Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *02.03.2021: LAW NOTES* K. Selvaraj MHC Adv. *”JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

[3/1, 23:06] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *02.03.2021: LAW NOTES*
K. Selvaraj MHC Adv.

*”JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS”* (Continued)

2) That, if it relates to any of the Provisions referred to in the Proviso to Article 368, it has not been ratified by the Legislatures of the specified number of States.

[(1992) Supp. (2) SCC 651]
Kihota Hollohan Vs. Zachilhu

*SUBSTANTIVE*
1) That, by virtue of the Power to amend, conferred by Article 368, Parliament could not alter the basic structure or basic feature or fundamental features of the Constitution because, the word “amend” implied that it cannot make a new Constitution altogether.

[(1973) 4 SCC 225]
Kesavanantha Barathi Vs. State of Kerala

[(1975) Supp SCC 1]
Indra Nehru Gandhi Vs. Rajnaraian

[(1980) 3 SCC 625]
Minerva Mill Vs. UOI

[(2006) 8 SCC 212]
M. Nagaraj Vs. UOI

[(2007) 2 SCC 1]
I.R. Coelho Vs. St. of Tamil Nadu

(To be Continued)
[3/2, 06:49] Sekarreporter1: ☘️

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com