#42nd Amendment | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

news365timesindia · 30 days ago

Text

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 26thNovember. On November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment, dismissing petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution, introduced via the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, unequivocally held that there was no valid justification for reopening this constitutional amendment after nearly five decades. This judgment underscores the enduring relevance of socialism and secularism in Bharat’s constitutional ethos and provides a broader commentary on the nature of constitutional amendments, judicial review, and the balance between evolving societal values and historical precedents. Background of the 42nd Amendment The 42nd Amendment, often referred to as the “mini-Constitution”, was enacted during the Emergency period under then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government. It introduced significant changes, including the insertion of the words socialist and secular in the Preamble. While this amendment has been controversial, it remains a cornerstone of Bharat’s constitutional history, reflecting the socio-political milieu of the time. Supreme Court’s Observations: Key Highlights Lack of Justification for the Challenge The Court emphasized that challenging the amendment nearly 44 years after its enactment lacked merit. The bench observed that the words socialist and secular have been ingrained in Bharat’s constitutional framework and widely accepted by the populace. Amendability of the Preamble The judgment reiterated that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and subject to amendment under Article 368. This settled the argument that the Preamble, being adopted in 1949, could not be retrospectively amended. Concept of Socialism and Secularism in Bharat Socialism: The Court clarified that in the Bharatiya context, socialism signifies a welfare state ensuring economic and social justice. Unlike the rigid interpretations of socialism seen in some other countries, Bharat’s approach accommodates private entrepreneurship while striving for equitable development. Secularism: Rooted in the right to equality, secularism in Bharat ensures equal treatment of all religions. This principle has been repeatedly upheld as a basic feature of the Constitution, including in landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. Historical and Legal Validation The Court highlighted that the inclusion of socialism and secularism has been reviewed by multiple constitutional benches and has withstood judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the post-Emergency Janata Party government, despite undoing many provisions of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment, retained these terms in the Preamble, underscoring their importance. Petitioners’ Contentions and Judicial Response The petitions were spearheaded by prominent figures, including Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Key arguments included: The amendment was made during the Emergency without public consultation. The terms socialist and secular impose ideological frameworks contrary to the original Preamble. Amending the Preamble exceeds the constituent powers of Parliament. In response, the bench refuted these claims: It reiterated that the Parliament’s power to amend extends to the Preamble. The addition of these terms aligns with Bharat’s constitutional values and does not contravene fundamental rights or the Constitution’s basic structure. Significance of the Judgment This judgment carries profound implications: Reaffirmation of Constitutional Ideals The ruling reaffirms that socialism and secularism are intrinsic to Bharat’s democratic framework, reflecting the nation’s commitment to inclusivity and equality. Judicial Deference to Legislative Authority By upholding the Parliament’s power to amend the Preamble, the

Court balanced judicial review with respect for legislative decisions, provided they align with the Constitution’s basic structure. Stability of Constitutional Amendments The decision discourages frivolous challenges to long-standing constitutional provisions, emphasizing the need for stability in constitutional law. Opinion: The Enduring Relevance of Socialism and Secularism The inclusion of socialism and secularism in the Preamble has been a subject of debate since its inception. Critics argue that these terms were politically motivated additions during an autocratic period, while proponents view them as reaffirmations of Bharat’s foundational principles. In practice, socialism in Bharat has evolved to embrace a mixed economy, blending state welfare with private enterprise. Similarly, secularism ensures that the state remains neutral in matters of religion, fostering harmony in a diverse society. These ideals, far from being relics of the past, continue to guide Bharat’s socio-political trajectory. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment is a landmark affirmation of the values enshrined in the Preamble. By rejecting the challenge, the Court has not only upheld the legitimacy of socialism and secularism but also reinforced the resilience of Bharat’s constitutional framework. As Bharat navigates the complexities of a rapidly changing world, these principles remain vital in ensuring justice, equality, and harmony. The judgment serves as a reminder that constitutional amendments are not just reflections of their time but enduring commitments to the aspirations of “We, the people of India.” The post Supreme Court Upholds Inclusion of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Constitution’s Preamble appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 30 days ago

Text

0 notes

hindustanmorning · 1 month ago

Text

Supreme Court: India's secularism and socialism differ in Western eyes

On Friday, the Supreme Court considered the case regarding the legitimacy of the 42nd amendment to the Constitution. This hearing was conducted regarding the requests made by senior lawyers Subramanian Swamy, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and others. In the hearing, the court mentioned that a judicial review has already been conducted on this matter. The court has postponed the decision regarding this…

0 notes

suganya09 · 1 month ago

Text

10 Must-Know Legal and Constitutional Provisions for IAS Aspirants

The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) exam demands a deep understanding of the legal and constitutional framework of India. A significant portion of the General Studies papers in UPSC focuses on constitutional provisions and legal principles. For IAS aspirants, mastering these provisions is essential to excel in the exam and develop an analytical approach to governance and policymaking.

Here are 10 must-know legal and constitutional provisions that every IAS aspirant should be familiar with:

1. Preamble of the Indian Constitution

The Preamble sets the tone and vision of the Constitution, outlining India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. IAS aspirants should understand its components and how it serves as the guiding light for governance.

2. Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35)

Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring basic freedoms to citizens. Aspirants must focus on their scope, limitations, and case laws associated with these rights.

3. Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51)

These principles aim to establish social and economic democracy. IAS aspirants should explore how these non-justiciable rights guide policy-making and influence legislative and executive actions.

4. Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

Added by the 42nd Amendment, these duties emphasize the responsibilities of citizens. Understanding their importance in fostering a sense of civic responsibility is crucial for IAS preparation.

5. Separation of Powers (Articles 50 & 123)

The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Familiarity with this concept and landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is essential.

6. Amendment Procedure (Article 368)

Understanding how the Constitution can be amended is critical for analyzing the dynamic nature of governance. Aspirants should study the types of amendments (simple, special, and by a majority of states) and key amendments like the 42nd, 73rd, and 74th Amendments.

7. Emergency Provisions (Articles 352-360)

These provisions grant extraordinary powers to the central government during crises. IAS aspirants must analyze their impact on federalism, civil liberties, and governance, as seen during the Emergency of 1975-77.

8. Union-State Relations (Articles 245-263)

The division of powers between the Union and States under the Seventh Schedule is a vital area of study. Aspirants should focus on the legislative, administrative, and financial relations, including concepts like the Concurrent List.

9. Judicial Review and Independence of Judiciary

Judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution, ensuring laws align with constitutional principles. Aspirants must grasp the judiciary's role in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding rights.

