Statute Cannot Be Struck Down On Ground Of Violation Of Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/statute-cannot-be-struck-down-on-ground-of-violation-of-basic-structure-of-constitution-supreme-court-274271
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/statute-cannot-be-struck-down-on-ground-of-violation-of-basic-structure-of-constitution-supreme-court-274271
www.livelaw.in
Statute Cannot Be Struck Down On Ground Of Violation Of Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court
The Constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged on the sole ground that it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution, held the Supreme Court in the case concerning the Uttar...
π4π€1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Statute Cannot Be Struck Down On Ground Of Violation Of Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/statute-cannot-be-struck-down-on-ground-of-violation-of-basic-structure-of-constitution-supreme-court-274271
"From the above discussion, (see endπ) it can be concluded that a statute can be struck down only for the
1. Violation of Part III; or
2. Violation of any other provision of the Constitution; or
3. For being without legislative competence.
(doctrine of colourable legislation)
The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
β The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication.
What to do then?
In a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism."
π Cases Cited (From above discussion)-
1. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)
2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
3. However, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) a Constitution Bench (Chief Justice Khehar's judgment) applied the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of Parliamentary legislation. Also In NJAC case, Justice Khehar built upon his reasoning in Madras Bar Association. However, Justice Lokur differed.
Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India and connected matters.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
π My earlier question?
On what grounds judicial review can be done, now you know what is the answer, apart from part 3 we can challenge and court can struck down on the basis of Any provision of Constitution.
π€βοΈ #Question-
Now tell me if there any law which violates any other provision other than part 3 of COI can you approach supreme court, if no why and if yes on what grounds?
On what provision NJAC was challenged to supreme court?
Comment π
@CurrentLegalGK
1. Violation of Part III; or
2. Violation of any other provision of the Constitution; or
3. For being without legislative competence.
(doctrine of colourable legislation)
The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
β The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication.
My Personal Opinion - Vagueness leads to uncertainity in interpretation thereby leading to conflict among judgments. (thus violates article 14 as on same facts you get different results)What to do then?
In a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism."
π Cases Cited (From above discussion)-
1. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)
2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
3. However, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) a Constitution Bench (Chief Justice Khehar's judgment) applied the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of Parliamentary legislation. Also In NJAC case, Justice Khehar built upon his reasoning in Madras Bar Association. However, Justice Lokur differed.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Remember This is for ordinary legislation and not constituional amendment
π My earlier question?
On what grounds judicial review can be done, now you know what is the answer, apart from part 3 we can challenge and court can struck down on the basis of Any provision of Constitution.
π€βοΈ #Question-
Now tell me if there any law which violates any other provision other than part 3 of COI can you approach supreme court, if no why and if yes on what grounds?
On what provision NJAC was challenged to supreme court?
Comment π
@CurrentLegalGK
β€βπ₯3π3β€1π1π€£1
CJI Chandrachudβs Judgment Doesn't Say That Krishna Iyer Doctrine Did "Disservice To Constitution"; But Justices Nagarathna & Dhulia Disapprove It
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/property-owners-association-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-835-krishna-iyer-doctrine-1557042
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/property-owners-association-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-835-krishna-iyer-doctrine-1557042
www.verdictum.in
CJI Chandrachudβs Judgment Doesn't Say That Krishna Iyer Doctrine Did "Disservice To Constitution"; But Justices Nagarathna & Dhuliaβ¦
In her partly concurring opinion in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case , Justice BV Nagarathna opined that the comments made in majority judgment authored by CJI DY...
ramgopal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ll-2021-sc-516-401594.pdf
408.3 KB
π€πββοΈ
We thus sumΒ up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences βcompoundableβ within the statutory framework, the extraΒordinary power enjoined upon a high Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this
court under article142 of the
Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, beqring in mind:-
1. Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society.
2. Seriousness of the injury
3. Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim
4. Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations.
Read: https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/3464
Compounding of offences in case of non-compoundable offences.
