &#8220;non-medics&#8221; were planning to join the strike and cause disruption, the Court held that this did not justify interfering with the rights of the protesting medics themselves; rather, it was the job of the Police to identify &#8220;infiltrators&#8221; and prevent them from disrupting the protest. This is, of course, a form of the doctrine of proportionality, which is specially important in these kinds of protest cases, where the perceived threat of &#8220;infiltrators&#8221; causing violence is inevitably deployed by the State to either shut down the protest in advance, or subsequently justify violent action against the protesters. The Court&#8217;s finding here denied the State recourse to the &#8220;infiltrators&#8221; defence, and required it to use more proportionate measures, which would not render the right to demonstrate and to strike meaningless. (paras 84-85)

And fifthly, the Court held the IG of Police personally liable for the actions of the police. While the Court did not affirmatively incorporate the international law doctrine of command responsibility into Kenyan domestic law, it did hold that the existing constitutional and statutory framework &#8211; which put the IG of Police in a position of command and responsibility over the actions of the police &#8211; was sufficient to fix liability. As the Court noted, under the National Police Service Act, &#8220;the National Police Service is under the command of the Inspector General and even in a case where he has delegated tasks that would otherwise be performed by himself, he is not thereby divested of the responsibility of the exercise of powers or the duties delegated.&#8221; (para 101)

This is particularly crucial from the perspective of accountability for police violence: while various proposals have been mooted before (such as compensation from the police officers directly involved), a variant of command responsibility as a constitutional principle has perhaps not yet been attempted. Given that in hierarchical structures such as the police force, directions invariably come from the top, it shall be interesting to see if this does make a difference, going forward. Of course, the standard counter-argument is that this will prevent police officers from making good-faith decisions under trying circumstances. In the present case, we did not have the benefit of this argument, as the IG of Police did not appear; however, in future cases, if the argument is made, it will be interesting to see how the courts deal with that.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">In sum, therefore, in many ways, the High Court&#8217;s decision establishes certain important foundations for ensuring legal accountability for police violence. It remains to be seen if these foundations will now be built upon going forward. </p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13285" class="post-13285 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-delimitation category-delimitation-federalism category-elections-and-voting-rights category-federalism tag-delimitation tag-elections-2 tag-voting-rights">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/guest-post-the-supreme-court-and-delimitation-in-jammu-and-kashmir/" rel="bookmark">Guest Post: The Supreme Court and Delimitation in Jammu and&nbsp;Kashmir</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/guest-post-the-supreme-court-and-delimitation-in-jammu-and-kashmir/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-02T16:27:08+00:00">January 2, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/guest-post-the-supreme-court-and-delimitation-in-jammu-and-kashmir/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

<p>[This is a guest post by <strong>Anshul Dalmia</strong>.]</p>

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />

The Supreme Court in the case of <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/98-haji-abdul-gani-khan-v-union-of-india-13-feb-2023-458867.pdf">Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India</a>, heard a case challenging the establishment of the Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Vardarajan has earlier on this <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2023/03/05/deepening-fait-accompli-the-supreme-courts-jk-delimitation-judgment-i-guest-post/">blog</a> examined the first two aspects of the judgment i.e., the violation of Article 170 of the Constitution and the <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15242/1/re-organisation_act,2019.pdf">Jammu &amp; Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019</a> (‘J&amp;K RA 2019’). In the blog-post, I seek to evaluate the legitimacy of the Election Commission in conducting delimitation in J&amp;K.

The petitioners had contended that <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131967211/">Section 60(1)(c)</a> and <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60068780/">Section 62(3)</a> of the J&amp;K RA 2019 were not only violative of the Constitution but also were contradictory to each other. These provisions simultaneously conferred the power of delimitation both on the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission. Section 62(3) states that the ‘readjustment’ of constituencies ‘shall’ be done by the Delimitation Commission whereas Section 60(1)(c) mentions that ‘delimitation’ of the constituencies ‘may’ be determined by the Election Commission.

