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
Post a Comment

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SOME STATE PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 371-371-J

-

 

image source - legalswamp.in.

Let’s explore the special provisions provided under Article 371 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions are aimed at addressing specific regional needs, cultural interests, and developmental challenges in certain states. Here are some key points related to Article 371:

  1. Article 371:

    • Overview: Articles 369 to 392 appear in Part XXI of the Constitution, titled “Temporary, Transitional, and Special Provisions.”
    • Special Provisions: Article 371 includes special provisions for eleven states, including six states in the Northeast region.
    • Objective: These provisions aim to meet the aspirations of people in backward regions, protect tribal interests, and address law and order situations.
    • Incorporation: Articles 371A through 371J were incorporated through subsequent amendments after the Constitution’s commencement in 1950.

  2. Specific Provisions:

    • Maharashtra and Gujarat (Article 371):
      • The Governor has a “special responsibility” to:
        • Establish separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada, and the rest of Maharashtra.
        • Establish separate development boards for Saurashtra, Kutch, and the rest of Gujarat.
        • Ensure equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure in these areas.
        • Provide adequate facilities for technical education, vocational training, and employment opportunities.
    • Nagaland (Article 371A):
      • Acts of Parliament related to Naga religion, social practices, customary law, and land ownership do not apply unless the State Legislative Assembly decides otherwise.
    • Assam (Article 371B):
      • The President may provide for the constitution and functions of a committee of elected members from the state’s tribal areas.
    • Manipur (Article 371C):
      • The President may constitute a committee of elected members from the hill areas in the Assembly.
    • Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (Article 371D):
      • The President ensures equitable opportunities and facilities in public employment and education for people from different parts of the state.

  3. Other States with Article 371 Provisions:

    • Goa (Article 371I): No specific provisions.
    • Karnataka (Article 371J):
      • Provides special status to six backward districts of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
      • Requires the establishment of a separate development board for this region.
      • Ensures local reservation in education and government jobs.

These provisions recognize the unique needs of different regions and contribute to balanced development and cultural preservation. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

šŸŒŸPrivilege CommitteešŸŒŸ

-
šŸ“ŒAbout Committee of Privileges: ✍️It is a Standing Committee. ✍️ It came into being on 7 January 2013 as one half of the replacements for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. ✍️The functions of this committee are "Semi-judicial"  ✍️ Aimed to examine cases if breach of priviledges of the House and it's mrmbers and recommends appropriate action. šŸ“ŒMembers in Rajya Sabha - 10, nominated by Chairman . šŸ“Œ Members in Lok-Sabha - 15  nominated by the Speaker . ✍️In the Rajya Sabha, the deputy chairperson heads the committee of privileges. šŸŒŸPowers and Functions: ✍️The committee examines every question involving a breach of privilege of the House or of the members or of any Committee thereof referred to it by the House or by the Speaker/Chairman.  ✍️It also determines with reference to the facts of each case whether a breach of privilege is involved and makes suitable recommendations in its report. ✍️In Rajya - Sabha When a question of privilege is referred to the Committe
Read more

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

-
Image
The quote by  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, "India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads,"  is a powerful testament to the ancient civilization's early advancements in governance and societal structures. It speaks volumes about the historical context of India's political systems, which were far more developed than often recognized in the common Eurocentric narrative of history. This essay will delve into the implications of Ambedkar's statement, exploring its historical accuracy, its significance in the context of Indian pride and identity, and its relevance in contemporary discussions about the origins and evolution of democratic institutions. Firstly, various historical records and scholarly research support the assertion that India had parliamentary institutions in ancient times. The 'sabha' and 'samiti' of the Vedic period, for instance, are indicative of consultative assemblies that played a role in governance. These bodie
Read more

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
Read more