Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years."

It will appear from the Preamble of the Constitution that the people of India have resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. Basing on the above provision, argument of pursuing sovereignty and integrity of India is always acceptable. According to us, the above concept is part of the Preamble of the Constitution, which is part of the basic feature/structure of the Constitution, but the aforesaid Preamble is not the entire basic structure of the Constitution. So, we reject the contention of the petitioner that lawful exercise of constitutional power has to be negated on the alleged plea of integration being offended.

As far as prayer (B) is concerned, the petitioner in his written arguments has stated that Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution are offending the federalism concept, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. At the outset, we think it is a misconceived suggestion that India is having absolute Federalism. It is a Union of States. India is having quasi- federalism. It will appear from the subsequent discussion. As far as the Executive and Legislature are concerned, absolute federalism is missing. To buttress this, we set out Article 1 of the Constitution of India.
"The learned Attorney-General said that every provision of the Constitution is essential; otherwise it would not have been put in the Constitution. This is true."

But, this does not have any place over provisions of the Constitution in the same position. The true position is that a provision of the Constitution can be amended abridged provided basic structure of the Constitution in reserve and remain the same.

Thus, it is absolutely clear that original provision of the Constitution, as it was, is not liable to be challenged under any circumstances. However, subsequent amendment of the Constitution obviously is susceptible to challenge. Therefore, provision of Article 3 of the Constitution of India originally cannot be touched by this Court, taking cue of the aforesaid observation. According to us there has been sound logic of holding so as it is settled position legally that legislations can be challenged on the ground as follows:-

In case of enactment intending to amend any provision of Constitution it can be challenged only on the ground if the same violates basic structure of Constitution. Any supreme legislation can be challenged on the ground of legislative competency and violation of Constitutional provision vide State of A.P. vs. Mc. Dowell & Company (AIR 1996 SC 1627). In case of Subordinate legislation in addition to the above grounds it can be challenged on the ground of transgression of Act under which subordinate legislation has been made. There is no ground available to challenge original provision of the Constitution. In other words no original provision can be struck down by Court relying on some other constitutional provision. If any original provision is required to be deleted it can be done by lawful exercise of amending power of the Constitution by the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India."