Periyar E. V. Ramasamy
the Court have invoked judicial review in “public interest” to question major policy decisions of the government concerning policy choices, for example, in what are now known as the 2G spectrum and coal mines allocation cases.
• Challenge to proceedings of legislative assemblies and decisions of the speaker have also been entertained by the Court.
- Decisions of the Court voiding a constitutional amendment approved by Parliament to alter the procedure for appointment of judges,
- Exercising Review Powers in what is popularly known as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) case following the constitution bench decision in the Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v Union of India (1982)20 — to hold that the use of excessive force by the Manipur police or the armed forces of the union was not permissible and that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against such impermissible use of force was admissible—has extended the Courts’ review jurisdiction to cover not only administrative decisions but to domains hitherto regarded as the exclusive preserve of legislatures.
- The long arm of judicial power has been extended to advising Parliament to “create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same”
- to “frame a law for disqualification of political candidates facing criminal charges to cure the malignancy,”
- “To bring about a law to regulate street hawkers,”
- “To bring law appositely to cover the field of honour killing.”
Any suggestions or correction in this article - please click here
Related Posts:
METHODS OF FLOATATIONThere are various methods of floating new issues in the primary market:
Offer
••Consent: For government projects, no consent is required while consent of 70 per cent of
the Court have invoked judicial review in “public interest” to question major policy dec
• Moving beyond ensuring basic rights for citizens, the Court decisively extended its review ju
