obligation upon the Parliament to obtain ratification from the State Legislatures to amend such ratification would amount to excessive use of procedure which is The Constitution, not required U/Art. 368. Therefore, the stipulated procedure for Amendment has not been complied with. 2.1.2: Procedure For Retrospective Application The retrospective operation of the Amendment is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 & 21 of Retrospective effect to a Constitution The Constitution. Amendment Act, if intended, must be given by using express words in that behalf. The Court cannot ascribe retroactivity to an amendment of by implication. In The Constitution the present case, the retrospective effect of the Amendment has neither been expressly mentioned in the nor in the of the Preamble Statement of Objects and Reasons Amendment Act. Therefore, this Constitutional Amendment cannot be considered to be retrospective in operation. [2.2] Doctrine Of Structure: Amendment Has Destroyed The Essential Features Of The Constitution It is most respectfully submitted that the has been violated in Doctrine of Structure the present case. The basic features of constitute the unalterable part of The Constitution The has conferred a limited power of amendment on the Parliament. Constitution. The Constitution Thus the Parliament cannot, under the exercise of that limited power, enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of The and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. Constitution In the present context, the scope of the under Part III is to be Doctrine of Basic Structure examined. In it was held that the Parliament may Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,
obligation upon the Parliament to obtain ratification from the State Legislatures to amend The Constitution, such ratification would amount to excessive use of procedure which is not required U/Art. 368. Therefore, the stipulated procedure for Amendment has not been complied with. 2.1.2: Procedure For Retrospective Application The retrospective operation of the Amendment is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 & 21 of The Constitution. Retrospective effect to a Constitution Amendment Act, if intended, must be given by using express words in that behalf. The Court cannot ascribe retroactivity to an amendment of The Constitution by implication. In the present case, the retrospective effect of the Amendment has neither been expressly mentioned in the Preamble nor in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act. Therefore, this Constitutional Amendment cannot be considered to be retrospective in operation. [2.2] Doctrine Of Structure: Amendment Has Destroyed The Essential Features Of The Constitution It is most respectfully submitted that the Doctrine of Structure has been violated in the present case. The basic features of The Constitution constitute the unalterable part of The Constitution. The Constitution has conferred a limited power of amendment on the Parliament. Thus the Parliament cannot, under the exercise of that limited power, enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of The Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. In the present context, the scope of the Doctrine of Basic Structure under Part III is to be examined. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, it was held that the Parliament may
model-memorial-ii-appellant.docx