Last 40 days law notes k selvaraj advocate madras high court

[1/28, 22:11] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 28.01.2021, K. Selvaraj, MHC, Advocate: High Court in a writ proceedings can decide an issue of fact which can be determined from the materials on record. 1970 (1) SCC 582, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. -vs- Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.
(1970) 3 SCC 631, Om Prakash -vs- State of Haryana..
(1969) 2 SCC 782, Hanif Mohd. – vs- State of Assam.
[1/29, 12:59] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: Introduction to my Writings:
This is my humble attempt in sharing my experience and learning received from the Hon’ble Judges of our High Court, our respected Senior Advocates, my Seniors, my guides as well as my fellow colleagues in the legal profession to the new entrants in the legal profession and it is only for their benefit and learning. Owing to my limitations in this vast field of law, I humbly request everybody involved in this noble profession to aid, correct and guide me in my endeavour to pass on the knowledge of law, the nuances of our profession and our experiences to our younger generation lawyers.
[1/30, 09:07] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 30.01.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – High Court can also take evidence in a Writ Proceedings for determining disputed questions of fact where fundamental rights are involved.

1) Special Investigation Circle, Income Tax Officer Vs. Seth Bros.
[AIR 1970 SC 292; (1969) 2 SCC 324]

2) Kouchunni K.K. Vs. State of Madras
[AIR 1959 SC 725]
[1/31, 08:51] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 31.1.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice, keeping in mind, the principles of equity which aim to promote honesty and fair play.

Shangrila Fort Products Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
[(1996) 5 SCC 54]
[2/1, 09:02] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 01.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – Once the Court is satisfied about arbitrariness and/or injustice, then no restriction or Rule can stand in the way of rendering Justice.

Union of India Vs. Reddappa R.
[(1993) 4 SCC 269]
[2/2, 07:55] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 02.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – Legislation or Laws (Acts or Ordinances) can not override a decision, but they can nullify the basis of a decision. However, they cannot nullify the basic structures of the Constitution which forms the basis of a decision.

Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Rajnarain
[(1975) Supp.Scc 1]

Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India
[(2000) 1 SCC 168]

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kumari Tanuja
[(1999) 2 SCC 462]
[2/4, 08:28] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 04.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – Introduction to my Writings:
This is my humble attempt in sharing my experience and learning received from the Hon’ble Judges of our High Court, our respected Senior Advocates, my Seniors, my guides as well as my fellow colleagues in the legal profession with the new entrants in the legal profession and it is only for their benefit and learning. Owing to my limitations in this vast field of law, I humbly request everybody involved in this noble profession to aid, correct and guide me in my endeavour to pass on the knowledge of Law, the nuances of our profession and our experiences to our younger generation lawyers.

Today’s Law Notes:-

The powers and jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away or curtailed by any Law or Legislation, even if a Statute says that the decision of an authority or inferior Tribunal is final under the Statute.

1) Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel
[(1999) 2 SCC 106]

2) State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Co-operative Transport Ltd.
[(1977) 1 SCC 271]

3) In re Kerala Education Bill
[AIR 1958 SC 956]
[2/6, 10:05] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 06.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv – Experience in Court:

When a junior advocate started to present his case against the policy of the State Government, the Hon’ble Judge hearing the case advised the junior advocate to prepare additional grounds to sustain his Writ Petition against the policy of the Government, saying that the case may finally go upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The next day, when the advocate submitted the additional grounds during his case, the Hon’ble Judge permitted the junior to address the Court first, even though a battalion of other advocates who were all much more senior to him were also present for the same case and also granted interim stay.