10. Constitutional Bodies (Articles 148-323)

IAS aspirants should have a clear understanding of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Finance Commission, and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Their structure, functions, and relevance in governance are frequently tested in the exam.

Why Mastering These Provisions Matters

A deep understanding of these provisions enables IAS aspirants to answer questions in Prelims, Mains, and even the Interview stage with confidence. These concepts also form the foundation for addressing real-world governance challenges as future administrators.

Ready to Build Your Knowledge?

To master these critical legal and constitutional provisions, join the TNPSC coaching centre in Coimbatore. Our expert faculty and structured study plans ensure that you grasp the nuances of governance and excel in competitive exams.

Start your journey toward success with the TNPSC coaching centre in Coimbatore, where learning meets excellence!

This blog not only educates aspirants on key provisions but also emphasizes the value of choosing the right guidance for their preparation.

#IASAcademy #UPSCPreparation #IASCoaching #CurrentAffairsForIAS #CoimbatoreIASAcademy

0 notes

webmastersanjeet · 6 months ago

Text

The Emergency in India: A Dark Chapter in Indian Democracy

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi announced the Emergency in India on June 25, 1975, and it lasted until March 21, 1977. It was one of the most contentious and difficult times in the country's post-independence history. India's democratic fabric was severely impacted during this 21-month period by the suspension of constitutional rights, massive political repression, and press control.

Background and Causes

The June 12, 1975, ruling of the Allahabad High Court, which found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices and ruled her election to the Lok Sabha illegal, served as the immediate impetus for the Emergency. Gandhi convinced President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to issue a state of emergency, saying internal disturbances, in response to growing political pressure and the threat of losing power. Still, the Emergency had deeper origins. Social trouble economic hardships, and political instability characterized the early 1970s. Widespread discontent has been exacerbated by food shortages, unemployment, and inflation. Massive demonstrations and strikes were orchestrated by the opposition, led by figures like Jayaprakash Narayan, who demanded that Gandhi step down and that structural changes be made.

Key Features of the Emergency

Suspension of Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution's fundamental rights were suspended as a result of the declaration of emergency. In effect, the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection from arbitrary arrests) were repealed. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) allowed for the arrest of political opponents, activists, and dissenters without the need for a trial.

Censorship and Media Control: The freedom of the press was drastically reduced. Newspapers had to get official permission before printing anything, which resulted in extensive censorship. Reputable editors and journalists were arrested, and government-opposing media outlets were closed down.

Political Repression: Countless opposition leaders and activists found themselves behind jail. Prominent people include Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Morarji Desai, and Jayaprakash Narayan were among them. There were harsh crackdowns on political organizations, particularly those that opposed the Congress party.

Forced Sterilizations: The implementation of a contentious and harsh population control program was led by Sanjay Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi. Sterilization was forced onto millions of men and women, resulting in massive violations of human rights and public indignation.

Amendments to the Constitution: In an effort to bolster its authority, the administration approved a number of constitutional modifications. The 42nd Amendment, sometimes referred to as the "Mini-Constitution," significantly altered the Constitution by strengthening the executive's power and limiting the judiciary's.

Impact and Legacy

The Emergency had a significant impact on India's democratic institutions and political climate.

Erosion of Democratic Norms: During this time, democratic institutions and norms were undermined and there was an unparalleled concentration of power. There was a lot of pressure and influence on the court, which has historically served as a safeguard against executive overreach.

Public Disillusionment: The Indian population was affected by the Emergency in a significant way. There was a general lack of trust in Indira Gandhi's leadership and the Congress party as a result of the arbitrary arrests, violations of human rights, and repression of dissent.

Political Realignment: Following the end of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi and the Congress party suffered a crushing defeat in the 1977 national elections. The first non-Congress government in Indian history was brought to power by a group of opposition parties known as the Janata Party.

Legal and Constitutional Safeguards: The Emergency forced later administrations to implement constitutional and legal protections to stop the occurrence of another authoritarian era. In order to uphold and strengthen democratic institutions and civil freedoms, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 was passed.

The Indian Emergency continues to serve as an alarming indication of the weakness of democratic institutions and dangers associated with unchecked presidential authority. It underlines how crucial it is to remain vigilant in defending democratic values, the rule of law, and civil freedoms. The lessons learnt during the Emergency era are vital for maintaining and fortifying India's democratic fabric as the nation navigates its democratic journey.

#Emergency #DarkDayforIndia #Congress #Indiragandhi

1 note · View note

legalhub16 · 7 months ago

Text

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA 1980 2 SCC 625

I. Facts

Minerva Mills was a textile manufacturer in Karnataka. In 1970, the Central Government appointed a committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (hence referred to as the "Industries Act") to conduct an investigation into the Company after it experienced a major decrease in production. Section 18A of the Industries Act demanded that the National Textile Corporation Ltd. take over the management of the company due to mismanagement of the company's activities, and this was cited by passing an order under the aforementioned section. This move enabled the business's nationalisation, and the Central Government took over the company in accordance with the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hence referred to as the Sick Textile Act). The takeover was then challenged in the High Court, but the suit was dismissed. This was later challenged in the Supreme Court of India through a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

II. Issues Raised

The primary question raised in this landmark case was whether the amendments introduced by Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act destroy the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution, despite the fact that several issues were raised in the Apex Court. Furthermore, the constitutionality of the Six Textile Act and the question of whether the Directive Principles of State Policy (hereinafter referred to as "DPSP") supplant the Fundamental Rights were also contested.

III. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioner's learned attorney, Mr. Nani Palkhiwala, vehemently maintained that sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment, in particular, directly attacked the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution and thereby violated it. Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act introduced clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, giving the Parliament the unchallenged authority to modify the constitution and limit the Judiciary's Judicial Review power. Moreover, Article 31 C, which served as a safeguard against DPSP, was contested in court on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 19. The petitioner's learned counsel steadfastly maintained that the 42nd Amendment Act allowed DPSP to supersede fundamental rights. This will ultimately destroy the fundamental framework that the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharti case mentioned. The Learned Counsel believed that the Indian Constitution's Part III and Part IV provisions could not be violated or destroyed by the coexistence of DPSP and Fundamental Rights. The Preamble's guarantees of justice, liberty, and equality were further emphasised by the Learned Counsel.

