Ashish Singh is teaching live on Unacademy Plus
The Hindu Daily Editorial Discussion 4th Feb, 2019 By Ashish Singh
Ashish Singh VERIFED Edit Profile IB ACIO 11-2017(Mains Qualified), UPSC aspirant Exam cleared, SSC CPO (2014), SSC CGL Tier (2016-Qualified for Mains), DSSSB (Mains) D 18,074 Views in last 30 days N279,678 Lifetime Views 61 Courses 9.5k Followers28 Flwing Indian Polity Art & Culture By Ashish Singh By Ashish Singh By Ashish Singh February 2019: The Hindu Daily Editorial and Prelims Based.. (Hindi) Understanding Entire Polity Through MCQs (Hindi) Art and Culture Crash Course with MCQs- UPSC CSE 3 Lessons 6 5Lessons 5 Lessons
Page 8 Page 9 .Legitimacy of the basic structure Imagining alternative futures .Why the Young India Adhikar March calls The doctrine may be derived from the abstract. But it exists within the Constitution itself for greater civic solidarity We need a validation of good reporting Afghanistan at a crossroads Any agreement between the Taliban and the U.S. People suspect claims of policy success at the expense of the Afghan government and people is doomed to fail that are not backed by field reports Smartphone tourism Tourism apps have nearly destroyed the joy of discovering places through word of mouth and local lore Standard deviations Delay in releasing key employment data has undermined the credibility of data officialdom Hawkish move The U.S.'s unilateral withdrawal from a nuclear treaty threatens to kick-start a new arms race
Legitimacy of the basic structure GS Paper 2 * Basic structure BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION
PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE "Basic structures of the Constitution' mean structural pillars on which the Constitution rests and that if these structural pillars are demolished the entire constitutional framework will crumble." Dr. Kamal Hossain in Re Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case o"The doctrine of basic structure cannot be rejected if consequence of its rejection is Shahabuddin Ahmed, Jin Re Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case taken into consideration o"The consequences of rejecting the doctrine of basic structure would be so grave and so opposed to the objectives of the Constitution that the consequence of uncertainty would be insignificant by comparison.". HM. Seervai in Constitutiond Law of nda. Vd.2 P. 1568: quoted by Shobuddin Ahmed, J in Re Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case
BASIC STRUCTURE Shankari Prasad Case 1951 Golak Nath Case 1967 Kesavananda Bharti Case 1973
The doctrine may be derived from the abstract. But it exists within the Constitution itself t has now been more than 45 years since the Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, that the Constitution's basic structure was infrangible. But as entrenched as this doctrine might now be, it remains, to some, a source of endless antipathy. There have already been grumblings over the rule's legitimacy in certain quarters in response to challenges made to the recently introduced 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for reservations based on economic criteria in government jobs and education.
Unwarranted censure The common criticism is that the doctrine has no basis in the Constitution's language. The phrase "basic structure", it's argued, finds no mention anywhere in the Constitution. What's more, beyond its textual illegitimacy, its detractors also believe the doctrine accords the judiciary a power to impose its philosophy over a democratically formed government, resulting in something akin to what Union Minister Arun Jaitley once termed as a "tyranny of the unelected".
Unwarranted censure Unquestionably, some of this censure is a result of the Supreme Court's occasionally muddled interpretation of what the Constitution's basic structure might be. But to reject the doctrine altogether because the judiciary sometimes botches its use is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, For not only is the basic structure canon legally legitimate, in that it is deeply rooted in the Constitution's text and history, but it also possesses substantial moral value, in that it strengthens democracy by limiting the power of a majoritarian government to undermine the Constitution's central ideals. mstertarian zovernment to undernanme tra catitn the
Ever since the Constitution was first amended in 1951, the true extent of Parliament's power to amend the document has been acutely contested. But the dangers inherent in granting untrammelled power to the legislature were perhaps best brought out in a lecture delivered by a German professor, Dietrich Conrad. i letour salimonistica conad His talk "Implied Limitations of the Amending Power", delivered in February 1965 to the law department of the Banaras Hindu University, came at an especially fraught time. Only months earlier Parliament had introduced the contentious 17th Constitutional Amendment. Through this, among other things, a number of land reform legislations had been placed into the Constitution's Ninth Schedule. This meant that those laws, even when discriminatory, were immunised from challenge.