Lesson: Juniors should thoroughly prepare every case and present it humbly!
[2/7, 08:26] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 07.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv –

*PEARLS OF WISDOM*

“ *_I don’t think I have reached any real position. In any case, whatever I have achieved is not due to my efforts. It is the blessings of providence_* ”

-Nani Palkhivala, Doyen of the legal profession

[ *Raja Gopalachari* (popularly known as Rajaji) said of Palkhivala “ _He is God’s gift to India_ ”.]
[2/8, 08:32] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 08.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv –

Equality enshrined in Article 14 is the basic feature of the Constitution. The content of Article 14 got expanded by the Courts conceptually so as to comprehend the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Non-arbitrariness, compliance with Rules of Natural Justice, eschewing irrationality. Article 14 thus strikes at arbitrariness of State action in any form.

M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India
[(2006) 8 SCC 212]

Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Shravardi
[(1981) 1 SCC 722]

Satpal Vs. State of Haryana
[(1995) Supp (1) SCC 206]
[2/9, 08:19] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 09.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv –

The Principles of Judicial Review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government or its instrumentalities, in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It’s decision to grant contracts/licenses to private bodies can be questioned in any one of the following grounds:
(1) Bad faith; (2) Based on irrational or irrelevant consideration; (3) non compliance with prescribed procedure; (4) violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions; (5) collateral purposes; (6) ulterior motive; (7) Favouritism, Malice or Malafide

Delhi Scientific Forum Vs. Union of India
[AIR 1996 SC 1356]

Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 651]

Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation
[(2001) 8 SCC 491]
[2/10, 19:34] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 11.02.2021, K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv,

“The decision of the Supreme Court upon a question of law is considered to be a binding precedent and this must be ascertained from the reasons assigned in support of the conclusion. Therefore, what is binding is the principle underlying the decision.

(1) ICICI Bank -vs- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,
[(2005) 6 SCC 404],

(2) State of W.B. -vs- Kesoram Industries Ltd.,
[(2004) 10 SCC 201],

(3) Shah Prakash Anichand -vs- State of Gujarat,
[(1986) 1 SCC 581].
[2/11, 19:59] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 12.02.2021, K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv,

“Doctrine of Stare Decisis”:-
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis, meaning to stand by decided cases, rests upon the principle that law by which men are governed should be fixed, definite and known. Where a Principle of law has become established by a series of decisions, it is binding on the Courts. Judgements which have held the field for a fairly long time ought not to be disturbed unless there is a prepondering necessity dictated by the demands of justice to overturn them.

(1) Sakshi -vs- UOI
[(2004) 5 SCC 518]

(2) Mishri Lal -vs- Dhirendra Nath
[(1994) 4 SCC 11]

(3) S. Brahmanand -vs- K.R. Muthu Gopal
[(2005) 12 SCC 764].
[2/12, 23:15] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 13.02.2021, K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv,
EXPERIENCE IN COURT :-
A young lawyer got his first brief after becoming independent. It was a challenging task for him to prepare the case. He met a senior lawyer in the field of law and requested his help to prepare the case.
The Senior lawyer immediately advised him to find out and go to root of the case, namely the law governing the facts of the case including Service Regulation of the department and to study the rules, regulations and GOs and to prepare the case. On his valuable advise the young lawyer studied them and he was able to prepare the case well and present before the Court. The senior lawyer later became a judge of our High Court and later on CJ of a High Court. Thus the senior lawyer not only gave the solution for that particular case but had also paved the path for preparation in each and every case prepared by the young lawyer.
The senior lawyer had also advised that a lawyer should prepare his case so well and in depth so that lawyer will be prepared for final hearing and not just for admission.
Lesson :-
This golden advice of the senior lawyer has helped and guided the young lawyer not just in that case but in each and every case in his career.
[2/14, 08:45] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 14.02.2021: K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv –

*PEARLS OF WISDOM*

” _The law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them (the poor) relief to save them from starving_ ”

-Lord Ellenborough CJ
[2/15, 08:21] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *15.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv -*

*Grounds of Challenge of Administrative Actions*

1) *_Ultravires or Illegality_*

[(1995) 3 SCC 295]
Real Food Products Ltd. Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board
[(1996) 9 SCC 495]
J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality

2) *_Irrationality, namely Wednesbury unreasonableness_*

[(1948) 1 KB 223]
In Associated Provincial Picture Homes Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corporation

Lord Green M.R. laid down that an authority exercising the discretion must:
i) Take all relevant factors into consideration
ii) Exclude all irrelevant factors from its consideration
iii) Reach the decision which is neither perverse, nor irrational.

