Kulwant Kohli

Advocate | I mostly write on law and geopolitics.

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

People like Sanjay Raut think they are an entire moment in India's political history, but what they fail to realise is that they are simply a blip – present today, faded tomorrow.

[Yadu @Yaduvam]

Khajuraho

[Xavier Uncle @xavierunclelite]

divorce ke liye jaruri nahi ki court jaya jaye, koffee with karan par bhi jaa sakte hai.

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

This is informative, engaging, and nuanced. It explains concept of sureties, their significance, and legal requirements involved. Always a pleasure listening to
@sarthakraizada. We need more such discussions. @LegalTalwar @LawBeatInd. @Shazzmachari
https://t.co/AsEuEI6J1O

[Sarthak Raizada @sarthakraizada]

The only reason a petition like this doesn’t look absurd to us is that we've got used to the “there’s a broader issue here, we need to examine it” approach our courts have taken for years now. Sabarimala is the best example. A lawyers’ association, none of them devotees seeking entry, challenged the practice of a temple they had no connection with, and the Court went on to examine its doctrine anyway.

That isn’t how constitutional adjudication works in most of the world. Government action is tested against real situations and actual violations. Someone is affected, they come to court, and the court decides on what actually happened to them.

It wasn’t how it worked here either, in the first few decades after the Constitution. In Shirur Mutt, it was the head of the Math himself who challenged the Madras HRE Act, because the Act was being applied to his institution. In Bijoe Emmanuel, three Jehovah’s Witness children had actually been expelled from school for not singing the national anthem. The Court looked at what they believed, how they conducted themselves (they stood up respectfully every day), and what the school had done to them. The law that came out of those cases was good law precisely because it was decided on real facts.

Compare that with a petition where we don’t know if the petitioner was ever compelled, whether he ever will be, or whether his belief is even sincere. Somewhere along the way we stopped asking these questions, and that's the real problem. By saying, we have to answer a historical point here doesn’t answer the issue I have raised. Merely because we stopped thinking like this, doesn’t mean we cannot start again.

[Sarthak Raizada @sarthakraizada]

My problem with constitutional adjudication in general is how easily the Supreme Court gets pulled into deciding questions with no facts behind them. People file petitions under Article 32 on facts that are never proved and ask the Court to test government action against them.

To be clear, yes a writ lies for an actual or anticipated violation of a fundamental right. But “anticipated” still has to mean something. There has to be a real person facing a real prospect of the right being taken away, not a possibility someone has imagined sitting inside a lawyer’s office.

Take this case. We don't know if the petitioner was ever compelled to do this. We don't know if he’s going to attend an event where he’ll be compelled to. We don’t know whether his religious belief is sincerely held or how central it is to his practice. There isn’t a single actual instance where the right was violated.

These are not technicalities. A free exercise claim under Article 25 turns on facts which may look like this: what the belief is, how it’s practised, what exactly the State is making the person do, and whether that falls within public order, morality or health. Every one of those is a factual question.

You can’t answer them on a set of assumptions in a petition. And the Supreme Court sitting under Article 32 is not a trial court. There’s no evidence led, no cross-examination, nothing whatsoever is tested. It decides on affidavits. When the affidavits themselves rest on hypotheticals, the State is left defending its action in the abstract, and the Court ends up laying down law that binds all future courts and everyone under Article 141 on a record that tells it almost nothing.

[Navroop Singh @TheNavroopSingh]

The Delhi High Court judgement in Neha Bora is Brutal, law laid down thread bare and HC says it can not step in subjective satisfaction of record by SEM.

[Abhijeet Tripathi @AbhTri_]

West Bengal has been liberated. Glory to West Bengal.

[Abhijit Iyer-Mitra @Iyervval]

What’s with the Islamist-Communist alliance spreading anarchy across the US, Europe & India? Why has the UN become so blatantly unprofessional & biased? My deep dive with @prasadaditi for @timesofindia

https://t.co/zcuz9ANrvm

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

Precisely. Bikaner House should’ve changed its rules for a certain someone because they belong to the first family of India. Classic feudal mindset still at play – we will not follow rules and regulations; we want VIP treatment, and we are above the law.

