SUBSTRATUM OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A LEGAL PHILOSOPHY ?
Today we hear opposition leader Shri. Rahul Gandhi that there is fear that if ruling party retains power in upcoming election than they will amend the constitution. First, we will see views of Jawaharlal Nehru, then we will discuss method of amendment and how many times Constitution is amended. Jawaharlal Nehru in constituent Assembly said, “During the discussion in the Constituent Assembly on this aspect, some members were in favour of adopting an easier mode of amending procedure for the initial five to ten years. Explaining why it was necessary to introduce an element of flexibility in the Constitution,” Jawaharlal Nehru observed in the Constituent Assembly on 8 November 1948, “While we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, nevertheless there is no permanence in Constitutions. There should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people. Therefore, it has to be flexible … while we, who are assembled in this House, undoubtedly represent the people of India, nevertheless I think it can be said, and truthfully, that when a new House, by whatever name it goes, is elected in terms of this Constitution, and every adult in India has the right to vote – man and woman – the House that emerges then will certainly be fully representative of every section of the Indian people. It is right that House elected so – under this Constitution of course it will have the right to do anything – should have an easy opportunity to make such changes as it wants to. But in any event, we should not make a Constitution, such as some other great countries have, which are so rigid that they do not and cannot be adapted easily to changing conditions. Today especially, when the world is in turmoil and we are passing through a very swift period of transition, what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow. Therefore, while we make a Constitution which is sound and as basic as we can, it should also be flexible …” So Nehru ji was in favour of flexible Constitution. How many amendments till date: As of September 2023, there have been 106 amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first enacted in 1950. There are three types of amendments to the Constitution of India of which second and third type of amendments are governed by Article 368. Article 368 reads as under : Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article. (2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of […]
Read more
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
COLLEGIUM AND CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY -PITH AND SUBSTANCE CONFLICT OR DEVIATION?
Nowadays Collegium is a topic of debate. It’s a system where the Committee of Justices of Higher Courts sanctions and recommends an appointment of an Advocate/Justice of the High Court to a higher bench or apex bench of the Judiciary. Which is under criticism. At present Collegium is a system that makes the appointment and recommends names to the President and Government of India. However, as a matter of academic interest let us see the background of this issue. To draft the Constitution, a Constituent Assembly was constituted. In the said assembly the topic or article on the appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary amendments was discussed at length. Copy each of Part-1 and Part -2 of the Collegium discussion given below in the link. The following are the relevant resolutions. Proceedings before Constituent Assembly Mr. President: The question is: “That for clause (2) of article 103 the following be substituted:- ‘Every Judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years: Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge, other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted.’” The amendment was negatived. “That in clause (4) of article 103, for the words ‘supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting has been presented to the president by both Houses of Parliament ‘ the words ‘by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President’ be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. Provision of Constitution: An evolution: Provision of Constitution : Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.—(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than [seven] other Judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal [on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A]2 and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years: 3.[* * * * *] 4 [Provided that]— (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; (b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4). 5 [(2A) The age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide.] (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court, unless he is a citizen of India and— (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts […]
Read more
“SECULARISM” IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION – A CONTROVERSIAL ZONE
The Preamble was used by Supreme Court as an aid to construction in Behram Khurshed Pasikaka v. The State of Bombay [1955] 1 S.C.R. 613 at p. 653. After referring to Part III, Mahajan, C.J., observed: We think that the rights described as fundamental rights are a necessary consequence of the declaration in the preamble that the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens’ justice, social, economic, and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship; equality of status and of opportunity. These fundamental rights have not been put in the Constitution merely for individual benefits, though ultimately, they come into operation in considering individual rights. They have been put there as a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law which have been enacted as a matter of Constitutional policy. Is the Preamble part of our Constitution? This was decided in the matter of Berubari In Re: The Berubari Union And vs Unknown on 14 March 1960 Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 SC 845, 1960 3 SCR 250 There is no doubt that the declaration made by the people of India in the exercise of their sovereign will in the preamble to the Constitution is, in the words of Story, “a key to open the mind of the makers” which may show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution; but nevertheless the preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and, as Willoughby has observed about the preamble to the American Constitution, “it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted”. In S.R.Bommai vs Union of India: It was held in this landmark judgment that : Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith, or belief of a person is immaterial. To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State Government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356. Note: This feature of secularism was rejected by the Constituent Assembly ( Drafting of Constitution Committee) on 6th December 1948. Bommai ( Supra) is said to be a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on Article 356, it is true that Secularism is guaranteed as a fundamental right, but the word “Secularism” was never there in the Preamble of the Constitution of India 1949 and the insertion thereof was refused and negatived by the Constituent Assembly. Below is the link to the […]
Read more