@anokhashunya0.bsky.social
Legacy:
Reservations extended until 2030 (104th Amendment).
Balances equality (Art. 14) with affirmative action (Art. 15).
Shapes India’s inclusive governance model.
Jarnail Singh [2018]:
Data-driven reservation policies.
Upheld creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST reservations.
Reservations extended until 2030 (104th Amendment).
Balances equality (Art. 14) with affirmative action (Art. 15).
Shapes India’s inclusive governance model.
Jarnail Singh [2018]:
Data-driven reservation policies.
Upheld creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST reservations.
July 24, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Legacy:
Reservations extended until 2030 (104th Amendment).
Balances equality (Art. 14) with affirmative action (Art. 15).
Shapes India’s inclusive governance model.
Jarnail Singh [2018]:
Data-driven reservation policies.
Upheld creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST reservations.
Reservations extended until 2030 (104th Amendment).
Balances equality (Art. 14) with affirmative action (Art. 15).
Shapes India’s inclusive governance model.
Jarnail Singh [2018]:
Data-driven reservation policies.
Upheld creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST reservations.
Judicial Scrutiny:
📌M.R. Balaji [1963]- Upheld Reservations
Emphasised a reasonable duration for reservations.
📌Indra Sawhney [1992] reinforced time-bound affirmative action.
📌Ashoka Kumar Thakur [2008]: The SC upheld reservations but stressed the need for periodic review.
📌M.R. Balaji [1963]- Upheld Reservations
Emphasised a reasonable duration for reservations.
📌Indra Sawhney [1992] reinforced time-bound affirmative action.
📌Ashoka Kumar Thakur [2008]: The SC upheld reservations but stressed the need for periodic review.
July 24, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Judicial Scrutiny:
📌M.R. Balaji [1963]- Upheld Reservations
Emphasised a reasonable duration for reservations.
📌Indra Sawhney [1992] reinforced time-bound affirmative action.
📌Ashoka Kumar Thakur [2008]: The SC upheld reservations but stressed the need for periodic review.
📌M.R. Balaji [1963]- Upheld Reservations
Emphasised a reasonable duration for reservations.
📌Indra Sawhney [1992] reinforced time-bound affirmative action.
📌Ashoka Kumar Thakur [2008]: The SC upheld reservations but stressed the need for periodic review.
Key Provisions:
Extended SC/ST seat reservations in LS & State Assemblies.
Extended the President/Governor’s power to nominate Anglo-Indians.
Constitutional Basis:
Rooted in Article 14
Enabled by Article 15(4).
Aligns with Article 46 (promotion of SC/ST interests)
Extended SC/ST seat reservations in LS & State Assemblies.
Extended the President/Governor’s power to nominate Anglo-Indians.
Constitutional Basis:
Rooted in Article 14
Enabled by Article 15(4).
Aligns with Article 46 (promotion of SC/ST interests)
July 24, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Key Provisions:
Extended SC/ST seat reservations in LS & State Assemblies.
Extended the President/Governor’s power to nominate Anglo-Indians.
Constitutional Basis:
Rooted in Article 14
Enabled by Article 15(4).
Aligns with Article 46 (promotion of SC/ST interests)
Extended SC/ST seat reservations in LS & State Assemblies.
Extended the President/Governor’s power to nominate Anglo-Indians.
Constitutional Basis:
Rooted in Article 14
Enabled by Article 15(4).
Aligns with Article 46 (promotion of SC/ST interests)
Re Berubari Union (1960)
SC clarified that cession of territory post-reorganisation requires a constitutional amendment u/n Art 368, reinforcing the 7th Amendment’s impact on territorial integrity.
St WB v. UOI (1963) affirmed the Union’s supremacy in federal matters.
SC clarified that cession of territory post-reorganisation requires a constitutional amendment u/n Art 368, reinforcing the 7th Amendment’s impact on territorial integrity.
St WB v. UOI (1963) affirmed the Union’s supremacy in federal matters.
July 23, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Re Berubari Union (1960)
SC clarified that cession of territory post-reorganisation requires a constitutional amendment u/n Art 368, reinforcing the 7th Amendment’s impact on territorial integrity.
St WB v. UOI (1963) affirmed the Union’s supremacy in federal matters.
SC clarified that cession of territory post-reorganisation requires a constitutional amendment u/n Art 368, reinforcing the 7th Amendment’s impact on territorial integrity.
St WB v. UOI (1963) affirmed the Union’s supremacy in federal matters.
Impact:
Strengthened India's linguistic diversity.
Simplified governance by removing complex state classifications.
