000			03321 a2200241 4500
003			OSt
005			20250203122044.0
008			250203b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9789351438564
040			_c.
082			_a342.5402 _bPAL
100			_aPal, Samaraditya
245			_aIndia's Constitution origins and evolution: _bConstituent Assembly debates, Lok Sabha debates on constitutional amendments and Supreme Court judgments Vol 6/ _cby Samaraditya Pal and Deepan Kumar Sarkar
260			_aGurgaon; _bLexis Nexis Publications, _c2016.
300			_acxxvi, 1089p.; _c24cm.
505			_aArticles 124,124A,124B and 124C Articles 125 and 221 Articles 126 Articles 127 Articles 128 Articles 129 and 215 Article 130 Article 131 Article 132 Article 133 Article 134 Article 134A Article 135 Article 136 Article 137 Article 138 Article 139 Article 139A Article 140 Article 141 Article 142 Article 143 Article 144 Article 145 Article 146 Article 147 Article 214 Article 148 - 151 Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Subject Index
520			_aArticle 124 to 151,214,215, & 221 (Union Judiciary, Contempt Jurisdiction, Comptroller & Auditor-General) In this volume, we have covered Chapter IV of Part V (Articles 124 to 147) dealing with the Union Judiciary (the Supreme Court), Chapter V (Articles 148 to 151) dealing with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Articles 129 and 215 dealing with the Contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively and Article 214 dealing with the setting up of High Courts in the States. The role of the Supreme Court in India's constitutional scheme is pivotal. It is the final interpreter and upholder of the Constitution and its independence is essential. There have been recent developments regarding the appointment of Judges of the Court and High Courts. The Collegium system of the Judges appointing Judges, which had been formulated by the Court itself, was sought to be replaced by Parliament by amending the Constitution1 and providing for a National Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint Judges. The amendment raised questions of whether the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointment of the Judges to the Higher Judiciary, as held by the Court itself, had been abrogated. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association challenged both the Constitutional amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 before Court. The challenge was upheld by a Constitution Bench and both the Act and the Amendment were struck down by the decision of the majority. The Collegium system, therefore, has been retained but the Court has asked for suggestions to improve the system, as the perception that the Collegium has not been always successful in ensuring appointment of the most deserving persons as Judges had led to the passing of the Amendment in the first place. This issue, along with the overall issue of independence of the Judiciary has been dealt with in detail in the Overview to the Chapter on Article 124. ---Lawbookshop.net
650			_aConstitutional history India
650			_aIndia-Constituent-Assembly
650			_aIndia-Parliament-Lok Sabha
700			_aSarkar, Deepan Kumar _eAuthor
942			_cBK _2ddc
999			_c1063 _d1063