India is a Hindu nation, says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

[NKVD]

We are discussing constitutional matters, are we not. Violence is always an open area. It could turn in any direction. That is a pointless debate. Infallibility of the SC or not, that is the law. It is not whether the SC is bigger than the parliament, the question asked & answered by the SC is that even the parliament is not bigger than the constitution. The rest of the argument is in the realm of fantasies so I'm leaving that bit alone.

Read article 352 Before further commenting you will Know the Power of parliament

 

[SarthakGanguly]

India is a Dharmic nation. What he said is not very untrue.

 

[Bang Galore]

Read article 352 Before further commenting you will Know the Power of parliament

I read. You need to read the supreme court ruling.

 

[NKVD]

India is a Dharmic nation. What he said is not very untrue.

Remember song which we play in every 26 January and In beating retreat "Saare jahan se acha hindustan humara"

 

[Bang Galore]

There is something called a judicial overreach.

The constitution role of the SC is to "interpret the constitution" , not play a role in making the constitution.

Just because the SC did it earlier and got away with it, does not mean it can continue the same way without any opposition. If the SC attempts to pull the same stunt it will result in a constitutional crisis and that will always be resolved by the executive and to the detriment of the SC powers.

Parliament as an institutional body IS bigger than the constitution. They wrote the constitution. They can unwrite it too.

This is settled law. Means these are no-go areas. There is unlikely to ever be a parliament where a government will have any kind of majority to even attempt something like this, if they do the SC's position is clear. In theory, a new constituent assembly can be created. In theory.... As far as the rest, it is also equally possible the army may not support (in theory) the government, in which case it simply does not matter what anyone else wants. That is fantasy land, we are discussing in the realm of constitutional possibility.

 

[Biplab Bijay]

As usual, in a fake secular country. Glad Jinnah realized this, and got us a separate homeland.

Not fake but as per Islamic countries.

 

[NKVD]

I read. You need to read the supreme court ruling.

Sir Parliament is not Bound to follow Supreme court Ruling Parliament Have its Executive authority which is provided By the constitution It can any time Amend constitution according to the If need arise

 

[Bang Galore]

Sir Parliament is not Bound to follow Supreme court Ruling Parliament Have its Executive authority which is provided By the constitution It can any time Amend constitution according to the If need arise

You need to understand the ruling. Any amendments to the constitution cannot be done if it changes the basic structure. Any & all constitutional amendments have to pass this test.

 

[Indrani]

Independent marriage law does give them better civil rights.Even after "being treated better" than others, their basic health,education and economic standard is below average.

Commie lies again comrade?

The following are the five major globally recognized human development indicators :

i) Infant Mortality;

ii) Child Mortality;

iii) Life Expectancy at Birth;

iv) Degree of Urbanisation ;

v) Literacy

Hindus are far behind the Muslims in the first four human development indices, excepting literacy in which Hindus with 65.1 percent literacy are marginally ahead of Muslims who have the literacy average of 59.1 percent.

How Justice Sachar helped loot poor Hindu children's scholarships - IndiaFactsIndiaFacts

 

[NairLand]

This is settled law. Means these are no-go areas. There is unlikely to ever be a parliament where a government will have any kind of majority to even attempt something like this, if they do the SC's position is clear. In theory, a new constitutional assembly can be created. In theory.... As far as the rest, it is also equally possible the army may not support (in theory) the government, in which case it simply does not matter what anyone else wants. That is fantasy land, we are discussing in the realm of constitutional possibility.

Wrong. The basic structure doctrine of the SC itself was formed by overturning a previous SC ruling which held that everything in the constitution can be changed.

Even then the 13 bench SC court that made the ruling itself was split 7-6 and the case was decided on such slender margin.

It appears to take the form of the law only because subsequent rulings refer to it, but the basic structure doctrine itself was never challenged again. It can be, you know and the ruling this time may very well be different.

Second part is that the ruling mentions that the constitution will have "secular character". This too can be challenged and a case made for the fact that the present constitution does not exhibit a "secular character" as described in the constitution i.e. Dharm Nirkpesksh. ...... indifference to all religion.

So the SC in theory could be asked to either remove the word "secular" from the constitution or to ensure that the constitution be rewritten in line with the SC ruling which would mean imposing uniform civil code.

This has not be done so far to prevent a Constitutional crisis and for the fact that since the SC ruling, no govt. had a stable mandate and a will to influence the constitution. This has changed or can change in the future.

...........which is why impossible is nothing.

 

[NKVD]

This is settled law. Means these are no-go areas. There is unlikely to ever be a parliament where a government will have any kind of majority to even attempt something like this, if they do the SC's position is clear. In theory, a new constitutional assembly can be created. In theory.... As far as the rest, it is also equally possible the army may not support (in theory) the government, in which case it simply does not matter what anyone else wants. That is fantasy land, we are discussing in the realm of constitutional possibility.

look you confused the prime minister And the cabinet is above all as they enjoy executive powers in the constitution And president is supreme executive of India under which othere pillars of the democracy works eg parliament and Judiciary(SC). President is supreme commander of the Armed forces Not some SC you quoting

 

[NairLand]

You need to understand the ruling. Any amendments to the constitution cannot be done if it changes the basic structure. Any & all constitutional amendments have to pass this test.

No it does not.

The constitution can be changed and then it can be challenged again in the SC and then a new bench will again convene and make a fresh ruling.

This fresh ruling can go either way.

 

[NKVD]

Wrong. The basic structure doctrine of the SC itself was formed by overturning a previous SC ruling which held that everything in the constitution can be changed.

Even then the 13 bench SC court that made the ruling itself was split 7-6 and the case was decided on such slender margin.

It appears to take the form of the law only because subsequent rulings refer to it, but the basic structure doctrine was never itself challenged again. It can be, you know and the ruling this time may very well be different.

Second part is that the ruling mentions that the constitution will have "secular character". This too can be challenged and a case made for the fact that the present constitution does not exhibit a "secular character" as described in the constitution i.e. Dharm Nirkpesksh. ...... indifference to all religion.

So the SC in theory could be asked to either remove the word "secular" from the constitution or to ensure that the constitution be rewritten in line with the SC ruling which would mean imposing uniform civil code.

This has not be done so far to prevent a Constitutional crisis and for the fact that since the ruling no govt. had a stable mandate and a will to influence the constitution. This has changed or can change in the future.

...........which is why impossible is nothing.

Basically Sc And Parliament are both work under the Executive powers of the Constitution which is president,PM And Union Cabinet

 

[NairLand]

Basically Sc And Parliament are both work under the Executive powers of the Constitution which is president,PM And Union Cabinet

No, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. (..in theory)

Commie lies again comrade?

The following are the five major globally recognized human development indicators :

i) Infant Mortality;

ii) Child Mortality;

iii) Life Expectancy at Birth;

iv) Degree of Urbanisation ;

v) Literacy

Hindus are far behind the Muslims in the first four human development indices, excepting literacy in which Hindus with 65.1 percent literacy are marginally ahead of Muslims who have the literacy average of 59.1 percent.

Interesting Facts. Good find.

 

[NKVD]

No, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. (..in theory)



Interesting Facts. Good find.

But Its Not Executive power