1. Law Of Torts Jn Pandey Pdf

.The basic structure doctrine is an judicial principle, most notably propounded by Justice, that the has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through by the. Key among these 'basic features', as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of a power of the to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this 'basic structure' of the Constitution.

The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a 'basic' feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. Thus it gives extra power to court to review and strike down any constitutional amendments and act enacted by the Parliament.The Apex Court's initial position on constitutional amendments was that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. That the Constitution has 'basic features' was first theorized in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wondered whether the ambit of Article 368 included the power to alter a basic feature or rewrite a part of the Constitution.

He wrote,It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in. It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a 'transcendental position' and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that 'takes away or abridges' a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III as unconstitutional. In 1973, the basic structure doctrine was formally introduced with rigorous legal reasoning in Justice 's decisive judgment in the of.

Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered. Contents.Definition That the Constitution has 'basic features' was first theorized in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wrote,It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?' Supreme Court, through the decisive judgement of Justice H.

Khanna in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) case, 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. The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary.

At least, 20 features have been described as 'basic' or 'essential' by the Courts in numerous cases, and have been incorporated in the basic structure. Only Judiciary decides the basic features of the Constitution. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Naraian and also in the Minerva Mills case, it was observed that the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a 'basic' feature would be determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. Main article:In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in. A bench of eleven judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967.

The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is 'law' within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment 'takes away or abridges' a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, 'The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void.' The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a 'transcendental position' under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III. Parliament passed the 24th Amendment in 1971 to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in the Golaknath case. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights.

Chief Justice writing for the majority held that:. A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13. Article 13 prevents the passing of laws which 'take away or abridge' the Fundamental Rights provisions. Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure. The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament. Therefore, amendments which 'take away or abridge' the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

Main article:Six years later in 1973, the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges, heard arguments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (: AIR 1973 SC 1461). The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The Court held, by a margin of 7-6, that although no part of the constitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament (thus overruling the 1967 case), the 'basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment'.

The decision of the Judges is complex, consisting of multiple opinions taking up one complete volume in the law reporter 'Supreme Court Cases'. 'Perhaps the position of the Supreme Court is influenced by the fact that it has not so far been confronted with any extreme type of constitutional amendments. It is the duty of the jurist, though, to anticipate extreme cases of conflict, and sometimes only extreme tests reveal the true nature of a legal concept. So, if for the purpose of legal discussion, I may propose some fictive amendment laws to you, could it still be considered a valid exercise of the amendment power conferred by Article 368 if a two-thirds majority changed Article 1 by dividing India into two States of Tamilnad and Hindustan proper?'

Could a constitutional amendment abolish Article 21, to the effect that forthwith a person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty without authorisation by law? Could the ruling party, if it sees its majority shrinking, amend Article 368 to the effect that the amending power rests with the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister? Could the amending power be used to abolish the Constitution and reintroduce, let us say, the rule of a moghul emperor or of the Crown of England? I do not want, by posing such questions, to provoke easy answers.

But I should like to acquaint you with the discussion which took place on such questions among constitutional lawyers in Germany in the Weimar period - discussion, seeming academic at first, but suddenly illustrated by history in a drastic and terrible manner.' The note is that in Kesavananda Bharati the dissenting judge, Justic Khanna approved as 'substantially correct' the following observations by Prof. Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1966-1967, Madras, pp.

NarcissismSo does she (he) always seem to thrive on attention, admiration and special treatment? Can serial cheaters change? Personality traits of serial cheaters.

375-430 Evolution of the doctrine The basic structure doctrine was further clarified in. The had been enacted by the government of Indira Gandhi in response to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment in an effort to reduce the power of the judicial review of constitutional amendments by the Supreme Court. In the Minerva Mills case, successfully moved the Supreme Court to declare sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional. The of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment were challenged in this case, when was. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy articulated in of the Constitution over the Fundamental Rights of individuals articulated in.

