Constitutional Law

Article 244 of the Indian Constitution stands as a sentinel for the nation's Scheduled and Tribal Areas, invoking the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to safeguard the rights and cultures of indigenous communities. Covering over 11% of India's landmass and 8.6% of its population, these provisions empower Scheduled Areas in ten states with Governor-led oversight and Tribes Advisory Councils, while the Northeast's Tribal Areas enjoy autonomous governance through District Councils. From preventing land alienation under PESA to fostering self-rule in Mizoram, Article 244 balances integration with autonomy. Yet, persistent implementation gaps—land grabs, underfunded councils, and excluded tribes—demand urgent reforms to fulfill its promise of inclusive justice.

The Anti-Defection Law, under the Tenth Schedule of India’s Constitution (52nd Amendment, 1985), curbs political defections by disqualifying legislators who switch parties or defy party voting directives. Exceptions apply if two-thirds of a party’s members merge with another party. Aimed at ensuring stability, it faces criticism for limiting legislators’ freedom. The Kihoto Hollohan case (1992) upheld the Speaker’s authority, with judicial review. Issues like delays and bias remain challenges

The Attorney General of India, established under Article 76 of the Constitution, serves as the highest law officer in the country. Tasked with advising the government on legal matters and representing it in the Supreme Court, the Attorney General plays a key role in ensuring that governance aligns with the Constitution and the rule of law

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India is a vital constitutional authority responsible for auditing the financial operations of the Union and State governments. As the watchdog of public finance, the CAG ensures transparency, accountability, and legal compliance in the use of public funds. By scrutinizing government expenditures and reporting to the Legislature, the CAG upholds democratic oversight and acts as a guardian of public trust in India's financial governance.

Discover how judicial activism in India is transforming the legal landscape in 2025! From landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala to the rising use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the judiciary is championing social justice, protecting individual rights, and ensuring government accountability. In this era of evolving democracy, explore the balance between judicial activism and restraint, its impact on modern governance, and why it’s a trending topic in Indian law. Dive into this insightful article on "Law by Khyati" .

Judicial accountability means holding judges answerable for their actions, just like any other public official. In recent months, the spotlight has returned to this issue—especially after concerns raised over the transparency of the Supreme Court collegium and the ethics of a few high-profile judgments. With growing public debate and calls for reforms, people are beginning to ask: Who watches the watchdogs? As the judiciary plays a vital role in protecting our rights, ensuring its accountability isn't just important—it's essential for a healthy democracy.

In a country as vast and vibrant as India, elections are more than just a democratic process—they are a celebration of the people’s voice. But with polls happening somewhere almost every year, the rhythm of governance often gets lost in the noise of constant campaigning. One Nation, One Election is a bold idea that asks a simple yet profound question: can we bring order and balance to our democracy without losing its soul? By holding national and state elections together, we could ease the burden on citizens, reduce costs, and allow governments to focus more on people than politics. Yet, this vision also comes with deep questions about fairness, representation, and the spirit of our federal structure. As we explore this path forward, it's not just about changing a system—it's about reimagining how democracy can work better for every Indian.

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that delves into the interplay between freedom of speech and other fundamental rights, particularly in the context of statements made by public officials. In the case comment below we have analysed this landmark judgement .