PITH AND SUBSTANCE- BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION WHY A DEBATABLE ISSUE ?
Judicial activism is most debated among the students of law and laymen. What is judicial activism? Judicial activism is exercising the power of judicial review to set aside government acts by the judiciary. Last decade we saw most of the orders passed to administer various policies of the government by the Supreme Court. From abortion of 24-week fetuses to supply of oxygen and medicine, gay rights, gay marriages, Aadhaar- PAN linking, repeal of Article 370, Ram Temple, Rafael allegation. During the coronavirus pandemic court orders were passed distribution of remdesivir, vaccine, oxygen. In Uttar Pradesh, photos of the burial of bodies at Ganga Ghat were used to create sensation and Hon’ble Court dismissed such frivolous litigation. PITH AND SUBSTANCE Origin: It is a legal doctrine originated in Canada. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government. (as applicable in Canada) The doctrine was first articulated in Cushing v. Dupuy, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that certain rules of civil court procedure could be prescribed under the federal bankruptcy power. It was subsequently confirmed in Tennant v. The Union Bank of Canada, where rules governing warehouse receipts with respect to bank loans could be prescribed under the federal banking power. *The full test was articulated in General Motors v. City National Leasing by Dickson CJ, where he summarized and outlined the analysis to be used in that regard in future cases: The court must determine whether the impugned provision can be viewed as intruding on provincial powers, and if so to what extent. It must establish whether the act (or a severable part of it) in which the impugned provision is found is valid. In cases under the second branch of s. 91(2) this will normally involve finding the presence of a regulatory scheme and then ascertaining whether the hallmarks articulated by the Court have been met by the scheme. If the scheme is not valid, that is the end of the inquiry. If the regulatory scheme is declared valid, the court must then determine whether the impugned provision is sufficiently integrated with the scheme that it can be upheld by virtue of that relationship. This requires considering the seriousness of the encroachment on provincial powers, in order to decide on the proper standard for such a relationship. If the provision passes this integration test, it is intra- vires Parliament as an exercise of the general trade and commerce power. If the provision is not sufficiently integrated into the scheme of regulation, it cannot be sustained under the second branch of s. 91(2). *(source Wikipedia) INDIA AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Case, is also known as the Fundamental Rights case. It is one of the most significant decisions in Indian constitutional history, post-independence. It was heard by 13 judges’ bench of the Supreme Court. S.M. Sikri C. J., Hegde J, Mukherjee J, Shehlat J, Grover J, Jaganmohan Reddy J, and Khanna J delivered […]
Read more