346
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Book Review

Giving structure to the basic structure doctrine

Pages 182-189 | Received 29 Jun 2017, Accepted 21 Sep 2017, Published online: 19 Nov 2017
 

Notes

1 See, for example, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine (OUP 2009); Deepakshi Joshi, Constitutionalism and Basic Structure (Regal Publications 2015); A. Lakshminath, Basic Structure and Constitutional Amendments: Limitations and Justiciability (Deep & Deep Publications 2002).

2 Yaniv Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (OUP 2017) 20–21.

3 ibid.

4 ibid 21.

5 ibid.

6 ibid 42.

7 AIR 1951 SC 458.

8 Roznai (n 2) 42–47; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) SCC 225.

9 Roznai (n 2) 44.

10 Kesavananda (n 8) 366.

11 Roznai (n 2) 47; Krishnaswamy (n 1) 160–61.

12 Roznai (n 2) 47–69 (noting that, among others, Taiwan, Kenya, Colombia, Peru, and Belize have recognised implicit unamendability, while many other countries’ judiciaries have considered or discussed it).

13 (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165.

14 Roznai (n 2) 49.

15 ibid 49–52.

16 ibid 56.

17 ibid.

18 ibid 113–17.

19 ibid 118–20.

20 ibid 119 (emphasis in original).

21 Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations (HUP 1991).

22 Roznai (n 2) 127–28.

23 ibid 127.

24 ibid 128 (quoting Cheryl Saunders, ‘The Constitutional Credentials of State Constitutions’ (2011) 42 Rutgers LJ 853, 870).

25 ibid 133 (internal quotation marks omitted).

26 Shivprasad Swaminathan, ‘The Long Slumber of Dicey’s Indian Monarch’ (2016) Commonwealth Law Bulletin; AV Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (10th edn, ECS Wade 1955, p. 22).

27 Roznai (n 2) 164.

28 ibid 165.

29 ibid 168–74.

30 Riordan v. An Taoiseach, [1999] IESC I, 4.

31 Roznai (n 2) 175.

32 ibid.

33 William Partlett, ‘The Dangers of Popular Constitution-making’ (2012) 38 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 193; David Landau, ‘The Importance of Constitution-Making’ (2012) 89 Denver University Law Review 611; David Landau, ‘Constitution-making Gone Wrong’ (2013) 64 Alabama Law Review 923.

34 Roznai (n 2).

35 ibid 193 (internal quotation marks omitted).

36 ibid 193–96.

37 ibid 194 (citing essays in Pran Chopra (ed), The Supreme Court versus the Constitution: A Challenge to Federalism (Sage 2006)); Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty’ (2007) 18 Journal of Democracy 70.

38 Roznai (n 2) 212–17.

39 ibid 212–13.

40 ibid 214.

41 ibid 215–16.

42 ibid 218.

43 ibid 220 (noting that constitutional amendments must meet the “disproportionate violation standard”).

44 ibid 221 (explaining that under this standard only “extraordinary infringements” of unamendable principles would lead to the invalidation of constitutional amendments).

45 ibid 218.

46 PLD 2005 SC 719.

47 ibid, paras 56–7.

48 District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (5 August 2015)

<http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P.12of2010.pdf>.

49 ibid 267.

50 David Landau, ‘Abusive Constitutionalism’ (2013–14) 47 UC Davis LR 189 (referring to the use of constitutional amendments by autocrats to erode democratic order).

51 Roznai (n 2).

52 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) Supp SCC 1.

53 ibid 283, 308; Madhav Khosla, ‘Constitutional Amendment’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (OUP 2016) 241–42.

54 (2010) 62 DLR (AD) 298.

55 (2011) 63 DLR (HCD) 84.

56 Writ Petition No. 9989 of 2014 (5 May 2016) <http://supremecourt.gov.bd/resources/documents/783957_WP9989of2014.pdf>.

57 Ridwanul Hoque, ‘Can the Court Invalidate an Original Provision of the Constitution?’ (2016) 2 University of Asia Pacific Journal of Law and Policy 13, 17.

58 Ridwanul Hoque, ‘The Judicialization of Politics in Bangladesh: Pragmatism, Legitimacy and Consequences’ in Mark Tushnet and Madhav Khosla (eds), Unstable Constitutionalism: Law and Politics in South Asia (CUP 2015) 278.

59 (2016) 4 SCC 1.

60 Rehan Abeyratne, Upholding Judicial Supremacy in India: The NJAC Judgment in Comparative Perspective, 49 GW International LR 101 (2017).

61 Roznai (n 2) 38.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 171.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.