Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: The doctrine of basic structure in Constitutional jurisprudence means that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be taken away through amendments by the Parliament. The power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure and it helps the constitutional Courts to determine whether an amendment is against the basic structure or not.
Fact Situation: Parliament proposes an amendment limit the power of appeal against conviction for the offence of Sedition, to be exercised only by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
The proposed amendment is against the doctrine of the basic structure.
The proposed amendment is unconnected to the doctrine of the basic structure.
The proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the Constitutional Courts.
The proposed amendment is beyond the power of the Parliament.
Advertisements
Solution
The proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the Constitutional Courts.
Explanation:
Supreme Court has declared that the basic structure/ features of the constitution is resting on the basic foundation of the constitution. The basic foundation of the constitution is the dignity and the freedom of its citizens which is of supreme importance and can not be destroyed by any legislation of the parliament. Article 136 of the constitution stipulates for special leave petition. Meaning, any person aggrieved of any violation may without any restriction (whether the case is pending in some court, decided or whatever) can approach the Supreme Court under SLP. In addition, if SC finds substance in the SLP then it can hear and dispose of the case.
Hence "The proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the Constitutional Courts." is most appropriate and the proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the constitutional courts.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and the fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once the reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
If a judge reflects a predisposition so strong that it seems he had already made up his mind as to the outcome of the case, will it be according to judicial norms to ask for recusal by the litigants?
Mark the best option:
The maximum duration of zero hours in Lok sabha can be _________?
Mark the best option:
Who appoints the Advocate General?
Mark the best option:
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was the first _________ of Lok Sabha.
Supreme Court of India propounded sequence basic doctrine in which of the following case?
The States of the Indian Union can be reorganised on their boundaries altered by
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): India and Bangladesh have a common land boundary of approximately 4096.7 km.
Reason (R): The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act provided the transfer of III enclaves to Bangladesh by India and Bangladesh transferred 51 enclaves to India.
Which of the following countries have no right to acquire the Overseas Citizen of India by the persons of Indian origin?
What is the total strength of the Lok Sabha?
Who is the Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha in the year 2012?
