Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
...RESPONDENTS
...INTERVENER
Page 2 of 19
I have no
Page 3 of 19
Page 4 of 19
9. Para 7 shows that Justice Bhagvati in the first judges case did
not consider Art. 50 of the Constitution at all nor the debates
on the original Article 29(A) of the draft Constitution I suspect
he knew about its relevance but deliberately did not touch it
because he certainly did not display great independence in
the Jabalpur case, not very long ago.
10.
Page 5 of 19
11.
12.
13.
14.
Page 6 of 19
15.
16.
17.
18.
Page 7 of 19
19.
Page 8 of 19
Page 9 of 19
20.
Para 42(b) does not make any sense in law and on facts.
21.
as they have
22.
Page 10 of 19
Judgement
in
Keshavnanda
Bhartis
case
23.
Page 11 of 19
or
repealed.
The
enunciated
proposition
is
meaningless.
24.
25.
to
make.
The
petitioner
submits
that
the
Page 12 of 19
26.
Our
made to do it
Page 13 of 19
27.
members
of
the
Constituent
Assembly
were
importing
into
India
the
British
model
of
Page 14 of 19
Page 15 of 19
must
therefore
be
read
as
subject
to
Article
50.
the
provision
of
the
Constitution
28.
principle,
it
is
fundamental
principle
of
Justice
Justice
Page 16 of 19
29.
30.
Para 79 hardly makes any sense. At the end of para 79, the
two statements of Law marked as (2)
completely
Constitution
legal
mystery.
which
alters
Any
the
at page 36 are a
amendment
basic
feature
of
the
of
the
31.
32.
Page 17 of 19
judgement.
organised
It
is
surprising
that
even
when
the
33.
One can easily skip all the paras upto 91 and then comes
the
following
proposition
advanced
by
desperate
34.
Page 18 of 19
and passed.
Page 19 of 19
36.
37.
38.