tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post8968187460030742237..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: Singur Land Act Held to be UnconstitutionalUmakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-11193835479166876972015-08-18T00:31:23.598+05:302015-08-18T00:31:23.598+05:30Is it necessary to have President's assent for...Is it necessary to have President's assent for enacting a state act? I think governor's assent is enough to make it valid.Tazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12525652696396831995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-42627656123615029162012-06-26T08:30:01.813+05:302012-06-26T08:30:01.813+05:30It seems the law was challenged on procedural grou...It seems the law was challenged on procedural grounds (no Presidential assent) as well as substantive grounds (Article 14, illusory compensation provided). The Court held that the lack of Presidential assent itself was sufficient to vitiate the constitutional validity of the law, so it was unnecessary to go into Article 14 challenge at this stage. However, the Court has also made a reference to Section 5(1) providing only illusory compensation and therefore said that it should be struck down. Does it mean that this particular section has been declared invalid on substantive grounds (also), independent of any procedural infirmity? Maybe constitutional law experts can explain.<br /><br />Mangesh PatwardhanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-52419638316139892732012-06-26T06:12:40.840+05:302012-06-26T06:12:40.840+05:30"....it is impossible to obey the one without..."....it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other."<br /><br />In the context, is not the impossibility spoken of pertains to its 'implementation' or 'enforcement' - NOT 'obey' or 'disobey'?!<br /><br />".... held to be unconstitutional and void since it is without having assent from the President of India."<br /><br />Does it imply, if so rightly, that 'with having assent from the president of India' , the impugned enactment would have been rendered constitutional / intra vires; passed muster!!<br /><br />Over to Experts !vswaminoreply@blogger.com