The Coelho case, formally known as I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), was a landmark Supreme Court judgment addressing the scope of judicial review concerning constitutional amendments.

Key Holdings in the Coelho Case:
Constitutional Amendments and Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle was established in earlier cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), and the Coelho case reaffirmed this doctrine.

Doctrine of Basic Structure: The Court reiterated that any amendment affecting the basic structure of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, is subject to judicial review. This doctrine ensures that amendments do not violate core principles like democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers.

Scope of Judicial Review: The case emphasized that judicial review remains a fundamental mechanism to uphold the basic structure and ensure that constitutional amendments adhere to the core values enshrined in the Constitution.

Importance of Judicial Review:
Judicial review is indeed of key importance among the basic features of the Constitution. It serves as a crucial check on the powers of the legislature and executive, ensuring that their actions and amendments do not undermine the Constitution’s fundamental principles. The Coelho case underscored that judicial review safeguards the integrity of the Constitution by preventing amendments that could compromise its basic structure. Thus, judicial review is integral to maintaining constitutional supremacy and protecting democratic governance.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution describes India as a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.” Each adjective attached to “Republic” signifies a core principle of the Indian state. Here’s a discussion of each adjective and their dependability in contemporary circumstances:

1. Sovereign
Meaning: India is a sovereign state, meaning it has full control over its domestic and foreign affairs without external interference.
Dependability: This principle remains robust. India exercises complete authority over its territory and policy-making, even though it engages in international cooperation and obligations. Sovereignty is upheld in its legal and practical aspects.
2. Socialist
Meaning: Socialist denotes the commitment to reducing economic inequalities and ensuring a fair distribution of wealth and resources.
Defendability: The socialist ideal remains relevant, though its implementation faces challenges. Recent policies have aimed at enhancing social welfare and reducing disparities, but there are ongoing debates about the effectiveness and inclusivity of these measures.
3. Secular
Meaning: Secularism implies that the state treats all religions equally and does not favor or discriminate against any religion.
Defendability: The secular nature of India is constitutionally mandated, but its practice is contentious. There have been instances of religious tensions and controversies, which raise concerns about the true implementation of secularism. However, the fundamental principle is upheld in law and intended state policy.
4. Democratic
Meaning: Democratic signifies that the government is elected by the people and is accountable to them.
Defendability: India remains a functioning democracy with regular elections, representative institutions, and civil liberties. Challenges like electoral reforms and political polarization exist, but the democratic framework continues to operate effectively.
Conclusion
The adjectives attached to “Republic” in the Preamble reflect foundational values of the Indian state. While practical challenges and debates exist, these principles remain defendable as the country strives to align its practices with constitutional ideals.

Article 149 of the Indian Constitution mandates the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to audit and report on the accounts of the Union and State Governments. The CAG’s primary function is to ensure that public funds are used efficiently and in accordance with the law. However, whether auditing the implementation of government policies amounts to overstepping its jurisdiction is a matter of interpretation.

Jurisdiction and Functions:
Scope of Audit: The CAG’s role, as defined under Article 149, is to audit the accounts of the Union and State Governments. This involves examining the legality, efficiency, and effectiveness of financial management and ensuring compliance with financial rules and regulations.

Policy Implementation vs. Financial Audit: While the CAG’s core function is to audit financial statements and expenditures, auditing the implementation of government policies can be seen as an extension of this role. Effective policy implementation often has significant financial implications. Therefore, the CAG’s audit may encompass assessing whether resources allocated for specific policies are used as intended.

Limits of Jurisdiction: The CAG is not mandated to evaluate the merits of government policies or decisions but to focus on their financial execution. Auditing policy implementation involves examining whether the financial resources were utilized efficiently and whether the outcomes align with the financial provisions.

Overstepping Boundaries: Concerns may arise if the CAG’s audit extends into evaluating policy effectiveness or making judgments on policy merits, which could be considered overstepping its mandate. The primary focus should remain on financial propriety and compliance.

Conclusion:
The CAG’s role in auditing policy implementation, when focused on financial aspects, aligns with its constitutional mandate under Article 149. It should, however, avoid encroaching into policy evaluation, which is beyond its jurisdiction. Balancing these aspects ensures that the CAG remains within its prescribed functions while contributing to accountable governance.

The Indian party system is indeed undergoing a phase of transition marked by significant contradictions and paradoxes. This evolution reflects broader changes in Indian politics, society, and governance.

Contradictions and Paradoxes:
Emergence of New Parties vs. Dominance of Established Parties: While new regional and national parties have emerged, challenging the dominance of traditional parties like the Congress and BJP, these new entities often end up adopting similar strategies and policies as their predecessors. This paradox of new parties replicating old practices highlights a continuity amidst change.

Regional Parties’ Rise vs. National Unity: Regional parties have gained significant influence, often focusing on local issues and regional identities. This rise sometimes challenges national cohesion, creating a paradox where local issues gain prominence at the expense of national integration.

Increased Electoral Participation vs. Declining Trust: There has been a notable increase in electoral participation and voter engagement. However, this is paradoxically accompanied by declining trust in political institutions and representatives, suggesting that higher participation does not necessarily correlate with higher political satisfaction.

Coalition Politics vs. Strong Mandates: The trend of coalition politics has increased, leading to unstable and fragmented governments. Simultaneously, there is a growing public preference for strong, decisive leadership, reflecting a tension between the desire for stable governance and the practical realities of coalition politics.

Ideological Shifts vs. Policy Continuity: Political parties often shift their ideological positions to appeal to diverse voter bases. Despite these shifts, there is significant continuity in policy approaches, revealing a paradox between ideological rhetoric and practical governance.

Conclusion:
The transition phase of the Indian party system is characterized by a blend of continuity and change, where new dynamics coexist with entrenched practices. These contradictions and paradoxes reflect the complex nature of Indian democracy, where the interplay between traditional and evolving political forces shapes the future of the party system.

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, titled “Temporary Provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” initially provided a special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. It was intended as a temporary measure, reflecting the unique circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947.

Extent of Temporariness:
Initial Intent: Article 370 was meant to be a temporary provision to address the specific needs and circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s integration into India. It allowed the state to have its own constitution and significant autonomy, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, and communications.

Autonomy: The article provided Jammu and Kashmir with considerable autonomy, including its own legislative assembly and control over most aspects of governance. However, this autonomy was subject to limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution, and any changes required the concurrence of the state government.

Abrogation: The Indian government, through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, abrogated Article 370. This act bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories—Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The abrogation ended the special status and autonomy that Article 370 provided, integrating Jammu and Kashmir more directly into the Indian Union.

Future Prospects:
Legal and Political Impact: The abrogation has led to significant legal and political changes, impacting the governance structure, political dynamics, and relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Union.

Regional and National Implications: The future prospects of Jammu and Kashmir’s integration reflect a shift towards greater central control, which may influence regional politics and governance in the context of national policies and security concerns.

Constitutional and Diplomatic Reactions: The move has generated varied responses domestically and internationally. Legal challenges and debates regarding the constitutionality and implications of the abrogation continue, affecting India’s political landscape.

In summary, Article 370 was intended as a temporary provision but had enduring effects until its abrogation in 2019. The future of Jammu and Kashmir will be shaped by its new status as Union Territories, influencing Indian polity and governance.