IV. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

The Learned Attorney General persistently argued about the importance of the State to take steps for promoting welfare. The Learned Attorney General along with the Learned Solicitor General argued that Article 31 C must be read down. The Learned Attorney General contended that the laws made in the interest of the public, were far from destroying the basis structure of the Constitution. In order to substantiate this argument, the learned Attorney General emphasized on Article 38 of the Indian Constitution and further argued that a law in compliance with Article 38 could not be said to have abrogated the Fundamental Rights or destroying the basic structure, as the structure is founded on justice, social, political and economic principles and Article 38 enumerates upon the same.

V. Judgement

The court denounced the recently appended provisions to Article 368. According to the Supreme Court, the laws were deemed unconstitutional as they granted the Parliament an unlimited right to make amendments. This would constitute a blatant assault on the principles and functioning of democracy. The Supreme Court believes that the Parliament should avoid extending its authority to change the Indian Constitution to the extent that it would ultimately abolish or undermine its fundamental characteristics. The court strongly criticised clause 4 and clause 5 of Article 368. One of the articles interfered with the Parliament's ability to amend, while the other restricted the authority of judicial review. These clauses aimed to grant unlimited power to the Parliament while also limiting the authority and influence of Judicial Review, which, if allowed, would lead to serious abuse of power and ultimately undermine the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. The court unequivocally denounced clause (4) and (5) of Article 368 and deemed them to be in violation of the constitution.

Moreover, the Supreme Court successfully rejected section 55 and section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act. The Supreme Court declared section 4 and section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act to be unconstitutional due to their significant risk to the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance and essentiality of the Golden Triangle, consisting of Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21, and criticised Article 31 C for undermining the principles enshrined in these three articles.

VI. Conclusion Drawn

The Doctrine of Basic Structure was effectively reiterated in Minerva Mills Case. This case helped in setting a precedent for future cases involving similar constitutional issues. The points of law raised could be regarded as extremely important in taking the Constitution where it is today. The Supreme Court emerged victorious in this indirect battle against the Parliament and helped safeguard the basic features of the Indian Constitution. This case helped in preventing any future attacks on the Fundamental Rights. The judgement of the Court in Minerva Mills Case truly helped in restoring the Golden Triangle. The case immensely helped in emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between Part III and Part IV that include Fundamental Rights and DPSP respectively. Although this was not the only case where basic structure of the Constitution was given predominance, but it would certainly be regarded as one of the first cases that truly helped in interpreting and protecting the Doctrine of Basic Structure as propounded in Kesavananda Bharti’s Case.

0 notes

advancegkquiz · 11 months ago

Text

General Awareness|Practice Paper for SSC CGL Tier-1|SET-25

1. Which relation is wrong ?

(a) 1 cal = 4.18 j (b) 1 A°= 10^-10 (c) 1u = 10^-6 (d) 1 mile = 1.12 km

2. An ant is moving on thin (negligible thickness) circular wire. How many coordinates do you require to complete the motion of the ant ?

(a) One (b) Two (c) Three (d) Zero

3. When two cubes of ice are pressed on each other , what is the cause of their being one ?

(a) Van Der Waals Force (b) Dipole Moment (c) Hydrogen Bond Formation (d) Covalent Attraction

4. The earliest Surat factories were established by the

(a) Portugese (b) Dutch (c) English (d) French

5. The proposals for the partition of the India into India and Pakistan were contained in the

(a) Cripps Mission proposals (b) Cabinet Mission proposals (c) Prime Minister Atlee's statement of 20th feb,1947 (d) Mountbatten Plan of 3rd june,1947

6. In the Indus Valley Civilisation, the unit of weights and measurements was

(a) six (b) eight (c) twelve (d) sixteen

7. Vimanas in the temple architecture was a feature of the

(a) Cholas (b) Rashtrakutas (c) Chalukyas (d) Pallavas

8. Which Greek ruler was defeated by Chandragupta Maurya ?

(a) Megasthenese (b) Seleucus (c) Alexander (d) Darius

9. Asteroids of Planetoids circle between

(a) Venus and Earth (b) Mars and Earth (c) Mars and Jupiter (d) Jupiter and Saturn

10. Lakshadweep Islands are situated in the

(a) Arabian Sea (b) Palak Strait (c) Indian Ocean (d) Bay of Bengal

11. Which state in India is the largest producer of natural rubber ?

(a) Assam (b) Kerala (c) Tamil Nadu (d) Karnataka

12. The correct sequence of the given countries in progressively increasing order of their standard times in relation to the Greenwich Mean Time is

(a) Egypt,Iraq,India,Japan (b) Egypt,India,Iraq,Japan (c) Iraq,Egypt,India,Japan (d) Iraq,India,Egypt,Japan

13. Chemical weathering is most active in regions characterised by

(a) hot and dry climate (b) cold and dry climate (c) hot and wet climate (d) cold and wet climate

14. What is the total number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Lok Sabha ?

(a) 69 and 30 respectively (b) 84 and 47 respectively (c) 89 and 50 respectively (d) None of the above

15. Which of the following committees are the Parliamentary Financial Committees ?

(a) Public Account Committee (b) Estimates Committee (c) Committee on Public Undertakings

(a) a and c (b) a and b (c) b and c (d) None of these

16. What is 'Zero Hour' ?

(a) when the proposals of the opposition are considered

(b) when matters of utmost importance are raised

(d) when a money bill is introduced in the Lok Sabha

17. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is elected by

(a) Attorney-General of India (b) Solicitor-General of India (c) Chief Justice of India (d) Chief Election Commissioner

18. 42nd Amendment included additions to the directive principles related to three of the following matters.

1. Participation of workers in the management of industry. 2. Minimising inequality in income and status. 3. Protection of the environment. 4. Free legal aid to the poor.

