Legal Question in Constitutional Law in India

My basic query was regarding the non compliance of the procedure laid down in Article 368(2) in passing the 97th constitutional amendment. This bill was passed by both houses of the legislature with the required majority and then it received President's assent. However, since cooperative society is a subject matter falling in 7th Schedule, List 2 it became mandatory to obtain ratification of at least 1/2 of the states.
This is the basic issue that has been raised in the case Rajendra Shah v. UOI, a recent judgement of Gujarat High Court in which 97th constitutional amendment has been declared ultra vires.
If I am arguing on behalf of the State then what arguments can I use in my favor to defend the constitutionality of this 97th amendment. How can it be emphasised that complaince of 368(2) would not affect the consitutionality of the amendment.
Also I wished to know that in this present case can it be stated that ratification can be undertaken at a later stage, i.e., after the President has given his assent?
Please go through this judgement and give us some points in favor of state.
Link to the judgement: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/files/92047412_97th_amendment_guj_high_court_order.pdf

Asked on 7/21/13, 2:38 am

Sudershan Goel India Law Offices of Sudershan Goel - Advocate

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

We do not prepare cases for lawyers. Our effort is to help persons solve their legal problems or help understanding their legal rights.

Answered on 7/21/13, 3:13 am

Keywords

Match Any Match All

Country

State

Area of Law