The Pros And Cons Of Article 31C

Specifically, the reasonable limits clause in section 1 as well as the highly controversial notwithstanding clause in section 33 allow the government to pass legislation even if it conflicts with the Charter, with certain exceptions. The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter during negotiations in order to alleviate the tension between elected legislatures and appointed courts—a valid concern considering the fact that the judiciary would have the power to interpret a very broad set of citizen’s rights whether it be democratic and rights, as well was the fundamental freedoms and make final decisions on highly politicized issues. Careful analysis is used to determine whether or not section 1 can be applied and if said legislation fails to satisfy the requirements to be a reasonable limit, the court may order the law to be struck down, or redrafted so that law so that it complies with the Charter. However, if the government decides to invoke section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, it would exempt the government from following the court’s directions, an aspect which makes it highly controversial and generally has a very negative public perception since overriding charter rights is not seen as a good thing. Despite the great deal of negative criticism surround the it, the notwithstanding clause can be beneficial in numerous ways and does not necessarily interfere

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution and it was added to the Constitution in 1982. The Constitution has many laws about the essential guidelines one must follow in our country. It also governs how the government/ organizations should treat their citizens. The Charter allows the citizens and newcomers to feel like they are appreciated and also safe. However, there are situations where the Charter cannot protect you. The Charter can be stretched and can be looked at from different perspectives which is why these cases are very controversial. In Canada, we have many levels of courts so if someone was rejected by a lower court, they can appeal to a higher one. Cases that include an individual that feels as if their rights haven’t been respected take months because the appeal to present their case in front of a higher court can take weeks. It is the understanding of the individual that the if he/she brings a case to the court, they will win because courts are equal and unbiased but when that is not always the case. There are many cases when the judge cannot decide because both the challenger and the law are correct. In today’s society, equality issues are ever growing, these cases are brought based on section 15 of the charter that promises Canadians are fair and equal trial regardless of the differences. Decisions are very tough, so they are usually made on the grounds of evidence, statutes and precedent cases.

Issue 2 and 5: The Court noted that the exclusion of principles of natural justice (PNJ) is a well known concept and the legislature has the competence to enact such laws. Whether the exclusion of application of PNJ would vitiate the entire proceedings would depend upon the nature and facts of every case in the light of the Act or Rules and Regulation applicable to the case. The Court, then, read into various provisions of the Act and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 in order to determine the nature of functions of the Commission under various provisions. The Court found that at the face of it, the exercise of power u/s. 26(1) of the Act while forming prima facie opinion is inquisitorial and regulatory. It held that while forming prima facie opinion, the Commission does not condemn anyone. This function is not adjudicatory in nature but merely administrative. This function is in the nature of preparatory measures in contrast to the decision making process and hence

Article 22 lays down certain safeguards against arbitrary arrest or detention. Clause (1) and (2) confers fours fundamental rights upon an arrested person

The amended constitution shall take effect immediately following approval of the Student Government and Student Life Committee.

In adjudicating upon the ambit of § 123(3), the Court by a majority opinion , adopted the purposive interpretation approach instead of a restrictive literal one, injecting a considerable might into the provision as well as embellishing its scope to formally and explicitly prohibit any appeal as may be made in the name of religion, caste et al to the populace during elections. In the analysis that follows, we shall dissect the qualitative aspects of the judgment in light of its intractable relation to the social realities that prevail. As Philip Allott observed : “Law establishes possible futures for society, in accordance with society’s theories, values and purposes.” In a nation often mired by societal conflicts based upon archaic classifications,

Focusing in the judicial branch, a debate about Original theory and living constitution theory recovers attention. From my point of view, supporting the proponents of original theory is not wise at all because the constant changes demand up to dates. I agree to take the constitution as the basis, not only interpreting it in the way it was meant when written, but also reinterpret it accordingly to relevant and accurate identified decision making. On the other hand, living constitution theory requires of the past interpretation of constitution to understand the present. Without the past the present and future are weak, without roots. As conclusion, the constitution must be a perfectible structure that is adjusted as it has been done. The difference

shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” This means that any other law within the country

In the case if Veerpal Singh Chauhan, the Supreme Court through a 2 Judges Bench on 10.10.1995, 3 Judges Bench on 01.03.1996 and 5 Judges Bench on 16.09.1999 introduced the ‘Catch up Rule’ to enable general candidates to regain their seniority immediately on promotion over SCs/STs who had been promoted earlier through reservation and had gained seniority over general candidates. With a view to removing yet another anomaly, 85th Amendment of the Constitution was put into effect w.e.f. 17.06.1995 for giving consequential seniority to SCs in matters of reservation in promotion.

Consideration are either dead, hogwash and unrealistic. Critically analyze the above statement using relevant case law and statutory provisions.

The amendments in section 9 providing that the arbitral proceedings must be initiated within 90 days from the grant of interim relief or within such period as may be determined by the court. In this context, it was suggested by the LCI, to provide for automatic lapse of such reliefs granted by the courts after the expiry of time granted for commencement of the Arbitral proceeding. The intention of LCI in making this suggestion was to build a sense of apprehension of forgoing the protection granted to the parties through interim reliefs. However, this

No law per to the provisions contained under Article 105(3)and 194(3) of the Constitution of India has been made so far with regard to the codification of the ‘other’ privileges, which is contrary to very intent and desire of the founding fathers. Even in the United Kingdom, the law with regard to the Parliamentary Privileges has undergone tremendous change since 1950, however, the Indian Legislatures have still not realized the need for a step to be taken towards the improvisation and evolution of the law which earlier prevailed in the House of Commons at the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India. The apprehension resisting this kind of an evolution

1. The facts mentioned in the case of M C Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

According to Article 246, Seventh Schedule, Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws regarding matters enumerated in List I, not withstanding the provisions of the other clauses of this Article. On the other hand, the Legislature of any state has exclusive power to make laws for the state regarding any of the matters enumerated in List II, subject to other clauses[5]. With regard to List III, both the Parliament and a State Legislature can make laws but the law listed in I or III, vests with the Union. Thus, the Union has supremacy over a wide range of the legislative field.

• Even after hearing the case, it cannot order CBI branch of corruption to execute the case under its discretion. It has to seek the permission of the department whose officials are involved in the case. It is a very vague concept as none of the party members shall permit the further hearing of the case that either results in its cancellation or unrequited delay.