(a) 1,3 and 4 (b) 1,2 and 3 (c) 1,2 and 4 (d) 2,3 and 4

19. Currency notes of the RBI are backed by certain assets.These assets must not be less than a prescribed amount of

(a) Gold and foreign securities (b) Gold (c) Government securities (d) Gold , foreign securities and Government securities

20. Which of the following passes lies in the sutlej valley ?

(a) Nathu la (b) Jelep la (c) shipki la (d) shera bathanga

21. Which of the following steel plants is not managed by Indian Steel Authority Limited ?

(a) Selaam Rust Resistant Steel Plant (b) Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant (c) Alloy Steel Plant , Durgapur (d) Bokaro Steel Plant

22. Lepcha tribe is found in which of the following state ?

(a) Meghalaya (b) Sikkim (c) Mizoram (d) Manipur

23. The famous Bronze image of Nataraja is a fine example of which art ?

(a) Chola Art (b) Gandhar Art (c) Mathura Art (d) Maurya Art

24. One of the observatories established by Sawai Jai Singh was at

(a) Agra (b) Indore (c) Ujjain (d) Jodhpur

25. Edward Jenner had Invented

(a) inoculation of tuberculosis (b) inoculation of AIDS (c) inoculation of Polio (d) inoculation of smallpox

ANSWERS

1. D 2. A 3. D 4. C 5. D 6. D 7. A 8. B 9. C 10. A 11. B 12. A 13. C 14. B 15. D 16. B 17. C 18. D 19. D 20. C 21. A 22. B 23. A 24. C 25. D

#Advanced GK quizzes #Competitive exam quizzes #General knowledge practice #Exam preparation quizzes #Current affairs quizzes #gk quiz #education #study motivation

0 notes

legalupanishad · 1 year ago

Text

Minerva Mills v. Union of India: Case Analysis

This article on 'Minerva Mills v. Union of India: Case Analysis' was written by Toya Sen, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Fundamental Rights are a significant aspect of our Constitution. These rights are those that have been guaranteed to all the citizens of India, without any discrimination, whether it is based on gender, caste, religion, etc. These rights if violated, are enforceable in the court of law. Charles de Montesquieu a political thinker, advocated the doctrine of Separation of Power in his influential book called ‘The Spirit of the Laws’ he discussed various political theories and proposed the idea of diving governmental power into three branches, that is the legislative, executive and the judiciary, this division of the government into three vital organs is known as ‘Separation of Powers’ which is practiced all around the world including in India. This is an essential practice in the Indian political scenario where the separation of powers sets up a way to ensure that no branch of the government becomes too powerful and that there is a balance maintained between all three organs. There have been multiple occasions wherein the executive and the legislative have tried to exert and increase their power other three organs. Thus, to protect the rights of individuals, the judiciary has proved multiple times the steps it has taken to protect those rights. One such incident fell before the Supreme Court in the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India, where the Parliament had attempted to increase its power on a textile mill. This article will provide an insight into the landmark case which once again broadens the scope of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Facts of the 'Minerva Mills v. Union of India' Case

A textile mill that is situated close to Bengaluru city known as Minerva Mills, had a major decline in its’s output rate, due to this, the Central Government of India in the year 1970 set up a committee under Section 15 of the Industries Development Act of 1951 to report the conditions of the mill to the government. A year later, in October 1971, this committee submitted a report. Following the submission, an organization created under the Industries Development Act of 1951 known as The National Textile Corporation Limited, was allowed by the Central Government to take over and administer the Minerva Mills and nationalize it. In the 9th Schedule of the 39th Amendment, the nationalization of any entity was excused from judicial review. In the year 1976, after the tussle between the Indira Gandhi v, Raj Narain court case, the parliament approved the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which changed Article 31C via Section 4 of the act. Furthermore, Article 368 which grants special powers to the parliament to make alterations and amendments to the constitution was also changed by Section 55 of the same act. The impact of the 13-bench Judgement of Kesavananda Bharti would be null and void because of the changes made by this amendment.

Issues

Do the addition of Article 31C and the modification of Article 368 made by Sections 55 and 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act violate the idea of basic structure? Are the Indian Constitution's Fundamental Rights superseded by the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)? Whether the Central Government's order to nationalize Minerva Mills is legal?

Laws Involved

The laws that were involved in this case are as follows: Article 14 and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution Article 31C and Article 368 of the Indian Constitution Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 Section 5(b) of the Nationalization Act, 1974 Section 19(3) of the Nationalization Act, 1974 Section 21 of the Nationalization Act, 1974 Section 25 of the Nationalization Act, 1974 Section 27 of the Nationalization Act, 1974. (Kindly read the Sections of the Nationalization Act, 1974 with the 2nd Schedule)

Judgement

A bench consisting of 5 judges held the decision with a majority of 4:1 in 1980, 7 years after the case was first in the court of law. The majority opinion of the judgment was given by Justice Chandrachud, with Justice N.L Untwalia, Justice A.C Gupta, and Justice P.S. Kailasam. The minority judgment was given by Justice Bhagwati. The 4 judges stated that the power to amend the Constitution should fall under the basic structure of the Constitution. The judges struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act as it was deemed to be unconstitutional and violated the aforementioned basic structure. It stated that Clause (5) of Article 368 was unlawful since it hampered the basic structure of the Constitution as well. The Supreme Court also dismissed Clause 4 of Article 368 as it limited the court's ability to conduct judicial reviews, which would have rendered Parliament's powers unmanageable. The judges further advanced the idea that having unlimited authority to alter the Constitution would alienate democracy and favour the establishment of a totalitarian regime. Regarding Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, the court declared that if Part IV of the Indian Constitution overthrew Part III of the Constitution, the principle of basic structure would be abolished. The judges explained section 4 of the act tried to separate Articles 14 and 19 from Article 31C. The court went ahead to explain the relation between Part III and Part IV of the constitution and stated that the DPSPs are basic principles that govern our country and the Fundamental Rights have a crucial role to play in the lives of our citizens, the entire constitution depends on these two features and giving primacy of one over the other would shake the foundation of our constitution. Therefore, it is important to maintain a balance between the two. This must be achieved without abrogating the provisions of Part III.

Conclusion

This case is one of the landmark cases that not only broadens the scope of the doctrine of the basic structure of our constitution by also strengthens it. Our Constitution is uniquely designed and its parts are dependent upon each other. The DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights are major aspects of our government that help in the functioning of the government as well as affect the people’s lives. Hence, instead of overthrowing each other, it is important to strike a balance between them. This case not only helped in providing a step to healing the power tussle between parliament and judiciary but also helped to establish a precedent for future constitutional cases where the rights of the people are yet being infringed.

References:

Darshit Vora, ‘Minerva Mills vs Union of India: a significant case that India has forgotten’, iPleaders Blog, 8 January 2021, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/minerva-mills-vs-union-india-significant-case-india-forgotten/ 'Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. UOI: A Significant case that India should never forget, Prime Legal, 30 October 2022, available at: https://primelegal.in/2022/10/30/minerva-mills-ltd-ors-v-uoi-a-significant-case-that-india-should-never-forget/ 'Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980', Indian Kanoon, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/ Read the full article

#CaseAnalysis

0 notes

lawspark · 1 year ago

Text

LANDMARK CASES OF THE CONSTITUTION

LANDMARK CASES

So, college students often struggle with case laws, especially on the subject of the constitution. Here is the list of 10 landmark judgments of the Constitution of India. These cases are important not only for your college exams but will also help you in Judiciary exams. So, let’s get started!

