Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: basic structure constitution in Vijayakant vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 26 April, 2012Matching Fragments
7. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned resolution of the Assembly, communicated by the first respondent, by his letter dated 03.02.2012, on the following grounds:
(i) that a challenge to the impugned resolution is maintainable, inasmuch as the power of judicial review has now been recognised to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution;
(ii) that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, there is scope for intervention;
(vi) that the basic principles of natural justice were complied with and the petitioner did not even deny the incident in question that led to his suspension, and that therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable.
Contention No.(i) of the petitioner and contention Nos.(i) and (ii) of the Additional Advocate General
9. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the power of the judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that therefore, any punishment imposed either on a member or on a non-member by a House of elected representatives can be the subject matter of judicial review. This contention can be conveniently taken up along with the first and second contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General.
10. There is no difficulty in accepting the submission that the power of judicial review forms part of the basic structure of The Constitution. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has made it clear in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1994 (5) SCC 539) that the power of judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench, in the said case, traced the history of the evolution of the power of judicial review, from the days of Marbury v. Madison (US Supreme Court). Therefore, it cannot disputed that this Court has the power of judicial review to examine the action of the Assembly in suspending or expelling or imposing any penalty on any member of the House or on an outsider. But, the fundamental question is as to how far the Court could go and as to when the Court would declare "thus far and no further".