We thus sumΒ up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences βcompoundableβ within the statutory framework, the extraΒordinary power enjoined upon a high Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this
court under article142 of the
Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, beqring in mind:-
1. Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society.
2. Seriousness of the injury
3. Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim
4. Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations.
Read: https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/3464
β€1
Why All Private Properties Cannot Be Distributed For Common Good As Material Resources Of Community? Supreme Court Explains
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-all-private-properties-cannot-be-distributed-for-common-good-as-material-resources-of-community-supreme-court-explains-274310
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-all-private-properties-cannot-be-distributed-for-common-good-as-material-resources-of-community-supreme-court-explains-274310
www.livelaw.in
Why All Private Properties Cannot Be Distributed For Common Good As Material Resources Of Community? Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court, by 7:2 majority, has overruled the judgment in Sanjeev Coke which held that all private properties can be distributed by the State as "material resources of the community" for...
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Why All Private Properties Cannot Be Distributed For Common Good As Material Resources Of Community? Supreme Court Explains https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-all-private-properties-cannot-be-distributed-for-common-good-as-material-resources-of-communityβ¦
π
β ProvisionβArticle 39(b) reads as follows:
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securingβ
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.
β Issues: Total 2
1. Article 31C:
Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the
forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva mills;
2. Article 39(b):
Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(1983) by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy must be reconsidered.
Whether the phrase βmaterial resources of the communityβ in
Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned
privately and not by the state.
In this brief we are dealing the second issueβ
β 3 Judgments CJI & others, BV nagarathna and Sudhanshu dhulia, see end for ratio 8:1/7:2.
β Ratio Decidendi- let's start π
1. All private owned resources satisfies only the term 'resources' not material or community.
2. If private Owned resources has to be excluded then instead of 'community' word 'State' would be there.
3. Meaning of Community-
Different from Individual, if 39(b) meant individual then community word would be absent.
4. Private Owned resources included in it hut not all only those whoch are Material and of the community.
5. As per Rangnath reddy means + good produce both included, i.e., Factory and private owned cars produced from factory.
6. Sanjeev coke- Phrase included, all things capable of producing wealth of the community,
7. βοΈOverruled- Both the views favours all private included which is held erroneous by majority and says that it favours particular economic ideology (communism ki baat ho rahi hai :) but constitution does not permits any particular ideology it is framed in broad terms.
8. Interpretation Against Article 300A- To hold that all private property is covered by the phrase βmaterial resources of the communityβ and that the ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with the constitutional protection.
9. Test to determine whether the resource comes under 39(b) or notβ
β Nature of the resource,
β Characteristics of the resource,
β Impact of the resource on the well-being of the community,
β Scarcity of the resource,
β Consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players.
The public trust doctrine can also be applied ( see M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996)
10. Gave non- exhaustive illustrations like Ponds, lakes, wetlands, fragile lands, resource bearing lands.
also, Natural gas, mines minerals, air waves, spectrum (scarcr and finite) may be privately owned and controlled.
β π Dissentβ
1. B.V. Nagarathana-
She concurred with regard to not all private resource come under it however she penned different views on how private resource can be transformed to community and subsequently distributed to subserve common good.
Also she dissented on-
In my view, the judgments Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke, Abu Kavur Bai and Basantibai correctly decided the issues that fell for consideration and do not call for any
interference on the merits of the matters and as explained above.
Reasoning why sanjeev coke is good law as regard on merits of the case decided- In Sanjeev Coke this Court did not decide the case only on the basis of the opinion of Krishna Iyer, J. in Ranganatha Reddy.
β 2. Sudhanshu Dhulia-
Dissented from majority on meaning of the phrase βmaterial resources of the community and favoured the 2 overruled judgments.
@CurrentLegalGK
Case name: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 β ProvisionβArticle 39(b) reads as follows:
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securingβ
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.
β Issues: Total 2
1. Article 31C:
Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the
forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva mills;
2. Article 39(b):
Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(1983) by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy must be reconsidered.
