Talk:Basic structure doctrine
|WikiProject India / Politics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I have made changes to reflect the correct view of Minerva Mills. The previous editor was, perhaps, confusing it with another case. I have also made it clear that the Basic Structure doctrine has nothing to do with ordinary acts of parliament but only with Constitutional Amendments.
The article previously stated that
"the primary test for constitutionality under the precedents of the Supreme Court of India is whether the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution has been in any way modified by the Act under consideration. This test has also been used by the Supreme Court to limit the amending power of the Parliament of India."
This is wrong. The primary test for constiutionality of ordinary acts is repugnancy to any part of the constitution (whether or not that part of the constitution constitutes the basic structure.)
Why is this about a specific application of the basic structure concept, instead of the basic structure itself (Rawls)? This is like me putting in "freedom" and getting redirected to the U.S. Constitution.
- No it's like putting in Second amendment and getting routed to the appropriate US one rather than the Indian one (on land reform, I think). It depends on the most common usage. If you wish to write an article on the Rawlsian concept, go ahead, and we can work out a disambiguation structure once done. Hornplease 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Name of the Article
Name of this Article should not be just Basic Structure, as just the words basic structure are not in any way related to the Basic Structure Doctrine followed in respect to constitution of India. --Alok Bansal (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article is moved to this new name as per the discussion in the Noticeboard for India related topics. Alok Bansal (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Move of article from "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" to "Basic structure doctrine"
The article name "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" was decided in the discussion held in February 2012 at WT:INB which is now archived here. I know its a bad place to discuss such things and we now see why. I assume you moved it just because you were unaware of the discussion as it did not happen here on the article's talk page. Anyways.... i would request you to move it back to its title "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". If you disagree, i would request you to notify all the editors in the previous discussion regarding your disagreement. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did some research and the term "Basic structure doctrine" is unique to this specific doctrine of the Indian judiciary, there are similar terms in other legal/constitutional systems but not the same term. I'll notify the other thread (which I wasn't aware of) of this discussion if they have comments/response. --Skcpublic (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A. G. NOORANI in Behind the 'basic structure' doctrine (FRONTLINE, Volume 18 - Issue 09, Apr. 28 - May 11, 2001) notes that the idea creeps its way to the lectures of Dietrich Conrad, who opened such insights to the Indian jurists by basing his experience of the German Weimar times (i.e. tha of unchecked power of amendment, steeped in following the law to letter and disregarding the spirit.) Pokedora (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)