While the Court valiantly attempted to reconcile both these conflicting provisions, I seek to highlight the flaws in both the reasoning espoused and the conclusions arrived at. I argue that the continued presence of both provisions in the J&amp;K RA 2019, first, leads to immense confusion regarding who the authority responsible for delimitation is, and second, leaves open the dangerous possibility of the Election Commission conducting the delimitation process.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Questioning the Means</strong></p>

The Court, when confronted with this clear legislative conflict, held that while the process of readjustment contemplated by 62(2) is nothing but the exercise of delimitation under Section 60(1), the delimitation of constituencies ought to have been by the Delimitation Commission. The Court fails to provide any reasoning as to why the Delimitation Commission was chosen over the Election Commission. However, a holistic reading of the judgment can indicate two possible reasons. Firstly, that <a href="https://ceojk.nic.in/PDF/The%20jammu%20and%20kashmir%20representation%20of%20the%20People%20Act%201957.pdf">Section 3 of the J&amp;K Representation of People’s Act 1950</a> laid down the requirement of the establishment of the Delimitation Commission which was tasked with distributing the seats in the Legislative Assembly to single member territorial constituencies according to enumerated factors. Secondly, the usage of the word ‘shall’ under Section 60(1)(c) highlighted a legislative mandate which had to be adhered to.

I argue that while these might be potential reasons to prefer the Delimitation Commission, they are not adequate enough to completely disregard the authority of the Election Commission, which has statutorily been provided. Thus, if the Court chose to read down or ignore a statutory provision in case of a conflict, it had to do so by resolving the same through the application of the doctrine of harmonious construction. In <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59913038/">Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Coromandal Sacks</a>, it was held that the doctrine of harmonious construction must be used to construe two seemingly conflicting provisions in a manner which irons out the conflict. Thus, it is imperative to navigate the myriad ways through which the doctrine of harmonious construction actually plays out in judicial interpretation. I depict three ways in which it does so.

The first way is when consistency within conflicting interpretations can be successfully reached without lightly assuming that <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77966/">what the Parliament gave by one hand, took it away from the other</a>. The second is when there is a <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153663510/">conflict between a general and a specific provision</a>. The general provision operates, save and except in situations covered by the specific provision. The third is in cases where it is ‘impossible’ to reconcile the conflict: then and only then, the <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77966/">legislative provision might be struck down</a>. Thus, while the essence of the doctrine of harmonious construction is to give effect to both the legislative provisions, it provides for an opportunity to the Courts to strike down the provision.

In the current case, I argue that the facts fall into the third category since there was a clear case of irreconcilable conflict. The conflict between authorities responsible for delimitation cannot be reconciled in any manner i.e., either you have the power to adjust the boundaries of electoral constituencies or you do not. The inability to carve out independent spheres of operation for these two rivalling provisions while keeping both of them in operation, ought to be critiqued. However, it still remains unclear why the Court chose to disregard the Election Commission’s mandate over the Delimitation Commission.

A possible indication might be the usage of the words ‘shall’ which would indicate a specific interpretation which could have automatically overruled the general interpretation marked by the presence of ‘may’. Due to this reason, it could be that the Delimitation Commission was preferred over the Election Commission by the Court. In response, I argue that first, while the word ‘shall’ could indicate a ‘mandatory’ effect, it does not necessarily depict a ‘specific’ interpretation; and second, that despite the presence of these words (shall or may), the <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/718040/">Courts have been instructed</a> to not jump to any conclusions but rather to contextually assess the whole scope, purpose, and the consequences of the statute. In light of the J&amp;K RA 2019, the Court could not singularly prefer the Delimitation Commission on the pretext of a mandatory or a specific interpretative directive.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">Overall, I highlight that the Court not only failed to use the doctrine of harmonious construction completely but also did not provide any categorical reason for allowing the continuing power of the Election Commission to delimit constituencies.</p>

<p><strong>Dangers with the End</strong></p>

In the above part, I have sought to emphasize solely on the glaring loopholes present within the (absence of any) reasoning espoused in this case. The legitimacy of the Delimitation Commission to conduct delimitation, as upheld by the Court is not questioned. In this part however, I highlight the dangers with not striking down either provision despite an apparent conflict i.e., the possibility of the Election Commission doing the delimitation has been kept open. I aim to draw examples from Assam wherein the Election Commission was mandated to conduct delimitation as per <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1663/5/a1950-43.pdf">Section 8A of the RP Act 1950</a>.

