Mission Statement: Centre On Public Law And Jurisprudence (cplj)

CPLJ

Centre on Public Law & Jurisprudence

CENTRE ON PUBLIC LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Mission THE CENTRE ON PUBLIC LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE (CPLJ) at JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL (JGLS) approaches the disciplines of public law and interdisciplinary jurisprudence as windows onto larger questions of culture and society. Since a truly Global Law School must traverse the hemispheres of thought and not only those drawn on maps, the CPLJ has been established at the newly-built OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY (JGU) in the National Capital Region of India as a resource and destination for world-renowned scholars and public intellectuals. JGU and JGLS are non-profit initiatives without precedent in Asian higher education. Established through a unique philanthropic vision, they are world-class research institutions in service to the public interest. The CPLJ will fulfill its public mission while promoting collaboration for the development of a multi-disciplinary JGU in the coming years.

Faculty and Staff Assistant Director Vivek (Vik) Kanwar B.A. Hons. (New College), J.D. (Northeastern), LL.M. (New York University)

Prof. Kanwar’s published and ongoing writings concern “the legal sources of lethal force” and resources for regulating coercion in public and private law. His expertise encompasses public law aspects of International, national, and local law, international humanitarian law and national security law. His writings also draw insights from contemporary philosophy, intellectual history, social theory and the humanities. With the CPLJ, he is pursuing the concept of public law through detailed case studies involving legal pluralism and normative-coercive systems. Ongoing projects include work on the concepts of “necessity” and "salus populi" in various legal systems. Assistant Director Abhayraj Naik B.A.LL.B. Hons. (NLSIU Bangalore), LL.M. (Yale) Prof. Naik’s research interests include legal theory, law and society, philosophy of law, law and language, and the fundamentals of tort and contract law. His current research projects focus on interdisciplinary studies of privacy and forgiveness. He is also interested in traditional Asian systems of thought and jurisprudential and ethical issues involving science and technology.

Background • • • •

To solve urgent problems and meditate on long-term solutions for controversies that have arisen within both contemporary jurisprudence and the practice of public law To publish scholarly works, contributing to knowledge of selected areas: (1) the Structural Crisis of Indian Courts, (2) Legal Pluralism and Informal Dispute Resolution, and (3) the Boundaries of Public Law. To lend interdisciplinary expertise to urgent problems of democracy and rule of law. To recover lost strands of legal theory and formulate novel points of entry into jurisprudential issues.

Uniqueness The CPLJ brings together, for the first time in India, legal scholars who take theory seriously as an endeavor that touches on everyday experience. The Centre’s researchers are supported by an International Advisory Board composed of the most distinguished and innovative scholars in public law and jurisprudence, and aided by motivated graduate students and research associates committed to gain mastery over specific fields of inquiry. By engaging with broad knowledge communities (economists, anthropologists, scientists, journalists, cultural theorists, community leaders, administrative bodies, ethicists, judges, and theologians,

among others) the CPLJ is committed to bring interdisciplinary discussions on public law and jurisprudence into the mainstream of popular discourse and public policy.

Agenda In its first two years, the Centre will focus upon three inter-related problems of public law in India: (1) the Structural Crisis of Delayed Justice, (2A) Legal Pluralism and Informal Dispute Resolution and (3) The Boundaries of Public Law. These Research Areas combine concrete engagement and normative reflection on concepts of public law:

Area 1: The Normative Dimension of India’s Crisis of Delayed Justice The most salient problem for the administration of Justice in India is the delay and backlog in criminal and civil cases at every level from lower courts to the Supreme Court. This problem has been the subject of numerous reform efforts and proposals including increasing judicial strength (though e.g., centralism, increased numbers or improved technology) changes in procedure (e.g., plea bargaining), and experiments in informal justice (alternative dispute resolution, the Lok Adalat movement, village arbitration). What has received almost no attention within India or outside is the crucial normative dimension, a framework for understanding the duties of public entities that should guide any range of options. Should legitimacy be assessed against the ends (substantive outcomes)? Should the expectation that litigants are provided “adequate and timely relief” be understood as a subjective right or a duty of public entities? How do the obligations of the State guide the assessment of solutions? How should apex courts and legislatures conceive of or ensure their legitimacy as ultimate arbiters of even those options that fall outside of the public law framework? What guidance has the Supreme Court given to date on the issue? The CPLJ will convene lectures, workshops, and working groups to evolve a common framework to assess the systemic crisis as well as legal and policy alternatives that have been attempted or may be formulated.

Area 2: Legal Pluralism and Informal Justice A concern that partially overlaps the research area above is the proliferation and fragmentation of dispute-resolution across a range of formal and informal alternatives. One project within this second Area is a focus on choices between increasing centralism (evolution, hierarchy and coordination) or increasing pluralism (devolution and localism). The Supreme Court has recently warded off suggestions by Parliament that it should divide into multiple separate benches and panels. Is this a victory for the integrity of the Court’s jurisprudence, or an invitation to fragmentation along other lines? Is computerization, linking subordinate and higher courts a substantive achievement or a superficial one? The CPLJ will research and publish findings in this Area, and also convene lectures, workshops, and working groups. In a larger societal context, legal pluralism also raises questions about the sources of normative legitimacy of formal and informal justice. The CPLJ will apply broader, interdisciplinary expertise on questions of justice, violence, accountability, and coercion by focusing a section of its research on varieties of informal justice (e.g., non-state, traditional, customary, religious, political, and ad hoc systems). Against the backdrop of development organizations funneling aid to informal justice systems, it becomes urgent to understand the promises and perils of various systems. Examples include the relationship between traditional Khap Panchayats in Haryana and “honour killings” carried out under their fatwas, or the formation of vigilante groups opposing sexual violence. Are these systems more relevant and accessible for poor people than state institutions, therefore enjoying empirical legitimacy? Or do they reinforce local power inequities, patterns of social exclusion and human rights violations, therefore violating normative legitimacy? It is therefore important that we gather research and formulate views on the relationships between informal justice and public power. The CPLJ will convene meetings and publish findings of social scientists, theorists, and legal practitioners who have studied dimensions of state coercion and informal justice, communal violence, gender, ethnicity, and experiments in accountability. Area 3: The Boundaries of Public Law: Finally, beyond the formal definition of public law we encounter issues that are nonetheless crucial as counter-points, outsides, and opposites: privacy, politics, ethics, violence, and passion. What role do these play as constitutive

or excluded elements? What space is created for non-public and extra-legal values such as vengeance and forgiveness within the space of public law? What cannot or should not be articulated within the spaces called “public” and “law”? Can public law accommodate non-Western notions of justice such as nyaya and dharma? How does public law cope with political imperatives; does public law disintegrate in spaces of international or inter-public relations; are the contours of states of exception and emergency defined by public law, or do they blot out any meaningful concept of public law? These questions will help frame a larger research area in interdisciplinary jurisprudence.