[Jai Anant Dehadrai @jai_a_dehadrai]

The engineered controversy to launch Raihaan Vadra’s political career appears to have backfired quite spectacularly.

Vadra Junior initially cried victim claiming that his pictures depicting the protests/riots in Delhi were denied permission by Bikaner House - controlled by the BJP Government in Rajasthan.

Fair enough.

But it has now emerged that Vadra junior brazenly lied in his undertaking to the Bikaner House management and claimed his photos were about nature and wildlife etc.

Even more embarrassing is that the name of Vadra’s exhibition was plagiarised from a book published in 2021 - no idea is final.

Bikaner House has claimed that their rules are the same for everyone - and that they explicitly deny permission for content that depicts political themes.

This is done so that the space remains a neutral venue.

Perhaps the Bikaner House folks did not realise that Rules and Regulations do not apply to the Vadra and Gandhi surnames.

That is their real mistake.

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

@BBTheorist I understand LGBTQ+, Palestine, Lebanon, and transgender flag and their significance. But how come Congo and Sudan comes into the picture?

[Sarthak Raizada @sarthakraizada]

We often read judgments like they are gospel.

If the rule regarding alternative remedy and the fundamental rights exception were read the way you are reading them, remedies under CrPC/BNSS would have no meaning. Whenever those remedies are invoked, they invariably engage questions of physical liberty. That reading makes the fundamental rights exception absolute, and the exception would swallow the rule.

This is not how courts apply the rule in practice. The remedies under the Code are themselves the procedure established by law. The exception is engaged when there is a glaring illegality and the petitioner must carry that burden to secure the relief it wants. It is not engaged merely because liberty is at stake.

In this case, the question of release was already pending before the SEM, a forum competent to decide it. The Single Judge flagged this, and said it was better to first exhaust that remedy. That suggestion was a regular one and must be understood in this context. It was not a refusal to protect liberty. It recognised that liberty was already being addressed by the forum the statute provides.

Ultimately, the writ petition was withdrawn. It wasn’t dismissed. There was no finding against the petitioner, and the remedy before the SEM remained fully open.

Also, writ courts don’t issue futile writs. A writ is not issued merely because a right is asserted. It is issued when it will serve a purpose that no other remedy can. Here, the very question the petition raised was already pending before the SEM.

If the SEM itself found in favour of the petitioner (which it did in this case), the writ would have been rendered infructuous.

Withdrawal avoided any adverse observation on merits, which could have followed the petitioner into every subsequent proceeding. And if the SEM’s proceedings were decided against the Petitioner, there would have been a concrete order and a full record to challenge. That makes a far stronger case for writ than one asking the High Court to step into a pending proceeding.

[Shubhendu @BBTheorist]

“Constitution is not some infallible document”

From swearing by the constitution at the drop of a hat, and reading its preamble in every park/lawn they find, to throwing the constitution under the bus to defend a thoroughly Islamist argument by a man who doesn’t believe in constitution and its ideals, rather calls it a fascist document, the leftists and liberals have shown that they have scant regard for India and the Indian constitution.
For them, Political Islam is above the Indian Constitution.

[LawBeat @LawBeatInd]

🎥 Cut to the Chase with @LegalTalwar

The police detain you. A police officer acting as Special Executive Magistrate then decides on your peace bond. Does that create a conflict of interest, or is there a distinction we’re missing?
Advocates Shaurya Rai (@Shazzmachari) and Sarthak Raizada (@sarthakraizada) explain on

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

@Shuk_law_ @Rezang_La CJP will be a bit too much. IYC Legal Cell will be a good start.

[Navroop Singh @TheNavroopSingh]

The Global Echo Chamber: Neville Roy Singham, and the Politics of Protest in India

Recent investigations, including US Congressional probes and Delhi Police chargesheets, have cast a spotlight on US-born tech mogul Neville Roy Singham.