The SC in R.C. Poudyal (1994) upheld linguistic reorganisation as consistent with India’s federal ethos, balancing unity and diversity.
Strengthened India's linguistic diversity.
Simplified governance by removing complex state classifications.
The SC in R.C. Poudyal (1994) upheld linguistic reorganisation as consistent with India’s federal ethos, balancing unity and diversity.
July 23, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Impact:
Strengthened India's linguistic diversity.
Simplified governance by removing complex state classifications.
The SC in R.C. Poudyal (1994) upheld linguistic reorganisation as consistent with India’s federal ethos, balancing unity and diversity.
Strengthened India's linguistic diversity.
Simplified governance by removing complex state classifications.
The SC in R.C. Poudyal (1994) upheld linguistic reorganisation as consistent with India’s federal ethos, balancing unity and diversity.
High Courts Reorganisation
Amended Articles 214–231 to align HC with new state boundaries.
Enabled common High Courts for multiple states.
Empowered Parliament to establish HCs for UTs.
St of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) – Affirmed High Court jurisdiction post-reorganisation.
Amended Articles 214–231 to align HC with new state boundaries.
Enabled common High Courts for multiple states.
Empowered Parliament to establish HCs for UTs.
St of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) – Affirmed High Court jurisdiction post-reorganisation.
July 23, 2025 at 8:55 AM
High Courts Reorganisation
Amended Articles 214–231 to align HC with new state boundaries.
Enabled common High Courts for multiple states.
Empowered Parliament to establish HCs for UTs.
St of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) – Affirmed High Court jurisdiction post-reorganisation.
Amended Articles 214–231 to align HC with new state boundaries.
Enabled common High Courts for multiple states.
Empowered Parliament to establish HCs for UTs.
St of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) – Affirmed High Court jurisdiction post-reorganisation.
Redefined territory updating 1st & 4th Schedules for 14 states & 6 UTs.
Adjusted RS seats for new states
Art 3: Strengthened Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries, names, ensuring federal flexibility.
Golaknath [1967] reinforced Parliament’s amendment powers u/n Art 368.
Adjusted RS seats for new states
Art 3: Strengthened Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries, names, ensuring federal flexibility.
Golaknath [1967] reinforced Parliament’s amendment powers u/n Art 368.
July 23, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Redefined territory updating 1st & 4th Schedules for 14 states & 6 UTs.
Adjusted RS seats for new states
Art 3: Strengthened Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries, names, ensuring federal flexibility.
Golaknath [1967] reinforced Parliament’s amendment powers u/n Art 368.
Adjusted RS seats for new states
Art 3: Strengthened Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries, names, ensuring federal flexibility.
Golaknath [1967] reinforced Parliament’s amendment powers u/n Art 368.
Key Features Protected
[It’s not defined exhaustively, but includes]
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Fundamental Rights
Federalism
Independence of the Judiciary
Parliament’s power to amend is NOT absolute.
Minerva Mills[1980]– Limited amending power is basic structure.
[It’s not defined exhaustively, but includes]
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Fundamental Rights
Federalism
Independence of the Judiciary
Parliament’s power to amend is NOT absolute.
Minerva Mills[1980]– Limited amending power is basic structure.
July 18, 2025 at 6:54 AM
Key Features Protected
[It’s not defined exhaustively, but includes]
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Fundamental Rights
Federalism
Independence of the Judiciary
Parliament’s power to amend is NOT absolute.
Minerva Mills[1980]– Limited amending power is basic structure.
[It’s not defined exhaustively, but includes]
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Fundamental Rights
Federalism
Independence of the Judiciary
Parliament’s power to amend is NOT absolute.
Minerva Mills[1980]– Limited amending power is basic structure.
Exception
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) SC ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This limits Article 368’s scope.
Indira Gandhi Case (1975): SC struck down the 39th Amendment’s clause shielding election disputes of PM from judicial review.
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) SC ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This limits Article 368’s scope.
Indira Gandhi Case (1975): SC struck down the 39th Amendment’s clause shielding election disputes of PM from judicial review.
July 18, 2025 at 6:54 AM
Exception
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) SC ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This limits Article 368’s scope.
Indira Gandhi Case (1975): SC struck down the 39th Amendment’s clause shielding election disputes of PM from judicial review.
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) SC ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution. This limits Article 368’s scope.
Indira Gandhi Case (1975): SC struck down the 39th Amendment’s clause shielding election disputes of PM from judicial review.
Amendment Procedure:
Bill introduced in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Requires 2/3rd majority of members present & voting.
50% of total members must be present.
Types of Amendments
1️⃣Simple majority
2️⃣ Special majority
3️⃣ Special majority + ratification by half the states
Bill introduced in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Requires 2/3rd majority of members present & voting.
