If you were a part of the constitution and policy framing panel, what would be the particular policy that you’d amend or eradicate, considering it could possibly bring in better outcome?
Administrative law and constitutional law are two distinct areas of law that serve different purposes. Administrative law focuses on the rules and regulations that govern the daily work of government agencies and public officials. It ensures that they act fairly, follow procedures, and don't abuse tRead more
Administrative law and constitutional law are two distinct areas of law that serve different purposes.
Administrative law focuses on the rules and regulations that govern the daily work of government agencies and public officials. It ensures that they act fairly, follow procedures, and don’t abuse their power.
Constitutional law, on the other hand, deals with the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, as enshrined in the Constitution. It sets limits on government power and protects individual liberties.
Let’s consider a case study:
In the landmark case of “Marbury v. Madison” (1803), the US Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, which allows courts to strike down government actions that violate the Constitution. This case demonstrated the difference between administrative law and constitutional law. The Court was not reviewing an administrative decision, but rather ensuring that the government’s action aligned with the Constitution.
In simple terms, administrative law is like a “rule book” for government officials, while constitutional law is like a “bill of rights” that protects citizens from government overreach.
See less
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