TOP 10 LANDMARK CASES OF THE CONSTITUTION

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) The SC held that freedom of propagating ideas through circulars is included in freedom of speech and expression. State of Madras v. Amt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) The judgment led to the addition of this subsection (4) by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. Specifically, the Madras Government has reserved places in State engineering and medical institutes for various communities based on classes, religion, and race. This was challenged before the court as it violates Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. The SC held that the statute invalidates seat reservations based on race, religion, and caste (caste reservation in India) since it categorises students based on their castes, religions, and other factors rather than their academic ability. Clause (4) was inserted into Article 15 to mitigate the impact of the aforementioned SC judgment. This Article gives the STATE the authority to make specific provisions for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and for socially and educationally marginalized classes of citizens. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959) At Sessions Court, the appellant was charged under S. 302 & S. 304 of the IPC and was tried by the Sessions Judge with the aid of a special jury. The jury passed a verdict of “not guilty” by 8: 1 majority under both the provisions of IPC, which was not agreed by the Sessions Judge, as in his view, the jury’s verdict was such that with regards to the evidence shown.

So, the learned Sessions Judge submitted the case under 307 of CrPC to the Bombay High Court & the Division Bench comprising of Justices Shelat and Naik passed separate judgments but held that the accused was guilty of murder under s. 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the Justices of the High Court stated that there was misdirection to the jury and that the accused was clearly guilty of murder. No reasonable body must arrive at such a conclusion as delivered by the jury. I.C. Golaknath and ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1967) The main issue dealt with in this case was- Can an amendment be considered a law and whether or not fundamental rights can be amended? The SC stated that Fundamental Rights are not amendable under Article 13, and a new Constituent Assembly would be needed to modify such rights. Additionally, it was noted that while Article 368 outlines the process for amending the Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the authority to do so. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) The Supreme Court defined the basic structure in this case. the court held that although the Parliament had the authority to amend any portion of Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, the basic structure of the constitution could not be abrogated even by constitutional amendment. This acts as the basis of Indian law for the judiciary's power to invalidate any amendment made by Parliament those conflicts with the Constitution's fundamental principles. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) Whether the freedom to go abroad falls under Article 21's definition of the Right to Personal Liberty was a key question in this case. According to the SC, it is a part of the right to personal liberty. The SC further held that restricting personal freedom did not require more than the existence of an enabling law. Additionally, such a law must be "just, fair, and reasonable." Minerva Mills Ltd. V. UOI (1980) This case once again strengthens the Basic Structure concept. The decision declared two amendments introduced to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 to be against the basic structure and invalidated them. It is quite evident from the ruling that the Constitution, not the Parliament, is superior. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and ors. (1985) This is a crucial case in the struggle for Muslim women’s rights. The SC affirmed a Muslim woman's claim to alimony and declared that everyone, regardless of religion, is subject to the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. This sparked a political debate, and the ruling was overturned by the government of the day by passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, which stipulates that alimony must only be paid during the iddat period (in tune with the Muslim personal law). M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1986) Three issues were addressed in this case: the application of Article 32, the application of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule of absolute liability, and the compensation problem. The SC held that its authority under Article 32 extends to corrective and preventive actions where rights are violated. Additionally, it was decided that Absolute Liability should be used in industries that participate in risky or intrinsically harmful activity. Finally, it added that in order to act as a deterrence, the compensation must be proportionate to the size and potential of the industry. Vishaka and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997) This case involved workplace sexual harassment. In its judgment, the SC provided a set of guidelines for employers and other accountable parties or organisations to ensure the avoidance of sexual harassment right away. They are referred to as "Vishaka Guidelines." Until the relevant legislation was passed, these were regarded as being in effect.

