Archives for the month of: January, 2017

(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution; …

 

(ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution; (iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Co…

 

(iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; (iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank ac…

 

(iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21; (v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive …

 

(v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect? …

(vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution; (vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to…

 

(vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution; (vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to…
(vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government; (viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and (ix) Whether District Co-operat…

Dr chandrachud Dhananjay as justice and two other Justices is no dissent on ‘secularism of the constitution paradigm as such.
It is not to say that the law makers to decide such fundamental issues never meant,
that the present law makers among them includes the opposition law makers.
they need to be taken into consideration,
and that means ‘opposition law makers;
if it was a healthy strong opposition’
that dissent may consider;
but such issues like on the Constitutional preferences has to be decided by the backing of ‘referendum principle’ like in the case of Brexit in the UK; Brexit was adopted through referendum is the obvious way forward for secularism of the constitution ;

so it is obvious their dissent is no dissent on Secular ideals as the members of the constitution bench which said that secularism does not mean the political parties can decide issues by ‘going away’ from the secular fundamental ideals of the constitution of india is my considered opinion;

secularism as such the ‘basic principle of the indian constitution,

in the similar way even ‘demonetization is; Modi government alone cannot decide the’demonetization’ without referendum to people (referal to the people of india -as citizen is sovereign in india not parliament as it is an instrument under Art 12 it has to refer sch main issues to the people of india, as demonetization is no political policy but people daily issue, so referendum route has to have been adopted by Mod govt, it failed is obvious, that very question is like the UK govt sought referendum on the exit from EU; the referendum said in 52% majority said ‘we have to go out of EU’ – that only made Cameron to resign on the issue; similar position is in india too; for india is based upon the UK or British constitutional principles; though the British constitution is an unwritten constitution,except magna carta and bill of rights; yet it followed ‘referendum’ process – why the British parliamentarians are mentally advanced to ensure the major issues ought to go through the ‘referendum process’ so they followed, they sustained the Breixt even today; so what Mamta WB CM that LK Advaniji ot Arun Jaitleyji be nominated as PM in place of Modiji is indeed a tenable argument, unquestionably as indian constitution s modelled on the British constitution as also the American constitution is my considered opinion, by default, as she sought for different objective, yet her view is correct constitutionally..