Sensitivity analyses were also conducted, assuming a higher and lower cost for assessment for resective epilepsy surgery. This was calculated at the highest cost out of the nine participating centres and the lowest cost. When the higher cost was used, resective epilepsy was still cost-effective (£16,827 per QALY gained). The committee noted that this cost for assessment classedu 30m series of resective epilepsy (£13,178) is likely more reflective of being undergoing more complex preoperative assessments. Due to the high clinical and economic importance concerning the cost effectiveness of resective epilepsy surgery original health economic modelling was also undertaken to assess the cost effectiveness of resective epilepsy surgery in adults.
The entire super structure built with precision and high ideals may crumble at one false step. Such a conclusion would attribute unreasonableness to the makers of the Constitution, for, in that event would be speaking in two voices. Such an intention cannot be attributed to the makers of the Constitution unless the provisions of the Constitution compel us to do so.
This referral marketing effort was a smashing success – in just a single week, Harry’s secured 85,000 valid email addresses of interested potential customers! Plus, the people who referred the most friends during prelaunch still remain some of the biggest advocates of Harry’s. For example, a hair stylist may give customers $10 for every successful referral. Then, once the customer has made five successful referrals, they start earning 25% off their next service. Or a landscaping service can offer customers a small reward for every referral who requests a quote. Then, the customer gets another larger reward if the referral ends up as a sale.
We see no difficulty in the circumstances in holding that Art. 13 when it talks of the State making any law, refers to the law made under the provisions contained in Ch. I of Part XI of the Constitution beginning with Art. 245 and also other provisions already referred to earlier. Article 246 provides that Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
Yet it is notably light compared to the more elaborated joint guidance from the Austrian and German competition authorities on the application of their respective value based thresholds (which runs to 30 pages rather than the Guidance’s sparse 6.5 pages). Provides products or services that are key inputs/components for other industries. The first of these pre-conditions should not come as a surprise. It is an essential component of European antitrust law demarking the general boundary between Community interest and national interest.
Parliament today is a constituted body with powers of legislation which include amendments of the Constitution by a special majority but only so far as Art. 13 allows. To bring into existence a constituent body is not impossible as I had ventured to suggest during the hearing and which I have now more fully explained here. It may be said that this is not necessary because Art. 368 can be amended by Parliament to confer on itself constituent powers over the Fundamental Rights. Parliament cannot increase its powers in this way and do indirectly which it is intended not to do directly.
It has to interpret the Constitution as it finds it on the basis of well-known canons of construction and on the terms of Art. 368 in particular. If on those terms it is clear – as we think it is – that power to amend is subject to no limitations except those to be expressly found in the Constitution, courts must give effect to that. The fact that in the last sixteen years a large number of amendments could be made and have been made is in our opinion due to the accident that one party has been returned by electors in sufficient strength to be able to command the special majorities which are required under Art. 368, not only at the center but also in all the States. It is because of this circumstance that we have had so many amendments in the course of the last sixteen years. But that in our opinion is no ground for limiting the clear words of Art. 368. They succinctly put the legal and constitutional position with respect to the validity of Arts.
I am reminded of the words of Justice Holmes that “we must think things and not words”. The true principle is that if there are two provisions in the Constitution which seem to be hostile, juridical hermeneutics requires the Court to interpret them by combining them and not by destroying one with the aid of the other. No part in a Constitution is superior to another part unless the Constitution itself says so and there is no accession of strength to any provision by calling it a code.
It appears to them that the procedure for the amendment being gone through there is no one to question and what emerges is the Constitution as valid as the old Constitution and just as binding. The matter, however, has to be looked at in this way. Where the Constitution is overthrown and the Courts lose their position under the old Constitution, they may not be able to pass on the validity of the new Constitution. This is the result of a revolution pure and simple.
The rule of law under the Constitution has a glorious content. It embodies the modern concept of law evolved over the centuries. It empowers the Legislatures to make laws in respect of matters enumerated in the 3 Lists annexed to Schedule VII. In Part IV of the Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy are laid down.