.... says the man who just made a one line answer. :clap:
Anyway, to address your points, this is India. Not the U.S. We don't have the same system of government and certainly not the same system of judiciary. Here the Supreme court is Supreme, and definitely so when it comes to Constitutional issues.
I am not sure about the history regarding the right to property coming out of the fundamental rights and going into Article 300A, but it's an interesting fact you point out, and I will look into it. (My suspicion is that it came about before the whole "basic structure" stuff came out, and insofar was allowed).
The Directive Principles are merely advisory in nature and are not binding, which is why everyone totally ignores them.
As far as California goes, there is this misconception that it is
uber-liberal. It certainly is in pockets like the Bay area (San Francisco etc.) but a rather large chunk of it is very very conservative. The fact that California has not allowed same-sex marriage means nothing, as certainly no one claims that the U.S. is our leading light.
And when you say:
THe job of the courts is to enforce the bills and constitution.
If one day parliament includes right to bear arms and we have a anti gun SC and they say it violates this and that ,it will again set a crises.THe SC knows its limits,hell the govt can state US as an eg as states have banned same sex marriage and even unions and the courts refuse to take it.
You are incorrect. The job of the court is not to enforce bills and constitution. (Firstly, I am assuming you meant Acts and not "bills" as the latter is nto a law but law in the making). It's job is to uphold the rule of law. And the Supreme Court has been given a special status of being the ultimate protector of our Constitution. The Constitution itself provides that the Supreme Court has the final word on Constitution matters, which no one else can overturn, but only a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court.
As for right to bear arms, if they Supreme Court hears the case and decides that it violates the Fundamental Rights or the Constitution in any manner, then that only goes down the toilet,and there's nothing that the legislature can do about it.
Also whether or not some States in the U.S. legalize gay marriage or not has no legally binding effect on our courts. Your insinuation that "the govt can state US as an eg as states have banned same sex marriage and even unions and the courts refuse to take it" is quite ridiculous.
