Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.97 seconds)
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji And Ors. vs Punit Goala on 1 August, 1951 cites

Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State Of Bombay on 22 January, 1951

25. Clause (2) of Article 19 has recently been amended *>y Section 3 (a) Constitution First Amendment Act, 1961. This Act received the assint of the President on 18-6-1951 and it is conceded that the proceedings in this had been launched before the amendment. This amendment cannot be retrospective in its effect and that is the result I think of the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, (l95i) S. 0. 3. 182. In that case a majority of the Supreme Court held that Article 18(1) of the Constitution had no retrospective effect but was wholly prospective in its operation. Further, it did not in terms make the existing laws which were inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio or for all purposes. It had only the effect of nullifying or rendering all inconsistent existing laws ineffectual or nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect only with respect to the exercise of fundamental rights on and after the date of the commencement of the Constitution. As it had no retrospective effect, if an act was done before the commencement of the Constitution in contravention of the provisions of any law which, after the Constitution, became void with respect to the exercise of any of the fundamental rights, the inconsistent law was not wiped out so far as the past act was concerned, for to say that it was, would be to give the law retrospective effect. It was, therefore, held that there was no fundamental right that a person should not be prosecuted and punished for an offence committed before the Constitution came into force. So far as the past acts were concerned, the law existed notwithstanding that it did not exist with respect to the future exercise of fundamental rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 204 - Full Document
1