国家和族长:改写Charan Lal Sahu, Rakesh Shrouti, Rajkumar Keswani, Nasrin Bi和其他人诉印度联邦(1990)1 SCC 613

Sannoy Das, A. Mazumdar
{"title":"国家和族长:改写Charan Lal Sahu, Rakesh Shrouti, Rajkumar Keswani, Nasrin Bi和其他人诉印度联邦(1990)1 SCC 613","authors":"Sannoy Das, A. Mazumdar","doi":"10.1080/24730580.2021.1922032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this contribution, as part of the Indian Feminist Judgement Project, we reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Charan Lal Sahu case that followed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy. We present a dissenting opinion on the case, finding that the law empowering the State to supplant the victim-survivors as plaintiffs was unconstitutional. Alongside, we offer a brief commentary on why this finding comports with what a feminist judge on the bench might have decided. We consider a variety of ways in which feminist criticism of the majority decision might proceed, and how this criticism informs our rewriting. We also consider a set of persistent questions about feminist judging, and ways in which our rewriting, in turn, might be subject to further feminist objections.","PeriodicalId":13511,"journal":{"name":"Indian Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The state and the patriarch: rewriting Charan Lal Sahu, Rakesh Shrouti, Rajkumar Keswani, Nasrin Bi and others v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613\",\"authors\":\"Sannoy Das, A. Mazumdar\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24730580.2021.1922032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this contribution, as part of the Indian Feminist Judgement Project, we reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Charan Lal Sahu case that followed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy. We present a dissenting opinion on the case, finding that the law empowering the State to supplant the victim-survivors as plaintiffs was unconstitutional. Alongside, we offer a brief commentary on why this finding comports with what a feminist judge on the bench might have decided. We consider a variety of ways in which feminist criticism of the majority decision might proceed, and how this criticism informs our rewriting. We also consider a set of persistent questions about feminist judging, and ways in which our rewriting, in turn, might be subject to further feminist objections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2021.1922032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2021.1922032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,作为印度女权主义审判项目的一部分,我们重新考虑印度最高法院在博帕尔毒气泄漏悲剧之后的Charan Lal Sahu案中的决定。我们对此案提出反对意见,认为授权国家取代受害者-幸存者作为原告的法律是违宪的。此外,我们还提供了一个简短的评论,说明为什么这一发现与一位女权主义法官可能做出的决定相一致。我们考虑了女权主义者对多数决定的批评可能进行的各种方式,以及这种批评如何影响我们的重写。我们还考虑了一系列关于女权主义评判的持久问题,以及我们的重写反过来可能受到女权主义者进一步反对的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The state and the patriarch: rewriting Charan Lal Sahu, Rakesh Shrouti, Rajkumar Keswani, Nasrin Bi and others v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613
ABSTRACT In this contribution, as part of the Indian Feminist Judgement Project, we reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Charan Lal Sahu case that followed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy. We present a dissenting opinion on the case, finding that the law empowering the State to supplant the victim-survivors as plaintiffs was unconstitutional. Alongside, we offer a brief commentary on why this finding comports with what a feminist judge on the bench might have decided. We consider a variety of ways in which feminist criticism of the majority decision might proceed, and how this criticism informs our rewriting. We also consider a set of persistent questions about feminist judging, and ways in which our rewriting, in turn, might be subject to further feminist objections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Interpreting without bannisters? The abstraction problem afflicting the basic structure doctrine Courts, mining conflicts, and Adivasi rights: a case study from central India (2000–2022) “ Mutated Sumangali Scheme ”: challenges in enforcement of labour laws in spinning mills of Tamil Nadu Protection of stakeholders’ interests in the Indian corporate landscape: examining the “ifs and buts” The maze of interpretation: abortion laws and legal indeterminacy in Indian courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1