Talk:Basic structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

I have made changes to reflect the correct view of Minerva Mills. The previous editor was, perhaps, confusing it with another case. I have also made it clear that the Basic Structure doctrine has nothing to do with ordinary acts of parliament but only with Constitutional Amendments.

The article previously stated that

"the primary test for constitutionality under the precedents of the Supreme Court of India is whether the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution has been in any way modified by the Act under consideration. This test has also been used by the Supreme Court to limit the amending power of the Parliament of India."

This is wrong. The primary test for constiutionality of ordinary acts is repugnancy to any part of the constitution (whether or not that part of the constitution constitutes the basic structure.)

Why is this about a specific application of the basic structure concept, instead of the basic structure itself (Rawls)? This is like me putting in "freedom" and getting redirected to the U.S. Constitution.

No it's like putting in Second amendment and getting routed to the appropriate US one rather than the Indian one (on land reform, I think). It depends on the most common usage. If you wish to write an article on the Rawlsian concept, go ahead, and we can work out a disambiguation structure once done. Hornplease 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)