This so-called innocent order establishes a dangerous precedent, allowing judges in India to dismiss matters of critical importance to the country's democracy without providing a single explanation.

In international law, the use of pellets is prohibited because it violates the norms of proportionality under international human rights law and customary international law.

The rejection of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar's plea for early release show the arbitrary – and often unfair – way these decisions are made.

If the Babri Masjid had still been standing, would the Supreme Court have presented justifications for its ‘legal’ demolition and ordered for the same?

Implicit in such a view is that all those charged with terrorism are 'terrorists', which is fundamentally at odds with the criminal law. Rushikesh Patel's remarks are indicative of the ruling dispensation's mindset, as there has been a surge in terrorism cases.

Amidst the noise, the voice of the most disadvantaged and marginalised, who seem to have no place in India's credo of 'one earth, one family, and one future' has been silenced.