50% of total members must be present.
Types of Amendments
1️⃣Simple majority
2️⃣ Special majority
3️⃣ Special majority + ratification by half the states
July 18, 2025 at 6:54 AM
Amendment Procedure:
Bill introduced in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Requires 2/3rd majority of members present & voting.
50% of total members must be present.
Types of Amendments
1️⃣Simple majority
2️⃣ Special majority
3️⃣ Special majority + ratification by half the states
Bill introduced in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Requires 2/3rd majority of members present & voting.
50% of total members must be present.
Types of Amendments
1️⃣Simple majority
2️⃣ Special majority
3️⃣ Special majority + ratification by half the states
Atiabari Tea (1961)
This case tested the waters. The SC clarified that while Parliament now controlled inter-state trade taxes, any state laws impeding free trade could violate Art 301 (freedom of trade). The 6th Amendment balanced federal powers without stifling commerce.
This case tested the waters. The SC clarified that while Parliament now controlled inter-state trade taxes, any state laws impeding free trade could violate Art 301 (freedom of trade). The 6th Amendment balanced federal powers without stifling commerce.
July 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Atiabari Tea (1961)
This case tested the waters. The SC clarified that while Parliament now controlled inter-state trade taxes, any state laws impeding free trade could violate Art 301 (freedom of trade). The 6th Amendment balanced federal powers without stifling commerce.
This case tested the waters. The SC clarified that while Parliament now controlled inter-state trade taxes, any state laws impeding free trade could violate Art 301 (freedom of trade). The 6th Amendment balanced federal powers without stifling commerce.
⚖️GVK Industries [2017] The SC upheld Parliament’s authority over inter-state trade taxation.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. 1955)
⚖️This case was a wake-up call! The SC held that states had no power to tax interstate sales under Art 286, as it fell under Parliament’s domain.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. 1955)
⚖️This case was a wake-up call! The SC held that states had no power to tax interstate sales under Art 286, as it fell under Parliament’s domain.
July 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM
⚖️GVK Industries [2017] The SC upheld Parliament’s authority over inter-state trade taxation.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. 1955)
⚖️This case was a wake-up call! The SC held that states had no power to tax interstate sales under Art 286, as it fell under Parliament’s domain.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. 1955)
⚖️This case was a wake-up call! The SC held that states had no power to tax interstate sales under Art 286, as it fell under Parliament’s domain.
The 6th Amendment was a stepping stone for centralised tax regimes, such as GST, introduced via the 101st Amendment in 2016. By resolving interstate tax conflicts through a unified tax system.
The CSTA, 1956, enacted post-amendment, operationalised these changes!
The CSTA, 1956, enacted post-amendment, operationalised these changes!
July 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM
The 6th Amendment was a stepping stone for centralised tax regimes, such as GST, introduced via the 101st Amendment in 2016. By resolving interstate tax conflicts through a unified tax system.
The CSTA, 1956, enacted post-amendment, operationalised these changes!
The CSTA, 1956, enacted post-amendment, operationalised these changes!
Art. 269: Empowered Parliament to tax interstate sales; revenue goes to States.
Art. 286: Restricted States from taxing interstate, avoiding overlaps.
Entry 92A, List I: Gives the Centre power to tax interstate sales.
Entry 54, List II: Limits state taxation to intrastate sales.
Art. 286: Restricted States from taxing interstate, avoiding overlaps.
Entry 92A, List I: Gives the Centre power to tax interstate sales.
Entry 54, List II: Limits state taxation to intrastate sales.
July 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Art. 269: Empowered Parliament to tax interstate sales; revenue goes to States.
Art. 286: Restricted States from taxing interstate, avoiding overlaps.
Entry 92A, List I: Gives the Centre power to tax interstate sales.
Entry 54, List II: Limits state taxation to intrastate sales.
Art. 286: Restricted States from taxing interstate, avoiding overlaps.
Entry 92A, List I: Gives the Centre power to tax interstate sales.
Entry 54, List II: Limits state taxation to intrastate sales.
Babulal Parate[1960]
The SC upheld the 5th Amendment’s validity.
President’s referral deemed sufficient.
Affirmed Parliament’s supremacy.
Ram Kishore Sen[1965]
The SC confirmed the President’s authority.
Upheld Parliament’s Article 3 powers.
Solidified the amendment’s framework.
The SC upheld the 5th Amendment’s validity.
President’s referral deemed sufficient.
Affirmed Parliament’s supremacy.
Ram Kishore Sen[1965]
The SC confirmed the President’s authority.
