The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law. How are the preventive detention laws justified under the same as an exception? Are similar laws like UAPA and PMLA the exception or the new norm? Justify your ...
One of the most controversial amendments to the Indian Constitution was the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.The 42nd Amendment Act was contentious for its perceived erosion of democratic principles and fundamental rights, sparking widespread debate and criticism. Subsequent amendments and judicial interpRead more
One of the most controversial amendments to the Indian Constitution was the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.The 42nd Amendment Act was contentious for its perceived erosion of democratic principles and fundamental rights, sparking widespread debate and criticism. Subsequent amendments and judicial interpretations have sought to restore the original balance of powers and uphold the core values of the Indian Constitution. This amendment was passed during the period of Emergency declared in 1975-1977 and introduced several significant changes:
1. **Fundamental Rights**: It altered the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, asserting that the directive principles could override fundamental rights, which led to concerns about potential erosion of civil liberties.
2. **Constitutional Amendments**: The amendment restricted the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by requiring amendments related to the basic structure of the Constitution to be approved by a two-thirds majority and ratified by half of the state legislatures.
3. **Emergency Provisions**: It extended the duration of the emergency provisions and empowered the government to suspend fundamental rights during emergencies, which raised concerns about authoritarianism and abuse of power.
4. **Judicial Review**: The amendment curtailed the scope of judicial review, limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to review constitutional amendments, which was seen as undermining the independence of the judiciary.
5. **State Governments**: It increased the power of the central government over state governments, leading to fears of centralization and weakening of federalism.
One of the most controversial amendments to the Indian Constitution was the **42nd Amendment Act of 1976**. This amendment was passed during the period of Emergency declared in 1975-1977 and introduced several significant changes:
1. **Fundamental Rights**: It altered the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, asserting that the directive principles could override fundamental rights, which led to concerns about potential erosion of civil liberties.
2. **Constitutional Amendments**: The amendment restricted the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by requiring amendments related to the basic structure of the Constitution to be approved by a two-thirds majority and ratified by half of the state legislatures.
3. **Emergency Provisions**: It extended the duration of the emergency provisions and empowered the government to suspend fundamental rights during emergencies, which raised concerns about authoritarianism and abuse of power.
4. **Judicial Review**: The amendment curtailed the scope of judicial review, limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to review constitutional amendments, which was seen as undermining the independence of the judiciary.
5. **State Governments**: It increased the power of the central government over state governments, leading to fears of centralization and weakening of federalism.
See less
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, as an exception, preventive detention laws like the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) allow for detention without trial,Read more
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, as an exception, preventive detention laws like the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) allow for detention without trial, effectively reversing the burden of proof.
These laws are justified on the grounds of national security and public order, as they aim to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that may threaten the state. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention laws, provided they adhere to the procedural safeguards laid down in Article 22 of the Constitution.Laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have also been criticized for shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. While the government argues that these laws are necessary to combat serious crimes, civil liberties advocates contend that they undermine the presumption of innocence and due process.
The increasing use of such laws raises concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights and the creation of a new norm where the exception becomes the rule. It is crucial to strike a balance between national security and individual rights, ensuring that preventive detention laws are used judiciously and in accordance with constitutional principles.
See less