Section 55 prevented any constitutional amendment from being 'called in question in any Court on any ground'. It also declared that there would be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of definition, variation or repeal the provisions of the Constitution. On 31 July 1980, when Indira Gandhi was, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional. It further endorsed and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. As had been previously held through the basic structure doctrine in the Kesavananda case, the Court ruled that Parliament could not by amending the constitution convert limited power into an unlimited power (as it had purported to do by the 42nd amendment).In the judgement on section 55, Chief Justice wrote,Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed.

In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.The ruling was widely welcomed in India, and Gandhi did not challenge the verdict. In the judgement on Section 4, Chandrachud wrote:Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into which and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21. Article 31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle which affords to the people of this country an assurance that the promise held forth by the preamble will be performed by ushering an egalitarian era through the discipline of fundamental rights, that is, without emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which alone can help preserve the dignity of the individual.This latter view of Article 31C was questioned, but not overturned, in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co v Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd.

(case citation: AIR 1983 SC 239). The concept of basic structure has since been developed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, such as Waman Rao v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 271), Bhim Singhji v.

Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 234), S.P. President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) (known as Transfer of Judges case), S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 386), P.

Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1987 SC 663), Kihota Hollohon v.

Zachilhu and others (1992 1 SCC 309), L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others (AIR 1997 SC 1125), P. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (AIR 1998 SC 2120), I.R. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2007 2 SCC 1), and Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others (JT 2007 (2) SC 1) (known as Cash for Query case).The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its 'basic structure'.

Influence The influence extends to Commonwealth Countries sharing the with India.Bangladesh The basic structure doctrine was adopted by the in 1989, by expressly relying on the reasoning in the Kesavananda case, in its ruling on Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh (41 DLR 1989 App. 165, 1989 BLD (Spl.) 1). Malaysia In Malaysia, the basic features doctrine was initially found to be inapplicable by the in Phang Chin Hock v. Public Prosecutor.

The Court remarked that the Indian Constitution was not drafted by 'mere mortals', while the same could not be said for the Malaysian Constitution. The Indian Constitution was drafted by a representative of the Indian people in territorial, racial and community terms, while both the Malaysian and Singapore Constitutions were enacted by ordinary legislatures.The basic structure doctrine was first cited with approval by the Federal Court in obiter dicta in Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia, before ultimately being applied by the same court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ano'r Case and Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & 2 O'rs & 2 Other Cases.

In those cases, the Federal Court held that the vesting of the judicial power of the Federation in the civil courts formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and could not be removed even by constitutional amendment. Singapore The denied the application of the basic features doctrine in Singapore in. Justice Frederick Arthur Chua held that the doctrine was not applicable to the Singapore Constitution: 'Considering the differences in the making of the Indian and our Constitution, it cannot be said that our Parliament's power to amend our Constitution is limited in the same way as the Indian Parliament's power to amend the Indian Constitution.' Uganda In December 2017, the Ugandan parliament passed a Constitutional Amendment which removed age limit of 75 years for the President and Chairpersons of the Local Council. The President Yoweri Museveni, who has been President of Uganda since 1986, signed the amendment into law in January 2018, aged '74 years' (Evidence is available that the dictator is in his late 80's). Several opposition leaders and the Uganda Law Society, challenged the constitutionality of the amendment before the Constitutional Court, which (majority) upheld the validity of the amendment. Taking note of the judgments in Kesavananda Bharati v.

State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, the Supreme Court of Uganda in Mabirizi Kiwanuka & ors. Attorney General, 2019 UGSC 6, unanimously upheld the Constitutional Court (majority) finding.See also. in, the concerned court considered and rejected the applicability of the doctrine.

in.References. Retrieved 2012-07-09. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 2012-07-09. ^.

Jan 14–27, 2012. Archived from on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2012-07-09. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 2012-06-24.

Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 2012-07-09.

Retrieved 7 April 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2014. ^ (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Archived from (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2013. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the. Austin, Granville (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience.

New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 258–277. Satya Prateek (2008). NUJS Law Review. Retrieved 2012-07-17. Jasdeep Randhawa.

Jus Politicum. Archived from on 2012-11-15. Retrieved 2012-07-17. NOORANI, A. (Apr 28 – May 11, 2001). The Hindu group.