[(1989) 1 SCC 89]
Faish Chandhury Vs. D.G. Doordarshan
[(1983) 4 SCC 339]
Suman Gupta Vs. State of J&K

3) *_Procedural irregularity_*

[(1994) 6 SCC 651]
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[AIR 2001 SC 80]
Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. UOI
[2/16, 07:48] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: [2/16, 06:43] Sekarreporter1: Today law points
[2/16, 06:43] Sekarreporter1: 16.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv-

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (Rules, Reguations Etc.)*

1) Lack of Legislative Competence to make it.
2) Violation of Funadamental Rights
3) Violation of any other Provisions of the Constitution
4) Failure to conform to the Statute or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act
5) Repugnancy to the Laws of the Land.
6) Manifest Arbitrariness/Unreasonableness (To the extent that the Legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules)
7) It is also settled Law that Subordinate Legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation (Act)

[(2016) 7 SCC 703]
Cellular Operations Assn. of India Vs. TRAI

[(1985) 1 SCC 641]
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI

[(2017) 9 SCC 1]
Shayara Bano Vs. UOI
[2/16, 22:35] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 17.02.2021: *LAW NOTES* :K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv:

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AND STATE LEGISLATURES :-*

A law may be declared invalid in India:-

*(1) If the Legislature/ Parliament has no power to enact the law. If it is beyond the respective fields set out in the three Lists of VII Schedule of the Constitution.*

[AIR 1965 SC 745]
In Re Article 143

[(2005) 5 SCC 420]
Prof. Yaspal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

[(2004) 4 SCC 507]
In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2001

*(2) If it violates any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.*

[AIR 1950 SC 27]
A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras

[(2002) 1 SCC 279]
State of Rajasthan Vs. D.P. Metals

[AIR 1963 SC 1667]
Rai Ramakrishna Vs. State of Bihar

(To be continued…)
[2/17, 22:34] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 18.02.2021: *LAW NOTES* K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv:

*Judicial Review of Legislation (Continued)*

*3) If it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Constitution.*

[(2011) 6 SCC 535]
Amrik Singh Vs. UOI

[(1997) 8 SCC 522]
S.S. Bola Vs. B.D. Sardana

*4) If it is Manifestly Arbitrary/Manifestly Unreasonable.*

[(2019) 8 SCC 416]
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. UOI

[(2017) 9 SCC 1]
Shayara Bano Vs. UOI
[2/18, 07:07] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 18.02.2021: *LAW NOTES* K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv:

*Judicial Review of Legislation (Continued)*

*3) If it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Constitution.*

[(2011) 6 SCC 535]
Amrik Singh Vs. UOI

[(1997) 8 SCC 522]
S.S. Bola Vs. B.D. Sardana

*4) If it is Manifestly Arbitrary/Manifestly Unreasonable.*

[(2019) 8 SCC 416]
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. UOI

[(2017) 9 SCC 1]
Shayara Bano Vs. UOI

[To be continued!]
[2/18, 22:40] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *19.02.2021, LAW NOTES*
K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv:

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION (Continued)*

A legislation cannot be declared invalid on the grounds of *vagueness* (because the American Test of ‘Due Process’ Clause cannot be applied in India to Statutes), *uncertainty* , *ambiguity* or *Legitimate Expectation*.

[AIR 1980 SC 2097]
Seth Nand Lal Vs. State of Haryana

[AIR 1992 SC 999]
Sri Srinivasa Theatre Vs. Govt. of T N.

