Page 1

Date: Thursday, 16 April 2015

Time: 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm

CSH library, 2 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi – 110011

The Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities (CSH)is delighted to invite you to

a lecture by

Dr. Kriti Kapila and Dr. Anuj Bhuwania

on

From Rights to Adjudication and Beyond: Legal Anthropology Perspectives

on Contemporary India

chaired by

Prof. dr. Leïla Choukroune

The Public Aspirations of the Law in India

Dr. Kriti Kapila

Why do ordinary people litigate in India, knowing fully well the
routine delays and injustices

that  are  written  into  the  process?  In  my  presentation  I
suggest  that  the  place  of  law  in

ordinary lives is not merely instrumental, i.e. as a problem solver.
The relationship between

law and society in contemporary India is created equally by the gap
between the two as it is

by  the  way  law  uniquely  positions  itself  above  routine
failure.  Using  my  ethnographic

research among the Gaddis in Himachal Pradesh and the recent upsurge
of khap justice, I

explore some themes of the ordinary work of law in India today.

Dr. Kriti Kapila is Lecturer in Anthropolgy and Law at the India

Institute, King’s College London. Her main research interests lie

in  understanding  the  public  life  of  the  culture‐concept  ‐  in

popular  politics,  law  and  public  policy.   She  has  written

extensively on the politics of indigenous recognition with respect

to tribes in India.  Kriti completed her PhD in Social Anthropology


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 2

at  the  London  School  of  Economics.  Before  joining  King’s,  she
 was  a  British  Academy

Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Social Anthropology,
University of Cambridge and

Fellow of Wolfson College.

Public Interest Litigation as a slum demolition machine

Dr. Anuj Bhuwania

In this paper, I will examine how the procedural departures made
possible by India’s unique

Public  Interest  Litigation  (PIL)  jurisdiction  enabled  it  to
function  as  a  slum  demolition

machine. I argue that most of the city‐related PIL cases of the first
decade of the 21

st

 century

often did not end up in any ‘judgments’ at all but in an endless
spiral of ‘orders,’ which are not

reported in law journals. This enabled the Court to perform a role
that can scarcely be called

adjudication, as it is usually conceived. However, much of the
scholarship on PIL has ignored

such  specificities  of  this  jurisdiction  and  has  continued  to
concentrate  on  the  completed

judicial process, i.e. judgments and other reported decisions of the
courts, and the discursive

charge  they  have.  I  argue,  on  the  other  hand,  that  to
understand  this  phenomenon  of  the

court‐led remaking of the city in its materiality, the procedural
departures of PIL, which the

Delhi High Court took to its reduction ad absurdum in this period,
have to be understood and

foregrounded.

Dr. Anuj Bhuwania is an Assistant Professor in the Department

of Sociology at South Asian University, New Delhi. He studied law

in National Law School of India University, Bangalore and School

of Oriental and African Studies, London before doing his PhD in

Anthropology  at  Columbia  University.  He  has  been  a  visiting

fellow at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG),

Jawaharlal Nehru University and at the Centre for the Study of

Developing Societies (CSDS), both in New Delhi.


-- 
Avinash Shahi
Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU



Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of 
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in


Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

To unsubscribe send a message to
[email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe.

To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please 
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in


Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the 
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;

2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent 
through this mailing list..

Reply via email to