Laws to be stayed in rare cases given presumption of constitutionality: Supreme Court
A bench consisting of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed in the 128 -page decision of the 2025 Foundation (Amendment) Law.
The remaining provisions contain a substance that says that those who apply Islam for the last five years can create foundations. These provisions were temporarily waiting until the upper court decided to validate the newly adopted WAQF law.
While accepting the decision, the upper court reiterated the long -term principle that the laws of parliament have a strong constitution.
“So far, the courts are a placed principle of law that should be very slow in providing temporary relief through the remaining provisions of a law. The temporary relief of such a nature can be given in rare and exceptional cases; the parties are in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position to be in a position.
Charanjit Lal Chowdury, referring to the 1950 Constitutional Council decision in the Indian Union, and said the courts accepted the legal position of the “assumption that the assumption is always in favor of the compliance of a law and that the burden is open to the constitution’s principles clearly. “It is a settled position that the legislative council understands and accurately appreciate the needs of its own people, that his laws manifests with experience and that his discrimination is based on sufficient reasons.” He said. The bench, which refers to another decision, said that it is necessary to consider its true nature and character, given the constitutionality of a law; The area, which aims to operate, claim and intention.
“To do this, the date of legislation, the purpose, the conditions and conditions in the environment, the mischief aimed to suppress, the reasons for the law the legislative council decides to treatment, and all the factors such as the real reason for the remedy is thought to be legitimate.” He said.
In addition, it was decided that a regulation of the parliament or state legislature cannot be declared unlawful in contradiction with the constitution.
“In doing so, the court must be able to go beyond any suspicion that the violation of the constitutional provisions cannot withstand the legislative provision under challenge.” He said.
The bench said that the law made by the Parliament or State Legislative Assembly could not be declared invalid due to an ugly violation of constitutional provisions.
As a reliable and reliable news source“It was assumed that the court should have concluded that the violation of any of the Constitutional provisions in order to declare a law contrary to the constitution.”