Blog Lawspark Academy

List of 100+ Landmark Cases of Supreme Court India: - His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (Kesavananda Bharati Case ) - Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court 13 Judges Bench which propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine or Essential Feature Theory. In this case Golak Nath Case was overruled and Bench in majority said that Parliament can amend any part of Indian Constitution but it can not destroy the basic structure. SC said the parliament has limited amending power. - Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India - Article 21 Case / Era of Right to life started expanding from this case. - Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India - Right to Privacy Case - Shankari Prasad vs Union of India - Power of (Provisional) Parliament to Amend Constitution and specially Fundamental Rights - Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan - Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution - A K Gopalan vs State of Madras - Preventive Detention Act 1950 - Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras - Freedom of Speech - Post publication prevention of circulation of crossroad weekly magazine resulted in violation of freedom of speech - Brij Bhushan Sharma vs Delhi - Freedom of Speech - Pre Publication Censorship of Organizer weekly resulted into violation of Freedom of Speech as per Supreme Court - State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan - Caste based reservation in admission to the educational institution - M P Sharma vs Satish Chandra Case - Right to Privacy Issue - Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh - Whether privacy is a part of fundamental right in our constitution - In Re Beruberi Case - Cession of a part of the territory of India, Exchange of enclave with Pakistan - Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt - Essential Religious Practice Test - K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra - Jury Trial and Pardoning Power of Governor - I C Golaknath vs State of Punjab Case - Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution. In 11 Judges case Supreme Court held that Part 3 of Indian Constitution is fundamental in nature and parliament can not amend Fundamental rights given in Indian Constitution. Court also held that Article 368 provides procedure for the constitutional amendments and Amendment to the constitution is law as per article 13 of Indian Constitution. Court also applied the principle of Prospective overruling in Golaknath case. - His Highness Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia vs Union of India - In this case abolition of privy purse of erstwhile rulers were abolished through presidential order so the rulers challenged that decision of government. A constitution bench restored the privy purse of rulers and held the Presidential order as unconstitutional. - Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case - Election of Indira Gandhi was challenged due to election malpractice - ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla Case - One of the most contentious decision of Supreme Court of India. This case is also known as habeus corpus case. During emergency many opposition leaders were detained. They challenged the govt action through writ petitions in various High Courts. Decisions of High Courts were challenged in Supreme Court and SC held that Fundamental Rights Can be suspended during emergency. Right to move to High Courts under Article 226 during emergency was in issue in this case. - S.P. Gupta vs President of India Case - Those high Court judges, who have issued habeus corpus petition during emergency were transferred to different High Courts. This action of Government was challenged in SP Gupta Case. Major issue in this case was appointment of Judges of High Courts & Supreme Court. As the petition was filed by an Advocate and not by any aggrieved judges so issue of locus standi also settled in this case for public interest litigation. Supreme Court held that Bar / Advocates are integral part of judicial system and they can challenge the issues related to Judiciary. - Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab - It was death penalty case. The court expounded the principle of Rarest of Rare case in Bachan Singh Case. Court said life imprisonment is the rule and Death Penalty / Capital Punishment is exception. Only in rarest of rare cases capital punishment can be awarded to convict of murder. - Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar - Rights of Undertrial Prisoners, Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of Indian Constitution - Minerva Mills Ltd vs Union of India - Harmony and Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy. Basic Structure Doctrine was applied in this case. - Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India - PIL for those who can not reach Supreme Court or High Courts for their breach of fundamental rights. Whether a person whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental right is unable to approach the court, any member of the public acting bona fide can move the court for relief under Article 32 or Article 226 - Indian Express Newspaper vs Union of India Case - Freedom of PRess under freedom of speech and expression given in Article 19(1)a of Indian Constitution - Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala Case - Whether forcing the children to sing the national anthem violated their fundamental right to religion. Right to silence is part of fundamental right under Article 19 in Freedom of Speech and Expression - Mohamad Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum Case - Providing Maintenance to a divorced Muslim Woman - M C Mehta vs Union of India Case - Responsibility of industries in an accident, compensation, scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 - Dr. D C Wadhwa vs State of Bihar Case - Re Promulgation of Ordinances in the Bihar to bypass the state legislature. - Kehar Singh vs Union of India Case - Pardoning power of the President of India under Indian Constitution - Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka Case - Right to Education related judgment - Indira Sawhney vs Union of India Case - Also known as Mandal Commission Case. Landmark Case on Reservation of other backward classes. - Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillu Case - When anti defection provisions were added in the Indian Constitution these were challenged through this case. A Leading Case on Anti Defection Law. - Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh - This case is also related to Right to Education - Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association vs Union of India Case - This case was about appointment of judges to Supreme Court of India and in High Courts in India. Also famous as Second Judges Case. - S R Bommai vs Union of India - Proclamation of Emergency under Article 356 of Indian Constitution, Secularism. - Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms - Right to know about public functionaries and candidates for office. Article 19 of Indian Constitution under fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression also include right to know about the candidates contesting for the public offices. - T M A Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka - Rights of Minority Educational Institutions - Samantha vs State of Andhra Pradesh - Granting of mining licenses in the scheduled area to non tribals - Vineet Narain vs Union of India - Curbing political influence in the functioning of CBI / Central Bureau of Investigation - Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Subhra Chakraborty - Whether rape is violative of Right to Life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution - Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India - Principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to islam, with first marriage not being dissolved - People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India - Right to Food - R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu - Freedom of Speech and expression - Right to publish autobiography - In Re Special Reference Case of 1998 - Also known as Third Judges Case - Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in India - T N Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India - Forest Conservation. A leading case on Environmental law and about writ of continuous mandamus. - L Chandra Kumar vs Union of India - Power of High Courts and Supreme Court to review the legislative action - Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan - Sexual Harassment at the workplace, In this case Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines known as Vishaka Guidelines for protection of women against sexual harassment at workplaces for the time being there is no such law enacted by legislature. - Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India - Reservations to OBC in central educational institutions - Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India - Requirement of domicile in the state concerned for getting elected to the council of states / Rajya Sabha ; Principle of Federalism is basic structure of the Indian Constitution - M Nagaraj vs Union of India - Reservation in Promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees - People's Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India - Right of the Voters to know about the candidates contesting the election - I R Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu - Interpretation of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution of India. 9th Schedule is not immune from the judicial review. - John Vallamattom vs Union of India - Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, Advocated a common civil code / uniform civil code for the cause of national integration - Jaya Bachchan vs Union of India - Disqualification on the ground of Office of Profit - P A Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra - Reservation policy on minority and non minority unaided private colleges including professional colleges - Prakash Singh vs Union of India - This case is about the Police Reforms in India - Aruna Ramchandra Shaunbaug vs Union of India - Recognition of passive euthnasia by Supreme Court. Permitted withdrawl of life sustaining treatment from patients not in position to make an informed decision, only after the report of medical board constituted by High Courts in respective jurisdiction. - Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India - Constitutional Validity of Right to Education Act - Gian Sing vs State of Punjab - Settlements and Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 of CRPC - Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India - Constitutionality of the criminal offence of defamation under Indian Penal Code - Medha Kotwal Lele vs Union of India - Court repeated the Vishaka Guidelines and stressed additional measures for their enforcement - Shabnam Hasmi vs Union of India - Whether the right to adopt and to be adopted is a fundamental right under part 3 of Indian Constitution - Lily Thomas vs Union of India - Disqualifications for membership of parliament and state legislatures of convicted of any offense and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. Decriminalization of Politics in India Case - Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation - Constitutional Validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code which criminalized the homosexuality - Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India - Power tussle between Delhi Government and LT. Governor i.e. Central Government - TSR Subramanian vs Union of India - Professionalanizing the bureaucracy, promoting efficiency and good governance - Shreya Singhal vs Union of India - Freedom of Speech and Expression Case in digital or internet age. Read the full article

0 notes

leadindia011 · 2 years ago

Text

A constitutional clause known as Article 39A (42nd Amendment) (Free Legal Aid) was added to the Indian Constitution to protect citizens' rights to equal access to the legal system regardless of their class, sex, race, or faith. It implies that those in society's underclasses should have access to legal services. Additionally, it mandates that women, children, the elderly, and people with impairments receive equal opportunities.

#Legal Process For Service Tax Registration #Legal Service For Digital Signature Certificate #Legal Advice For Company Rules

0 notes

ausetkmt · 2 years ago

Text

Mayor Brandon Johnson has officially put his stamp on the body he now presides over, but he saw a $51 budget amendment to help care for asylum seekers blocked from a vote.

Johnson gaveled in a City Council meeting for his first time as mayor Wednesday and saw the approval of his overhaul of the Council’s leadership, led by his floor leader Ald. Carlos Ramirez Rosa, 35th.

The resolution, which sets the chairs, vice chairs and committee rosters for the next four years, was approved on a 41-9 vote despite some pushback from those left out of leadership who said the voices of their communities were, therefore, left out of the process.

Weeks before he was inaugurated as Chicago’s 57th mayor, Johnson personally became involved in negotiations, previously led by Ramirez Rosa, to undo the attempt of the lame-duck City Council in March to approve its own leadership without input from the fifth floor.

While some committee chairs supported Johnson’s electoral opponent Paul Vallas, the new team includes key allies in control of the most significant committees with the highest budgets.