Whether the phrase βmaterial resources of the communityβ in
Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned
privately and not by the state.
In this brief we are dealing the second issueβ
β 3 Judgments CJI & others, BV nagarathna and Sudhanshu dhulia, see end for ratio 8:1/7:2.
β Ratio Decidendi- let's start π
1. All private owned resources satisfies only the term 'resources' not material or community.
2. If private Owned resources has to be excluded then instead of 'community' word 'State' would be there.
3. Meaning of Community-
Different from Individual, if 39(b) meant individual then community word would be absent.
4. Private Owned resources included in it hut not all only those whoch are Material and of the community.
5. As per Rangnath reddy means + good produce both included, i.e., Factory and private owned cars produced from factory.
6. Sanjeev coke- Phrase included, all things capable of producing wealth of the community,
7. βοΈOverruled- Both the views favours all private included which is held erroneous by majority and says that it favours particular economic ideology (communism ki baat ho rahi hai :) but constitution does not permits any particular ideology it is framed in broad terms.
8. Interpretation Against Article 300A- To hold that all private property is covered by the phrase βmaterial resources of the communityβ and that the ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with the constitutional protection.
9. Test to determine whether the resource comes under 39(b) or notβ
β Nature of the resource,
β Characteristics of the resource,
β Impact of the resource on the well-being of the community,
β Scarcity of the resource,
β Consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players.
The public trust doctrine can also be applied ( see M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996)
10. Gave non- exhaustive illustrations like Ponds, lakes, wetlands, fragile lands, resource bearing lands.
also, Natural gas, mines minerals, air waves, spectrum (scarcr and finite) may be privately owned and controlled.
β π Dissentβ
1. B.V. Nagarathana-
She concurred with regard to not all private resource come under it however she penned different views on how private resource can be transformed to community and subsequently distributed to subserve common good.
Also she dissented on-
In my view, the judgments Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke, Abu Kavur Bai and Basantibai correctly decided the issues that fell for consideration and do not call for any
interference on the merits of the matters and as explained above.
Reasoning why sanjeev coke is good law as regard on merits of the case decided- In Sanjeev Coke this Court did not decide the case only on the basis of the opinion of Krishna Iyer, J. in Ranganatha Reddy.
β 2. Sudhanshu Dhulia-
Dissented from majority on meaning of the phrase βmaterial resources of the community and favoured the 2 overruled judgments.
Note: Sudhanshu, J, is the only dissenting judge if question comes on whether ALL private owned comes under phrase of 39(b) & B.V., J, on merits of 2 past cases and dofferent reasoning of when private resouce is community.
@CurrentLegalGK
π8π5β€βπ₯2π1
#vocabulary_@CurrentLegalGK
Gerrymander
Eg total votes more but still loses (see blue (democrats) voters more but red republicans win)
Note: This is just for example.
Delimitation exercise article 82 and 170.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/swarajyamag.com/amp/story/politics%252Fthe-integrity-of-politics-does-gerrymandering-exist-in-india
Next time you see the constituency being changed think from this perspective also.
Gerrymander
Eg total votes more but still loses (see blue (democrats) voters more but red republicans win)
Note: This is just for example.
Delimitation exercise article 82 and 170.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/swarajyamag.com/amp/story/politics%252Fthe-integrity-of-politics-does-gerrymandering-exist-in-india
Next time you see the constituency being changed think from this perspective also.
β€βπ₯2
Why the Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Act, 2004 π
#express_explained
#express_explained
The Indian Express
Why the Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Act, 2004
The SC stated that minority institutions such as madarsas have a right to provide religious education and handle their own administration under Article 30.
