Supreme Court Ruling on Article 371 D in P. Sambamurthy Case

The question refers to a significant judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sambamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, decided in 1987. This case dealt with the constitutionality of certain provisions within India's Constitution, specifically focusing on Article 371 D.

Key Constitutional Principles Violated

The Supreme Court's bench in this landmark case determined that a specific clause and its associated provision under Article 371 D were in conflict with two fundamental pillars of the Indian Constitution:

• Rule of Law: This principle ensures that everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law. It means governance is based on established legal principles, not arbitrary decisions.
• Judicial Review: This is the power of the courts to examine the laws passed by the legislature and the actions taken by the executive to ensure they comply with the Constitution. If a law or action is found to be unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down.

Specific Provision Struck Down

The Court concluded that the challenged provision within Article 371 D undermined these basic features of the Constitution. As a result, the Court decided to invalidate that specific part of the law.

Based on the details of the case and the provided options, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provision under Article 371 D (6) violated the Rule of Law and the principle of Judicial Review, leading to its being struck down.

Conclusion

The judgment in P. Sambamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is crucial as it reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution's basic structure, emphasizing that no legislative or executive action can override these core principles. The striking down of the specific provision in Article 371 D highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the constitutional framework.