Schedule ninth of the indian constitution deals with
Answers
Answered by
0
9th schedule is all about judicial review and constitutional amendment related subject…
1- What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. The provision of judicial review has been adopted in the Indian constitution from the constitution of the United States of America. In the Indian constitution, Judicial Review is dealt with, under Article 13. Judicial Review implies that the Constitution is the supreme power of the nation and all laws are under its supremacy. Its is provided in the constitution to prevent hasty and unconstitutional legislation passed by the parliament.
2- Some basic ideas about Ninth Schedule
The Ninth Schedule was added to the Constitution by the First Amendment in 1951 along with Article 31-B with a view to provide a “protective umbrella” to land reforms laws to save them from being challenged in courts on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.
According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution, the state shall not make any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights and any law made in contravention of fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of the contravention.
3- Importance of Article 31-B
Article 31-B saves conflict of laws with fundamental rights by giving validation based on “fictional immunity” that laws enacted under it and placed in the Ninth Schedule are immune to challenge in a court of law even if such a law violated fundamental rights.
4- Case related to Ninth Schedule
In IR Coelho versus State of Tamil Nadu, various laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were challenged on the ground that any law violating fundamental rights should be struck down as “unconstitutional” and that the court’s power of judicial review cannot be taken away. A nine-judge constitution bench delivered its verdict on the issue in January 2007.
5- Judgment in this case
a) The SC upheld the validity of Article 31-B and Parliament’s power to place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule.
b) But it said laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial scrutiny and that such laws do not enjoy a blanket protection.
c) Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Keshwanand Bharti Judgment on April 24, 1973, when it propounded the “basic structure” doctrine, were open to challenge.
d) If the SC has already upheld the validity of any Ninth Schedule Law, it would not be open to challenge such a law again on the principles declared in the latest judgment delivered on January 11, 2007.
e) All actions taken or transactions finalised, as a result of the impugned acts shall not be open to challenge.
f) It laid down dual test to examine the validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule. Whether it violates any fundamental right and if yes whether the violation also damages or destroys the basic structure. If the answer to both the questions is in the affirmative, then only a law placed in the Ninth Schedule can be declared unconstitutional.
The Bench said, "Insertion in the Ninth Schedule is not controlled by any defined criteria or standards by which the exercise of power may be evaluated. The consequence of the insertion is that it nullifies entire Part III (relating to fundamental rights) of the Constitution. There is no constitutional control on such nullification. It means unlimited power to totally nullify Part III insofar as Ninth Schedule legislation are concerned. The supremacy of the Constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. It also mandates a mechanism for testing the validity of legislative acts through an independent organ, viz. the judiciary."
The Bench held that all such laws included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of verdict of Keshwanand Bharati Case) would be tested individually on the touchstone of violation of fundamental rights or the basic structure doctrine. The laws would be examined separately by a three-judge Bench and if these were found to violate the fundamental rights, abridge or abrogate any of the rights or protection granted to the people would be set aside.
Thank you for reading
1- What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. The provision of judicial review has been adopted in the Indian constitution from the constitution of the United States of America. In the Indian constitution, Judicial Review is dealt with, under Article 13. Judicial Review implies that the Constitution is the supreme power of the nation and all laws are under its supremacy. Its is provided in the constitution to prevent hasty and unconstitutional legislation passed by the parliament.
2- Some basic ideas about Ninth Schedule
The Ninth Schedule was added to the Constitution by the First Amendment in 1951 along with Article 31-B with a view to provide a “protective umbrella” to land reforms laws to save them from being challenged in courts on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.
According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution, the state shall not make any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights and any law made in contravention of fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of the contravention.
3- Importance of Article 31-B
Article 31-B saves conflict of laws with fundamental rights by giving validation based on “fictional immunity” that laws enacted under it and placed in the Ninth Schedule are immune to challenge in a court of law even if such a law violated fundamental rights.
4- Case related to Ninth Schedule
In IR Coelho versus State of Tamil Nadu, various laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were challenged on the ground that any law violating fundamental rights should be struck down as “unconstitutional” and that the court’s power of judicial review cannot be taken away. A nine-judge constitution bench delivered its verdict on the issue in January 2007.
5- Judgment in this case
a) The SC upheld the validity of Article 31-B and Parliament’s power to place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule.
b) But it said laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial scrutiny and that such laws do not enjoy a blanket protection.
c) Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Keshwanand Bharti Judgment on April 24, 1973, when it propounded the “basic structure” doctrine, were open to challenge.
d) If the SC has already upheld the validity of any Ninth Schedule Law, it would not be open to challenge such a law again on the principles declared in the latest judgment delivered on January 11, 2007.
e) All actions taken or transactions finalised, as a result of the impugned acts shall not be open to challenge.
f) It laid down dual test to examine the validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule. Whether it violates any fundamental right and if yes whether the violation also damages or destroys the basic structure. If the answer to both the questions is in the affirmative, then only a law placed in the Ninth Schedule can be declared unconstitutional.
The Bench said, "Insertion in the Ninth Schedule is not controlled by any defined criteria or standards by which the exercise of power may be evaluated. The consequence of the insertion is that it nullifies entire Part III (relating to fundamental rights) of the Constitution. There is no constitutional control on such nullification. It means unlimited power to totally nullify Part III insofar as Ninth Schedule legislation are concerned. The supremacy of the Constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. It also mandates a mechanism for testing the validity of legislative acts through an independent organ, viz. the judiciary."
The Bench held that all such laws included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of verdict of Keshwanand Bharati Case) would be tested individually on the touchstone of violation of fundamental rights or the basic structure doctrine. The laws would be examined separately by a three-judge Bench and if these were found to violate the fundamental rights, abridge or abrogate any of the rights or protection granted to the people would be set aside.
Thank you for reading
Answered by
1
it deals with fundamental rights .....
it may helps uh:)
it may helps uh:)
Similar questions
English,
1 year ago