Question

Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.

Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

पर्याय

• No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law

• The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law

• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.

• None of these

Answer 1

The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.

Explanation:

The Supreme court is vested with the power of Judicial review. It means that the supreme court may review its own judgment. The Supreme Court enjoys the competence to exercise the power of reviewing legislative enactments both of Parliament and the  State's legislatures. The power of the court to declare legislative enactments invalid is expressively provided by the Constitution under Article 13, which declares that every law in force, or every future law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights, shall be void.