There is a time limit set, by the end of which, the Bill will be deemed to be passed by both Houses, under Article 23.1.2. Regarding financial matters, under Article 21 of the Constitution, the sole decision on these matters lies with the Dáil. This means that the Dáil has the power to overrule the Seanad’s decision on a Bill. After the Dáil has passed a “money bill”, it will then be forwarded to the Seanad. This serves virtually no purpose, as the Seanad must return the Bill to the Dáil, after the addition of their suggestions, from there the Dáil has the discretion to accept and incorporate or reject the suggestions.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA Meaning Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the government. Origin of Judicial Review The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance
Raj Narain, in which the Supreme Court invalidated clause (4) of Article 329-A, inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirty-nine Amendment) Act, 1975 to immunise the election dispute to the office of the prime minister from any kind of judicial review, Khanna and Chandrachud, JJ. Held that Article 329-A violated the concept of basic structure . Other justice though did not go to this extent but certainly held that article 329-A, clause (4) offends the concept of the Rule of Law. Ray, C.J. held that since the validation of the Prime Minister’s election was not applying any law, therefore it offended the Rule of Law .
Judicial Tyranny is interpreted by the judiciary and such it can be the case that judge can legislate from the bench. , Another significant disadvantage, the parliamentary sovereignty would be effectively abolished. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make or unmake or even amend any law it wishes. United Kingdom will lose a massive privilege if someday decide to codified it constitution. Last but not least, a codified constitution would give the judiciary a political point of view witch it will require from the ultimately supreme court to form judgements of issues with political nature that should be dealt by the politicians them
As P.A. Sangma, Speaker of the Eleventh Lok Sabha said: “What kind of law is this that if you defect individually, you are committing an illegal act, and if you detect in group of one-third, you are not accused of any illegality.” If we are sincere about outlawing defections, anyone voluntarily changing his party affiliation after being elected on a particular party ticket must automatically and immediately lose his seat in the legislature . There should be no exceptions and no provisos. The two terms which do not find a clear understanding are – ‘unattached’ and ‘expulsion’. It was repeatedly stressed upon by various scholars that the Anti-Defection Law needed to be amended to prevent the leaders from resorting to the device of ‘expulsions’ and the presiding officers from rushing to declare members as ‘unattached’.
The twenty third amendment give electoral votes to Washington D.C. The twenty fourth amendment is a law against any poll tax or extra requirements for a citizen to vote. The twenty fifth amendment deals with the case of the president being disabled therefore giving the vice president and cabinet power to lead. The twenty sixth amendment gives the law of the voting age being lowered to eighteen years old. The twenty seventh and final amendment deals with the salaries of
United States deals with the second scenario and the government’s ability to prosecute leaders of well-organized political parties. The Court also developed new legal tests to measure the risk speech causing harm; the risk formula approach. The risk formula approach questions whether the gravity of the evil justifies the invasion of free speech in order to avoid danger. In Dennis v. Unites States, the Court found that the Secretary of the Communist party in the United States did not have First Amendment protections of free speech, assembly and publication of their political doctrines. Chief Justice Vinson stated in the Court’s decision that Dennis violated the Smith Act, for advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government.
Hence it also included the right to dissolve an existing association and the right to resign an association. In the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh , the Supreme Court strucked down an amendment to the Kelantan Constitution that required an assemblyman to vacate his seat if he defected from the party on whose ticket he had won his seat. On the dark side of this, the rights of freedom of association is also accompanied by restraints such as the Trade Unions Act 1959 (Act 262), The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and The Societies Act 1966 (Act 335). In the case of Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim v Menteri , the new party, Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) applied for registration under the Societies Act. The seven members constituting the party’s committee were mostly from the state of Selangor.
There is no discretion (on forum non convenience or other grounds) in favor of courts of another State. • Secondly, the Hague Convention provides that any other court seized but not chosen must dismiss the case unless the exceptions listed in the Hague Convention apply (Article 6). A jurisdiction agreement is thus effectively enforced and avoids parallel proceedings. • A third key feature of the Hague Convention is that it provides an international framework to recognize and enforce judgments. A judgment rendered by the court of a member State must be recognized and enforced by the courts of other member States (Article 8) unless one of the exceptions established by the Hague Convention applies (Article 9).
The members have a right to protect the company from any damages. An action under this exception may be instituted directly against others members without associating the company as a joint defendant. d) Special resolution When the company is been managed in wrong way, it also can be resolved by ordinary resolution in general meeting. If in the article or statue provided that the act of the transaction can be approved by the consent of the majority shareholder that means the exception on Foss v Harbottle cannot be used. e) Where the justice is required It was the last exception of the rule in Foss v Harbottle where the justices of the case are required.