[(1969) 1 SCC 475]
Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. St. of Punjab

PS: I request the new entrants to the field of Law to delve deep into each ground of challenge by studying the commentary books of eminent authors on the Constitution of India since there are several intricacies under each heading of each Ground.
[2/19, 22:39] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *20.02.2021: EXPERIENCE IN COURT: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv –*
_“A Professor escaped from disaster”_
A young professor was convicted for the offence of Dowry death and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment, based on the 7 letters of his wife stating that she was harassed by her husband with the demand of dowry and she wished to end her life, which was written before she consumed poison.

During the hearing of the Criminal Appeal, the Bench asked the Advocate about the advisability of admitting that the accused got some dowry only at the time of marriage and not thereafter, as was his defence. The accused instructed his advocate to admit the same. That conduct of the accused gave to the Judges an inkling that the further case of the accused that he did not demand any dowry also be true.

In order to find out the truth of the allegation, one of the Judges told the Court Officer to send the entire case records to his residence and he went through the records item-by-item. While perusing the diaries of the deceased, one entry in the diary struck his attention, namely, _“met Dr. Sukumaran”_. On the next hearing, the Bench summoned Dr. Sukumaran, who deposed that the deceased was suffering from Schizophrenia and had suicidal tendencies and further said that the deceased told him not to disclose the said fact to her husband.
With the said disclosure made by the Doctor, the whole gamut of the case took a different turn, the Judges, on perusal of the investigation file, found that none of the witnesses stated that there was any quarrel between the spouses at any time for demand of dowry. The resultant position was that the Bench acquitted the professor.

The author of the judgment, namely, Justice K.T. Thomas said – “That entry in the diary was a honeybee sent to us by the Almighty to guide us to avert the disaster to the professor”_
– *From, Honeybees of Solomon – Justice K.T. Thomas*
[2/20, 22:27] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 21.02.2021 – *”PEARLS OF WISDOM”* -K. Selvaraj MHC Adv:

_”I had also met at Leeds, Mr. Mohammed Ail Jinnah who had also come to attend the Round Table Conference. I was impressed by his achievements as a lawyer and at his sage advice to me. He said, ‘Reddy, (Later – Justice P. Jaggan Mohan Reddy) when you are in physical pain, with a headache, a stomach ache, or any other pain; you would readily take any medicine given to you, even by a student of medicine. But when you are in material or mental trouble, or your freedom or your properties are involved; you want the best lawyer, so good that you have to mortgage your wife’s last jewellery to engage him, you would do so. If you want to be a lawyer, you should be one like that.’ Another piece of advice he gave me was this, ‘after you become a lawyer and are practising, you should have a place where you can be found by those who require your help. Even if you have no work, you should be found at that place. Or a message should be left about where you could be found. If you have no work to attend on any day, you should nonetheless be at that place and keep yourself busy, keep yourself up to date with the Law or read a novel, magazine or any booklet, but you must be there.’ I am greatly impressed and am thankful for his concern for me. At that time, he (Jinna) had not taken any adverse stand against the Unity of India.”_

– P. Jaganmohan Reddy (One of the 13 Judges of the Supreme Court in the famous, Kesavananda Bharati Case [(1973) 4 SCC 225] and joined the majority of 7 Judges in deciding that the amending power of the Parliament was Limited)

(From – “The Judiciary I Served” – P. Jaganmohan Reddy
[2/21, 23:00] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 22.02.2021: *LAW NOTES* – K. Selvaraj MHC Adv:-
*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDINANCES*
Ordinances promulgated by the Hon’ble President of India under Article 123 or by the Governor under Article 213 can be invalidated by Courts:

1) If there is no Legislative Competence (Power to Legislate under the VII Schedule).

[(1993) Supp. (1) SCC 96] (5 Judges)
In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
Special Reference No. 1 of 1991

2) If it constitutes “usurption by the Executive, the law-making function of the Legislature” by resorting to, as a matter of the usual practice or re-promulgation of Ordinances in a routine manner and thereby keeping Ordinances alive for a long period.