First, it has been depicted in the case of <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/155-anoop-baranwal-v-union-of-india-2-mar-2023-463622.pdf">Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India</a> that the appointment of the Election Commissioners of India is executive-driven. In this case, concerns were raised by the Supreme Court regarding the feasibility of free elections within the country as the officials spearheading the supposedly independent body were appointed by the Central Government themselves. This led the Court in providing an alternative appointment process for the Election Commissioners of India. However, the <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/19721?view_type=browse&amp;sam_handle=123456789/1362#:~:text=An%20Act%20to%20regulate%20the,connected%20therewith%20or%20incidental%20thereto.">Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Term of Office) Act, 2023</a> overruled the Anoop Baranwal decision and re-instated the original executive-heavy appointment process. This raises similar concerns about the Election Commission not being independent and fair in their approach.

In light of this, I argue that if the Election Commission is allowed to undertake the delimitation of state constituencies, an extremely political process; it could lead to inclusion of arbitrary factors and whimsical decisions. For instance, the Election Commission could adopt unfair methods and means of re-drawing of state boundaries or providing reservation, which could in a way benefit the ruling party within the State. This is well-depicted by Parvin Sultana in their well-researched piece on the ‘<a href="https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/38/commentary/politics-delimitation-assam.html">Politics of Delimitation in Assam</a>’ wherein they highlight problematic politically-motivated boundary permutations undertaken by the Election Commission leading to skewed representation. Hence, the Election Commission is structurally not the most independent body which ought to be tasked with such a significant task.

It may be argued that the same concerns pertain to the Delimitation Commission, which is also executive-appointed. However, <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2004/1/A2002-33.pdf">the Delimitation Act 2002</a> streamlines the process of appointing associate members who are tasked with bringing state-specific issues and problems before the Commission. Additionally, the Act allows the Delimitation Commission to call on subject-matter experts such as topographical experts, scholars, and demographers. It also mandates the Commission to conduct effective public consultations in the State so that every person has the equal opportunity to raise concerns vis-à-vis the delimitation process. While this may not secure complete independence, with the Election Commission being tasked with delimitation, these processes, which are substantive safeguards and checks on the arbitrary functioning of the delimitation authority, are conveniently absent. This indicates the <a href="https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/38/commentary/politics-delimitation-assam.html">possibility</a> of arbitrary apportionment of seats and disenfranchisement of indigenous communities.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">The Supreme Court by not striking down the legislative provision which allows the Election Commission to undertake the delimitation process leaves it open for future political parties to overstep the legitimacy of the established Delimitation Commission and ignore the effective safeguards placed. The dangers in Assam have been very well-documented and it will be a constitutional imbroglio if the Election Commission is allowed to participate in the re-adjustment of constituencies.</p>
		</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	<footer class="entry-footer">
		<div class="entry-bottom small-part">
					</div>
	</footer><!-- .entry-footer -->
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id="post-13278" class="post-13278 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-comparative-constitutional-law category-freedom-of-religion category-horizontal-rights category-kenya category-non-discrimination category-right-to-education tag-horizontal-rights-2 tag-non-discrimination-2 tag-religion tag-religious-expression tag-religious-freedom tag-right-to-education tag-schools">
		<header class="entry-header">
		<h1 class="entry-title"><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/01/guest-post-the-kenyan-high-courts-decision-on-horizontal-application-of-the-rights-to-religion-non-discrimination-and-education/" rel="bookmark">Guest Post: The Kenyan High Court&#8217;s Decision on Horizontal Application of the Rights to Religion, Non-Discrimination and&nbsp;Education</a></h1>					<div class="entry-meta small-part">
				<span class="posted-on"><i class="fa fa-clock-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/01/guest-post-the-kenyan-high-courts-decision-on-horizontal-application-of-the-rights-to-religion-non-discrimination-and-education/" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2025-01-01T17:29:24+00:00">January 1, 2025</time></a></span><span class="byline"> <i class="fa fa-user space-left-right"></i><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/">Gautam Bhatia</a></span></span><span class="comments-link"><i class="fa fa-comments-o space-left-right"></i><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/01/01/guest-post-the-kenyan-high-courts-decision-on-horizontal-application-of-the-rights-to-religion-non-discrimination-and-education/#respond">Leave a comment</a></span>			</div><!-- .entry-meta -->
			</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<div class="entry-content">

