Search results

Designing Indicators for a Plural Legal World engages with the role of quantification in law, and its impact on law and development and judicial reform. It seeks to examine how different institutions shape and influence the making and use of legal indicators globally. This book sheds light on the limitations of existing quantification tools, which measure rule of law due to their lack of engagement with contexts and countries in the Global South. It offers an alternative framework for measurement, which moves away from an institutional look at rule of law, to a bottom up, user centered approach that places importance on the lives that people lead, and the challenges that they face. In doing so, it offers a way of thinking about access to justice in terms of human capabilities

AbstractThis paper introduces the notion of legal tech solutionism and argues for how in an age where the development of legal tech is seen as a panacea for all ills it is important to evaluate the use and lifecycle of the technology before introducing it as a solution to the complex and structural problems that plague legal systems. It explores the framework of legal design and argues that legal design provides for a grounded and contextual approach to the development of legal products, content and services. To do this, the paper develops an approach that operates at three levels, including the value of building for usability, the importance of collaboration and community and the value of designing for many worlds to ensure an engagement with a plurality of contexts in the development of legal tech through evolving a grounded approach.

Establishing human rights benchmarks for a rigorous engagement with informal justice systems and plural legal orders has become a significant concern for the United Nations. Through resolutions of the General Assembly, attention has been drawn to ensuring that legal systems reflect cultural diversity and within the domain, especially of indigenous peoples' rights, importance has been placed on securing and recognizing these distinct legal, socio-political, and cultural institutions because of their role as viable, accessible, affordable, and culturally relevant forms of dispute resolution. The UN Human Rights Committee has also observed that there should be interaction and reconciliation between formal and informal justice systems. This determination to engage with informal justice systems has also extended to the work of UN agencies such as UNDP, UN Women, and UNICEF who recognize that rule of law promotion must be responsive to the realities of countries where reform is to be undertaken, and should be carried out by focusing on developing bottom up approaches to reform. This paper responds to the increasing engagement with informal justice systems and a global audit culture by proposing a framework for evaluation that is reflective of these realities.

Mutinies for Equality studies recent transformations in the area of law and gender in modern India. It tackles legal and social developments with regard to family life, sexuality, motherhood, surrogacy, erotic labour, sexual harassment in the workplace and violence against women, among others. It analyses reform efforts towards women's rights and LGBTIQ rights and attempts to situate where a reform has taken place, by whom it was brought about, and what impact it has had on society. It engages with protagonists who shape the debate around law and gender and locates their efforts into a socio-political context, thereby showing that the discourses around law and gender are closely connected to broader debates around legal pluralism, secularism and religion, identity, culture, nationalism, and family. The book offers compelling evidence that the drivers of change are emerging from beyond the traditional institutions of courts and parliament, and that to understand the everyday implications of legal reforms, it is important to look beyond these institutional sources

Recent instances of improper exercise of discretion by governors of Indian states have once again underscored the need for a critical appraisal of the manner in which such governors are appointed and removed under the Indian Constitution. The gulf between what the role of a governor was envisaged to be by the Constituent Assembly and what has actually played out in reality is a matter of grave concern. It would not be wise for us to expect the legislature to provide any solution to this problem, since the prevailing scenario plays to the advantage of whichever party holds the reins at the Centre. The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the B. P. Singhal case made some important interventions as far as this vexed issue is concerned. However, the much-needed panacea to the ills of the process of appointment and removal of governors is still eagerly awaited. In this article, we recommend that the Supreme Court of India adopts a more contextualised approach to solving this intractable problem and considers adopting the 'nudge theory' to provide a framework to encourage important actors in this context to take more responsible and fair decisions in order to protect and preserve the democratic structures.