[(2017) 3 SCC 1] (7 Judges)
Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar

[(1998) 8 SCC 725]
Sri Chand Kesara Vs. State of Bihar

[(1987) 1 SCC 378]
Dr. Wadhwa DC Vs. State of Bihar

(To be continued…)
[2/22, 22:48] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *23.02.2021, LAW NOTES:*
K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv,

*Judicial Review of Ordinance (Continued)*

(3) If it is not laid before the Legislature, which is mandatory, it is a fraud on Constitution and it cannot have the same force and effect as a Law enacted.

[(2017) 3 SCC 1]
Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. St. of Bihar

(4) If the satisfaction of the President or the Governor constitutes a fraud on power or was acctuated by oblique motive and it is based on extraneous grounds. In other words there was no satisfaction at all. The satisfaction does not however mean the personal satisfaction of the Governor, but that of his Council of Ministers on whose advice he has to act as a Constitutional head.

1. [(1994) 3 SCC 1]
S. R. Bommai Vs. UOI

2. [(1982) 1 SCC 271]
A. K. Roy Vs. UOI

3. [(1974) 2 SCC 831]
Samsher Singh Vs. St. of Punjab

*To be continued*
[2/23, 22:25] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *24 02.2021, LAW NOTES :*
K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv,

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDINANCE (Continued)*

*(5) If it is in contravention of the Constitutional limitations*

(1) [(2000) 4 SCC 640]
St. of Bihar Vs. Bal Mukund Sah

(2) [AIR 1960 Orissa 46]
Bhupendra Kumar Bose Vs. St. of Orissa

*(6) If it is overriding decisions of the Court*

(1) [(2019) 13 SCC 185]
Medical Council of India Vs. St. of Kerala

*The Debates of Constituent Assembly (Vol. 8, Part V, Chapter III , pages 201-217)* would show that the power to issue Ordinance was regarded as a necessary evil. Hence that power was to be used to meet extraordinary situations.
[2/24, 22:13] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *25.02.2021, LAW NOTES :*
K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv.,

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE*

The 44th Constitution Amendment Act by substituting Clause (5) to Article 356, makes the President’s Proclamation judicially reviewable.
The Proclamation of the President’s Rule may be declared as invalid by the Courts.

*(1) If it was issued by the President on the basis of no materials at all. For instance, where the President acts on the sole basis of the Governor’s report which is vitiated by assumptions as or totally unsustainable in law.*

[(1994) 3 SCC 1]
S.R. Bommai -Vs- U O I

*To be continued*
[2/25, 23:13] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *26.02.2021, LAW NOTES :*
K. Selvaraj, Adv.,

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCLAMTION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE(continued)*

*(2) If it has been made upon a consideration which is wholly extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose for which the power under Art. 356 has been conferred by the Constitution and there is no “reasonable nexus” between the reasons disclosed and the satisfaction of the President.*

[(2006) 2 SCC 1]
Rameshwar Prasad Vs. U O I

*(3) If the exercise of the power under Art. 356 has been legal malafide.*

[(2005) 5 SCC 804]
Rameshwar Prasad Vs. U O I

*(4) It cannot be invoked on the ground of stringent financial exigencies or because of serious allegations of corruption. It cannot be exercised to sort out internal differences or intra party problems of the ruling party*

[(2006) 2 SCC 1]
Rameshwar Prasad (VI) Vs. U O I

*(5) Internal Disurbances cannot, by itself, be a ground for imposing President’s Rule, if it is not intertwined with a situation where the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution*

[(2016) 14 SCC 536]
Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Family Association Vs. U O I

*Dr. Ambedkar has said, ” The power under Art. 356 should not be abused to serve party intetests and it should be resorted to so sparingly that the Article ‘would remain a dead letter’ ” (Vol. IX Constituent Assembly Debates at page 177)*
[2/26, 22:49] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 27.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – ” *A volcano in Ice* ”
A Malignant growth was detected in the body of Jhaveraba, the wife of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, but Jhaverba was too weak to be operated upon and the doctors decided to postpone surgery until she recovered some strength. After some days at her side Vallabhbhai Patel went to Anand where a client accused of murder was being tried, leaving instructions that he should be summoned once the date for operation was fixed.

