Index Of Authorities Case Law S. No. Case Title Citation pp. 1. Aruna Roy v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 3176 13 2. Bhauram v. Baijnath AIR 1962 SC 1476 8 3. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 781 17 4. Bhimashya & Ors. v. Smt. Janabi @Janawwa (2006) 13 SCC 627 8 5. C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami AIR 1996 SC 1697 17 6. C.F. Dhirubha Dharangdhara Cheimical v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 47 18 7. Chinthaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118 17 8. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 648 15 9. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society AIR 2005 SC 2014 14 10. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299 13 11. Jhulan Sain v. Emperor AIR 1920 Pat 349 24 12. Kartar v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 17 13. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 12 14. Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State Of Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574 20 15. Laxmi Khandsari & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 873 (¶ 16) 17 16. M. Karunanidhi v. of India & Ors. AIR 1979 SC 898 16 17. M.P. Shikshak Congress v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpul & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 443 16 18. Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1864 (¶ 12) 13 19. Madras Bar Association v. of India AIR 2015 SC 1517 10 20. Mahendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1019 (¶ 14) 12
21. Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 12 22. Motilal v. State AIR 1952 All 963 (964) 8 23. N.K. Bajpai v. of India & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 1210 18 24. P.N. Kaushal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1457 19 25. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 14 26. Raghunath Rao v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1267 11 27. Rehman Shagoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1960 SC 1 14 28. S.I. Corporation v. Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 (215) 8 29. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918 17 30. Saghtir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 728 12 31. Saksena, I.N. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2250 14 32. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Anna Satram Committee & Ors. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3567 13, 18 33. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2005 SC 2622 21 34. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1975) 1 SCC 29 20 35. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University AIR 1996 SC 1011 13 36. Veernath v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1957 AP 1034 18 Legislations S. No. Title Of Legislation pp. 1. The Constitution of India, 1950 Passim 2. The General Clauses Act, 1897 7, 21 3. The Antiquities and Ancient Treasures Act, 1972 15, 16 4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 21-25 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 21-25 6. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 7, 8
Journals S. No. Of Journal pp. 1. All India Reporter (AIR) Passim 2. Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Passim Commentaries S. No. Author Title Edition pp. 1. M.V. Pylee Constitutional Amendments in India 3rd ed. 2010 Passim 2. Arvind P. Datar Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. II 22nd ed. reprint 2010 11 3. Durga Das Basu Shorter Constitution of India 13th ed. reprint 2006 14 4. Das Basu Case Book on Indian Constitutional Law 2nd ed. 2007 17 5. Durga Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. II 8th ed. 2007 Passim 6. Durga Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. VIII 8th ed. 2011 Passim 7. Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. X 8th ed. 2012 Passim 8. V.N. Shukla Constitution of 12th ed. 2013 Passim 9. P.S.A. Pillai Criminal Law 12th ed. 2014 24 10. Hari Gour The Penal Law of India 11th ed.1998 Passim 11. Peter Murphy Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2003 Passim Lexicons S. No. Author Title Edition pp. 1. Henry Campbell Black Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed. revised 1968 15 2. P. Ramanatha Aiyar Concise Law Dictionary 3rd ed. reprint 2007 24 Trial
obligation upon the Parliament to obtain ratification from the State Legislatures to amend The Constitution, such ratification would amount to excessive use of procedure which is not required U/Art. 368. Therefore, the stipulated procedure for Amendment has not been complied with. 2.1.2: Procedure For Retrospective Application The retrospective operation of the Amendment is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 & 21 of The Constitution. Retrospective effect to a Constitution Amendment Act, if intended, must be given by using express words in that behalf. The Court cannot ascribe retroactivity to an amendment of The Constitution by implication. In the present case, the retrospective effect of the Amendment has neither been expressly mentioned in the Preamble nor in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act. Therefore, this Constitutional Amendment cannot be considered to be retrospective in operation. [2.2] Doctrine Of Structure: Amendment Has Destroyed The Essential Features Of The Constitution It is most respectfully submitted that the Doctrine of Structure has been violated in the present case. The basic features of The Constitution constitute the unalterable part of The Constitution. The Constitution has conferred a limited power of amendment on the Parliament. Thus the Parliament cannot, under the exercise of that limited power, enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of The Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. In the present context, the scope of the Doctrine of Basic Structure under Part III is to be examined. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, it was held that the Parliament may