Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On 29 November 1948, the Constituent Assembly debated the first version of Article 15 as Article 9 of the revised Draft Constitution, 1948. Draft Article 9 read: Draft Article 9 read: (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.
Article 4 is invoked when a law is enacted under Article 2 or 3 for the marginal, incidental and the consequential provisions needed for changing boundary of a state or union territory. As per Article 4 (2), no such law framed under Article 4 (1), shall be deemed to be an amendment of the constitution for the purposes of article 368.
The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any profession (Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)) and to equality before and equal protection of the law (Article 14).
Gopalan was prohibited from disclosing the grounds under which he was detained because of Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited such disclosure even in a court of law. He claimed that the order detaining him violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and that the provisions of the Act violated Article 22 of the Constitution.
The State List consists of 61 items (previously 66 items) where a state legislative assembly can make laws applicable in that state. But in certain circumstances, the Parliament can also legislate temporarily on subjects mentioned in the State List, when the Rajya Sabha has passed a resolution with two-thirds majority that it is expedient to legislate in the national interest per Articles 249 ...
This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights. [12] Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao writing for the majority held that: A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13.
The number of people arrested under the act had exceeded 76,000, by 30 June 1994. [1] Twenty-five percent of these cases were dropped by the police without any charges being framed. [1] Only 35 percent of the cases were brought to trial, of which 95 percent resulted in acquittals. [1] Less than 2 percent of those arrested were convicted. [1]
Recall has been implemented at Panchayat level in the states of Uttar Pradesh, [4] Uttarakhand, [5] Bihar, [6] Jharkhand, [7] Madhya Pradesh, [8] Chhattisgarh, [9] Maharashtra [10] and Himachal Pradesh [11] Recall has been implemented at Panchayat level in the states of Punjab since 1994 as provision of no confidence motion.