Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.a)The Court should put stay and move forward to hear the arguments.b)The validity of the law needs to be considered after the arguments of the petitioner, not before that.c)Courts can't put stay at first instance as there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid.d)Both 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.