FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W227554554> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W227554554 startingPage "361" @default.
• W227554554 abstract "Dr. Abhishek Singhvi's article, Constitution and Individual Rights: Diverse Perspectives, provides an instructive survey of the status of individual rights in India, as specified and guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, and specifically through the articles in the constitution that set out the Fundamental Rights. He notes the shifting balance between the demands of acting in the public interest and upholding individual rights and claims that, as general trend, the judiciary generally has struck the correct balance.1 Like others, Singhvi laments what he calls the chasm between the charter of rights set out in the constitution and what he terms their enforcement-the sustained striving to operationalize them, in real actualisation terms.2 Overall, the Indian Constitution has certainly been a vital anchor for individual democratic freedoms. Since the constitution has its primary enforcer in the form of the judiciary, it may be helpful to provide a little political context. I will therefore focus my remarks around the two issues noted above-namely, the balancing of the public good and individual rights and the gap between specified rights and their achievements. Before I go any further, however, I should make clear that I write here not as a trained lawyer, nor as a scholarly expert in constitutional law. I approach such questions from an interest in political theory and in India's democratic practice.3 Singhvi's text conveys an overly optimistic sense of the status and progress of fundamental individual rights in India and of how the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary works toward upholding those rights. The central issue in that relationship focuses on which branch bears the responsibility and possesses the authority to enforce such rights, and where that authority originates. In what follows, I will not enumerate all the ways and instances whereby rights are restricted and suppressed, either by the Indian state or by members of the society acting against one another. That is, I do not want to dwell on the many and real socioeconomic constraints facing Indians in their pursuit of individual well-being through the acquisition and exercise of their rights. Instead, I will focus on the general predicament of Indian constitutionalism and its fraught relationship to democratic electoral politics. This requires discussing the basic arrangements concerning the guarantors of rights in the Indian polity, which shifts focus away from the constitutional text, and the jurisprudence immediately surrounding it, to the context whereby claims about rights are identified, lexically ordered, and traded-off or balanced. The fundamental issue at stake is irremediably, profoundly political: where, ultimately, do decision-making powers over such matters lie? Who decides how to balance definitions of the public good or interest or security and individual rights? Does this power ultimately lie with the elected representatives of the Indian people and those who speak in its name? On the contrary, does this power lie with the most senior judges on the Supreme Court, who are non-elected, fiercely protective of the procedures whereby they are appointed, and have come to view themselves as charged with the mission of advancing the Indian project? This conflict of authorities has now become quite central in contemporary India and has had consequences for individual rights. How and why has this issue-which is inherent in any system of limited government, based on the separation of powers-come to acquire such an edge in India today? The background story is fairly known. During the Nehru period, there was plenty of sparring between parliament and the judiciary about their respective powers and their demarcation; indeed, there were some acute confrontations. These were routine contests between the two branches (with probably, on balance, more deference shown by the judiciary to the legislative branch). …" @default.
• W227554554 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W227554554 creator A5066945549 @default.
• W227554554 date "2009-07-01" @default.
• W227554554 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W227554554 title "The Constitution and Individual Rights: A Comment on Dr. Abhishek Singhvi's India's Constitution and Individual Rights: Diverse Perspectives" @default.
• W227554554 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W227554554 type Work @default.
• W227554554 sameAs 227554554 @default.
• W227554554 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W227554554 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W227554554 hasAuthorship W227554554A5066945549 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C22299250 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C2777596936 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C2780169623 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C36566018 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W227554554 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C144024400 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C151730666 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C169437150 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C17744445 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C190253527 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C199539241 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C22299250 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C2776154427 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C2777596936 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C2779343474 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C2780169623 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C36566018 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C555826173 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C83009810 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C86803240 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C94625758 @default.
• W227554554 hasConceptScore W227554554C95691615 @default.
• W227554554 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W227554554 hasLocation W2275545541 @default.
• W227554554 hasOpenAccess W227554554 @default.
• W227554554 hasPrimaryLocation W2275545541 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W1557547874 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W160911200 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W2211491023 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W2289906116 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W2482796256 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W2736942997 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W296842398 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3121326356 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3121829894 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3122533266 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3123973544 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3124068180 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3125066336 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3125723931 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3138250231 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W3200215670 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W53159836 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W620920819 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W786864886 @default.
• W227554554 hasRelatedWork W2591931207 @default.
• W227554554 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W227554554 isParatext "false" @default.
• W227554554 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W227554554 magId "227554554" @default.
• W227554554 workType "article" @default.