Question

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person's fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law which, according to a group of lawyers, is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute, seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

• A. No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law
• B. The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law
• C. The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law
• D. None of these

Hint:

Judicial review allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws but not to assume legislative functions—separation of powers must be maintained.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Under the principle, the power to enact laws lies solely with Parliament or the State Legislatures. Courts have the authority to review laws and strike them down if they violate the Constitution or fundamental rights.
However, judicial review does not extend to law-making—courts cannot compel Parliament to legislate in a specific manner.
Therefore, the correct position is that the court can quash the unconstitutional law but cannot order Parliament to create a new one.