Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
AMENDABILITY, DPSP VS FR, BASIC STRUCTURE (TUG OF WAR (B/W JUDICIARY AND…
AMENDABILITY,
DPSP VS FR,
BASIC STRUCTURE
TUG OF WAR
(B/W JUDICIARY AND EXE)
CHAMPAKRAM DORIAIRAJAN CASE VS STATE OF MADRAS 1951 :
ARROW_DOUBLE_DOWN:
1ST CASE FOR DISPUTE B/W FR AND DPSP :arrow_double_down:
PETITIONER CHALLENGED RESERVATION POLICY OF STATE OF TAMIL NADU
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:
HOW
JUDICIARY RESOLVED THE ISSUE?
SC HELD FOR ADVANCEMENT OF GOAL OF SOCIAL REFORM DPSP CAN VIOLATE F.R
:
BUT THAT HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:
+
2ND CASE SHANKRI PRASAD V/S UOI 1951 CHALLENGED 1ST
CONSAA :arrow_double_down:
SC HELD VALIDITY OF 1ST CONSA
IT MEANS TERM LAW UNDER ART 13(2) DOESN'T INCLUDE CONSAA.
ALSO SC CONTINUED THE STANCE REGARDING PART III AND IV
SO THIS LED TO GOLAK NATH CASE 1967 :arrow_double_down:
SC HELD THAT EVEN THROUGH CONSAA FR CAN'T BE AMENDED
.. LAW U/A 13(2) ALSO CONSISTS OF CONSAA
JUDICIARY DESTROYED HARMONY B/W PART III AND PART IV
IST CASE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
SC ALSO GIVE DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING
:arrow_down:
GOVT. RESPONSE:
FRIVOLOUS USE OF ART 31A AND 31B (NINTH SCHEDULE)
HOW ?
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
GOVT. RESPONSE :arrow_double_down:
GOVT. BROUGHT 24TH AND 25TH CONSAA
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
ALSO U/A 31-C
SUCH LAW CAN'T BE CHALLENGED IN ANY COURT OF LAW(THIS LED TO KESAVANADA BHARTI JUDGEMENT)
KESAVA NANDA BHARTI CASE1973 :arrow_double_down:
UPHELD VALIDITY OF 24TH CONSA AND AND PARTLY 25TH
24TH CONSA
SC UPHELD THAT PARLIAIMENT CAN AMEND ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION+
25TH CONSAA
SC NULLIFIED SECOND PROVISION OF 31-C
SC GIVEN THE
DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION
GOVT. RESPONSE
42TH CONSA 1976 (DURING EMERGENCY)
NO AMENDMENT SHALL BE QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT OF LAW
ALL DPSP CAN SUPERSEDE FR
MINERVA MILLS CASE 1980
SC FIRST APPLIED BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
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
:arrow_double_down: RESPONSE OF GOVT.
GOVT. BROUGHT IST CONSAA ADDING ART 15(4) WITHIN 1ST YEAR OF REPUBLIC
STATE CAN MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SC AND ST
ART 31A AND 31 B (NINTH SCHEDULE) ALSO ADDED
(REASON FOR GOLAK NATH JUDGEMENT)
39TH AMENDMENT
ELECTION DISPUTE OF PM AND SPEAKER(L.S)
ARE BEYOND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
INDIRA GANDHI VS RAJ NARAYAN CASE 1975
ELECTION CASE
SC REAFFIRMED BASIC STRUCTURE
THE COURT SAID THAT THIS PROVISION WAS BEYOND THE AMENDING POWER OF PARLIAMENT AS IT AFFECTED THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE AND CASES
IR COELHO CASE 2007
SC ON ISSUE OF 9TH SCHDEULE
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
KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE (F.R CASE) 1973
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
SEPARATION OF POWER
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
MINERVA MILLS CASE 1980
JUDICIAL REVIEW
HARMONY AND BALANCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP
INDRA SAWHNEY CASE(1992) MANDAL CASE
RULE OF LAW
KIHOTO HOLLOHON CASE(1993) DEFECTION CASE
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS
S.R. BOMMAI CASE (1994)
FEDERALISM
SECULARISM
L. CHANDRA KUMAR CASE (1997)
POWERS OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER
ARTICLES 226
M. NAGARAJ CASE(2006)
PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
BHIM SINGHJI CASE 1981
WELFARE STATE (SOCIO-ECONOMIC JUSTICE