STRATEGIES OF LEGAL RUPTURE: THE POLITICS OF JUDGMENT

Abstract

In this article the author considers the meaning of a legal strategy of rupture, and the possibilities that such a strategy holds for anti-colonial and anti-capitalist political resistance. The strategy of rupture, developed by advocate Jacques Vergès, and theorised by Emilios Christodoulidis, provides the initial framework for thinking through how this mode of deploying law for political transformation could be developed into a general approach that is applicable not only in the criminal law context, but also, in other fields of law. Shifting from the strategies of advocates to the question of judgment, the author analyses a recent judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, and explores how legal judgments can affect political ruptures through re-defining concepts such as security with the interests of the most marginalised communities in mind. By re-defining concepts that are vital to protecting the rights of people to resist various forms of exploitation, and by re-investing rights with new meaning, the Indian Supreme Court in Sundar et al v State of Chattisgarh (July 5, 2011) charts a course that holds promise for the struggles of legal advocates elsewhere.