The changes also include a new role for the city’s incoming vice mayor, Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th, who will be provided a budget for staff. Traditionally a ceremonial role with little responsibility, an ordinance introduced Wednesday — but not voted on — proposes a $407,000 budget for Burnett to retain his committee staff and take on responsibilities serving as community liaison for the mayor’s office.

Three committees are also set for budget increases, including the Workforce Development Committee, the Immigrant & Refugee Rights Committee and the Health & Human Relations Committee — all chaired by Johnson allies and expected to have an increased role the next four years.

After the reorganization was approved, Johnson congratulated Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, who is taking over the powerful Finance Committee from Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd. She becomes the first woman to lead the committee that was led by longtime powerbroker Ed Burke, 14th, who retired from his 14th Ward City Council seat and faces a corruption trial later this year.

Waguespack, who was a staunch ally of Mayor Lori Lightfoot and was ousted after publicly warning Johnson to stay out of the City Council’s independence effort, voted against the resolution but avoided criticizing the new mayor during a speech before the vote.

Instead, Waguespack said he was proud of his efforts to reform the committee after taking over the reins from Burke, and he congratulated Dowell on the appointment.

As he did throughout the meeting, Johnson attempted to provide levity through a potentially tense moment, joking that although Waguespack was not in a “three-piece suit,” his comments were “still very elegant,” an apparent reference to Burke’s famously bespoke wardrobe.

Others who voted no said they were left out of committee shakeup discussions altogether, learning of their committee assignments only this week, or, in the case of Ald. Ray Lopez, 15th, at Wednesday’s meeting.

“I cannot start the next four years by being excluded,” he said. “If we're truly about creating a new era, turning the next chapter, then we need to do this so everybody . . . can participate.”

The nine aldermen who voted against the committee rosters were: Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th; Ald. Marty Quinn, 13th, Lopez; Ald. David Moore, 17th; Ald. Silvana Tabares, 23rd; Waguespack; Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st; Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, and Ald. Jim Gardiner, 45th.

Later, Beale, Lopez and Napolitano teamed up to block a vote on a mid-year budget amendment of $51 million to help pay for the city’s response to a wave of asylum seekers sent to Chicago from border states. The parliamentary maneuver stalls a vote until the next City Council meeting.

Anticipating such a move, Johnson and his allies scheduled the next meeting for next Wednesday, May 31 in an apparent effort to give the council another chance to approve the funding.

The move follows pushback from some aldermen who have pushed back on spending the money on new arrivals, arguing their own communities are ill-equipped and under-resourced to welcome the migrants.

After the meeting, at his first post-City Council press conference, Johnson said of the legislation, “this is an urgent matter” and he hopes it will be approved next week to, “make sure that we are providing the support as needed to address this crisis that my administration inherited.”

But Johnson pushed back on when he would have a formalized plan to house migrants outside of police stations, saying he’s only been in office for less than two weeks.

Johnson said his administration is working on a “full assessment” in collaboration with Springfield, Cook County and the state’s congressional delegation.

The funds, which would be taken from unexpected reserve revenue from 2021, would only carry the city through June, according to former Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s budget team, who briefed aldermen on the plan earlier this month.

The bulk of the $51 million, around $35 million, would be spent on contract staffing to facilitate the initial reception of new arrivals, coordinate contact with friends of family of the migrants and staff temporary shelters.

Other costs include $7.5 million to pay rental costs and $5.6 million for meals. Hundreds of thousands would be spent on legal costs and transportation costs.

Johnson’s team is currently seeking temporary shelters to house the migrants, including at the city’s community colleges and park district field houses. Up to 700 asylum seekers have been sleeping in the city’s police stations, which Johnson has called untenable.

#chicago #immigrants #chicago budget woes #City Council approves Johnson committee plan #but $51 million for asylum seekers delayed #asylum seekers

1 note · View note

khabritukda1 · 2 years ago

Text

The HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT - PRIME MINISTER

A prime minister, cabinet chief or premier is the leader of the executive branch of government and the head of the cabinet, typically in a parliamentary or semi-presidential system. In these systems, the prime minister acts as the head of government, rather than the head of state, and works under a monarch in a democratic constitutional monarchy or a president in a republican form of government.

In parliamentary systems based on the Westminster system, the prime minister is the effective head of government and oversees the executive power. In these systems, the head of state or their official representative (such as a monarch, president or governor-general) typically holds a symbolic position, although they may have reserve powers. In modern times, it is customary for the premier to be a member of parliament or its lower chamber, though not always, and is responsible for ensuring the successful passage of bills along with other cabinet members. In certain monarchies, the monarch retains the authority to exercise executive powers, also known as the royal prerogative, without the approval of parliament.

The Role Of Prime Minister

As we are all aware, the head of the government is the premier, who oversees all the regulations and authorities. The Indian President has the authority to call upon any individual who has the backing of a majority of the House of Representatives to establish a central or federal government at the national level and wield its powers, subject to eligibility. The Prime Minister selects members of the Council of Ministers and designates them as President. They also constitute the central group of ministers, recognized as the Cabinet, that are accountable for the major functions and departments of the Government of India.

The Prime Minister supports and counsels the President in assigning responsibilities to the various departments and offices under the Government of India (Business Development) Regulations, 1961. The Cabinet Secretariat is responsible for coordinating this work.

Duties and Responsibilities of Prime Minister -

The Head of Government supervises the functioning of the Executive and supervises the implementation of the Government Program. The Chief ensures coherence in the European Union-related issues addressed and assessed by the Government. Should the Head of Government be incapable of carrying out their duties, they shall be assumed by the appointed Deputy Head, or if unavailable, by the longest-serving Cabinet member.

Forms The Government — The Constitution clearly specifies that the President must consider the Prime Minister’s counsel when selecting ministers. Prior to the enactment of the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, the President traditionally adhered to the conventions of parliamentary democracy by heading the Prime Minister’s advice.

Chairman of the Cabinet — In the capacity of the Cabinet’s leader, the Prime Minister presides over the Cabinet assemblies and determines the topics for discussion. Should there be any discord among the ministers during the Cabinet meetings, the Prime Minister has the power to implement his verdict. He supervises the timetable of the Cabinet meetings and has the freedom to authorise or reject proposals for Cabinet discussions.

Leader of The Lok Sabha — In India, the Prime Minister serves as the leader of Lok Sabha, whereas in England, the Prime Minister delegates the responsibility to a colleague to ease their workload, but retains overall accountability. The Indian Prime Minister is tasked with announcing all major policy modifications.