π1
No Data Produced To Show Road Accidents Increase Due To LMV License Holders Driving Light Transport Vehicles : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-data-produced-to-show-road-accidents-increase-due-to-lmv-license-holders-driving-light-transport-vehicles-supreme-court-274416
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-data-produced-to-show-road-accidents-increase-due-to-lmv-license-holders-driving-light-transport-vehicles-supreme-court-274416
www.livelaw.in
No Data Produced To Show Road Accidents Increase Due To LMV License Holders Driving Light Transport Vehicles : Supreme Court
In the judgment allowing holders of driving licenses for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) to drive transport vehicles belonging to LMV category(which weigh less than 7500 kilograms), the Supreme Court...
β€2π―2π1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
No Data Produced To Show Road Accidents Increase Due To LMV License Holders Driving Light Transport Vehicles : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-data-produced-to-show-road-accidents-increase-due-to-lmv-license-holders-driving-light-transportβ¦
π
β The Purpose of MV Act
β Brief Overview of Act and Rules.
β Construing Section 2(21),3 & 10.
β Whether the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan(2017) renders most provisions of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose?
(a) Harmonious Construction
(b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical outcomes.
β Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments
β Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam?
M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
@CurrentLegalGK
π Motor vehicle act judgmentβ The Purpose of MV Act
β Brief Overview of Act and Rules.
β Construing Section 2(21),3 & 10.
β Whether the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan(2017) renders most provisions of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose?
(a) Harmonious Construction
(b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical outcomes.
β Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments
β Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam?
Important for #IOS as wel ass doctrine of staire decisis as well
M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
@CurrentLegalGK
π4β€βπ₯1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’ pinned Β«π 1k+ Legal Drafts Formats π Link- https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AspoXymejDvYo9UxFJkSDaYfgQQc-F23 For more parts stay tuned- @CurrentLegalGKΒ»
Republicans win Senate; race to control House continues: Everything you need to know about US Congress π
#explained_global #express_explained
#explained_global #express_explained
The Indian Express
Republicans win Senate; race to control House continues: Everything you need to know about US Congress
Congress is a crucial part of American politics as it is the legislative branch of the US government. It comprises two parts: the US Senate and the US House of Representatives
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Republicans win Senate; race to control House continues: Everything you need to know about US Congress π #explained_global #express_explained
In USA Presently, President, House of representatives and senate, i.e. Lok sabha and rajya sabha dono ke chunao ho rahe hai.
π Use: Not in answers but in essay related to separation of powers judicial review, parliamentary vs presidential system, impeachment etc. you can always quote these facts to get those brownie points π
@CurrentLegalGK
π Use: Not in answers but in essay related to separation of powers judicial review, parliamentary vs presidential system, impeachment etc. you can always quote these facts to get those brownie points π
@CurrentLegalGK
π3π₯3π―1
Wealth Inequality Still Enormous; Views Of Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy Haven't Lost Relevance : Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia In Dissent
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/wealth-inequality-still-enormous-views-of-krishna-iyer-chinnappa-reddy-havent-lost-relevance-justice-sudhanshu-dhulia-in-dissent-274479
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/wealth-inequality-still-enormous-views-of-krishna-iyer-chinnappa-reddy-havent-lost-relevance-justice-sudhanshu-dhulia-in-dissent-274479
www.livelaw.in
Wealth Inequality Still Enormous; Views Of Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy Haven't Lost Relevance : Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Inβ¦
"It is only when we include privately owned resources, as a part of the βmaterial resources of the communityβ that the purpose of Articles 38 and 39 is fully realised. It is only then that the...
π3
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
π©βπ»π Digital Arrest wale ka time waste kardiya π
This is a serious issue please be aware and also do some research on this topic.
@CurrentLegalGK
This is a serious issue please be aware and also do some research on this topic.
See their Bollywoodish acting of Police π
@CurrentLegalGK
π€£7π2
Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-to-reconsider-judgment-which-brought-doctors-under-consumer-protection-act-says-reference-was-unnecessary-274529
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-to-reconsider-judgment-which-brought-doctors-under-consumer-protection-act-says-reference-was-unnecessary-274529
www.livelaw.in
Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary
The Supreme Court today (November 7) refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer...