Should judicial activism question irrational statues?

advocate/counsel supreme court

Sirs ,

This is an article on peoples' sovereign power over parliament in any vibrant democracies..

This is to go on print in a book under print on 'Indian democracy between 1950 and 2012' and likely to appear in 2014.

posted here for the pupose of comments by erudite members of this forum to provide for and against views that may appear as comments in that book once accepted.. regards.... g balakrishnan, LL.B. M.L.,PhD. professor of law (Emeritus) 



Attached File : 490757612 the surest,,...docx downloaded 129 times
 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Can not open your file atachment.

 
Reply   
 



Should judicial activism question irrational statues?

Of course judicial activism should question irrational statutes. Not only question irrational statutes, more importantly the judicial activism should strike down unconstutional provisions in statutes. There are many provisions in statutes that are unconstitutional but still in statute books and people are regularly getting punished under them.

 

One of such unconstitutional statute is Section 3 of Arms Act 1959 which is violative against Fundamantal Right against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3). If one reads Section 4 of Arms Act 1959, one will know the difference. Similar US Supreme Court judgment against self incrimination is already there but attention of our Supreme Court has not been directed to this issue.


Yes attachments are not opening. Please reload the attachments again.

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

1. Meanwhile till the time the missing file is being fixed and re-loaded, I think we need to re-read
Marbury v. Madison [5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)]
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee [14 U.S. 304, 4 L. Ed. 97, 1 Wheat. 304, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1816)]
Ex parte McCardle [74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868)]
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer [343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952)]

2. US Courts has struck down all or parts of a law passed by Congress in;
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Myers v. U.S. (1926)
Schechter Poultry Corporation v. U.S. (1935)
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
U.S. v. Morrison (2000) and
Boumediene v. Bush (2008) and more than 100 other cases.

It also strikes down laws passed by democratically elected state legislatures, in cases such as;
Brown v. Board (1954)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
and
Lawrence v.
Texas (2003)


3.
"It must be nice,” “living in a fantasy world where every law you like is Constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'” “Activist” judges are those who take a position you dislike; those who enforce “your prejudices” are simply doing their job.


The Party President and the Congress MP's constant rhetoric tells me they wouldn't think twice about packing the Court if they could manage once for all Dr. Subrahmaniam Swamy from gate crashing Hon'ble SC J.

 
Reply   
 
advocate/counsel supreme court

dear friends,

 
Reply   
 
advocate/counsel supreme court

dear friends.

yea it is not opening as the club says i f friends want to read you can get from me on your emails so please send your request to my e mail rapidanalysts@gmail.com 

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu