A Comparative Study of the Scope of the Supervision of the Constituent Guardian Organization on Ordinary Laws, in the Legal Systems of Iran and India

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Master of General Law, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

To understand the integrity of the constitution of a country, we must inevitably study the scope of the supervision of the constituent body on the ordinary laws and regulations. The main question is that which types of ordinary laws that are passed by the parliament are reviewed by the constitution , and what are the exceptions to this surveillance ? The study of the two countries of India and Iran has led us to believe that, there is significant emphasis in the Iranian constitution on protecting the norms of the standard of law. The same text exist in the Indian Constitution too. However, the Indian constitution better provides a review of the ordinary law and the Supreme Court, as the interpreter of the constitution, has greatly influenced the scope of this supervision . In comparison,  in Iran, due to structural problems, many laws and rules are protected by the statutory supervision of the law, and the functioning of the Guardian Council has also contributed to this. Moreover , the limits imposed on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India are often temporary and exceptional, while restrictions on the supervision of the Guardian Council in Iran are structural and permanent. The suggestion of this paper are as follows: providing progressive interpretations of the standard norm in the substantive texts by the Guardian Council, such as the prior submission of all the approvals of the pseudo-legislature to the Guardian Council, and the creation of mechanisms such as the formation of advisory workshops to supervise ordinary laws.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. A) Books

    1. Austin, Granville (1999), The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,(original edition, 1966).
    2. Basu, Durga Das (1993), Introduction to the Constitution of India, 15th ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.
    3. Baxi, Upendra (1985), Courage, Craft, and Contention: The Indian Supreme Court in the Eighties. Bombay.
    4. Bhandari Renu (2001), Judicial Control of Legislation in India and USA, University Book House Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
    5. Dhavan, Rajeev (1980), Justice on Trial: The Supreme Court Today. Allahabad: Wheeler.
    6. Jain, M.P (2006), Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company.
    7. Kulshreshtha, V.D, (2005), Landmarks in Indian Legal and Constitutional History, 8th ed. Revised by B.M. Gandhi.Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
    8. Mason, Beaney (1964), American Constitutional Law, Prentice-Hall Inc, 3rd, Ed, new jersey.
    9. Nauriya, Anil (1996), Interception of Democratic Rights in India: Limits and Extent of the Constitutional Discourse.” In Class Formation and Political Transformation in Post-colonial India, edited by T. V. Sathyamurthy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    10.  Pandey, J.N (2004), Constitutional Law of India, 41st ed. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
    11. Patnaik, Mizoram (2008), Dimensions and Perspectives: Society, Economy & Polity. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co.
    12.  Rai, Kailash (2005), Constitutional Law of India, 6th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publication
    13. Roy. Chinmoy (2012), Judicial Review and the Indian Courts, National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi, January, 2012.
    14. Sathe, S.P (2002), Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    15. Thripathi, G.P (2007), Indian Constitution, 1st ed. Allahabad: Allahabad Law Agency.
    16. Shukla, V. N (2006), Constitution of India, Eastern Book House, 2006.

     

    B)  Cases

    1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.
    2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27.
    3. Bhikaji Narayan v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 781.
    4. Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648.
    5. Dulare Lodh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur AIR 1984 SC 1260.
    6. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
    7. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
    8. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125.
    9. M.D. Ishaq v. State, AIR 1961 All 532.
    10. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR. 1978 SC 597.
    11. Mary Roy v. State of KeralaAIR, 1986 SC 1011.
    12. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
    13. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628.
    14. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 854.
    15. Shankari Prasad v.  union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458.
    16. State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300.
    17. Tata Cellular v. Union of india AIR 1996 SC 11.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 8, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2018
Pages 679-709

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics