India is a Hindu nation, says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

[NairLand]

But Its Not Executive power

Modern democracy and constitution stand on the three independent pillars.

1. Executive
2. Judiciary
3. Legislature

All are independent of each other. All are also liked which causes confusion.

 

[Bang Galore]

No it does not.

The constitution can be changed and then it can be challenged again in the SC and then a new bench will again convene and make a fresh ruling.

This fresh ruling can go either way.

Discuss when there is such a challenge & the Supreme Court overturns its decision. Good luck with that.

 

[NairLand]

Discuss when there is such a challenge & the Supreme Court overturns its decision. Good luck with that.

........... then why bother commenting that it cannot be changed in the first place ? ...... you cannot now pretend to be disinterested.

 

[NKVD]

Modern democracy and constitution stand on the three independent pillars.

1. Executive
2. Judiciary
3. Legislature

All are independent of each other. All are also liked which causes confusion.

I know that but Executive powers are Supreme According to the constitution Eg if President is found guilty for something judiciary Cant over threw him As President Enjoys Executive Authority Under constitution Unless he Resigned from his Powers

Discuss when there is such a challenge & the Supreme Court overturns its decision. Good luck with that.

how can If the judges will be appointed By Govt It self have you seen a new judiciary bill

 

[Bang Galore]

look you confused the prime minister And the cabinet is above all as they enjoy executive powers in the constitution And president is supreme executive of India under which othere pillars of the democracy works eg parliament and Judiciary(SC). President is supreme commander of the Armed forces Not some SC you quoting

I'm not confused. Never said the Supreme Court controls the army, you need to carefully see the point being made there. Because the poster I was replying to had brought up the option of violence, I pointed out that the army could do whatever it wants, once freed from constitutional restraints & that there is no deciding what direction that interference may take.

The point here is whether the constitution can be amended to its basics. It has been held that it cannot. For now, end of story. As long as that ruling stays, all such amendments will be examined under that ruling. There is no chance that the ruling in question will be changed.

 

[NairLand]

I know that but Executive powers are Supreme According to the constitution Eg if President is found guilty for something judiciary Cant over threw him As President Enjoys Executive Authority Under constitution Unless he Resigned from his Powers

Executive powers are supreme in the realms of execution.

The act of "over throwing" is an executive act, which is why the Judiciary cannot perform it.

But a president can be impeached if he violates the constitution. That requires 2/3 rd majority by both Lok and Rajya Sabha.

 

[Bang Galore]

........... then why bother commenting that it cannot be changed in the first place ? ...... you cannot now pretend to be disinterested.

It cannot. Not be the government. You are wondering whether the supreme Court may change its interpretation, that is not in the power of the government of the day. That ruling exists now. Hence the points being made. My point quite clearly has been that no government can change the basic structure of the constitution as it exists now by amendment. That remains.

 

[NairLand]

I'm not confused. Never said the Supreme Court controls the army, you need to carefully see the point being made there. Because the poster I was replying to had brought up the option of violence, I pointed out that the army could so whatever it wants, once freed from constitutional restraints & that there is no deciding what direction that interference may take.

The point here is whether the constitution can be amended to its basics. It has been held that it cannot. For now, end of story. As long as that ruling stays, all such amendments will be examined under that ruling. There is no chance that the ruling in question will be changed.

You misunderstand, violence of not necessarily by the army. There is Mob violence which is far more likely in India..............and its ridiculous to assume that the ruling cannot be changed in the future. This basic structure doctrine does not exist in any other part of the world.

 

[Bang Galore]

how can If the judges will be appointed By Govt It self have you seen a new judiciary bill

I have. Have you?

You misunderstand, violence of not necessarily by the army. There is Mob violence which is far more likely in India.

Possible. So it is by the army. A lot more effective. You can't be sure which side of the argument they will come down on, can you?

 

[NairLand]

It cannot. Not be the government. You are wondering whether the supreme Court may change its interpretation, that is not in the power of the government of the day. That ruling exists now. Hence the points being made. My point quite clearly has been that no government can change the basic structure of the constitution as it exists now by amendment. That remains.

You have got it all wrong.

The SC can only answer question about the "legality" of the law. That includes any changes in the constitution. The parliament even today has the power to pass ANY law.

This law can then be challenged in the SC and the SC may or may not strike down the law.

But the SC does not have the power over the legislature to prevent it from making a bill and passing it as law.

 

[NKVD]

But a president can be impeached if he violates the constitution. That requires 2/3 rd majority by both Lok and Rajya Sabha.[/quote]
Under Article 61 still it requires Union govt and Legislative assembly not Judiciary As i was Saying there is No role of judiciary here Procedure of Impeachment of President of India.

 

[Bang Galore]

You have got it all wrong.

The SC can only answer question about the "legality" of the law. That includes any changes in the constitution. The parliament even today has the power to pass ANY law.

This law can then be challenged in the SC and the SC may or may not strike down the law.

But the SC does not have the power over the legislature to prevent it from making a bill and passing it as law.

The SC will examine any constitutional amendment under that ruling. The parameters are set. Any amendment that does not pass muster will be voided. Effectively not implementable. Therefore, cannot be done.

Btw, haven't we already discussed this once before.....

 

[NairLand]

But a president can be impeached if he violates the constitution. That requires 2/3 rd majority by both Lok and Rajya Sabha.

Under Article 61 still it requires Union govt and Legislative assembly not Judiciary As i was Saying there is No role of judiciary here Procedure of Impeachment of President of India.[/quote]

The President can challenge his impeachment in the SC by arguing his act were constitutional, then the SC can rule the reasons for impeachment were not valid. Which in turn will make the impeachment illegal.

That however would lead to a constitutional crisis. A Dharm sankat

 

[NKVD]

I have. Have you?

you are talking about legality no practicality have seen justice Katju Revelations recently Monmoham singh letter two CJI

 

[NairLand]

The SC will examine any constitutional amendment under that ruling. The parameters are set. Any amendment that does not pass muster will be voided. Effectively not implementable. Therefore, cannot be done.

Btw, haven't we already discussed this once before.....

LOL, yes we have.

Don't you think its a bit silly to say the parameters are set, when you already know the earlier SC ruling on the basic structure was over ruled and changed by another bench within a span of 30 years.

Only India and B'desh has this absurd basic structure ruling which is not based on strong logic or rational thought. ..... its based more on a mushy feeling of 'doing the right thing'.

.....and yes, the SC does get mushy. We still have a long way to go to get an impartial and unprejudiced judiciary.