<p>[This is a guest post by <strong>Masoom Sanyal</strong>.]</p>

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" />

The High Court of Kenya has rendered a significant decision on horizontal rights, especially the right to freedom of religion, conscience, belief and opinion, in <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y27eb2jhkyqLkfxqASrnopr8fYv5iyGf/view">Mohamed Arif Khan v. the Board of Directors</a>. The case involved a question of whether Muslim students studying in a private school were entitled to offer obligatory prayers as required under their Islamic faith within the school premises. The court considered the application of fundamental rights and the obligation to uphold them even on private parties and not just the State, which flows directly from the horizontal rights guarantee contained in <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf">Article 20</a> of the 2010 constitution. The court categorically held that the Muslim students are entitled to offer obligatory prayers within the premises of the school, that their rights are protected under Article 32 of the Kenyan Constitution, and are available even against the school, which is a private institution. In this essay, I analyze the decision of the court as a landmark in horizontal rights jurisprudence and look at how the court balanced the competing rights of the pupils vis-à-vis the school in this case.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Background</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-justify">These petitions sought the protection of the fundamental rights of the Muslim students studying in the Respondent school as well as in other learning institutions in the country by way of a declaration that (i) the Muslims students had the right to offer five obligatory prayers as required by Islam within the premises of the schools, (ii) the right was protected by Article 32, Article 27(4) and (5) of the Constitution of Kenya (“the Constitution”), and (iii) a declaration that the conduct of the Respondent School in prohibiting the students from offering prayers amounted to discriminatory conduct, violative of the fundamental rights of the students.</p>

The School sought to argue that it did not accord special treatment to any faith and therefore no special treatment could be accorded to Muslim students – and therefore, by way of inference, its conduct was in fact one of equal treatment of all students as against discriminatory treatment of Muslim students. I call this the ‘equal treatment of all argument’.

<p class="has-text-align-justify">The Court considered three main issues in its judgement: (I) Whether the petition was moot, (II) Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, applied to the school (‘Horizontal Rights Question’), and (III) Whether the impugned policies of the school violated the Constitution.</p>

The school sought to stifle the petition at the threshold by arguing that it was a moot petition, since most of the parents had either withdrawn or transferred their children, and therefore there remained no live controversy. The Court turned down this argument by holding that it was settled in a long line of judgements on the doctrine of mootness that generally courts would dismiss such cases where there is no live controversy, but where “a compelling constitutional issue” is raised, the court may proceed with the case. Since the issue here extended not only to the petitioners’ children but also to other Muslim students in the school, the court held that there was a substantial question of law involved that required interpretation of various constitutional provisions and the outcome was a matter of great public interest since it would affect the entire education sector. The court then proceeded to consider the issues of horizontal application of Bill of Rights and the contours of the petitioners’ rights.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Horizontal Application of the Bill of Rights</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-justify">The school contended that it was a private institution, and the court should exercise judicial restraint in interfering with its internal administration “unless there is a manifest violation” of rights.</p>

<a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf">Article 20(1)</a> of the Constitution provides that the Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all State organs and all persons. According to <a href="https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf">Article 260</a>, “person” includes a company, association or other body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated. It quoted the 2014 decision in <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/95512/">Rose Wangui Mambo v. Limuru Country Club</a> which held in respect of a private members club that “the respondents cannot wave a private entity card to bar the court from assuming jurisdiction where there are allegations of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms.” On the basis of a reading of the Article 20(1) and the definition of “persons” under Article 260, as well as previous case laws, the court arrived at a finding that the school is a “person” within the meaning of Article 20(1) and the Bill of Rights applies to it. Therefore, the Court had the jurisdiction to enquire into the violation of fundamental rights by the school.

<p class="has-text-align-justify"><strong>Differential Treatment or Discrimination?</strong></p>

The petitioners countered the school’s ‘equal treatment of all argument’ by offering an alternative interpretation of equality, known as ‘substantive equality’. They argued that all different treatment is not discriminatory, nor does all similar treatment mean equality. The argument was that although the guidelines issued by the school were apparently neutral, they had an adverse effect on Muslim students who are required to perform obligatory prayers as part of their faith and cannot perform them in school. This, it was argued, constituted “indirect discrimination” towards them. The petitioners contended th

Failures

DNS Queries

TCP Connections

HTTP Requests

URL

Response Headers

Response Body

Resolver

Raw Measurement Data

Raw Measurement Data

Failures

DNS Queries

TCP Connections

HTTP Requests

URL

Response Headers

Response Body

Resolver

Raw Measurement DataDownload JSONExpand All

Raw Measurement Data

Raw Measurement Data