Download PDF From Here: www.pw.live/study/batches/samagra-book-series-batch--hinglish--902582/batch-overview 📳For Free Notes Quizzes and Tests - t.me/pw_upsc
Marbury v. Madison, (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government
Article 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom) and 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) are popularly known as the 'golden triangle' of the Indian Constitution.
Art 143 SC opinion must on pre constitutional treaty , agree ment etc and may or may give opinion of other questions of law or fact. But the opinions of SC are only advisory and not binding on President
Waman Rao case 1981 SC clarified that doctrine would be apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case) (Including 9th schedule)
Important pointers of Kesavananda Bharati case - He challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970, which imposed restrictions on the management of the religious property. The case was challenged under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. A 13-judge Bench was set up by the Supreme Court, the biggest so far, to hear the case.
Q1. Consider the following statements: (2018) The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 And the ans showing is ans is" only 1" Please sir explain why not option B
Second statement is absolutely wrong. SC has made it clear that any Law placed in 9th Schedule after 24/04/1973 which is violating the Basic Structure will be open to scrutiny First statement is true. Only Parliament can place any Law in 9th Schedule
to Understand the Golaknath Case: 1)The Ninth Schedule & Article 31(b) To weed out the Zamindari system in India, the government came up with Article 31(b), which stated that any amendment or Act listed in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution would never be eligible for judicial scrutiny. Those Acts could not be nullified or reverted even if they curtailed the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is under this Ninth Schedule that the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act resided. 2)Article 368 gives the Parliament the constituent power to amend any part of the Constitution by means of adding new provisions or repealing or modifying existing provisions. On the other hand, Article 13 states that any law that violates the fundamental rights of the citizens shall be declared void. However, Article 368 states that no provision mentioned in Article 13 would affect the provisions mentioned in Article 368. In short, as far as the Constitution is concerned, Article 368 is more powerful than Article 13.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) Main Theme: The Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot change the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. They together constitute the core of the commitment to social revolution. The goals set out by the Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the present position is that the Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles. Yet, this does not mean that the Directive Principles cannot be implemented. The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements: (2018) The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Ans: (a)
Which of the following is/are correct regarding the Preamble of India? It was held as a part of the Constitution in the Berubari Union case. It is a part of the basic Structure of the Constitution. It is not a source of power nor a source of limitations. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? A. 1 and 2 only B. 2 only C. 3 only D. 1, 2 and 3 only ans b
Sir i have ques ki that in the case of keshavnanda bharti- right to property earlier was our fundamental right but parliament violated it then why judiaciary didn't declare it invalid or why didn't it uses judicial review power
Recently in news, Shayara Bano vs. Union of India case is related to: A. Rights of Muslim woman to marry the person of her choice B. Ban polygamy C. Ban on female genital mutilation D. Make instant triple ‘talaq’ (divorce) as illegal ans :-d
Which of the following cases does not deal with constitutional amendability power of the Parliament? Shankari Prasad case Sajjan Singh case S R Bommai case Golaknath case Select the correct option using the codes given below. A. 1 and 2 only B. 3 only C. 2 only D. 3 and 4 only ans :- b
@@AdityaTiwariUPSC sir our question is that do we have to read ncert before watching your summary lectures of laxmikant or we can start directly from laxmikant only?
Sir after completion of the syllabus if uh could make a separate video on all the imp. Cases which is necessary for us to know... That will be really helpful. Its just a request. 😊 So please don't scold me for the same
@@AdityaTiwariUPSCAditya sirji . Syllabus complete ki speed increase krva do nhi to hmara kya hoga. Not only polity but all subjects. Plz thoda dekho and only_ias team ko bolo❤
Article 143 of the Constitution authorises the president to seek the opinion of the Supreme court in the two categories of matters: On any question of law or fact of public importance which has arisen or which is likely to arise. On any dispute arising out of any pre-constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instruments.
In the first case, the Supreme court may tender or may refuse to tender its opinion to the President. But, in the second case, the Supreme court ‘must’ tender its opinion to the president. In both cases, the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court is only advisory and not a judicial pronouncement. Hence, it is not binding on the President. He may follow or may not follow the opinion.
Summary of the Golaknath Case (1967) The Case: A certain family in Punjab - Henry and William Golaknath owned 500 acres of farmland. However, in 1953, the Punjab government came up with the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act. As per the Act, a person can own only 30 Standard acres (or 60 ordinary acres) of land. Hence the Golaknath family was ordered to forgo the excess land and was allowed to keep only 30 acres of the said land ( a few acres apart from the 30 acres of land would go to the tenants). The Golaknath family went to court, challenging the validity of the 1953 Act. The family’s main argument was The 1953 law obstructed their right to own property as enshrined in Article 19(1)(f). The law further prevented them from going ahead with a profession of their choice. The law threatened their right to equal protection, as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. On top of that, the family also urged the court to declare the 17th Amendment ( through which the 1953 law came into being) as unlawful.
The Ninth Schedule was introduced in the Constitution of India during the prime ministership of (2019) (a) Jawaharlal Nehru (b) Lal Bahadur Shastri (c) Indira Gandhi (d) Morarji Desai Ans: (a)
