send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Supreme Court (SC) is the final interpreter of the Constitution. But, the Parliament may disagree with the SC on the interpretation of the constitution. In such a case, which of these follows?
Parliament declares the ruling of SC as unconstitutional.
Parliament can amend the constitution to nullify the view of the judiciary
Parliament is bound to accept the views of the Judiciary, and cannot do anything in this matter.
A Joint Parliamentary Committee can pass a resolution against the SC judgment declaring it as invalid.
While SC is the final interpreter of the Constitution, parliament may disagree with the SC, and it is also empowered to amend the constitution in case of such disagreement. However, the SC gives the final word on the validity of such an amendment and can even strike it down. This tussle between the judiciary and Parliament over constitutional interpretation is best seen in the recent NJAC case or the historical Article 368 controversy.
By: Abhishek Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses