Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (AMENDABILITY, DPSP VS FR, JUDICIAL REVIEW ETC…

- - - - DILEMMA FOR JUDICIARY CONFLICT B/W ART 14,15 VS ART 46 :arrow_double_down:
        
        ALSO U/A 13 (2) ANY LAW CONTRAVENING PROVISION UNDER PART III ARE BOUND TO NULL AND VOID :arrow_double_down:
    - - SC GIVE CREATIVE INTERPRETATION OF TERN LAW U/A 13(2)
        
        SC HELD FOR ADVANCEMENT OF GOAL OF SOCIAL REFORM DPSP CAN BE
        :arrow_backward: IMPLEMENTED EVEN IF IT CONTRAVENES FR
        
        BUT THAT HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: - CONSAA WOULD NOT COME UNDER 13(2) :arrow_lower_right:
  - - - STATE CAN MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SC AND ST
  - - - ESTD. HARMONY B/W DPSP AND FR
      - ALSO SC CONTINUED THE STANCE REGARDING PART III AND IV : LIKE IN SAJJAN SINGH CASE... BUT....
  - - - THUS SC DOING NEGATIVE ACTIVISM: JUDICIARY DESTROYED HARMONY B/W PART III AND PART IV
  - - - IN NAME OF LAND REFORMS MANY PEOPLE WERE DEPRIVED OF THERE PROPERTY BECOZ OF THESE TWO PROVISIONS
        
        LIKE IN CASE OF GOLAN NATH 17TH CONSA . THAT SOUGHT TO PLACE PUNJAB ACT 1953 UNDER 9TH SCHEDULE
  - - - 24th CONSA
        
        AMENDED ART 13 AND 368: NOTHING IN THESE ARTICLE TO PREVENT APPLICATION OF ANY AMENDMENT TO ANY PART OF CONS.
        
        ALSO IT WAS MADE MANDATORY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GIVE ASSENT TO CONSAA BILL
      - 25TH CONSAA
        
        ADDED ART 31C BY WHICH
        ART 39(B)&(C) WHICH CAN CONTRAVENE ART 14 , 19 , 31
        
        IN SPITE OF HAVING 31-B THAN WHY 31-C WAS ADDED?
        SO AS TO AVOID AMENDEMNT FOR AMENDMENT UNDER 9TH SCHEDULE
        
        ALSO SUCH LAW CAN'T BE CHALLENGED IN ANY COURT OF LAW(THIS LED TO KESAVANADA BHARTI JUDGEMENT)
  - - - 24TH CONSA
        
        SC UPHELD THAT PARLIAIMENT CAN AMEND ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION
      - 25TH CONSAA
        
        BUT ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTION OF POWERS OF COURT
        
        SC GIVEN THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION
  - - - NO AMENDMENT SHALL BE QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT OF LAW
      - ALL DPSP CAN SUPERSEDE FR
  - - - HELD AMENDENT MADE BY 24 TH AND 42ND WRT POWER OF COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS UN CONSTITUTIONAL
        
        SC HELD JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PART OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONS.
      - ALSO SC HELD THAT 39 (B & C CAN SUPERSEDE )ART 14 & 19 THERE BY RE ESTD, HARMONY B/W DPSP AND FR
  - - - HELD THAT LAW PLACED IN 9TH SVHEDULE VIOLATES THE PROVISION OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONS.
      - HOWEVER COURT HELD THAT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR LAWS INCLUDED AFTER 24 APR 1973
- - - - THROUGH THIS SC CAN HELD THAT IF A PROVISION OF LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT NOT WHOLE LAW AND IF THAT PROVISION IS SEPARABLE FROM WHOLE ACT THAN ONLY THAT PROVISION CAN TERMED IN CONSTITUTIONAL
    - - IF ANY LAW MADE BY CONS. CONTRAVENE WITH ANY PROVISION U/ PART III OF CONS. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
        
