Doubt in Constitutional Amendment

Amendment of the Constitution
As per Laxmikanth;
• The provisions of the constitution which can be amended by a simple majority of the Parliament includes “number of puisne judges in the SC”( point 10) and “Conferment of more jurisdiction on the SC”(point 11).
• Whereas, in the list of provisions which can be emended by Special majority and consent of states point 3 says “SC and HC”.
Isn't it a contradiction????

Kindly help me clearing this doubt.
TIA

Comments

  • @pennstateuniv
    this means that provisions mentioned in point 10 and 11 as above relating to supreme court can be amended ordinarily,, so these are specific provisions,,,,,but the other provisions relating to supreme court like appointment of judges need special majority and consent of states,,,,as was the case in recent 99th constitutional amendment
  • @pennstateuniv
    this means that provisions mentioned in point 10 and 11 as above relating to supreme court can be amended ordinarily,, so these are specific provisions,,,,,but the other provisions relating to supreme court like appointment of judges need special majority and consent of states,,,,as was the case in recent 99th constitutional amendment

    Thanks
    So the thing is 'specific provision'. Actually, in the bare act following language has been used:
    if such amendment seeks to make any change in...
    anyways one more doubt.

    In the HC chapter, It is written that Parliament and State Legislature both are empowered to change the jurisdiction and powers of a HC. But change in HC is a constitutional amendment...
  • @DrKingSchultz
    But ye ek line likhi hui hai Laxmikanth me--- 4th Edition 30.4 ekdum bottom.
  • @DrKingSchultz
    ohh.. f**k me..!! It means Parliament AND State Leg.
  • @DrKingSchultz
    ohh.. f**k me..!! It means Parliament AND State Leg.

    There you go.
    It requires ratification by half the legislatures too.
    Thanks :) ATB
  • @pennstateuniv

    I will comprehend it as follows:
    - one, state legislature and parliament can increase power of high court by putting additional matters under its domain
    - second, changing the jurisdiction in some cases (which leads to reduction in stature of high curt) will require constitution amendment, for example, if there is tinkering with its writ jurisdiction under article 226. Obviously state legislatures cannot make such changes and only parliament can introduce such law whereby it is reducing the power of high court under 226. However, since rule of law, independence of judiciary etc is basic structure of constitution, such constitutional amendment will not go very far
Sign In or Join to comment.

Courses by ForumIAS for CSE
ForumIAS is trusted by over 10,000+ students for their Prelims, Mains and Interview Preparation and we currently run several assistance programs to help students from Civil Services prelims preparation to rank upgradation to IAS. You can enroll for these programs by visiting http://blog.forumias.com/courses

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog