8th march 2022
- retrospective effect: Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay case – have a look around
this case. this effect means that we cannot say that the particular section of the constitution
is invalid.
- the doctrine of severability (state of Bombay v. F.N balsara ): erasing the particular section
which is unconstitutional or voids while the rest of the act is kept intact. IT IS APPLIED ONLY
THE PRE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. for example, the word unnatural in section 377 was
severed and the rest of the act was kept intact. that means we keep the part that is required
and some o the part Is deleted.
- doctrine of eclipse bhikaji Narain dhakras v. the state of M.P: A shadow has been cast on
the particular act of the constitution. that means it becomes inoperative. however, it is still
there and is not removed.
- future laws state of Gujrat v. Shri Ambika mills: we need to be consistent with the act of the
constitution.
definition of article 13
- sub-clause 1 ( pre consitutional law): retrospectively
- also discusses the judicial review
- sub-clause 2 ( post): state cannot make laws that are inconsistent with the fundamental
laws.
- law includes custom, usages,
- what is not law? 1.) administrative instructions cannot be considered law - ordinances are
considered temporary law. 2.) uncodified personal laws
- this creates scope for reviewing pre-constitutional and existing laws ( judicial review)
1. presumption that the law is consistent with the FR
2. docetirne of liberal interpretatin
3. the doctrine of reading down
4. the doctrine of eclipse
5. the doctrine of severability
6. the doctrine of coloural=ble legislation – the doctrine
7. further not down the points
8.
permanent law = parliament, stat assesmbly
temporary law- ordinances by the president and governor
statutory instruments = bye-laws, rule. regulations, notifications.
