Nobel Prize, World Bank Chief, anything is possible for R3

[Stephen Cohen]

There is no provision for executive overturn of a judicial decision. Ask a lawyer or a political science authority who has even an elementary familiarity with the constitution. The Prime Minister certainly has no authority to go contrary to a court decision, and the higher body, the Cabinet, also cannot do anything about it.

Only Parliament can, and that too within the framework of the 'broad structure of the Constitution'. Any legislation beyond that can, and has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Very recently the UNION CABINET passed an ORDINANCE overruling the Supreme Court Order
on NEET -- Medical entrance exam

This Ordinance was challenged but the Union Government told the Court to BACK OFF
because this sudden order on NEET by the SC had created Chaos and confusion

Only Parliament can, and that too within the framework of the 'broad structure of the Constitution'. Any legislation beyond that can, and has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

RESPECTED SIR

It is NOT called Broad Structure -- It is Called BASIC structure of the Constitution

It is a TRINITY of Articles of the Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine#Evolution_of_the_doctrine



In the judgement on section 55, Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud 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 be the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one."[14] The ruling was widely welcomed in India, and Gandhi did not challenge the verdict.[15] In the judgement on Section 4, Chandrachud wrote:

Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into whichTagore wanted his country to awake 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.[14]

The Supreme Court adjudicated on the ownership of land. It did not retrospectively condone - it could not have condoned a breach of the law - all the breaches of law that the partisans who were out-of-court supporters of the Hindu litigants committed. Giving a small portion of the land - about one-third - to Ram Lalla does not mean that the previous breaches of law and order were justified. Ask any lawyer.

Only the Allahabad HIGH COURT has passed a Verdict in the Ayodhya Case

The case is PENDING in the Supreme court

The Shah Bano case constituted an appeal to the courts by a Muslim woman. The courts found for her, and against the principles of Muslim Personal Law. Those who had vested interests in Muslim Personal Law then started agitation. Rajiv Gandhi then took to the legislative route, NOT the executive, to counter the court's decision.

What is your Legal Oinion about the CURRENT case in the Supreme Court
where there has been a demand to declare TRIPLE talaq as ILLEGAL

Why is the AIMPLB -- All India Muslim Personal Law Board quaking in their boots

AIMPLB is saying that this is akin to getting Uniform Civil Code by the back door


Some 50000 Muslim Women have become a party to the case

https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...ie=UTF-8#q=supreme+court+triple+talaq&tbm=nws

 

[ranjeet]

You missed out on this...

Rajiv Gandhi opening Babri Masjid gates to appease the Hindu votebank by going against the Supreme Court order.

I agree, had Rajiv Gandhi not done that we could have avoided the bloodshed of 1992. After Shah Bano case Rajiv wanted to please the other side and Hindus took the bait.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very recently the UNION CABINET passed an ORDINANCE overruling the Supreme Court Order
on NEET -- Medical entrance exam

This Ordinance was challenged but the Union Government told the Court to BACK OFF
because this sudden order on NEET by the SC had created Chaos and confusion



RESPECTED SIR

It is NOT called Broad Structure -- It is Called BASIC structure of the Constitution

It is a TRINITY of Articles of the Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine#Evolution_of_the_doctrine



In the judgement on section 55, Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud 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 be the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one."[14] The ruling was widely welcomed in India, and Gandhi did not challenge the verdict.[15] In the judgement on Section 4, Chandrachud wrote:

Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into whichTagore wanted his country to awake 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.[14]



Only the Allahabad HIGH COURT has passed a Verdict in the Ayodhya Case

The case is PENDING in the Supreme court



What is your Legal Oinion about the CURRENT case in the Supreme Court
where there has been a demand to declare TRIPLE talaq as ILLEGAL

Why is the AIMPLB -- All India Muslim Personal Law Board quaking in their boots

AIMPLB is saying that this is akin to getting Uniform Civil Code by the back door


Some 50000 Muslim Women have become a party to the case

https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...ie=UTF-8#q=supreme+court+triple+talaq&tbm=nws

A BRILLIANT POST.

