if a dispute about the division of powers who make a decision
Answers
Answered by
1
In a constitutional set-up where powers are distributed between the Union and the States, it is natural to expect disputes as to on which side of the boundary a particular matter falls. Where such differences do arise, it is desirable that there should be a well thought out systemic mechanism for the resolution of such inter- State disputes.
The Commission considered as to whether the Supreme Court should be given exclusive jurisdiction in controversies concerning the distribution of legislative powers. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that article 131A was inserted in the Constitution vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 so as to provide exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to the questions as to constitutional validity of Union laws.
However, the said provision was repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. After carefully considering the issues, the Commission is of the view that no exclusive jurisdiction need be conferred on the Supreme Court in matters of controversies concerning distribution of legislative power between the Union and the States.
It would deprive non-governmental parties of the facilities and the advantages of seeking remedy in the High Courts. However, there may be situations, which may require that such questions should not undergo a long drawn process of litigation and the Supreme Court should be enabled to dispose off such questions finally and quickly without its being made a court of exclusive jurisdiction.
The Commission is of the view that the Supreme Court should be empowered to transfer such cases to itself and decide the same. For this purpose it is not necessary to amend article 131. It can be provided for by amending article 139A.
This will also ensure that the Supreme Court would be able to apply its mind and prima facie see as to whether (a) the case really involves some substantial question of law and is not raising untenable or frivolous contentions; and (b) whether the case is such that it should be transferred to it and disposed of expeditiously
The Commission recommends that article 139A, which confers power on the Supreme Court to withdraw cases involving the same or substantially the same question of law, which are pending in Supreme Court and one or more High Courts, should be amended so as to provide that it can withdraw to itself cases even if they are pending in one court where such questions as to the legislative competence of the Parliament or State Legislature are involved.
Inter-State Water Disputes
Water is a prime resource for sustaining life on earth. The domestic, agricultural and industrial uses of water are multiplying day by day and this phenomenal increase in demand for water in diverse fields has resulted in its scarcity. Moreover, availability of water is highly uneven in both space and time as it is dependent upon varying seasons of rainfall and capacity of storage.
India is served by two great river systems, i.e. the Great Himalayan Drainage system and the peninsular river network. It has 14 major rivers that are inter-State rivers and 44 medium rivers of which 9 are inter-State rivers. Eighty five per cent of the Indian land mass lies within its major and medium inter-State rivers.
The Commission considered the importance of inter-State water sharing as an area of great concern in maintaining the federal spirit and better Union-State and inter-State relations. The Commission accordingly studied the mechanisms available for efficient, productive and sustainable resource management of the country’s river systems and allocation of inter-State water resources.
The Constitution does not itself lay down any specific machinery for adjudication of water disputes. Article 262(1) lays down that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any disputes or complaints with respect to use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley
HOPE IT HELPFUL DEAR
The Commission considered as to whether the Supreme Court should be given exclusive jurisdiction in controversies concerning the distribution of legislative powers. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that article 131A was inserted in the Constitution vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 so as to provide exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to the questions as to constitutional validity of Union laws.
However, the said provision was repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. After carefully considering the issues, the Commission is of the view that no exclusive jurisdiction need be conferred on the Supreme Court in matters of controversies concerning distribution of legislative power between the Union and the States.
It would deprive non-governmental parties of the facilities and the advantages of seeking remedy in the High Courts. However, there may be situations, which may require that such questions should not undergo a long drawn process of litigation and the Supreme Court should be enabled to dispose off such questions finally and quickly without its being made a court of exclusive jurisdiction.
The Commission is of the view that the Supreme Court should be empowered to transfer such cases to itself and decide the same. For this purpose it is not necessary to amend article 131. It can be provided for by amending article 139A.
This will also ensure that the Supreme Court would be able to apply its mind and prima facie see as to whether (a) the case really involves some substantial question of law and is not raising untenable or frivolous contentions; and (b) whether the case is such that it should be transferred to it and disposed of expeditiously
The Commission recommends that article 139A, which confers power on the Supreme Court to withdraw cases involving the same or substantially the same question of law, which are pending in Supreme Court and one or more High Courts, should be amended so as to provide that it can withdraw to itself cases even if they are pending in one court where such questions as to the legislative competence of the Parliament or State Legislature are involved.
Inter-State Water Disputes
Water is a prime resource for sustaining life on earth. The domestic, agricultural and industrial uses of water are multiplying day by day and this phenomenal increase in demand for water in diverse fields has resulted in its scarcity. Moreover, availability of water is highly uneven in both space and time as it is dependent upon varying seasons of rainfall and capacity of storage.
India is served by two great river systems, i.e. the Great Himalayan Drainage system and the peninsular river network. It has 14 major rivers that are inter-State rivers and 44 medium rivers of which 9 are inter-State rivers. Eighty five per cent of the Indian land mass lies within its major and medium inter-State rivers.
The Commission considered the importance of inter-State water sharing as an area of great concern in maintaining the federal spirit and better Union-State and inter-State relations. The Commission accordingly studied the mechanisms available for efficient, productive and sustainable resource management of the country’s river systems and allocation of inter-State water resources.
The Constitution does not itself lay down any specific machinery for adjudication of water disputes. Article 262(1) lays down that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any disputes or complaints with respect to use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley
HOPE IT HELPFUL DEAR
aarujain1papfpa:
thanks
Answered by
1
Governor of the particular state or president of India if national elections are held in india
Similar questions