{"id":334981,"date":"2024-11-13T11:00:58","date_gmt":"2024-11-13T05:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=334981"},"modified":"2024-11-13T14:49:15","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T09:19:15","slug":"the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn<\/span>. v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court of India has fortified the doctrine of revival concerning Article 31-C<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, a ruling with far-reaching implications for the interpretation of constitutional amendments, legislative powers, and welfare legislations. The judgment holds that when a constitutional amendment is struck down, the original provision it modified or substituted automatically revives. By affirming this principle, the Court has underscored the continuity of India\u2019s constitutional and legal framework.<\/p>\n

Brief background and history<\/h4>\n

Article 31-C<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> which was enacted to further social justice and economic equality, provides legislation a safe harbour and protects them from being challenged under Articles 14 and 19. It is appropriate to refer to Article 39(b<\/span>) at this stage, which is a part of directive principles and provides for the distribution and ownership of material resources of the community to best subserve the common good. As the Supreme Court calls it, Article 31-C, is the ying to the yang of Article 39(b<\/span>) and provides a protective layer from being challenged under Articles 14 and 19.<\/p>\n

In this case, the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976<\/a> were challenged for being violative of Articles 14 and 19. It was argued that they were enacted to give effect to principles under Articles 39(b<\/span>) and 31-C protects them from being challenged. The Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution expanded the protective scope of Article 31-C to cover laws furthering directive principles, not just those in Article 39(b<\/span>). This amendment was struck down in Minerva Mills Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>. It thus became imperative for the Court to first decide if the unamended Article 31-C continues to survive after the Court struck down the amendment.<\/p>\n

Minerva mills and unresolved questions of revival<\/h4>\n

The Court\u2019s decision in Minerva Mills case<\/span> restored the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, but it raised a critical question: Does the unamended Article 31-C, automatically revive after the amendment was struck down?3<\/sup><\/a> This question remained unresolved until the Court\u2019s decision in this case, which has now decisively confirmed that the unamended Article 31-C does indeed survive.<\/p>\n

The doctrine of revival: Key arguments and judicial reasoning<\/h4>\n

This doctrine operates on the basis that when a constitutional amendment is struck down, the prior, unamended text automatically gets restored, preventing a gap or a vacuum in the Constitution or legal framework.<\/p>\n

Pen and ink theory:<\/span> Against the automatic revival, it was argued that after a new provision is inserted, the old text ceases to exist and cannot be given legal effect.4<\/sup><\/a> It was argued that while Minerva Mills case<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a> decision stopped the newly inserted text from being enforced, it cannot reverse the first step of erasure and restore the deleted original text.6<\/sup><\/a> It was argued that this revival is a legislative exercise and a judicial one. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments,7<\/sup><\/a> emphasising the importance of continuity and coherence in the constitutional framework.<\/p>\n

Key reasoning of the Supreme Court<\/h4>\n

Preserving constitutional stability:<\/span> The Court referred to multiple instances to argue that not allowing unamended or original text to revive would lead to disastrous consequences. In NJAC<\/span> decision8<\/sup><\/a> where the Court struck down the amendment that repealed the collegium system for appointment of Judges, it was held that the collegium system would survive upon annulment of the amendment.9<\/sup><\/a> Any other interpretation would create a void and lead to breakdown of constitutional machinery and have dire consequences.10<\/sup><\/a> While arriving at the conclusion, the Court also relied on other cases that assumed automatic revival of original Article 31-C.11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Basic structure doctrine as a foundation for revival:<\/span> The Court grounded its reasoning in the basic structure doctrine. The revival of original text ensures that invalidated amendments do not weaken the foundational and core values of the constitution. This ensures continuity and coherence in fundamental rights and directive principles.<\/p>\n

Composite and indivisible legislative intent:<\/span> The Court explained two expressions of the legislative intent \u2014 the original text and the amended text. The Court observed that if the amended text is invalided, the only valid expression of legislative intent is the original text. The Court emphasised that if it were to assume that the original text could not be enforced because it had been repealed, this would lead to a third outcome \u2014 a legal vacuum that could not have been intended as a possible outcome.12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Implications of the judgment<\/h4>\n

This ruling has profound implications for Indian constitutional legal framework, legislative powers, and social welfare policy. Here is a closer look at its far-reaching consequences:<\/p>\n

Constitutional continuity and stability:<\/span> By affirming the doctrine of revival, the Court has ensured that amendments, if struck down, do not create a legal vacuum. This principle is crucial where continuity of legislative texts is essential to avoid interpretive uncertainties and conflicting decisions. Automatic revival preserves the integrity of the Constitution as a cohesive and functional document, specifically in cases where amendments interfere with the Constitution\u2019s core structure such as the appointment of Judges and the NJAC case<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Setting a precedent in constitutional interpretation:<\/span> This judgment sets a clear precedent for interpreting future amendments and providing various stakeholders with a reliable framework for interpreting laws. The affirmation of revival as a default rule offers clarity not just to the lawmakers, by allowing them to understand the boundaries within which they can amend the Constitution but also to the judiciary by allowing them to interpret amendments with clarity to avoid unintended constitutional void or crisis.<\/p>\n

