Landmark judgement on Indian constitutional laws

12/05/2020

Better Internet Desirable During Pandemic Lockdown; But Can't Ignore Terrorism Concerns : SC In J&K Pleas For 4G

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/better-internet-desirable-during-pandemic-lockdown-but-cant-ignore-terrorism-concerns-sc-in-jk-pleas-for-4g-156580

Better internet facilities are desirable during a global pandemic and a national lockdown, but the concerns of cross-border terrorism cannot be ignored, observed the Supreme Court while disposing

02/04/2020

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978

The case is considered a landmark case as it gave a new and highly varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution.

This law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and expression. The case saw a high degree of judicial activism.

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21.

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

23/03/2020

Not related to page(cases)
This is live update of Corona virus - India's positive case tally jump to 422 death toll at 7

Indian government take an positive initiative for the public benefits.
The government on Sunday announced lockdown in 75 districts. With multiple new positive cases reported from various parts of the country, India's tally stands currently at 422 as on March 23 with 11 new cases in Gujarat. Meanwhile, India's death toll is at 7. The Indian Railways suspended all passenger services, effective March 22 midnight. Delhi CM said that the capital may face lockdown if the situation worsens. As Maharashtra remains the worst-affected in India, section 144 has been imposed in the state from Monday.

23/03/2020

(Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan case (1975): (Disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India)

The concept of basic structure was reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan case. The Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution.

The amendment was made to the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India. Some basic features of the Constitution were listed in this case which is considered as unamendable such as sovereign democratic republic status, equality of status and opportunity of an individual, secularism and freedom of conscience and religion and rule of law.

23/03/2020

Kesvananda Bharti case (1973): (Defined the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution)

The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. The state of Punjab and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The Court held that although no part of the constitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament, the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.

It is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, and is the basis in Indian law for the exercise of the Indian judicial of the power to judicially review, and strike down amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict with the Constitution's basic structure.

The judgment also defined the extent to which the Indian Parliament could restrict the right to property, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.

23/03/2020

"Berubari Union case (1960): (Parliament's power to make amendments under Article 3 and Article 368)

In this case, conflict arose regarding the power of the parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan. The detailed examination of article 3 was done by the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament of India is not competent to make a law under article 3 for the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement.

This was followed by an amendment of the constitution by parliament using the power of Article 368. The result was the Constitution (9th Amendment) Act 1960. The Supreme Court gave a very narrow judgement that the preamble was not an integral part of the constitution and therefore it is not enforceable in a court of law.