Since her condition worsened as soon as Vallabhbhai left, immediate surgery was performed, the result seemed encouraging and a wire went to Vallabhbhai at Anand informing him of the facts. A somewhat reassured Vallabhbhai then started to cross examine a key witness. He was pounding the witness with all he had In the Anand courtroom when at 2:00 p.m. on January 11, 1909 another telegram was handed to him during the cross examination. He opened it, saw that it announced Jhaverba’s death, folded it, put it in his pocket, and continued to hammer away until the witness broke down. Not until the court rose did Vallabhbhai give out the shattering news. The Anand court room saw both the volcano and the ice. It did not see any stream of tears and could not see the lava of grief that act of will had contained and confined. His will had triumphed over the grief, and he won the battle in the court room but, on January 11, 1909, spirited little Jhaverba (at 29) has lost the battle in a hospital far away with neither husband nor mother nor father to hold her hand.”

-From PATEL, A LIFE – Rajmohan Gandhi
[2/27, 22:14] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 28.02.2021: K. Selvaraj MHC Adv – ” *PEARLS OF WISDOM* ”

“Life, I have found, is neither roses nor thorns, it is, as I said earlier, a mixed fare. It has its moments of exultation and periods of frustration, it’s high points of achievements and successes, and it’s depressing phases of failures and disappointments. We have to take life as it is – a continuous activity and struggle with its sublime and shadows, its joys and sorrows, its comic aspects and tragic episodes. In the journey of life, we come across people of all types. I, however, feel that by and large, human beings as basically good. I have also found that there are some who belong to the highest species of nobility but who otherwise live in obscurity – some unknown gems of purest ray serene”.

-By Justice H.R. Kanna (whose verdict tilted the decision in the Kesavanandha Barathi Case) – From “Neither Roses, nor Thorns”
[2/28, 22:04] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 01.03.2021 – K. Selvaraj, MHC Ad:
*”Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments”*
There are two avenues of Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments (Art. 368); namely: *Procedural* and *Substantiative*.

*PROCEDURAL*
1) That it has not been passed by the Special Majority provided in Article 368.
[1951 (2) MLJ 683 (SC) || AIR 1951 SC 458]
Sankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs. UOI

The said decision was overruled in _Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab_ [AIR 1967 SC 1643], since it also held that by amending power, Parliament can amend any provisions, including Fundamental Rights and Article 368 itself. The decision in Golak Nath’s case was overruled in Kesavanandha Barathi Case, since it held that Fundamental Rights in Part III cannot be amended.

(To be continued)
[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, 22:38] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 03.03.2021 – *LAW NOTES* – K. Selvaraj MHC Adv:

*JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS* (Continued)

SUBSTANTIVE

2) A Constitutional Amendment Act, may be invalidated, if thereby, the power to amend the Constitution was, in fact delegated:-

In Kesavanandha Barathi Case, the latter part of Article 31-C was struck down by the majority, on the ground that it not only authorised the Legislature to make a Law violative of Article 14, 19 and 31, but also conferred on it power to make it immune from attack from that ground by itself inserting in that Law, a declaration. This provision constituted delegation of am effective power to amend the Constitution on the Legislature.

[(1973) 4 SCC 225]
Kesavanandha Barathi Case

(To be continued)
[3/3, 22:43] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 04.03.2021: *”LAW NOTES”*
The following are acknowledged as basic features of our Constitution by different Judges, individually, in different cases, though there is no consensus as regards each of them in particular.