Retrieved 22 March 2014. THERE is, sadly, little acknowledgment in India of that debt we owe to a distinguished German jurist and a scholar steeped in other disciplines beyond the confines of law - Professor Dietrich Conrad, formerly Head of the Law Department, South Asia Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Germany.It was no mere coincidence that a German jurist had thought of implied limitations on the amending power.

Article 79(3) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, adopted on May 8, 1949, six months before the drafting of India's Constitution ended, bars explicitly amendments to provisions concerning the federal structure and to 'the basic principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 (on human rights and the 'democratic and social' set-up). The Germans learnt from the bitter experience of the Nazi era.

The framers of the Constitution of India refused to look beyond the Commonwealth countries and the United States.Prof. Conrad aptly remarked that 'in this free trade of constitutional ideas the Indian Supreme Court has come to play the role of an exporter. This holds true with respect to at least two major innovations introduced by the court'; namely, public interest litigation and 'the basic structure doctrine'. ^ Raghav Sharma (2008-04-16).

'Minerva Mills Ltd. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Perspective'. Social Science Research Network. Missing or empty url=.

^. Retrieved 2013-12-01.

^. Open Archive. Archived from on 2012-04-04.

Retrieved 2012-07-17. Indian Express. Retrieved 2013-11-23. Retrieved 2013-12-01.

Archived from on 2010-12-20. Retrieved 2013-12-02. CS1 maint: archived copy as title. 1980 1 M.L.J. Malayan Law Journal 70.

Phang Chin Hock, p. 73. Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo; Yvonne C.L. Lee (2009), 'Protecting Rights', in; Kevin Yew Lee Tan (eds.), Evolution of a Revolution: Forty years of the Singapore Constitution, London; New York, N.Y.: Routledge-Cavendish, p. 169,. 2010 2 M.L.J.

333. 2017 3 M.L.J.

561. Federal Court, 29 January 2018. Teo Soh Lung (H.C.), p. 47. H M Seervai, 'Constitutional Law of India'. V.N. Shukla 'Constitution of India' 10th edition.

Anuranjan Sethi (October 25, 2005), 'Basic Structure Doctrine: Some Reflections'. Conrad, Dietrich, Law and Justice, United Lawyers Association, New Delhi (Vol. 1-4; pages 99–114). Conrad, Dietrich,Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1966-1967, Madras, pp. 375–430.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, AUTHOR: Dr. Pandey, EDITION: 55th Edition, ISBN:, PRICE:, BINDING: PAPERBACK. Constitutional law of India: incorporating Constitution 70th Amendment Act,. By J N Pandey. Allahabad: Central Law.

Get this from a library! Constitutional law of India. J N Pandey; S S Srivastava.Author:Tetaur ShaktikreeCountry:Russian FederationLanguage:English (Spanish)Genre:PoliticsPublished (Last):8 January 2005Pages:498PDF File Size:17.38 MbePub File Size:19.55 MbISBN:354-5-76027-800-4Downloads:31568Price:Free.Free Regsitration RequiredUploader:Request this item to view in the Library’s reading rooms using your library card. Senthamizhan Sentha yb it really liked it Aug 14, Linked Data More info about Linked Data.

CLA’ CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA By Dr. Pandey, 55th Edition 2018Please create a new list with a new name; move some items consttitutional a new or existing list; or delete some items.

Ayub Hussain rated it it was ok Oct 21, Advanced Search Find a Library. East Dane Designer Men’s Fashion. Would you also like to submit a review for this item? Search WorldCat Find items in libraries near you.

Please enter the message. The E-mail Address es field is required.

Write a customer review.To ask other readers questions about Constitutional Law of Indiaplease sign up. Gautam Agarwal rated it really liked it Sep 12, Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Constitutional law of IndiaShreya Patel rated it really liked it Jul 14, You may send this item to up to five recipients. Want to Read saving. Adityar rated it it was amazing Apr 17, Your rating has been recorded.Please enter your name. Citations are based on reference standards. Some features of WorldCat will not be available.

Law Of Torts Jn Pandey Pdf

Remember me on this computer.National Library of Australia. Create lists, bibliographies and reviews: Amazon Renewed Refurbished products with a warranty. Vishnu S rated it it was amazing Oct 10, Arkadyuti Sarkar rated it liked it Sep 17, Please enter recipient e-mail address es.