top of page
Question Bank
Question
What is the scope of judicial review when a law enacted by Parliament is challenged for violating fundamental rights?
Solution
The power of judicial review allows constitutional courts to examine the validity of laws passed by the legislature. When a law is challenged, courts operate within a framework that respects the separation of powers. There is a presumption of constitutionality for any legislation, meaning the court assumes the law is valid unless proven otherwise. The court does not act as a super-legislature; instead, it checks whether the law violates fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. The principle of proportionality may be applied to assess if the law imposes reasonable restrictions. Courts show judicial restraint and do not lightly strike down laws, especially in policy matters. Only if the law is ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly violates fundamental rights will the court intervene. This balance ensures democratic processes are respected while safeguarding constitutional values.
Question
Under what circumstances will a court grant an interim stay on the operation of a statutory provision pending its constitutional challenge?
Solution
Granting an interim stay on a statutory provision is an exceptional remedy and not a matter of routine. Courts exercise judicial restraint and consider several factors: whether the provision is ex facie unconstitutional, whether its operation causes irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience. The prima facie case of the petitioner must be strong, and the violation must be clear and egregious. Courts also weigh public interest; if suspending the law would lead to public inconvenience, uncertainty, or chaos—especially in critical processes like elections—a stay is likely denied. The presumption of constitutionality means courts avoid interim orders unless absolutely necessary to prevent grave injustice.
Question
How do principles of natural justice apply to high-level selection committees for constitutional posts?
Solution
The principles of natural justice require that selection processes for constitutional posts be fair, transparent, and objective. Key elements include adequate notice and effective participation of all committee members. For instance, members must receive detailed particulars of candidates well in advance to enable meaningful deliberation and informed decision-making. Procedural sanctity is paramount; any haste or denial of information can vitiate the process. While practical necessities may arise, the core requirement of fairness must be upheld to maintain public confidence and integrity in appointments. This ensures that all stakeholders have a genuine opportunity to contribute, safeguarding against arbitrariness.
Question
What is the constitutional framework under Article 324 for the appointment of Election Commissioners, and how does Parliament's role come into play?
Solution
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission, comprising the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. Clause (2) of Article 324 states that appointments shall be made by the President, subject to any law enacted by Parliament. This means that in the absence of such legislation, the President holds the authority, but Parliament can regulate the process through law. The Supreme Court has emphasized that any parliamentary law must align with constitutional standards, including checks and balances. The concept of plurality in the Commission is crucial to ensure collective decision-making and prevent concentration of power, upholding democratic principles.
Question
What is the 'balance of convenience' test in the context of granting interim relief, and how do courts apply it?
Solution
The balance of convenience is a pivotal test in deciding interim relief, such as a stay. It involves weighing the potential harm to the petitioner if relief is denied against the harm to the respondent or public interest if relief is granted. Courts assess which party would suffer irreparable injury and whether maintaining the status quo prevents greater harm. In matters involving public welfare or ongoing critical activities—like elections—cours often decline stay to avoid disarray, confusion, or constitutional breakdown. This test, alongside prima facie case and irreparable injury, ensures that interim orders do not disrupt essential services or processes, emphasizing stability and order.
bottom of page