Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986

 The Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986 is a cornerstone in the Indian judicial history, highlighting the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government . The case stemmed from a practice that had become routine for the Bihar government: the re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval, a process that Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, an economics professor, found to be a subversion of democratic principles . The Supreme Court's decision in this case was a resounding affirmation of constitutional law and its supremacy over executive convenience. By declaring the practice of re-promulgating ordinances without legislative consent as unconstitutional, the court reinforced the necessity of legislative scrutiny and the impermanence of ordinances, which are meant to be emergency measures, not a backdoor for enacting laws. This landmark judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of checks and balances within

🚩Domestic content requirements 🚩🚀

1) Domestic content requirements under India’s National Solar Mission.
2) Corporate tax deductions provided under the SEZ
3) Controversial Section 232 tariffs imposed under the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, 1962. The U.S. had imposed an additional duty of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium, triggering a series of WTO challenges and unilateral trade responses. 
4) India will remove the additional duties, which were retaliatory in nature, on certain U.S. agricultural imports which had suffered certain collateral damage on account of the Section 232 measures. India will now revert to the currently applied ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) rate for eight products. In other words, India is only removing the retaliatory duties on these eight products and not offering any preferential concessions on them. The MFN-applied rates would continue to apply to these products.

👉Lesson learnt - A greater use of diplomacy and bilateral negotiations can be more practically useful when adjudicatory outcomes are not immediately available or politically infeasible.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

🌟Privilege Committee🌟

‘India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads’

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986