The following are my doubts:
1. Why is prohibition of practice of untouchability as a fundamental right(art. 17) not applicable to foreigners?
2. In Laxmikant...it says that Kesavananda Bharti caseit says that constitution ammendment can be challanged on the ground that it violates a fundamental right that forms the basic structure of the constitution. So, if the amendment ammeds an act which is part of fundamental rights but not part of basic structure, can it be challenged in the supreme court?
3. What does one mean by funda rights being available against state action? How is it different from those against arbitary actions of the state?
Comments
2--> Definitely can be challenged .. But hope you know that Basic Structure doctrine is very vague thing . Actually there is not even an official documentation . But based on various SC verdicts , people come to conclusion of certain principles comes under this doctrine . To have a brief , kindly check Laxmikanth's book they got a list of it ..
3--> Among State actions it got one concept at top , its called State of Emergency [Art.352]. At that same time is should be noted that the Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of public interest . Especially Art 19 .
eg: So you think at the time of Emergency , any fundamental rights except Art 19 was violated you can go and file a case in SC or HC . But for Art 19 it got "freedom to assemble " State can curtail that during Emergency , which you cant file a case against it ..
What I said is in very crude terms .. Kindly check the text books for more info .
In procedure established by law, justice would lie in following the processes as prescribed by the law. The law itself is however not checked for its arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
So, in the Maneka Gandhi case, SC undertook a LIBERAL interpretation and not just literal interpretation and declared that right to life is available against both Procedure established by law as well as Due process of law. That is not only should the process be followed but the underlying law must also be fair and reasonable.
Please help. TIA.
The law can be challenged if it violates the FR but not the Basic Structure. Example Art 31C which is an exemption to Art 14 and Art 19 but their validity was upheld by SC. But yes for simple understanding the bedrock of non-amendability of the Consti is only limited to Basic Structure which is a judicial innovation and as a concept originated in1973. One can challenge any amendment after or on 24th April 1973 if it violates Basic Structure but not before. Hence the law acquisition laws of 1951 still cannot be challenged
There is no harm in regulating media if they really threaten the internal security or their reporting proves contrary to the national interest of India.. But the main problem with such strict regulation is that they are likely to be abused by the state/ some section of our polity to cover up or hush up their contradictions....
Like Japan did in 1960s to protect their corporates in case of "Minamata Disease case".
As far as 26/11 is concerned it is still very difficult to prove what was going inside the hotel. But what will happen if government prevents media from covering events like 2011 Anna Hazare Andolan in the name of maintaining internal security.....
Freedom of Speech should have as less restrictions as possible. As the gain in the end outweighs the loss...
I also think that there are 3 laws passed by joint sitting.
But i don't think there is any difference between joint sitting and joint session...may be in India we use the joint sitting term widely... but both mean the same thing....
these are very vague terms to restrict it into watertight definitions...... some country would say that joint session is only for deliberations and joint sitting if decision is taken by majority voting....some other country may use the same term for both...