Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The Constitution of India has provided for judicial impartiality. In theory everything has been said to maintain impartiality so that there is no committed judiciary. It is provided in the Constitution that the President appoints the judges, but they cannot be removed unless Parliament has made a representation to him. The salary and allowances of the judges are not voted by the Parliament or state legislature, so that their conduct and behaviour does not come under criticism.

According to the Constitution of India, the following are the rules for appointment of the Supreme court Judge.

• Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his/her hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the States as President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years.
• Supreme Court held that the consultation with Chief Justice is not binding on the President. But the Court held that consultation should be effective.
• In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India 1993, the Court states that the view of the CJI is binding on the President, the Court also held that while advising the President CJI is expected to consult two of the senior-most Judges.
  • CJI is the sole authority to initiate the process of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court. In case of conflict of opinion between CJI and President, the view expressed by CJI will have a primary.
• In July 1998, the President sought the court’s opinion on core issues relating to the appointment of Apex Court Judges and transfer of High Court Judges.
• The 11th Presidential Reference sought clarification on certain doubts over the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India as stipulated in the 1993 case relating to judges appointment and transfer opinion.
• The crux is as follows:
  • In judicial appointments, it is obligatory for the President to take into account the opinion of the CJI.
  • The opinion of the CJI is binding on the Government. The opinion of the CJI must be formed after due consultation with a collegium of at least four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  • Even if two judges give an adverse opinion, then he should not send the recommendation to the Government.

•  The Constitution provides a framework within which a government has to work.
• It minimizes the chances of disputes among the various organs of the government as it clearly defines their powers and functions separately.
• It also controls the misuse of power by the government.
• It safeguards the fundamental rights of the citizens.

• Parliament has limited powers to amend the constitution.
• Parliament cannot damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
• The procedure prescribed for the amendment is mandatory. Non-compliance with it will result in the invalidity of the amendment.
• Clauses (4) and (5) inserted in Art. 368 by the 42nd Amendment Act are invalid because they take away the right of judicial review.
• Parliament cannot increase its amending power by amending Art. 368.

In India, separation of functions is followed and not of powers and hence, the principle is not abided in its rigidity. In India, strict separation of powers is not followed as it is followed in the U.S. Apart from the directive principle laid down in Article 50 which enjoins separation of judiciary from the executive, the constitutional scheme does not embody any formalistic and dogmatic division of powers. But a system of checks and balance has been embedded so much so that the courts are competent to strike down the unconstitutional amendments made by the legislature. 

Nature of Separation of Power in India:

• The doctrine of separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution even though it is not specifically mentioned in it. Hence, no law and amendment can be passed violating it. 
• The logic behind the doctrine is of polarity rather than strict classification, meaning thereby that the center of authority must be dispersed to avoid absolutism. 
• Hence the doctrine can be better appreciated as a doctrine of ‘check and balance’.
• The system of checks and balances is essential for the proper functioning of three organs of the government. 
• Different organs of the state impose checks and balances on the other. 
• Checks and balances act in such a way that no organ of the state becomes too powerful.  
• The constitution of India makes sure that the discretionary power bestowed upon any organ of the state does not breach the principles of democracy. For instance, the legislature can impeach judges but as per the condition i.e. two-third majority.

Working of separation of power in India:

• If we study the constitutional provisions carefully, it is clear that the doctrine of separation of powers has not been accepted in India in its strict sense. 
• In India, not only there is functional overlapping but there is personnel overlapping also. 
• The Supreme Court has declared void the laws passed by the legislature on many occasions and the actions taken by the executive if they have violated any provision of the Constitution or the law passed by the legislature in case of executive actions. 
• The executives have affected the functioning of the judiciary by making appointments to the office of Chief Justice and other judges in many instances.
• The executive resorting to pass ordinance’s, legislature passing NJAC law, keeping some laws under the 9th schedule earlier to keep it away from Judicial review have upset the balance among them.
• In Ram Jawaya v. Punjab (1955) case, the Supreme Court held up the observation that the executive is derived from the legislature and is dependent on it for its legitimacy.
• In Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that the amending power of the Parliament is subject to the basic features of the constitution. 
• In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, the Supreme Court held that adjudication of a dispute is a judicial function and parliament cannot even under constitutional amending power is competent to exercise this function.
• In Swaran Singh’s case (1998) the Supreme Court declared the Governor’s pardon of a convict unconstitutional.

As the doctrine of separation of powers is not codified in the constitution, there is a necessity that each pillar of the State to evolve a healthy trend that respects the powers and responsibilities of other organs of the government. A democracy can thrive only when all the organs cooperate together. It’s time to resolve the differences and move forward with a common goal to take India on great heights.

Family laws are those laws which deal with family related matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance. In India, different family laws apply to practitioners of different religions.

A constitution is a set of rules through which a country or state operates. Some countries have unwritten constitutions which means there is no formal constitution written in one particular document. Their constitutional rules are originated from a number of sources. Britain sources its constitution from a number of important statutes, or laws, as well as principles decided in legal cases and conventions. New Zealand and Israel are two other countries that do not have formal written constitutions. Other nations have formal written constitutions in which the structure of government is defined and the respective powers of the nation and the states are written in one single document. These systems may also include unwritten conventions and constitutional law which can inform how the constitution is interpreted. Australia, India and the United States are examples of countries with a written constitution.

Law reform or legal reform is the process of examining existing laws, and advocating and implementing change in a legal system, usually with the aim of enhancing justice or efficiency.

Intimately related are law reform bodies or law commissions, which are organizations set up to facilitate law reform. Law reform bodies carry out research and recommend ways to simplify and modernize the law. Many law reform bodies are statutory corporations set up by governments, although they are usually independent from government control, providing intellectual independence to accurately reflect and report on how the law should progress.

Law reform activities can include preparation and presentation of cases in court in order to change the common law; lobbying of government officials in order to change legislation; and research or writing that helps to establish an empirical basis for other law reform activities.

The four main methods in reforming law are repeal (get rid of a law), creation of new law, consolidation (change existing law) and codification.

Dharmashastras and Dharmasutras were the religious texts written in Sanskrit by the Brahmins. These texts laid down the codes of social behaviour in great detail. These were meant to be followed by Brahmanas in particular and the rest of society in general.

<a href="https://www.toppr.com/en-in/content/cbse/class-11-commerce/legal-studies/">Visit toppr.com!</a>