Back to the Future? Temporality and Society in Indian Constitutional Law: A Closer Look at Section 377 and Sabarimala Decisions and the Genealogy of Legal Reasoning

Abstract

‘On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality’. B. R. Ambedkar’s famous last speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949 still resonates within contemporary Indian constitutional law, and even more so his following interrogation: ‘how long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions?’ Prima facie societal, the contradiction is however also a temporal one, Indian constitutional law being founded on both the British traditional idea of ‘continuum’ and the American inspired revolutionary principles of ‘pursuance’ of a novel legal and social order. Two recent Indian Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the de-criminalisation of same sex relations (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) and for the right of menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Union of India) offer through their differing and sometimes dissenting opinions a glimpse at those temporal contradictions. Through an analysis of both decisions and in particular that of Chandrachud J. and Malhotra J.’s judgements, this article seeks to highlight two radically differing conceptions of temporality applied to constitutional issues, which can themselves be linked back to the transposition of the legal positivist discourse in India within the colonial era: on the one hand, an attempt to continue Common law’s empirical-based tradition and on the other hand, an (apparently) a-historical perception of Law drawn from neo-Roman civilian legal discourse and later normative positivism. If both branches of legal reasoning aim at protecting minorities’ rights, the value they inscribe to History within the realm of Law cannot be further apart.

Keywords

Section 377 Sabarimala legal history Indian colonial history legal positivism normative positivism Chandrachud Malhotra constitutional morality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abel

(1967). American influences on the making of the Indian constitution. Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, 1(2), 35–51.

Armitage

(2004). John Locke, Carolina and the two treatises of Government. Political Theory, 32(5), 602–627.

Austin

(1832). The province of jurisprudence determined. London, UK: John Murray.

Bentham

(2000). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Kitchener, Canada: Batoche Books.

Berlin

(1953). The hedgehog and the fox. London, UK: Weidenfield & Nicolson.

Bourdieu

(1986). Habitus, code et codification [Habitus, code and codification]. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 64(De quel droit?), 40–44.

Burke

(1887). Speech in opening the impeachment [1788]. In The works of the right honourable Edmund Burke (Vol. 9, p. 328–396). London, UK: John C. Nimmo.

Burke

(1969). Reflections on the revolution in France. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Cannon

G. H.

(1957). Sir William Jones and Edmund Burke. Modern Philology, 54(3), 165–186.

10.

Cannon

G. H. (Éd.)

. (1970). The letters of Sir William Jones (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

11.

Chandrachud

(2015). An independent colonial judiciary: A history of the Bombay High Court during the British Raj, 1862–1947. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

12.

Chaudhry

(2016). A rule of proprietary right for British India: Trom revenue settlement to tenant right in the age of classical thought. Modern Asian Studies, 50(1), 345–384.

13.

Chaudhry

(2017). Rethinking the nineteenth-century domestication of the shari’a: Marriage and family in the imaginary of classical legal thought and the genealogy of (Muslim) personal law in late colonial India. Law and History Review, 35(4), 841–879.

14.

Constitutional Assembly Debates (1949). Vol. 11. Retrieved from https://cadindia.clpr.org.in/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/11/1949-11-25.

15.

Derrett

J. D. M.

(1976). The role of Roman law and continental law in India. In Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law (Vol. 2, p. 166–196). Leiden: Brill.

16.

Dirks

N. B.

(2008). The Scandal of Empire, India and the Creation of Imperial Britain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Fabre-Magnan

(2018). L’institution de la liberté. Paris, France: Presse Universitaire de France.

18.

Fawcett

(1934). The first century of British Justice in India. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

19.

Hacking

(2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

House of Commons (HC) Debates (1833). East-India Company’s Charter. vol. 19. Retrieved from https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1833/jul/10/east-india-companys-charter.

21.

Kelsen

(1959). Justice et droit naturel [Justice and natural, law] (E. Mazingues, Trad.). Annales de Philosophie Politique, 3-Le droit naturel, 1–124.

22.

Kelsen

(1967). Pure theory of law ( Knight

, Trad.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

23.

Kelsen

(1992). Introduction to the problems of legal theory: A translation of the first edition of the Reine Rechtslehere or Pure Theory of Law ( Paulson

B. L.

& Paulson

Stanley L.

, Trad.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

24.

Kelsen

(2007). General theory of law and state ( Wedberg

, Trad.). Clark, NJ: The Law Book Exchange.

25.

Kennedy

(2010). Savigny’s family/patrimony distinction and its place in the global genealogy of classical legal thought. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(4), 811–842.

26.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Latour

(2010). The making of law: An ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat ( Brilman

& Pottage

, Trad.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.

28.

Locke

(1986). The second treatise on civil government. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.

29.

Maine

H. S.

(1883). Classification of legal rules. In Dissertations on early law and custom (p. 362–392). London, UK: John Murray.

30.

Maine

H. S.

(1907). Village—Communities in the East and West (7th ed.). London, UK: John Murray.

31.

Paine

(1969). Rights of man. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

32.

Paulson

S. L.

(2001). Hans Kelsen’s doctrine of imputation. Ratio Juris, 14(1), 47–63.

33.

Savigny von

F. C.

(1867). System of the Modern Roman Law ( Holloway

, Trad.). Madras: J. Higginbotham.

34.

Sharp

(Ed.). (1920). Bureau of education, selections from educational records, part I (1781–1839). Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing.

35.

Stein

(1966). The attraction of the civil law in post-revolutionary America. Virginia Law Review, 52(3), 403–434.

36.

Teubner

(1987). Evolution of autopoietic law. In Autopoietic Law – A New Approach to Law and Society (pp. 217–241). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

37.

Thomas

(2002). Présentation. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 57(6), 1425–1428.

38.

Wilson

(2008). The domination of strangers: Modern governance in Eastern India, 1780–1835. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.