But it wasn't the merit of the amendment that troubled Conrad. He was concerned with the suggestion that Parliament's power to alter the Constitution was plenary. Influenced by the theoretical scholarship of the jurist Carl Schmitt, Conrad believed that even if a legislature were bestowed with the widest of powers to amend the Constitution, its authority was always subject to a set of inherent constraints. Parliament, he contended, was, after all, a creature of the Constitution. It could not, therefore, make changes that had the effect of overthrowing or obliterating the Constitution itself.
As A.G. Noorani has pointed out, Conrad was affected by his own country's history. In Germany, the virulent end brought to the Weimar Republic by Nazism had meant that when the country adopted its Basic Law in 1949, it quite explicitly placed checks on the legislature's powers. This included a bar on lawmakers from amending those provisions of the Basic Law that concerned the country's federal structure, that made human rights inviolable and that established constitutional principles such as the state's democratic and social order.
Although it was delivered to a limited audience, M.K.Nambyar, who was to soon lead arguments in the Supreme Court against the 17th amendment in Golaknath's case, was alerted to Conrad's urgings Devoid of any direct precedent from other Commonwealth nations, where an amendment had been subject to the rigours of judicial review, Nambyar thought the German experience carried with it a set of important lessons Were Parliament's powers considered infinite, he argued, the parliamentary executive can be removed, fundamental rights can be abrogated, and, in effect, what is a sovereign democratic republic can be converted into a totalitarian regime.
Therefore, if what has to remain after an amendment is "the Constitution", naturally a change made under Article 368 cannot create a new constitution. Such a construal is also supported by the literal meaning of the word "amendment", which is defined as "a minor change or addition designed to improve a text" Hence, for an amendment to be valid, the constitution that remains standing after such a change must be the Constitution of India; it must continue to possess, in its essence, those features that were foundational to it even at its conception
Standard deviations GS PAPER III Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, employment. Statistical Commission United Nations ENVIRONMENT POPULATI
The resignations of the National Statistical Commission's acting Chairperson P.C. Mohanan and member J.V. Meenakshi appear linked to the Centre's refusal to release new data on employment that were due to be made public in December 2018. They could also be related to unease about the recently unveiled back- series data on the economy, which recorded slower growth during the UPA-led government's rule, and were released by the NITI Aayog bypassing convention and the commission's views. Reports suggest that the findings of the new Periodic Labour Force Survey, for July 2017-December 2018, are not too flattering, with unemployment registering a five-decade high. withe ent registering a five-decade igh
The government has said no such reservations were expressed by Mr Mohanan or Dr. Meenakshi during NSC meetings and that the report will be released after quarterly' data for the survey period is processed. A key role of the NSC, set up in 2006, is to verify whether data being put in the public domain are reliable and adequate. Information has been collected and disseminated bys governments under laid-down schedules, earning Indian data greater global trust than most other emerging market peers, especially China.
Hawkish move GS PAPER II Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India's interests Treaty betwe
. Yet, the U.S. response cannot be regarded as purely retaliatory. .Both Mr. Trump and his National Security Adviser John Bolton are on the record expressing what some consider to be a sense of disregard for arms control agreements .Before taking up the NSA role, Mr. Bolton said in his book that the U.S. "arms control theology" had been "kept on life support during the Clinton presidency by devotion and prayer rather than hard reality". . Mr. Trump, who scuppered the nuclear agreement with Iran, has hinted he would refuse to abide by a treaty that other parties were disregarding. . There is now a sense of alarm that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which limits both countries' arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and will lapse in 2021, might be scrapped
However, going by the surprised reactions from European officials, it appears that Mr. Trump may not have consulted with European allies before announcing the suspension of the treaty Mr. Trump's thinking may rest on the fact that he could now develop ground-launched missiles, and perhaps keep Moscow's aggression in check through a military-posture superiority, and also save the exchequer some cash, for this option is cheaper than cruise missiles that can be fired from aircraft, ships, or submarines. Nevertheless, in pulling out of the INF, Washington is effectively throwing away leverage it may have had with Russia on an issue of global concern.