Spokesman of Government Policy — He is the key spokesperson of the Government for both internal and external affairs. His role in shaping the comprehensive strategy is crucial. He represents India in various global and Commonwealth gatherings. Jawaharlal frequently embarked on foreign visits to discuss international agreements and pacts.

How Prime Minister Got Elected?

The Prime Minister is elected through an electoral process by the Members of Parliament. The Government leader is chosen by the party that secures the maximum number of seats out of the 545 available in Lok Sabha. As per Article 75 of the Constitution, the President is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister, but only after the leader of the majority party in Lok Sabha has been identified as such. However, if no party manages to secure a clear majority in Lok Sabha, the President may exercise their own judgement in appointing the Prime Minister.

The Premier can be chosen from a member of either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha Nevertheless, if the selected individual is not a member of either House of the Parliament, they must be elected to either House within six months of their appointment.

In keeping with the parliamentary system of governance, the President is obliged to name the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha as the Premier.

However, if no party has a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, the President may exercise their discretion in selecting and appointing the Premier.

In such a circumstance, the President usually designates the leader of the largest party or coalition in the Lok Sabha as the Premier and urges them to obtain a vote of confidence in the House within a month.

The Function and Power Of Prime Minister

Prime ministers possess numerous functions and authorities which enable them to lead their country in an efficient and effective manner. Here are a few points regarding the power of the prime minister. In the Indian constitution, the prime minister is mentioned in only four articles namely 74, 75, 78, and 366.

They provide recommendations to the President concerning the selection of ministers. The appointment of ministers by the President solely depends on the proposal made by the Prime Minister.

They allocate and reallocate ministers to specific departments.

In the event of disagreement, they can request the resignation of a minister or recommend to the President to dismiss them.

The Prime Minister chairs the sessions of the Council of Ministers and their decisions are influenced by their own decisions.

They preside over the Council of Ministers and exert their influence over their decisions.

They guide, direct, control, and organise the work of all ministries. They can dissolve the Council of Ministers upon leaving office.

The Prime Minister holds the position of the chairperson of the Council of Ministers.

Prime Minister Power Restriction

Just like the normal people Prime minister have also restriction in his life whether it is regarding the use of power or responsibilities , so here are some points regarding it

No confidence Motion: Under a parliamentary system of government, members have the authority to withdraw their confidence if they feel that the Prime Minister is not performing satisfactorily or not meeting their objectives. In such a scenario, the Prime Minister is obliged to resign. The Prime Minister’s concern about losing power restricts their actions.

On the Party’s Agenda: The Prime Minister’s political party has a set of beliefs and a political program that they want to enforce. Consequently, the Prime Minister cannot act outside the stated policies of their party.

Advice from the Head of the Nation: The Head of the Nation may occasionally offer guidance to the Prime Minister on specific issues. They can draw the Prime Minister’s attention to urgent concerns that are affecting the country. In this regard, the Prime Minister’s actions are constrained by the Head of the Nation.

Public Perception: Public opinion can have an impact on the Prime Minister’s decisions. This can happen if the Prime Minister proposes policies that the public perceives as harmful to their interests. Furthermore, the Prime Minister may not want negative publicity in the media. Therefore, they are bound by public opinion.

Prime Minister Resignation

The Cabinet ceases to exist by default when the Prime Minister passes away or resigns. Without an Indian Prime Minister, the Cabinet cannot be formed. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who must have a majority in the House of Commons. If a Director resigns, the President appoints a replacement following the Premier's recommendations.

Conclusion and list of prime minister

The Cabinet automatically disbands upon the death or resignation of the Prime Minister. If an Indian Prime Minister is absent, there can be no Cabinet. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who must have a majority in the House of Commons. Whenever a Director resigns, the President fills any vacancies in accordance with the Prime Minister’s advice.

List of Prime Minister

Jawahar lal Nehru ( 1947 to 1964 )

2. Gulzari Lal Nanda (1964 to 1964)

3. Lal Bahadur Shastri ( 1964 to 1966)

4. Gulzari Lal Nanda (1966 to 1966)

5. Indira Gandhi ( 1966 to 1977)

6. Moraji Desai ( 1977 to 1979 )

7. Charan singh ( 1979 to 1980 )

8. Indira Gandhi ( 1980 to 1984 )

9. Rajiv Gandhi ( 1984 to 1989 )

10. V.P Singh ( 1989 to 1990 )

11. Chandra Sekhar ( 1990 to 1991 )

12. P.V Narishima Rao ( 1991 to 1996 )

13. Atal Bihari Vajpayee ( 1996 to 1996 )

14. H.D Deve Gowda ( 1996 to 1997 )

15. Inder Kumar Gujral ( 1997 to 1998 )

16. Atal Bihari Vajpayee ( 1998 to 2004 )

17. Manmohan Singh ( 2004 to 2014 )

18. Narendra Modi ( 2014 till up to date )

About Narendra Modi

On 30th May 2019, Shri Narendra Modi was sworn in for his second term as India’s Prime Minister. He is the first Prime Minister to be born after India gained Independence and had previously served in the same capacity from 2014 to 2019. Shri Modi’s tenure as the Chief Minister of Gujarat from October 2001 to May 2014 is the longest in the state’s history.

In both the 2014 and 2019 Parliamentary elections, Shri Modi led the Bharatiya Janata Party to unprecedented victories with absolute majorities. The last time a political party secured such a clear majority was in 1984.

Shri Modi has brought about a significant transformation in governance with his slogan of ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas’, which endorses inclusive, development-oriented, and corruption-free governance. The Prime Minister has worked with remarkable speed and scale to ensure the last-mile delivery of schemes and services, as part of his vision of Antyodaya. International organisations have acknowledged India’s progress in poverty eradication under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi. This is due to a range of measures for the upliftment of the poor taken by the Central Government.

India now boasts the world’s largest healthcare program, Ayushman Bharat, which provides high-quality and affordable healthcare to over 50 crore Indians, including the poor and neo-middle class.

Narendra Modi is a people’s leader, dedicated to resolving their issues and improving their quality of life. There is nothing more satisfying for him than being among the citizens, sharing in their happiness, and easing their troubles. His strong bond with the people in person is reinforced by a robust online presence. He is recognized as the most technology-savvy head of state in India, using the internet to connect with individuals and bring about positive changes. He is highly active on various social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SoundCloud, LinkedIn, Weibo, and others.

For more knowledge please visit Khabri Tukda website, also follow our social media pages and never miss to watch our shorts and long videos on YouTube Channel.

1 note · View note