Anonymous
03 May 2011 at 10:18
Elaborate the views also with the case laws.
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Question: Article 32 (4) this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this constitution. So under our Indian constitution can we suspended the article 32 during the whether emergency or the whole.
Artilce 32 (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
So whether Artilce 32 it is a fundamental right as per Indian constitution Part – III ?
Artilce 21 & 22 cannot be suspended during the emergency. Case law required. Because in the Indian constitution it is not describe or elaborate that which article should be suspended & which cannot be suspended.
Artilce 226 is not a fundamental right but article 32 is a fundamental right ?
Case law required .
Also any suggestion notes opinion required.
Thanks
Anonymous
02 May 2011 at 23:58
Dear Experts, this query arose afer reading the following thread at http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp
The logic put forth by the authour of above mentioned thread appears to be very sound and reasonable to me. As per his explaination RKBA is guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21. And Arms Act 1959 is violative of Article 20(3) for self incriminating citizens for exercising their fundamental right. He has also given a citation of US Supreme Court judgment of a similar case related to self incrimination.
Hence my question is can this logic be tried in High Court by advocate to defend his client implicated under Arms Act for possessing firearm without license?
Anonymous
02 May 2011 at 19:22
Please let me know that Can a Police Constable become a President of Church Committee.
Vijay Pandey
02 May 2011 at 16:34
Dear Sir
Please can the forum provide a draft format of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226.
Regs
Vij
Member (Account Deleted)
29 April 2011 at 17:29
What is a self contained code?
Please give a few examples...
What is its implications?
If there is a contention regarding the interpretation of such a code, how is the process different from other acts ( i.e to bring out its true meaning)??
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards.
Anonymous
29 April 2011 at 17:11
Sam co. and ABC co. together have
about 45% of the existing market share in operating systems in the Europe. Sam
co. developed X-Operations bundled with software applications in
Games and the ABC co. developed Y-Operations bundled with software
applications in Entertainment for use in the Personal Computers. In order to enhance
their market share, these companies entered into an agreement on 1.11.2008 to
exclusively share the ‘interoperable’ properties, so that the user of X-Operations
can transfer data to Y-Operations and vice versa.
The Antitrust Division of the Europe Department of Justice initiated civil proceedings on
10.12.2008 against the Sam co. and abc co.. for indulging in
anticompetition and monopolistic activities by bundling software applications in the
operating systems and then entering into an agreement for exclusive sharing of
interoperable properties.
The Sam co. and ABC co. decided to sell their products in India
through their partly owned subsidiaries TC ltd and DC ltd
respectively (as in both the subsidiaries 20 percent of the equity shares were held
by Indians). Advertisements appeared in the print and electronic media highlighting
the features of X-Operations and Y-Operations and their exclusive
“interoperable” compatibility.
Simultaneously, the Government of India received a report from its Embassy in Europe informing about the harmful effects of X-Operations and Y-Operations
on the Indian market. The existing market players in India also petitioned
the Government of India and submitted that these operating systems will have a
prejudicial effect on their market share. In view of this, the Government of India acted
quickly and promulgated an ordinance on 1.1.2009 which was replaced by
an Act of the Parliament viz. Prohibition of the Entry and Sales of X-Operations
and Y-Operations Act, 2009 banning the entry and sales including
licensing for a period of 2 years.
I just want to know….
1.Whether, the Parliament has competency to pass the Act of 2009?
2. whether, the above Act violates article 14,19 and 21 of constitution?
Anonymous
29 April 2011 at 16:46
r/sir,
I was a member of an a.o.p and I had
retired from that a.o.p.in 2003.A public announcement had been made but the copy of announcement is not in my possession and it is with rhe remaning members who are not co operative.I have the copy of dissociation from that a.o.p.Now in a case I may have to produce
the public announcement.what should I do?
Can I File an affidavit in this regard.
your Prakesh
Anonymous
25 April 2011 at 21:09
OPINION Required in Depth If Possible With the Relevant Case Laws of SC Only.
1) SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Act cannot be changed by the Finance Act.
2) Invoking the theory of promissory estoppel according to which if a promise is made by the government in the shape of a notification or declaration and if the financial commitment is made I pursuance of the promise, there is no way in which the government can back out from the promise. So we can say that promissory estoppel is applicable to any branch of government or any state government & also to the central government.
3) The SEZ Act was made by the Commerce Ministry & not by the Finance Ministry so the finance ministry can’t change or amend any act which was passed by the commerce ministry. Is there any provision under Constitution Of India, 1949.
Especially on point no. 2 & 3 the case law is required & respected opinion is also required.
Thanks.
bhushan singh charan
25 April 2011 at 21:01
whether without publication of notification in official gazztan leavy fee for conservation of lakes? pls refer judgment in support of answer
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Mandamus cannot.
Mandamus cannot be issued in contradiction with statutory provisions. Pls make it more clear with the example & case law on it. It has been also said that any provision is there any writ mention under artilce 32 of the indian consitution cannot be applied.
With the suitable example.
Thanks.