I didn't know you had this tucked away inside!! I am absolutely thrilled.

Let me read and re-read this a few times and reply later. I deserve the treat, after listening to so much mind-rotting nonsense. Are you a law student?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

A BRILLIANT POST.

I didn't know you had this tucked away inside!! I am absolutely thrilled.

Let me read and re-read this a few times and reply later. I deserve the treat, after listening to so much mind-rotting nonsense. Are you a law student?

No Sir ; I am not a student ; I am 43 years of age working with the " Old Economy "
I do have lawyers in the extended family

I am very much interested in Legal developments
and Political matters that transpire within the country
and of course in global Geo politics which brought me to PDF

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir My Internet connection is throwing tantrums -- Monsoon effect

In case I am unable to reply to you ; please dont take it otherwise

 

[Joe Shearer]

No Sir ; I am not a student ; I am 43 years of age working with the " Old Economy "
I do have lawyers in the extended family

I am very much interested in Legal developments
and Political matters that transpire within the country
and of course in global Geo politics which brought me to PDF

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir My Internet connection is throwing tantrums -- Monsoon effect

In case I am unable to reply to you ; please dont take it otherwise

Do NOT worry. That one superb summation of the whole damn' thing, on which I wasted so many posts, will keep me contented and happy for a long, long time! I will reply after freshening up; I have had a celebratory lunch with a friend and a long kip after, and am just rousing myself.

Congratulations, once again, on that post of yours.

 

[livingdead]

Nobel prize is a bit too much I think... but he indicated he will go back to academia.. I doubt he will go back to world bank.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nobel prize is a bit too much I think... but he indicated he will go back to academia.. I doubt he will go back to world bank.

I don't think he is Nobel material. Academics is far more likely, and he will easily get plum offers. Even in a difficult market steadily getting more difficult.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very recently the UNION CABINET passed an ORDINANCE overruling the Supreme Court Order
on NEET -- Medical entrance exam

This Ordinance was challenged but the Union Government told the Court to BACK OFF
because this sudden order on NEET by the SC had created Chaos and confusion

This is a good example of government reversal of a Supreme Court decision, because it is rare and because it is so apt.

There is nothing prohibiting the government from taking up legislation reversing a court ruling that it did not like; reversing it by ordinance is rare.

The history of confrontations between judiciary and legislative is worth a book by itself.

RESPECTED SIR

It is NOT called Broad Structure -- It is Called BASIC structure of the Constitution

It is a TRINITY of Articles of the Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine#Evolution_of_the_doctrine



In the judgement on section 55, Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud 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 be the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one."[14] The ruling was widely welcomed in India, and Gandhi did not challenge the verdict.[15] In the judgement on Section 4, Chandrachud wrote:

Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into whichTagore wanted his country to awake 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.[14]

Thank you very much for the correction. Please also take this elementary mistake as a visible sign of how upset I was at the whole controversy.

Only the Allahabad HIGH COURT has passed a Verdict in the Ayodhya Case

The case is PENDING in the Supreme court

Quite right again. Another sign of discomfort, to have made such a glaring error.

What is your Legal Oinion about the CURRENT case in the Supreme Court
where there has been a demand to declare TRIPLE talaq as ILLEGAL

Why is the AIMPLB -- All India Muslim Personal Law Board quaking in their boots

AIMPLB is saying that this is akin to getting Uniform Civil Code by the back door


Some 50000 Muslim Women have become a party to the case

https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...ie=UTF-8#q=supreme+court+triple+talaq&tbm=nws

 

[DesiGuy1403]

I agree, had Rajiv Gandhi not done that we could have avoided the bloodshed of 1992. After Shah Bano case Rajiv wanted to please the other side and Hindus took the bait.

Agreed. Rajiv's intentions were because of the preserved backlash of Hindus after the Shah Bano fiasco.

This is an excellent example of what appeasement politics would do a party. They will invariably reach a scenario of having to appease conflicting ideologies.