Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, popularly known as the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 (ISO 15919: Nārī Śakti Vandan Adhiniyam), was introduced in Lok Sabha on 19 September 2023 during the special session of Parliament. [3]
The Constitution spells out governmental powers with so much detail that many matters addressed by statute in other democracies must be addressed via constitutional amendment in India. As a result, the Constitution is amended roughly twice a year. The main purpose of the amendments is to become more relevant.
Despite the supermajority requirement for amendments to pass, the Indian constitution is the world's most frequently-amended national governing document. [62] The constitution is so specific in spelling out government powers that many amendments address issues dealt with by statute in other democracies.
Amendment of article 276 In article 276 of the Constitution, in clause (2)- (a) for the words "two hundred and fifty rupees", the words "two thousand and five hundred rupees" shall be substituted; (b) the proviso shall be omitted. [1] The full text of clause(2) of Article 276 of the Constitution, after the 60th Amendment, is given below: 276.
Following the enactment of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019, several writ petitions were filed, seeking to declare the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure concept. By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on ...
Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India.
The bill of The Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 3 May 1956, as the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Bill, 1956 (Bill No. 35 of 1956). It was introduced by M.C. Shah, then Minister of Revenue and Civil Expenditure, and sought to amend articles 269, 286 and the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to ...
The state argued that the 105th Amendment was only clarifying the 102nd Amendment, and so it had retrospective effect. [17] The Supreme Court disagreed, an amendment would not be considered retrospective unless it explicitly said so. The text of the 105th Amendment has no indication that it is retrospective.