constitutional law 2 digests on: equal protection of the laws
Full description
constitutional law
digests for constitutional law 2: fundamental powers of the stateFull description
This files contains numerous cases on Conti Law 2. This cases will surely help in explaining various points in the study of the Philippine Constitution.Full description
constitutional law 2 digests on: due process of law
Notes detailing the essential characteristics of the Indian Constitution especially in regard to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.Full description
Summary of Constitutional Law 2 discussion on Bill of Rights. Based on the Book of Fr. BernasFull description
Constitutional Law 1 Notes
Constitutional law 2 coverageFull description
notesFull description
Full description
Author of the Book used: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. Professor: Atty. Daryl Bretch M. Largo University of San Carlos Note: The contents are sourced from the class discussions (also personal…Full description
Notes constitutional law.
Nachura Constitutional Law Reviewer
In &unha'ammedn and (r#. V. State of &erala and Anr. ) this Court held that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application- the nature of jurisdiction e;ercised by the superior forum and the content or subject2matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid# shall have to be 8ept in view. *. Declaration of $a+ ' Supreme Court and Precedent# (rticle *,* spea8s of declaration of law by the Supreme Court. :or a declaration there should be a speech# i.e. spea8ing order. It is the speech# e;press or necessa rily implied# which only is the declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of (rticle *,* of the Constitution. In &ri#hnen &umar v. !nion of -ndia and (r# . %(@ASCA03*=A*++0# this Court has held that the doctrine of precedent# that is being bound by a previous decision# is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. In State of !.P. and Anr. v. S'nthetic# and Chemical# $td. and Anr. / , The uestion was before the court that can the decision of an (ppellate Court be treated as a binding decision of the (ppellate Court on a conclusion of law which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration or in other words can such conclusion be considered as declaration of law > on this the court held that the rule of sub2silentio is an e;ception to the rule of precedents. ? ( decision passes sub2silentio# in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase# when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind.? In Supreme Court 0mplo'ee# elfare A##ociation v. !nion of -ndia and (r#. 2 the Supreme Court observed that a summary dismissal# without laying down any law# is not a declaration of law envisaged by (rticle *,* of the Constitution. 5hen reasons are given# the decision of
< &unha'ammedn and (r#. V. State of &erala and Anr., %(@ASCA0,31A1000. / &ri#hnen &umar v. !nion of -ndia and (r#. %(@ASCA03*=A*++0. = State of !.P. and Anr. v. S'nthetic# and Chemical# $td. and Anr., %(@ASCA0/*/A*++*. 9 Supreme Court 0mplo'ee# elfare A##ociation v. !nion of -ndia and (r#., %(@ASCA00<,A*++0. <
the Supreme Court becomes one which attracts (rticle *,* of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. 5hen no reasons are given# a dismissal simpliciter is not a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under (rticle*,* of the Constitution. In -ndian (il Corporation $td. v. State of 3ihar and (r#. 4 the Supreme Court observed that the uestions which can be said to have been decided by this Court e;pressly# implicitly or even constructively# can not be re2opened in subseuent proceedings- but neither on the principle of res judicata nor on any principle of public policy analogues there to# would the order of this Court bar the trial of identical issue in separate proceedings merely on the basis of an uncertain assumption that the issues must have been decided by this Court at least by implication.
+ -ndian (il Corporation $td. v. State of 3ihar and (r#.# (I *+9/ SC *=90. /
COMMENT
This is a landmar8 case regarding to the doctrine of merger and doctrine of precedents. The main thing which has been held in this case was that High Court shall have the liberty of reconsidering the interim orders passed by it if any such occasion arises. Before this judgment many have been filed before but they have been dismissed because they were against the judgment of %. 6aradaraja &ilais case. But in the present judgment court held that the statement of law as contained in the Division Bench decision of the High Court in %. 6aradaraja &ilais case would therefore continue to remain the decision of the High Court# binding as a precedent on subseuent benches of coordinate or lesser strength but open to reconsideration by any bench of the same High Court with a coram of judges more than two. @nder (rticle *,* of the Constitution# the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory of India but no law was declared by this Court that the :ull Bench was precluded from going into the uestion of law arising for decision before it and in that conte;t entering into and e;amining the correctness or otherwise of the law stated by the Division Bench in %. 6aradaraja &illais case.
