Article relates to power and procedure of amendment of the Constitution. it can only be a means to an end, “that end being” as eloquently ex- pressed by Jawaharlal Nehru “the raising of the people,. Article can itself be amended to make the Constitution completely flexible or extremely rigid and unamendable. Justice Bachawat and Justice Ramswami concurred by their separate judgments with the view expressed in the leading minority judgment.
In the Constitution the word “amendment” or “amend” has been used in various places to mean different things. Again, in Article () the words are modification or exceptions. The Parliament, it was held, in enacting the amendment was not legislating with respect to land and that it was open to Parliament to validate legislation which had been declared invalid by courts. The theory of implied and inherent limitations can be best described as a subtle attempt to annihilate the affirmative power of amendment.
I am also unable to accede to the contention that an amendment of the Constitution as a result of which the President is bound to give his assent to an amendment of the Constitution passed in accordance with the provisions of Article is not valid. Having ascertained the true scope of Article , let us now turn to Article . When an amendment is made, we have already shown, it becomes part of the Constitution, taking an equal status with the rest of the provisions of the Constitution.
They reflect the concepts of LIBERTY and EQUALITY in a very attenuated form with several restrictions imposed in the interest of orderly and peaceable Government. said that the law to justify itself has to provide for the payment of a ‘just equivalent’ to the land acquired or lay down principles which will lead to that result. was of the opinion that there were certain implied limitations upon the power of amendment while the other two learned judges held that there were no such limitations.
Although considerable arguments have been addressed before us on the point as to whether the power of amendment under Article includes the power to amend Part III so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights, it has not been disputed before us that the Constitution (Twentyfourth Amendment) Act was passed in accordance With the procedure laid down in Article of the Constitution as it existed before the passing of the said Act. Therefore, if an amendment takes away or abridges rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution it is void.
-; Colin Howard, “Australian Federal Constitutional Law” (). Kolb compiled under the auspices of the Unesco p. Accordingly I do not rely on them as aids to construction. This may perhaps explain the omission of the words “except by way of amendment of this Constitution. ” By a letter of April , , the Chairman of the Fundamental Rights sub-Committee forwarded an annexure on Fundamental Rights to the Chairman, Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights.
It is capable of receiving a wide meaning as well as a narrow meaning. Fundamental or basic principles can be changed. , the Parliament, and so would be Articles and , while these fundamental rights remain in the Constitution. I find no infirmity in the Constitution (Twentyfourth Amendment) Act. The first amongst the subjects, which was inserted by British North America Act , is : “The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces, or.
The Chandigarh did not move. , as they then were, and Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ. So, in fact, after the expiry of the first eight years, the amendments had to be made by the people themselves. Article speaks of the method of election of the President. Palkhivak with regard to essential features and basic principles of the Constitution. And because that was not the intention, we have to take Simranjeet Singh Sidhu the first step of legally construing “this Constitution” as “every provision of the Constitution” and then import the padding words with reference to the provision.
It would not, therefore, be wrong to say that the amending power was of a diffused kind and was contained in more than one provision of the Constitution. The President cannot refuse his assent to a Bill passed by both Houses bicamerally or unicamerally. only one of the judges, Judge Harrison, held the view that the word ‘amendment’ in the State Constitution implied such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement or better carrying out of the purpose for which it was framed.
In this case the Seventeenth Amendment made on June , was challenged. Arguments based on the difficulties likely to be faced by the legislatures are of very little importance and they are essentially arguments against judicial review. The entire discussion from the point of view of the meaning of the expression “amendment” as employed in Article and the limitations which arise by implications leads to the result that the amending power under Article is neither narrow nor unlimited.
The power conferred under it, is an arbitrary power. But even assuming that this Amendment was designed to make the embargo under Article () applicable to Article , no inference can be derived therefrom. It is always open to a party to assail the validity of such a law on the ground that it does not relate to any of the subjects mentioned in Article A. That is the view which was taken by this Court in the State of Bihar v.
No such restriction was established in the case before the Privy Council. , has not specifically dealt with the meaning of the word ‘amendment’. Therefore, the peculiar or special power to amend the Constitution is to be sought in Article only and not elsewhere. It is more proper, however, to look for the true ‘meaning’ of the word “amendment” in the Constitution itself rather than in the dictionaries. In other words, confiscation of property of an individual would be permissible.
where it is said that opinions that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless, are tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist. pointed out that the words should never be interpreted in vacuo because few words in the English language have a natural or ordinary meaning in the sense that they must be so read that their meaning is entirely independent of their context.
The second part of Article C thus goes beyond the permissible limit of what constitutes amendment under Article . He thereafter submitted that Advocate Simranjeet Singh our Constitution guarantees a freedom of speech and expression and by judicial construction that freedom has been held to include freedom of the Press. Ambedkar Constitution Assembly Debates, Vol. Another reason why great importance attaches to a Declaration of Rights is the unfortunate existence of communal differences in the country.
Article in the unamended form contained power as well as self executing procedure which if followed by the prescribed authorities would result in an amendment of the Constitution. ) Section of the nd Amendment, which was brought into force with effect from January , amended Article C of the Constitution by substituting the words and figures “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV” for the Words and figures “the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article “.
The legislative measure might not according to some views give effect to Directive Principles. in the Collector of Customs, Baroda v. The resolution passed by the Congress in recited that in order to end the exploitation of the masses, political freedom must include real economic freedom of the starving millions. According to Clause (B) which has been added as a result of the Twentyfifth Amendment in Article , nothing in Sub-clause (f) of Clause () of Article shall affect any such law as is referred to in Clause ().
In the words of Granville Austin,. The Commonwealth of Australia () A. Simranjeet Law Associates varies according to the requirements of time and place. A circumspect use of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III is bound to subserve the common good but voluntary submission to restraints is a philosopher’s dream. I have already dealt with the decision in the case with respect to the first point. Non-obstante Clause () has been inserted in the article to emphasise the fact that the power exercised under that article is constituent power, not subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, and embraces within itself addition, variation and repeal of any provision of the Constitution.
Section of the British North America Act enumerates the subjects of exclusive provincial legislation. The scope of the amendment would be clear from Section of the Amendment Act which reads as under: The second case in which there arose the question of the power of the Parliament to amend fundamental rights was Sajjan Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. The amendment was attacked on the grounds that it was legislative in its character, an invasion of natural rights and an encroachment on the fundamental principles of dual sovereignty, hut the contention was overruled.
India’s immediate goal can only be considered in terms of the ending of the exploitation of her people. We may now deal with Article C, introduced as a result of the Twentyfifth Amendment. The method which he preferred was not to take the particular words and attribute to them a sort of prima facie meaning which may have to be displaced or modified. () Notwithstanding anything contained in Article , no law providing for- Law is enacted by passing a bill which is introduced.
The expropriated owner still continues to have a fundamental right. The Judicial Committee, it is also noteworthy, expressly pointed out that there had been no amendment of the Constitution in accordance with Section () of the Constitution by two-thirds majority and as such they had not to deal with that situation.