        BUT IN FUTURE IF CONS. THAT PROVISION U/PARTIII BECOZ OF WHICH EARLIER ACT WAS HELD UNCONS. IS AMENDED SUCH THAT THE ACT IS NO LONGER N CONFLICT
        
        THAN ACT IS AUTOMATICALLY BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE . ECLIPSE IS REMOVED
    - - SC CAN OVERRULES ITS PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT, BUT IT WILL BE IN EFFECT FROM FUTURE CASES NOT BINDING ON PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT
        
        GIVEN IN GOLAKNATH CASE
        
        FOR EG: IN IR COEHLO CASE SC HELD ACT AFTER 24 MAR 1973 WHICHEVER TO BE ADDED IN 9TH SCHEDULE WILL BE JUDICIAL REVIEWABLE
    - - WHAT IS ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF LAW ?: THIS WILL BE USED BY COURT TO DECIDE UNDER WHICH FIELD LEGISLATION MAKING POWER LIES
    - - WHEN UNION OR STATES BY MAKING LANGUAGE OR PROVISION OF A LAW TRIES TO TRANSGRESS BOUNDARIES SET BY ART 246(SCHEDULE 7)
- - - - IS BASIC STRUCTURE BASIC:
        
        THROUGH BSD SC HAS ASSUMED VETO OVER ALL CONSAA
        
        SUBAHSH KASHYUP HELD:
        
        IS SOVEREIGN PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAN'T BRING DESIRED CHANGE THAN WHO WILL
        
        JUSTICE RAMASWAMI: HELD
        
        CONS. MAKER HAD NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ANY LIMITATION ON AMENDING POWER OF CONS.
        
        ALSO BSD NOT DEFINED IN A EXHAUSTIVE LIST
        
        JUDICIARY IS EXPECTED TO TELL LAW IS IN ACC. TO CONS. NOT MAKE LAWS
        
        JUDICIARY HAS GONE TO EXTENT OF CREATING CONS.
        
        NO COURT IN WORLD HAVE POWER TO DECLARE CONSA NULL NAD VOID
        
        DISTRUBED SOP
      - SUPPORT:
        
        SC HELD AMENDING CONS. IT IS JUST NOT REWRITING CONS.. THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF CONS. MUST NOT BE DESTROYED
        
        ACC. TO SOME SCHOLARS THERE EXIST IMPLIED LIMITATION IN THE CONS. THAT SOURCES BSD
        
        LIKE 9TH SCHEDULE WAS CREATED TO FACILITATE LAND REFORMS BUT EVEN THOSE LAWS WHICH NOT LINKED TO AGRICULTURE ARE ADDED IN 9TH SCHEDULE
        
        ACC. TO ZIA MODY:
        
        BSD PROVED BLESSING IN DISGUISE
        
        IT CHECKED AUTHORITARIAN NATURE OF NATURE OF GOVT. OTHERWISE INDIA COULD HAVE GONE ON THE PATH OF 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES
        
        IT IS PREFERABLE TO CHOOSE UNCERTAIN DEMOCRACY RATHER THAN CERTAIN TYRANNY
        
        BSD TO BE RETAINED AS SAFETY VALVE
        
        JUDICIARY HAS PROTECTED SANCTITY OF CONS.
        
        IT HAS ENSURED THAN EVEN EITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSE GOVT. CAN'T DESTROY BASIC SPIRIT OF CONS.
        
        HENCE BSD IS NECESSARY FOR MOMENTUM OF RULE OF LAW AND CONNOTES THAT CONS. IS SUPREME
- - - - FR: LIBERALISM.. LIBERTY OF INDIVIDUAL
      - DPSP: BASED ON SOCOALISM: GIVES PRIMACY TO SOCIETY
    - - FR: IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND REMEDY ALSO
      - DPSP: NON AUTOMATICALLY ENFORCEABLE
  - - - AMBEDKAR HELD THAT POLITICAL DEMOCRACY W/O SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS WILL BE A CONTRADICTION
      - NEHRU REPORT ALSO HAVE POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS LIKE THE SCHEME OF CONS