Suchergebnisse

While there are important principles fundamental to the Singapore Constitution, they do not form a legally unchangeable "basic structure". Even if it were possible to identify a substantive "basic structure", its exact content would be indeterminate and we would be left with only broad, unhelpful truisms. Instead, the true safeguards against potential undesirable constitutional amendments lie in democratic political processes.

It is universally known by sociologists that the formation and existence of a civilization is dependent on the adherence to a set of established and accepted norms and guidelines which guide not only human conduct but also human interaction. With the evolution of time a written constitution became necessary with all the laws around which the state is to be guided around penned down in a definite manner by the constituent assembly years back. But with the evolution of time the constitution also needs to be changed according to the new aspiration and goals of the society. Therefore, the power to amend the Constitution of India is vested in Parliament to amend, alter, add or change any part of the Constitution to help it keep pace with the pace of a changing society. Though this power of amending the Constitution is entrusted with the Parliament which consists of the representatives of the people it transgresses it power and alters parts of the constitution which would deface the true identity of the Constitution. In order to prevent this misuse of power the Judiciary is entrusted with the power of Judicial Review whereby it has the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws which are to be enforced on the Union. If in any case the Parliament violates any provision of the Constitution, it can be deemed to be ultra vires and therefore invalid. Though this power was being misused by the Parliament in a great deal in later part of the 20th century, which the Supreme Court tried to put a brake on this legislative and executive overreach by evolving the Basic Structure Doctrine in the case of Keshavananda Bharti in 1973. Which empowered to the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution under article 368, except those features which form a part of this doctrine. This paper seeks to delve deeper into this silent Doctrine and how it was formed by the judiciary by way of its judicial journey to its formation, followed by what it is and what constitutes as a part of this doctrine from ...

The aim of this paper is to bring in to focus the expanded perimeters of the Basic Structure doctrine, the most significant Judicial Construct to protect the essence of Constitutionalism in our country. The doctrine was formulated to prevent unrestrained exercise of the power to amend bestowed upon the Parliament by the Constitution. However, through a detailed study of the nature of the doctrine, and also going through the various judicial pronouncements we come to the conclusion that Basic Structure doctrine is not merely applicable for testing the vires of the Constitutional amendments but can also be extrapolated to other arenas.The paper is divided into three chapters and an epilogue. In the first chapter, an initial introduction to the doctrine and its origins and some critical and essential aspects of the doctrine has been discussed. The second chapter deals with the applicability of the Basic Structure doctrine in the process of law-making. The third chapter deals with the applicability of the doctrine by the court to compel an amendment. These are the areas where the Basic Structure doctrine is yet to find an usage but there are ample scope by which these aspects can be brought under the umbrella of the Basic Structure. This are unconventional dimensions of the doctrine and is a field yet untilled but bears huge significance in establishing Constitutionalism in the country in its truest sense.

A constitution bench (five-judges) of the Supreme Court of India recently concluded the hearings related to the the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution and the bifurcation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories. How the Supreme Court finally decides this instant case will have far-reaching constitutional implications. In particular, the basic structure challenge pressed upon by the Petitioners, is likely to determine the future of India's democratic federal architecture and the structural balance of power between the Union and states.