Right to Freedom of religion

Right to Freedom of religion Art 25:  P3 -Profess,Practice,Propagate Conscience – inner freedom Profess -declare openly Practice – rituals and use signs Propagate – spread but not force Opinion & belief – no state interference Conduct & practice – state can Art 26: Religious denomination  Est. institutions for religion and charity Manage its affairs Right to property Administer its property […]

Right to equality  

Right to equality   Art 14 : Law  Equal before law   Negative English const Absence of any privileges Law is supreme authority – govt subjected to law Art 361 (exception for president and governor) Dicey No punishment unless law violated Every one equal before law without discrimination Law is the superior – const is superior in […]

Cultural and Educational Rights 

Cultural and Educational Rights

Art 29: Minorities interest 

  • Protect identity
  • Unity in diversity
  • Majority and minority
  • State can’t deny admission in edu on grounds of religion, race, caste or language

 Art 30: Minority education 

  • Linguistics and religious minorities
  • Can have schools of their own – state and ntl recognition
  • BC not part of minority
  • Right to property – state can take over with compensation
  • No reservation for BC
  • Can have own admission process – transparent – no capitation
  • Art 350(A) – teach in mother tongue
  • Art 350(B) – President shall appoint a officer to protect & promote minority

Everything about Ordinance

What is an ordinance and who makes it?

  • Article 123 of the Indian Constitution grants the President of India to Promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of the Parliament is not in session which makes it impossible for a single House to pass and enact a law.
  • Ordinances may relate to any subject that the parliament has the power to make law, and would be having same limitations.

When an ordinance can be issued?

  • When legislature is not in session.
  • When immediate action is needed: Here the Supreme Court has clarified that the legislative power to issue ordinances is ‘in the nature of an emergency power’ given to the executive only ‘to meet an emergent situation’.

How parliament exercises control over ordinance making power of President? 

  • The constitution provides two parliamentary checks vis-a-vis the promulgation of ordinance [Art 123(2) (a)]:
  • The power of parliament to pass resolutions disapproving the provisions of the ordinance.
  • The automatic expiry of the ordinance within six weeks of the reassembly of the houses of the parliament unless passed by the parliament; this gives a chance for the parliament to debate on the ordinance and review it accordingly.

Ordinance making powers of the Governor

  • Just as the President of India is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article 213, when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session.
  • The powers of the President and the Governor are broadly comparable with respect to Ordinance making.
  • However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance without instructions from the President in certain cases where the assent of the President would have been required to pass a similar Bill.

Key debates relating to the Ordinance making powers of the Executive.

  • There has been significant debate surrounding the Ordinance making power of the President (and Governor).
  • Constitutionally, important issues that have been raised include:
  • Judicial review of the Ordinance making powers of the executive;
  • The necessity for ‘immediate action’ while promulgating an Ordinance;
  • And the granting of Ordinance making powers to the executive, given the principle of separation of powers.

Important Cases:

  • In 1970, RC Cooper vs.Union of India Case the Supreme Court, held that the President’s decision on Ordinance could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion in the legislature.
  • In 1980, AK Roy vs.Union of India case the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review.

 Parliamentary vs Presidential System

Does India need a presidential system?

Arguments :-

  1. Against

Debate can be divided in to feasibility and desirability

  1. In the existing constitutional scheme, change is not possible. Supreme court of India already held parliamentary form of Government as part of the basic structure of the constitution.
  2. Presidential system centralizes power and chances of it turning in to an authoritative system are high.
  3. If India’s diversity is taken in to consideration, it is not advisable to have a presidential system. Presidential system do not reflect the diversity well.
  4. Presidential system can create a stalemate situation between executive and legislature.

2. Favor

  1. Presidential system allows for quick decision making . Fixed term for executive makes him invulnerable from the politics of the day and provides stability. Decisiveness is necessary for India to deal with its enormous challenges.
  2. Accountability is better in Presidential system. Unlike in parliamentary system where Executive enjoys majority, there is no guarantee for the same in presidential system.
  3. President appoints his officers. It can bring in more talent in to the system.
  4. Parliamentary system have distorted voting preference of voters. It mean that voters are forced to vote for a candidate to have a particular leader as CM or Prime Minister.
  5. India will not have a US style two party grid lock. So issue based coalitions comes in to picture. It helps for greater debate in the houses.
  6. Most of the legislatures coming in to the houses are with little legislative experience and are participating in elections to get hold of executive power. It mean that they can not act as an effective legislative control.

WRITS Under Article 32

Literal Meaning

  • Habeas Corpus – to have the body of
  • Mandamus – command/order to do the duty to public official
  • Prohibition – to forbid higher court to lower court – prevent from exceeding the jurisdiction (in between the trial)
  • Certiorari – to be certified – superior court to inferior court to squash the order or transfer the case (at the end of the trial)
  • Quo Warranto – By what warrant – Authority or claim of a person to office

 

Writs – Constitutional Meaning

  • Habeas Corpus 
    • Have the body of
    • Produce the detainee
  • Mandamus 
    • Command
    • Against public authority
    • To have him do duty
  • Prohibition
    • Forbid
    • HC to lower court
    • To stop trail
    • Against judicial and quasi judicial
    • preventive
  • Certiorari
    • Certified
    • HC to lower
    • Transfer or squash judgment
    • Preventive and curative
    • Judicial + quasi judicial + administrative
  • Quo Warranto 
    • Authority or warrant
    • Against state – public authority