Tarun Khaitan

In Koushal v Naz the Indian Supreme Court overturned a High Court judgment which had declared unconstitutional section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature‘. In doing so, it has rebranded gay and transgendered Indians as criminals. This case note explores some of the structural problems that led to this judgment. The first problem is the transformation of the Indian Supreme Court into a populist, quasi-legislative, institution that sees itself as a tool of governance. This has put significant pressure on its counter-majoritarian role. The second relates to the sheer size of the Court's docket (given its wide jurisdiction and lax standing rules), coupled with the Indian legal academy's inability and unwillingness to continuously demand judicial fidelity to the law. These factors have led to the normalisation of unreasoned or poorly-reasoned judgments and a breakdown of stare decisis.

It doesn’t care if your boss fires you because you happen to be a Sagittarius. But a hiring policy that requires a college degree could land him in court. Discrimination law can be counter-intuitive and controversial. Marrying doctrine from five jurisdictions with contemporary political philosophy, this book provides a theoretical defence of this now maturing legal project. More fundamentally, the value of discrimination law is to be found in its enabling us all to lead flourishing lives.

Part I gives a theoretically rigorous account of the identity and scope of discrimination law: what makes a legal norm a norm of discrimination law? What is the architecture of discrimination law? Unlike the approach popular with most textbooks, the discussion eschews list-based discussions of protected grounds, instead organising the doctrine in a clear thematic structure.

This definitional preamble sets the agenda for the next two parts. Part II draws upon the identity and structure of discrimination law to consider what the point of this area of law is. Attention to legal doctrine rules out many answers that ideologically-entrenched writers have offered to this question. The real point of discrimination law, this Part argues, is to remove abiding, pervasive, and substantial relative group disadvantage. This objective is best defended on liberal rather than egalitarian grounds.

Having considered its overall purpose, Part III gives a theoretical account of the duties imposed by discrimination law. A common definition of the antidiscrimination duty accommodates tools as diverse as direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and reasonable accommodation. These different tools are shown to share a common normative concern and a single analytical structure. Uniquely in the literature, this Part also defends the imposition of these duties only to certain duty-bearers in specified contexts. Finally, the conditions under which affirmative action is justified are explained.

This paper argues, using India as a case study, that constitutional directives can be a useful tool for the expressive accommodation of ideological dissenters who would otherwise lose out in constitutional negotiations in deeply divided societies. The strategy of expressive accommodation was tempered in the Indian case through containment and constitutional incrementalism. A calibrated expressive accommodation of ideological dissenters can give them enough (and genuine) hope of future victories to keep them on board, without going so far that the majority rejects the accommodation or their ideological opponents in turn leave the constitutional negotiation table. By focussing on the accommodational needs of ideological dissenters, this paper adds to existing literature on constitutional consensus-building techniques, which has largely focussed on political insurance for ethnocultural minorities.