SimranLaw What Does A Criminal Advocate Chandigarh Cost SimranLaw 815 Sector 16 D Chandigarh 160015

From Fallen Gods
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu - "Then we have the scheme of distribution of legislative powers worked out in article 246 as between Parliament and the legislatures of the States specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule, which, however, does not affect the question we have to determine, for article 246 (4), like section 100 (4) of the Government of India Act, 1935, provides that Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the.

To my mind, the whole concept of the Constitution is that after years of bitter struggle the citizens of India are assured that certain liberties shall be guaranteed to them and that these liber- ties shall not be curtailed beyond limits which they and all the world. Bearing this in mind, I will 648 proceed to examine the impugned provisions of the amending Act. Now, the Constitution provides for three classes of amendments of its provisions. I would struggle hard against any interpretation which permitted evasion of those impor- tant limitations and which permitted those hardwon liberties to be curtailed by some accidental side wind which allows virtual delegation of the responsibility for fixing the maximum limits which Parliament is empowered to fix, to some lesser authority, and worse, for fixing them ad hoc in each individual case, for that, in my opinion, is what actually happens, whatever the technical name, when Parliament fixes no maximum and lesser authorities are left free to decide in each case how long the individual should be detained.

The article says "subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. I am construing a Consti- tution which was hammered out solemnly and deliberately after the most mature consideration and with the most anx- ious care. The amendments contemplated in articles 4, 169 and 240 fall within this class, and they are specifically excluded from the purview of article 368.

I am clear that these are not matters which should be viewed technically or narrowly but in the broad and liberal spirit in which they were conceived. There was good amount of debate on the doctrine of compensatory tax evolved by this Court in Automobile. I feel bound, therefore, when there is ambiguity or doubt, to resolve it in favour of what I conceive to be the free way of a Sovereign Democratic Republic. In view of the aforesaid, we do not deem it necessary to go into the other questions raised by Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel, namely, the absence of pleading and the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

First, those Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu that can be effected by a bare majority such as that required for the passing of any ordinary law. It is interesting and glaring to note that at the stage of drafting, at the stage of consideration by the Sub-Committee as well as Advisory Committee and when the Part XA (now Part XIII) was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, never even for a moment, the principle of compensatory tax was thought of.

territo- ry of India not included in Part A or Part B notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. I am in respectful agreement with the consideration, reasoning and conclusion in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, who held that concept of compensatory tax has neither any juristic basis nor a part of Indian Constitutional law. Needless to add, it is settled law that the fact that clause 4 has been declared by Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu us to be of no effect would not impact the bequest made under clause 2, and the rest of the Will, therefore, would have to be given effect to.

The appeal is, accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. I am not hampered here by considerations of war necessi- ty or emergency legislation where some authorities hold that the canons of construction are different 647 and that allowance must be made in favour of the State for the imperfections of language used in legislation which had to be drafted and enacted in a desperate hurry with the State in dire and immediate peril.

Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota of direct recruit Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu as on 30th August 2008, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 in the leading appeal), who could participate in the selection process for direct recruit alone and not by way of promotion through Limited Competitive Examination, had no locus to challenge the selection process of 2008. After all, who framed the Constitution and for whose benefit was it made ? ,--not just for those in brief authority, not only for lawyers and dialecticians but for the common people of India.

can know and which can Only be fixed by the highest authority in the land, Parliament itself, directly and specifically after affording opportunity for due delib- eration in that august body. It should therefore be construed, when that can be done without doing violence to the language employed, in a simple straightforward way so that it makes sense to the man in the street, so that the common people of the land can follow and understand its meaning. We therefore begin by looking to the terms of the Con- stitution and we find that article 245 confers lawmaking power on Parliament in the same general terms as in the other two cases discussed above.