[1] Ludvig Beckman, Popular sovereignty facing the deep state. The rule of recognition and the powers of the people ( 16 Jul 2019) https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1644583
[2] Virender Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SCR 415
[3] 2. Constituent Assembly Debate 322-23 (1947)
[4] Kesavandabharati v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461
[5] Ambar Kumar Ghosh, The Paradox of ‘Centralised Federalism’: An Analysis of the Challenges to India’s Federal Design ,ORF Occasional Paper No. 272, Observer Research Foundation.(2020),https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-paradox-of-centralised-federalism/#_ednref4
[6] Bluebook 21st ed. Manoj Mate, Judicial Supremacy in Comparative Constitutional Law, 92 TUL. L. REV. 393 (2017)
[7] Article 31 – of the Indian Constitution provided the citizens of India with Right to property. It stated that no person can be deprived of his or her property save by the authority of law. Repealed by 44th amendment of 1978. Right to property is now a legal right under Article 300A
[8] Sri Sankari Prasad vs. Union of India, AIR 1952 SC 458
[9] Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR (1965) 1 SCR 933;
[10] Golaknath v state of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
[11] kesavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
[12] Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, AIR Supp. (1) SCC 1
[13] Justice Khanna held that the provision in the amendment adding Article 329A violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution by contravening the "democratic set-up" of the Constitution and the "rule of law" because democracy requires that "elections should be free and fair. Justice YV Chandrachud also voted to invalidate the provision on the grounds that it violated the basic structure in that it represented "an outright negation of the right of equality" and was "arbitrary and . . . calculated to damage or destroy the rule of law." Further, Justice Matthew held that the provision adding Article 329 in the Thirty-Ninth Amendment was invalid "because constituent power cannot be employed to exercise judicial power.
[14] Minerva Mills v Union of India,
[15] I R Coelho v State Tamil Nadu, AIR (2007) 2 SCC 1.
[16] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248
[17] A. K Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 88
[18] Manoj Mate, The Rise of Judicial Governance in the Supreme Court of India, 33 B.U. INT'l L.J. 169 (2015).
[19] Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, Bihar, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1377
[20] Krishnadas Rajagopal, Starting the PIL Revolution, THE INDIAN EXPRESS (Jan 26 2010) http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/starting-the-pil-revolution/571616/
[21] MATE, Supra note 14
[22] MATE, Supra, note 26
[23] State of Rajasthan vs Union of India, AIR 1977 SCC (3) 603
[24] A.K. Roy vs. Union of India, All India Reporter, AIR 1982, SC 710.
[25] S R Bommai v UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918
[26] Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors, AIR 1987 SCR (1) 798
[27] Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 2017 (2) SCJ 136
[28] Union of India v Sheth, AIR (1978) 1 SCR 423
[29] As part of this new policy, the government stated that each state high court "should have one-third of its judges and its chief justice from outside the State and that such a task should be accomplished by transferring judges from one High Court to another." Law Minister Shiv Shankar issued a circular to state chief ministers noting that the policy would be used to help "further national integration and to combat narrow parochial tendencies bred by caste, kinship and other local links and affiliations."
[30] S P Gupta v UOI, AIR 1981 SCC 87
[31] Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India, AIR (1993 )4 SCC 441
[32] The Bill was initially supported by the BJP, the BJP changed its position "at the eleventh hour and the bill had to be withdrawn.
[33] AIR (1998) 7 SCC 739,
[34] NJAC consisted of the chief justice of India, the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the law minister, and two "4eminent people" who would be selected by a panel composed of the chief justice of India, the prime minister, and the leader of the opposition.
[35] Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR (2016) 5 SCC 1
[36] L.Chandra Kumar v UOI (1997) 3 SCC 261
[37] Veeraswamy v Union of India
[38] Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Cour v Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459.
[39] Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, AIR (2018) 10 SCC 628
[40] MINISTRYOFHOMEAFFAIRS, VOHRA COMMITTEEREPORT § 3.3 (1993).
[41] Vineet Narain v UOI, (1998) 1 SCC 226
[42] MATE, Supra note 14
[43] UOI v Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR (2002) 5 S.C.C. 294
[44] Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder.
[45] PUCL v UOI
[46] Chintan Chandrachud, The Four Phases of Constitutional Interpretation, The Hindu, (26 Jan , 2020)
[47] Id at 54
[48] Nick Robinson, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, 8 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 1 (2009), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol8/iss1/2
[49] S P Gupta v UOI, AIR (1981) Supp. S.C.C. 87
[50] MATE, Supra note 26
[51] Supra note 33
[52] MATE, Supra note 26
