Whether Section 497 of the IPC read with Section 198(2) of the Cr. P.C violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Section 498 of IPC
Section 198(2) of CR.P.C
Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was recently passed by the present provisional Parliament and purports to insert, inter alia, articles 31A And 3lB in the Constitution of India is ultra vires and unconstitutional?
The terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever.
Whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?
Justice Khanna has explained that Fundamental Rights are the key features which have been granted to all the citizen of the Country, before the proposition of the basic structure, any part of the Constitution inclusive of Fundamental Rights were amenable by the Parliament through Article 368 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India has basic features, this concept was first theorised in the year 1964 by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in this case. He mentioned that it is matter for consideration that making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution of India can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368.
Whether the parliament has the absolute power and the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution or not?
The court held that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid or not?
The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution?
The Parliament has an unlimited power to amend the Constitution subject to the sole condition that such amendments must not change the basic structure of the Constitution.
Whether the settlement made under section 8A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947is valid?
Can a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution be waived?
Under section 5(1) of the Investigation Act which has already been held unconstitutional then the settlement under section 8A could not be enforced, for the foundation of the proceedings under section 8A was the reference under section 5(1) and the very foundation for the report of the Investigation Commission has disappeared and settlement can neither be valid, nor it can be enforced?
Waiver of a right means relinquishment of that right by the individual. A Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149 held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
Whether the first respondent was competent to challenge the validity of the impugned provisions on the basis that they violated the fundamental right under Article 19(1) (f) of citizen-employers or employees and thus show that the law was void and non-existent and, therefore, the action taken against it was bad?
Whether the definition of ‘establishment’ in Section 2(4) violated the fundamental right of the respondent under Article 14 and the impugned provisions were void for that reason?
Whether, on that assumption, the first respondent could claim that the law was void as against the non-citizen employers or employees under Article 13(2) and further contend that the non-citizen employers have been deprived of their property without the authority of law, as, ex hypothesi a void law is a nullity.
Indians were guaranteed fundamental rights by the Constitution of India but there was a question on whether the non-citizens are entitled to enjoy these rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the non-citizens are not having the fundamental rights and therefore they are not allowed to take advantage of the voidness of the law which is inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, the Apex Court again confirmed that the existing laws are applicable to non-citizens and no law can be held void in rem or for all purposes.
Whether the C.P and Berar Amendment Act, 1947 which amends the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is constitutionally valid?
Whether the impugned Act is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
Whether the impugned Act is violative of Article 31 of Constitution of India?
Whether Article 13 of the Constitution of India allows the judicial review of pre-existing laws?
Whether the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) include prohibition and monopoly by state?
Whether the First and Fourth Constitutional Amendment Acts have retrospective effects?
The Doctrine of the Eclipse was introduced and established in India with the help of this case. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a state government is given the power to control the road transport and in pursuance of it in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the C.P and Berar and Motor Vehicles Act was enacted. This case had questioned the constitutional validity of the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act III of 1948) and upheld the impugned Act to be valid.
Whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Act to be invalid?
Whether the judgement of the Bombay High Court be upheld with regard to the specific provisions of the Act?
The case applied the doctrine of pith and substance which helps to concern the true character and nature of legislation. The petitioner pleaded that the Bombay Prohibition Act was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it must be declared void.
Whether Section 15(1) and 18(1) read with definitions contained in Section 2(6) and 2(10) of Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 were inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2)?
Even if it is inconsistent with the proceedings commenced under Section 18(1) before commencement of Constitution be proceeded with?
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution describes the means for judicial review. It enjoins a duty on the Indian State to respect and implement the fundamental right. And at the same time, it confers a power on the courts to declare a law or an act void if it infringes the fundamental rights.