AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF LAWS BY THE COURTS BY KARMANPPPREET KAUR*

It is the dynamic character of law in India that makes the legal system efficient and effective. Since the world and the society is ever changing, flexibility in the legal domain is highly appreciated. Old is not always gold! Laws become obsolete and hence require an update from time to time. The constitution vests the power of law making with the Parliament of India. The executive bodies too exercise the power of rulemaking delegated by the legislature. Thus, the power to amend or repeal laws also vests with the legislature. When the entire act is revoked, the word “repeal” is used; for example, the Companies Act, 2013 repealed the Companies Act 1956. When a section of an Act is repealed and re-enacted, it is referred to as an “amendment”; for example: Criminal Law (amendment) Act 2018 inserted three new sections (376AB, 376DA, 376DB) and amended three sections (166A, 228A, 376) in the IPC, 1860. This power also includes amendment of the constitution alongside other legislations, to an extent that the basic structure remains unaltered. Such limit on the amending power was evidently clarified in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461. In the scheme of checks and balances premised on the doctrine of separation of powers, the Judiciary exercises effective control over the legislature through the instrument of Judicial Review, finding source in articles such as 13, 32,131-136, 143, 226, 145, 246, 251, 254 and 372 of the Indian Constitution. When courts exercise judicial review, they don't just declare laws unlawful or "strike them down." Instead, they rework such laws to make them compliant with the constitution. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, including adding or removing words from a legislation or by stating that the statute will be read in a way that is contrary to its apparent meaning. The Apex Court, in September 2018, read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, refining the legal position of homosexuals in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299, the Supreme court invalidated the clause 4 of Article 329-A inserted by Constitution (39th Amendment) Act,1975, that aimed to immunise election dispute to the office of the Prime Minister. The power of judicial review enables the courts to invalidate laws when they are ultra-Vires or are no longer relevant in the society. It enables rejuvenation and replenishment of the law. * Karman Preet Kaur Student of B.A.LL.B(Hons.) Panjab University , Regional Centre , HSR