Currently residing in Shanghai, Singham is accused of financing a transnational pro-China information network that amplifies far-left activism globally.

In India, this network’s influence is primarily seen through its ideological alignment and media support for domestic protests, rather than direct on-the-ground orchestration.

Organizations funded by Singham such as BreakThrough News, CODEPINK, Tricontinental, and the Manhattan-based People's Forum have actively provided international solidarity and aggressive media amplification for various Indian demonstrations.

This ranges from the recent anti-SIR protests against the Chief Election Commissioner to historical agitations like the farmers' protests and the anti-CAA movements.

The modus operandi of this global network relies on a symbiotic relationship with local actors.

During protests involving groups like the Students' Federation of India (SFI) and the All India Students' Association (AISA), Singham-backed foreign media outlets rapidly activate to glorify protest leaders and frame state responses as unprecedented repression.

Think tanks linked to the network, directed by figures like Vijay Prashad, provide the ideological scaffolding that attempts to link local Indian student agitations with global anti-capitalist unrest in places like Paris or Latin America.

This international solidarity even drew in US politicians like Pramila Jayapal, who supported Indian protesters before scrutiny forced her to return campaign contributions linked to Singham.

While Indian law enforcement previously alleged that funds were diverted to specific student activists to incite violence, current public evidence predominantly points to a highly coordinated international echo chamber rather than direct illicit financial control of the ongoing 2026 protests.

US NED partially funded a September 2026 research publication titled "How Gen-Z Protest Reclaimed Democracy in India," which analyzed and praised the youth protests.

Furthermore, Indian commentators frequently draw parallels between the 2026 agitations and historical movements (like the Arab Spring and Ukraine's Pora movement), which were openly supported by NED and its affiliates, suggesting a shared "global playbook."

Ultimately, the intersection of Singham’s international funding network and Indian domestic politics reveals a complex web of ideological alliances.

While the global left apparatus provides international visibility to Indian agitations, the domestic fallout highlights how media funding controversies are rapidly absorbed into partisan battles, blurring the lines between financial backing and political defense.

In India, these financial pipelines are allegedly leveraged to back radical alliances and enable coordinated protests aimed at sowing domestic discord.

Recent scrutiny highlights how this transnational apparatus supports perceived "regime change" operations by exploiting democratic vulnerabilities,
Digital media for orchestrated chaos.

To execute these operations on the ground, agitators increasingly rely on resilient digital infrastructure to bypass state law enforcement.

During recent unrest at Jantar Mantar, protesters utilized decentralized communication platforms like Discord servers and "BitChat" of Jack (Ex CEO of Twitter) an offline Bluetooth mesh messaging app to coordinate crowd movements, broadcast directives, and evade local internet shutdowns, prompting the Indian government to order its removal from app stores.

[Nirwa Mehta @nirwamehta]

kaunse garden mein adam aur even akele ghoom rahe hai?

[Harshit Shukla @Shuk_law_]

Liberty is precious.

Savarkar, who spent 10 years in Kala Pani under a 50 year sentence for his revolutionary activities, is mocked by the modern day revolutionaries who are ready to offer unconditional apology and surrender their rights in 7 days. Just a perspective. 7 days.

[LawBeat @LawBeatInd]

🚨🚨BREAKING: Court records that another lady CJP leader had given a media byte undermining the authority of the court. She given an undertaking before the Court for such conduct and has also undertaken that such conduct will not be repeated.

[LawBeat @LawBeatInd]

Undertakings furnished by Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka today before SEM court.
Source: Reports

[Kulwant Kohli @Kulwantwrites]

This interview by @LegalTalwar featuring @Iyervval @CharuPragya and @sushantsareen was much-needed and is a good watch. SIR, national security, its domestic and geoplolitical implicastions are well discussed.
https://t.co/lXdJsrFgST via @YouTube