Our Blog

The recent failure to pass the 33% Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha once again brings into focus a much awaited-question of political equality in India. The Constitution under Article 14 and 15 guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination, on the other side, Article 15(3) permits the State to frame special provisions for women. This concludes that idea of reservation is constitutionally possible. In fact, it is supported by the framework itself. Also, Article 243D and 243T ensures reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipalities.

However, despite the legal backing, the hustle at the national level still continues. Some argue that the bill needs refinement especially regarding the marginalized groups, while others see it as a lacking consensus. These concerns are valid, however, they should not become a reason for indefinite delays.

It is also equally important to acknowledge that mere reservation does not automatically guarantee empowerment; societal barriers must also be addressed. The challenge, therefore, lies in designing a law that is both “inclusive and practical.”

The failure of the bill is neither a complete rejection of reform nor a denial of women’s rights, but rather a reflection of the complexities within the Parliament of India. Moving forward, may this long-standing promise comes into reality.

Presented by: Ms. Shrishty

In a significant boost to India’s arbitration landscape, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.
v. National Highways Authority of India, (2024) 2 SCC 613, decided on 24 August 2023 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reaffirms a crucial principle that courts must not overstep into
the domain of arbitral decision-making. The case arose from a contractual dispute over
measurement methods in a highway project, eventually escalating from a Dispute Resolution
Board to arbitration, and then into prolonged judicial scrutiny.
At the heart of the ruling lies a simple but powerful idea: arbitral awards, especially those
delivered by expert tribunals, deserve deference. The Supreme Court emphasized that under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, judicial review is limited. Courts are not
meant to re-interpret contracts or substitute their own reasoning unless the award is patently
illegal or fundamentally flawed.
Equally important was the Court’s clarity on dissenting opinions. While dissent adds depth and
transparency to arbitral reasoning, it does not carry the weight of an enforceable award.
Elevating minority opinions to that status, the Court warned, would disrupt the certainty and
finality arbitration seeks to provide.
What makes this judgment particularly relevant is its recognition of technical expertise. By
trusting tribunals composed of domain specialists, the Court reinforces arbitration as a practical
and efficient dispute resolution mechanism especially in complex infrastructure and
commercial matters.
Thus, this decision strengthens confidence in arbitration by preserving its core values: finality,
expertise, and minimal judicial interference. For businesses and practitioners alike, it sends a
clear message, arbitration is not just an alternative to litigation; it is a system the courts are
committed to protecting.

Presented by: Mr. Arpit

After the horrific Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025, India put the world’s most celebrated
water-sharing treaty “in abeyance.” Here is what international law actually says about that
decision.
Every Indian knows the Pahalgam attack of 22 April 2025, where 26 innocent tourists killed in
Kashmir in one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in decades. What followed in the legal
world was equally significant: India announced it was holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
of 1960, a 65-year-old water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan “in abeyance.” But
did India have the legal right to do this?
The IWT, signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Ayub Khan under World
Bank mediation, allocates the six rivers of the Indus Basin between the two countries.
Remarkably, it had survived four wars and decades of hostility, widely regarded as the world’s
most resilient transboundary water treaty. Crucially, however, the treaty contains no exit
clause and no provision for unilateral suspension.
Under international law, the Latin maxim Pacta Sunt Servanda — “agreements must be kept”
is the bedrock principle of treaty law. A country cannot simply step away from a binding treaty
because of political displeasure.
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, suspension of a treaty is only permissible
on two narrow grounds: a material breach by the other party (Article 60), or a fundamental
change of circumstances (Article 62). India, though not a signatory to the Convention, is still
bound by these principles as they reflect customary international law. India has deliberately
used the phrase “held in abeyance” rather than “suspended” precisely to sidestep these legal
thresholds.
The lesson for every citizen: treaties are not just political documents. they are binding legal
obligations. When nations treat water as a weapon, it is international law that stands as the last
line of accountability.