*1) Supremacy of the Constitution*

[(1994) 3 SCC 1]
S.R. Bommai Vs. UOI

[(1977) 3 SCC 592]
St. of Rajasthan Vs. UOI

*2) Rule of Law*

[(1975) Supp.SCC 1]
Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narayan

[(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 (Para 339)]
Indra Sawhney Vs. UOI

[1997 (6) SCC 339 (Para 13)]
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shrish Kumar Rangarao Patil

(To be continued)
[3/4, 23:13] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 05.03.2021: *”LAW NOTES”*
(Basic Features – Continuation)
*3) The Principle of Seperation of Powers*

[2000 (4) SCC 640 (Para 32)]
St. of Bihar Vs. Bal Mukund Sah

*4) The Principles behind Fundamental Rights*

[(2007) 2 SCC 1 (Para 63)]
I.R. Coelho Vs. St. of Tamil Nadu

*5) The Objectives specified in the Preamble to the Constitution*

[(1973) 4 SCC 225]
Kesavanandha Barathi Case

[(1997) 9 SCC 652 (Para 6)]
St. of UP Vs. Dr. Dinanath Shukla

(To be Continued)
[3/5, 22:15] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *”Experentia docet”* *Latin*
*(Experience is the best teacher)*:

“As Additional Solicitor General, I appeared in a large number of cases for the Union of India in the Supreme Court, and in the more important ones in the High Courts. I won some, lost many, invariably comforting myself with the motto of Oylimpic Games : ” The important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the important thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
– by FALI S. NARIMAN
from “MY LIFE – Motilal C. Setalwad (First Attorney General of India)
[3/6, 22:20] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 07.03.2021: *”Pearls of Wisdom”*
_” In a life of more than 3 score years and 10, I learnt many lessons. I found that hard work pays rich dividends and if one anticipates events and prepares in advance the labour is much less in the long run. I also learnt that opportunity does not knock twice and one must make good the first time”_

– By *M. Hidayathullah* , Former Chief Justice of India

– ‘ *My own Boswell* ‘ – Memoirs of M. Hidayatullah
[3/7, 22:17] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 08.03.2021: *”BASIC STRUCTURE”* (Continued)

*5) Judicial Review*

[(1997) 3 SCC 261]
L. Chandrakumar Vs. UOI

[(2007) 3 SCC 184]
Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha

*6) Secularism*

[(1997) 4 SCC 606]
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashivishwanath Temple, Varanasi Vs. St. of UP

*7) The Sovereign, Democratic, Republican Structure*

[(2002) 8 SCC 237]
In the Matter of Spl. Reference No. 1 of 2002

[(2006) 7 SCC 1]
Kuldip Nayar Vs. UOI

(To be Continued)
[3/8, 22:37] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *9.3.’21, BASIC STRUCTURE (Continued)*

*(8) THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY*

[(2000) 1 SCC 168]
Indra Sawhney Vs. U O I

[(2007) 2 SCC 1]
I R COELHO Vs.St. of TN

*(9) THE RULE OF EQUALITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT*

[(2006) 4 SCC 1]
Secretary, St. of Karn. Vs
Umadevi (3)

*(10) THE ESSENCE OF OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN PART – III*

[(1981) 2 SCC 362]
Waman Rao Vs. U. O. I.

(To be continued)
[3/9, 22:20] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *10.3.’21, LAW NOTES :*
*BASIC STRUCTURE*
*(Continued)*

*(11) THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE – TO BUILD A WELFARE STATE*

(1) [(1973) 4 SCC 225]
Kesavanandha Bharati Vs.
St. of Kerala

(2) [(1981) 1 SCC 166]
Bhim Singhji Vs U.O.I.

*(12) THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES*

[(1980) 2 SCC 625]
Minerva Mills Vs U.O.I.

*(13) THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE & FAIR ELECTION*

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

[(2006) 7 SCC 1]
Kuldip Nair Vs. U.O.I.

*(14) INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY*

[(1993) 4 SCC 441]
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Assn. Vs. U.O.I.

[(2016) 5 SCC 1]
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Assn. Vs. U.O.I.

*(My brief Law Notes on Basic features of the Constitution concludes)*