Flexible approach of interpretation: <\/span>Significantly, the Court also held that in cases where there is evidence to suggest that the legislature would have repealed the original text independent of introducing the amended text, a court can continue to give effect to the repeal despite invalidating the new text. The Supreme Court stressed that a court must assess both the totality of the legislative circumstance and the logical consequence from the decision to invalidate a statute or provision.14<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision on the doctrine of revival in this case is a notable milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It ensures that amendments do not disrupt the Constitution\u2019s foundational structure or core values. By holding that the unamended Article 31-C continues in force, this decision not just provides much needed clarity to lawyers, courts, civil societies and legislatures on principles of interpretation for constitutional amendments but also provides a solid bedrock for India\u2019s social welfare legislations to function smoothly.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

*Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., specialising in Constitutional and Regulatory Law.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

**Associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>, para 28.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, para 46.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, .<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, .<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>, para 60.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>, .<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, para 69, (decisions in Bhim Singhji<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (1981) 1 SCC 166<\/a> and Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co.<\/span> v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.<\/span>, (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>).<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, para 65.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122<\/a>, paras 63 and 68.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Varun Pathak* and Tejpal Singh Rathore**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":335032,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20271,46698],"tags":[75187,19471,75188,41382,75189,5363],"class_list":["post-334981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-experts_corner","category-shardul-amarchand-mangaldas","tag-article-31-c","tag-constitution","tag-landmark-reinforcement","tag-legal-framework","tag-maharashtra-housing-and-area-development-act-1976","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-11-13T05:30:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-13T09:19:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-13T05:30:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-13T09:19:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court's Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity | SCC Times","description":"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity","og_description":"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-13T05:30:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-13T09:19:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/","name":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp","datePublished":"2024-11-13T05:30:58+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-13T09:19:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"In a recent landmark decision by a Constitutional Bench of nine Judges in Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court's Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/13\/the-supreme-courts-revival-doctrine-and-article-31-c-a-landmark-reinforcement-of-constitutional-continuity\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court\u2019s Revival Doctrine and Article 31-C: A Landmark Reinforcement of Constitutional Continuity"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Supreme-Courts-Revival-Doctrine-and-Article-31-C.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":290424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":0},"title":"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure’","author":"Editor","date":"April 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Here is snippet on the evolution of \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure' in the Independent India and how the biggest legal battle continued between the Judiciary and the Legislature, as the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225 enters its Golden Jubilee year.","rel":"","context":"In "Law made Easy"","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214893,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/21\/uganda-sc-constitutional-amendment-removing-age-limit-for-the-president-does-not-violate-the-basic-structure\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":1},"title":"Uganda SC | Constitutional Amendment removing age-limit for the President does not violate the Basic Structure","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Uganda: The Full Bench of Katureebe, CJ., Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, and Mugamba, JJ SC; and Tumwesigye, AG JSC upheld a Constitutional Amendment which negated age bar for the President and Local Council V Chairpersons. The Constitutional Court headed by Owiny-Dollo, DCJ. had declared that the Constitutional\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":36881,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/02\/24\/advocacy-in-constitutional-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":2},"title":"Advocacy in Constitutional Cases [From the SCC Journal Section Archives]","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 24, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"by Fali S. Nariman","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":343210,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/07\/landmark-constitution-bench-judgments-2024-part-iii\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":3},"title":"Summary of Landmark Constitution Bench Judgments of 2024 (Part III of III)","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Siddharth R. Gupta* and Khushi Dwivedi**","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitution Bench Judgments 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235422,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/07\/the-untold-story-of-how-kesavananda-bharati-and-the-basic-structure-doctrine-survived-an-attempt-to-reverse-them-by-the-supreme-court-scc-archives\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":4},"title":"The Untold Story of How Kesavananda Bharati and the Basic Structure Doctrine Survived an Attempt to Reverse them by the Supreme Court [SCC Archives]","author":"Editor","date":"September 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by T.R. Andhyarujina\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6275,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/24\/issue-related-to-illegal-immigration-from-indo-bangladesh-border\/","url_meta":{"origin":334981,"position":5},"title":"Issue related to illegal immigration from Indo-Bangladesh border","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 24, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the present case the bench of \u00a0R.F.Nariman, J., and Ranjan Gogoi, J.,delivered a landmark judgment touching upon various issues of pressing importance related to the problem of illegal immigration from Indo-Bangladesh border with special emphasis on the problems of state of Assam. Deliberating upon the issue that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=334981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334981\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/335032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=334981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=334981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=334981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}