{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011534025374855825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006920415224913495, 'mean_word_length': 4.945205479452055, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judicial Review and Parliamentary Power

This essay discusses the lack of any discernible attempt by the bench in the NJAC Case to read down the provisions of the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India. This essay argues that neither the overwhelming majority with which the Amendment was passed in Parliament, nor the Court’s own precedent, where it has inclined towards reading down amendments came to the aid of the 99th Amendment. This essay also argues how the mere apprehension of abuse of power by the eminent persons or the Law Minister ought not to have been deemed sufficient to invalidate a constitutional amendment. In parting, the author provides some thoughts and recommendations, to both legislators and courts on how to ensure that future constitutional amendments do not meet the fate of the 99th Amendment, and receive the respect they deserve.