Upheld Parliament’s Article 3 powers.
Solidified the amendment’s framework.
July 12, 2025 at 8:21 AM
Babulal Parate[1960]
The SC upheld the 5th Amendment’s validity.
President’s referral deemed sufficient.
Affirmed Parliament’s supremacy.
Ram Kishore Sen[1965]
The SC confirmed the President’s authority.
Upheld Parliament’s Article 3 powers.
Solidified the amendment’s framework.
The SC upheld the 5th Amendment’s validity.
President’s referral deemed sufficient.
Affirmed Parliament’s supremacy.
Ram Kishore Sen[1965]
The SC confirmed the President’s authority.
Upheld Parliament’s Article 3 powers.
Solidified the amendment’s framework.
Legal Balance
The amendment harmonised:
State consultation with national efficiency.
Federal principles with central authority.
Governance of diverse regions.
Why It Matters
Shapes state identities.
Balances regional and national interests.
Upholds India’s federal ethos.
The amendment harmonised:
State consultation with national efficiency.
Federal principles with central authority.
Governance of diverse regions.
Why It Matters
Shapes state identities.
Balances regional and national interests.
Upholds India’s federal ethos.
July 12, 2025 at 8:21 AM
Legal Balance
The amendment harmonised:
State consultation with national efficiency.
Federal principles with central authority.
Governance of diverse regions.
Why It Matters
Shapes state identities.
Balances regional and national interests.
Upholds India’s federal ethos.
The amendment harmonised:
State consultation with national efficiency.
Federal principles with central authority.
Governance of diverse regions.
Why It Matters
Shapes state identities.
Balances regional and national interests.
Upholds India’s federal ethos.
Historical Context
India faced a complex map of over 550 princely states & provinces:
Linguistic and cultural demands necessitated reorganisation.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, required a robust Article 3.
The 5th Amendment provided the legal framework for swift action.
India faced a complex map of over 550 princely states & provinces:
Linguistic and cultural demands necessitated reorganisation.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, required a robust Article 3.
The 5th Amendment provided the legal framework for swift action.
July 12, 2025 at 8:21 AM
Historical Context
India faced a complex map of over 550 princely states & provinces:
Linguistic and cultural demands necessitated reorganisation.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, required a robust Article 3.
The 5th Amendment provided the legal framework for swift action.
India faced a complex map of over 550 princely states & provinces:
Linguistic and cultural demands necessitated reorganisation.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, required a robust Article 3.
The 5th Amendment provided the legal framework for swift action.
Bela Banerjee (1954)
Held: The term “compensation” in Art 31 means fair compensation.
SC struck down the land acquisition law for giving inadequate compensation.
R.C. Cooper [1970]
SC reopened the compensation issue indirectly, can’t take away the essence of fundamental rights.
Held: The term “compensation” in Art 31 means fair compensation.
SC struck down the land acquisition law for giving inadequate compensation.
R.C. Cooper [1970]
SC reopened the compensation issue indirectly, can’t take away the essence of fundamental rights.
July 11, 2025 at 7:02 AM
Bela Banerjee (1954)
Held: The term “compensation” in Art 31 means fair compensation.
SC struck down the land acquisition law for giving inadequate compensation.
R.C. Cooper [1970]
SC reopened the compensation issue indirectly, can’t take away the essence of fundamental rights.
Held: The term “compensation” in Art 31 means fair compensation.
SC struck down the land acquisition law for giving inadequate compensation.
R.C. Cooper [1970]
SC reopened the compensation issue indirectly, can’t take away the essence of fundamental rights.
Key Changes
✔️Art 31(2): Redefined compensation for property acquisition.
✔️Article 31A: Expanded to protect a wider range of laws from being challenged u/n Articles 14 & 19.
✔️Ninth Schedule: Beefed up to include more state laws, making them immune to judicial review.
✔️Art 31(2): Redefined compensation for property acquisition.
✔️Article 31A: Expanded to protect a wider range of laws from being challenged u/n Articles 14 & 19.
✔️Ninth Schedule: Beefed up to include more state laws, making them immune to judicial review.
July 11, 2025 at 7:02 AM
Key Changes
✔️Art 31(2): Redefined compensation for property acquisition.
✔️Article 31A: Expanded to protect a wider range of laws from being challenged u/n Articles 14 & 19.
✔️Ninth Schedule: Beefed up to include more state laws, making them immune to judicial review.
✔️Art 31(2): Redefined compensation for property acquisition.
✔️Article 31A: Expanded to protect a wider range of laws from being challenged u/n Articles 14 & 19.
✔️Ninth Schedule: Beefed up to include more state laws, making them immune to judicial review.