Category: Volume 5 and Issue 14 of 2025

IRISH-LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN IRELAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: A COMMENTARY

AUTHOR – TADGH QUILL-MANLEY,
2ND YEAR STUDENT AT KING’S INNS

BEST CITATION – TADGH QUILL-MANLEY, IRISH-LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN IRELAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: A COMMENTARY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (14) OF 2025, PG. 86-95, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/EZFO6957

Abstract

This commentary examines the legal framework governing Irish-language rights in Ireland (Éire), the United Kingdom (particularly Northern Ireland), and the European Union, highlighting the persistent tension between symbolic constitutional commitments and practical enforcement. Despite Irish’s status as the first official language under Article 8 of the 1937 Irish Constitution, judicial interpretations – seen in cases like O’Monacháin v An Taoiseach [1982] IESC 10 and Peadar Ó Maicín v Ireland [2014] IESC 12 – treat it as participatory rather than structural, emphasising “reasonable efforts” (Ó Cadhla v Minister for Justice & Equality [2019] IEHC 503) amid resource constraints. Statutory measures, such as the Official Languages Act 2003 and its 2021 Amendment (fully commenced December 2024), offer incremental progress but leave court proceedings largely unaffected.

In Northern Ireland, the archaic Administration of Justice (Language) Act 1737 was repealed by the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, introducing an Irish Language Commissioner and promoting bilingualism, though implementation remains uneven. Supra-nationally, the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6 and 14) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages influence domestic standards, while EU law – post-2022 derogation lift via Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2264 – ensures Irish’s full official status, despite ongoing linguist recruitment challenges. Comparatively, Irish lags behind Welsh and Scottish Gaelic frameworks. Recommendations include enacting a specialised Irish Language in the Courts Act, enhancing training, and leveraging discrimination arguments under the ECHR. Ultimately, bridging symbolism and reality demands legislative clarity and investment to affirm cultural identity and democratic integrity.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF RESERVATION: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF RAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA (2015) AND THE JAT RESERVATION DEBATE IN INDIA

AUTHOR – GANESH SHRIRANG SATARKAR (NALE), DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HARYANA, HARYANA

BEST CITATION – GANESH SHRIRANG SATARKAR (NALE), THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF RESERVATION: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF RAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA (2015) AND THE JAT RESERVATION DEBATE IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (14) OF 2025, PG. 80-85, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

The Supreme Court judgment in Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) marks a defining point in India’s reservation jurisprudence, especially regarding how “backwardness” must be constitutionally understood and empirically established for inclusion in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. The case involved the demand by Jat communities—spread across northern states and historically dominant—for recognition as OBCs in the Central List. Although various state commissions and political actors supported the demand, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), after extensive review, rejected the claim citing lack of contemporary data and the political, economic, and social dominance of Jats. Despite this, the Central Government issued a notification on 4 March 2014 granting OBC status to Jats in nine states. The Supreme Court struck down the notification, ruling that backwardness must be “social,” measurable through objective criteria, and justified by contemporaneous quantifiable data, not historical generalizations or electoral pressures.

This 3500+ word paper presents a detailed hybrid academic–commentary analysis of the judgment, incorporating facts, extracts, and reasoning from the official Supreme Court judgment PDF. It examines the constitutional framework, evolving backward class jurisprudence, the NCBC’s evidentiary standards, and the Court’s reasoning emphasizing constitutional morality, empirical rigor, and the prohibition against politically motivated inclusions. Comparative reservation movements involving Marathas, Patels, Kapus, and Gujjars further contextualize how dominant agrarian castes seek reservations amidst economic decline. The paper concludes with insights into future reservation policy, judicial scrutiny, and the role of evidence-based social justice.

Keywords: Jat Reservation, Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015), OBC, NCBC, Social Backwardness, Constitutional Morality, Indra Sawhney, Quantifiable Data, Contemporary Evidence, Reservation Policy, Dominant Agrarian Castes, Political Mobilization, Equality Jurisprudence, Affirmative Action, Expert Commission, Judicial Review.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATENT PROTECTION

AUTHOR-NIDHI JHA, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, PATNA

BEST CITATION – NIDHI JHA, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATENT PROTECTION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (14) OF 2025, PG. 76-79, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the relationship, conflict and complementarities between patent protection and academic publication (referred to here as “publication” or a “published certificate” such as DOI-registered works). It is aimed at law students and explores the doctrinal foundations, procedural steps, strategic considerations, comparative advantages, and real-world implications of choosing to patent an invention versus publishing it. The analysis covers legal requirements, timing issues (novelty and prior disclosure), rights conferred, duration and scope, enforcement, and policy rationales. The paper concludes with practical guidance for researchers, innovators, and legal practitioners on harmonising publication aims with patent strategy.

KEYWORDS – Patent protection within the field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) generally fall into categories related to the legal framework, the innovation process, and commercial implications.