Article empowering courts to adjudicate india
Answers
Answered by
2
Extensive Concept of Judicial Review in India:
The Supreme Court has been vested with the power of judicial review. It means that the Supreme Court may review its own Judgement order. Judicial review can be defined as the competence of a court of law to declare the constitutionality or otherwise of a legislative enactment.
Being the guardian of the Fundamental Rights and arbiter of the constitutional conflicts between the Union and the States with respect to the division of powers between them, the Supreme Court enjoys the competence to exercise the power of reviewing legislative enactments both of Parliament and the State’s legislatures.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The power of the court to declare legislative enactments invalid is expressively provided by the Constitution under Article 13, which declares that every law in force, or every future law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights, shall be void. Other Articles of the Constitution (131-136) have also expressively vested in the Supreme Court the power of reviewing legislative enactments of the Union and the States.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was curtailed by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution (1976), in several ways. But some of these changes have been repealed by the 43rd Amendment Act, 1977. But there are several other provisions which were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976 not repealed so far.
These are:
(i) Arts. 323 A-B. The intent of these two new Articles was to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 over orders and decisions of Administrative Tribunals. These Articles could, however, be implemented only by legislation. Art. 323A has been implemented by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (ii) Arts. 368 (4)-(5). These two Clauses were inserted in Art. 368 with a view to preventing the Supreme Court to invalidate any Constitutional Amendment Act on the theory of ‘basic features’ of the Constitution.
These Clauses have been emasculated by the Supreme Court itself, striking them down on the ground that they are violative in the two ‘basic features’ of the Constitution:
(a) the limited nature of the amending power under Art. 368 and
(b) judicial review in the Minerva Mills case.
The court was very reluctant and cautious to exercise its power of Judicial Review, during the first decade, when the Supreme Court declared invalid only one of total 694 Acts passed by the Parliament.
During the second decade the court asserted its authority without any hesitation which is reflected in the famous Golak Nath case and Kesavananda Barti case. In these cases the Supreme Court assumed the role of constitution making.
The Supreme Court has been vested with the power of judicial review. It means that the Supreme Court may review its own Judgement order. Judicial review can be defined as the competence of a court of law to declare the constitutionality or otherwise of a legislative enactment.
Being the guardian of the Fundamental Rights and arbiter of the constitutional conflicts between the Union and the States with respect to the division of powers between them, the Supreme Court enjoys the competence to exercise the power of reviewing legislative enactments both of Parliament and the State’s legislatures.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The power of the court to declare legislative enactments invalid is expressively provided by the Constitution under Article 13, which declares that every law in force, or every future law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights, shall be void. Other Articles of the Constitution (131-136) have also expressively vested in the Supreme Court the power of reviewing legislative enactments of the Union and the States.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was curtailed by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution (1976), in several ways. But some of these changes have been repealed by the 43rd Amendment Act, 1977. But there are several other provisions which were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976 not repealed so far.
These are:
(i) Arts. 323 A-B. The intent of these two new Articles was to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 over orders and decisions of Administrative Tribunals. These Articles could, however, be implemented only by legislation. Art. 323A has been implemented by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (ii) Arts. 368 (4)-(5). These two Clauses were inserted in Art. 368 with a view to preventing the Supreme Court to invalidate any Constitutional Amendment Act on the theory of ‘basic features’ of the Constitution.
These Clauses have been emasculated by the Supreme Court itself, striking them down on the ground that they are violative in the two ‘basic features’ of the Constitution:
(a) the limited nature of the amending power under Art. 368 and
(b) judicial review in the Minerva Mills case.
The court was very reluctant and cautious to exercise its power of Judicial Review, during the first decade, when the Supreme Court declared invalid only one of total 694 Acts passed by the Parliament.
During the second decade the court asserted its authority without any hesitation which is reflected in the famous Golak Nath case and Kesavananda Barti case. In these cases the Supreme Court assumed the role of constitution making.
Similar questions