What is the difference between act and constitution?

[very special 1]

AOA
hope u all are doing well. i have a confusion that what is the difference between act and constitution.?
when i search the topic 1935 constitution, i dont find any result. but 1935 India act i find the material.
so kindly clear the point what is difference between them?
2 question
was there any act approve in 1948?

[Ali Ahmad Syed]

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.

Act: A bill which has passed through the various legislative steps required for it and which has become law. Act is a law according to broad guidelines given by the constitution.

The Government of India Act 1935 was an act not a constitution because India was not an independent country and governed by British as a subject and that was enacted by the British Parliament and hence Government of India Act 1935 was a part of British law or constitution.

According to my knowledge no act was enacted in 1948.

[very special 1]

@Ali Ahmad Syed
i am very thankful to u. it is very much clear to me. plz give example to clear the act and constitution. any example.
regards

[striver]

I am a student of cons law but I will not bore you with the details since you have asked the question in Pak affairs perspective.

Generally speaking, the binding force of an act and a constitution is same. However, you need accent of the 2/3rd members of the quorum of both houses to ammend constitution whereas you need simple majority of quorum to pass a bill (which becomes act after passage).

In countries where there is no restriction of 2/3rd majority (like UK), there is no difference between an act and constitution or you can say act is the constitution.

[Ali Ahmad Syed]

Examples:
Constitution:
The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan
The Constitution of 1962

You may see that the constitution framed in years and a complete framework, complete rethink. Pakistan has just three constitution till to-date: 1956, 1962 and 1973.

Act: for instance
The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011
The Federal Board of Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2010
The Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority Act, 2010

There could be hundreds of Acts in one year, just to formulate laws in light of constitution.

Regards,

[Islaw Khan]

Originally Posted by very special 1

AOA
hope u all are doing well. i have a confusion that what is the difference between act and constitution.?
when i search the topic 1935 constitution, i dont find any result. but 1935 India act i find the material.
so kindly clear the point what is difference between them?
2 question
was there any act approve in 1948?

Well explained by other members according to the definition perspective.
For you: Constitution is the Grand Norm of the country, The basic Law, According to which governmental machinery works. Constitutions are usually enacted by the constituent assemblies not by the Legislative assemblies.

Act on the other hand is the product of Legislative Assemblies; covering a particular area, for example indian Independence act of 1935, was enacted for the governance of India, Under the British constitution. Like wise other legislative acts.
Acts must be according to the constitution's basic principles.

@striver, Kindly go through the details of act and const, ....Same binding force? V different both yar, Acts must be under the shadow of const. Whats the outcome if some one break the const or keep it in abeyance? or break some act? Both same? no way.
regarding qouram , rules are different for country to country, and amendment in the const is something else than enacting a particular act.

[striver]

@ Islah_G

I could write a big article but I just deliberately overlooked the details.

You are right in that acts must be under the shadows of the constitution. My bad, I took it for granted that anyone vaguely fimiliar with the concept of constitution should know that constitution is the 'rules of the game' and has preference over everything that comes in its contradiction.

Similarly, there are many many details like passage of an act, process of amendment of the constitution, challenging of an act and so on so forth but I thought it unnecessary to stress on the overwhelming details associated with the process.

The binding force is ofcourse related to the implementation of the law (enactment of constitutional) and I would firmly maintain that the acts and laws laid down in consitution are applicable with the same vigour and their punishable, as laid down.

For more details, we can continue the discussion in Cons law section, if you feel the necessity for the same.

All the best~

[Islaw Khan]

Originally Posted by striver

@ Islah_G



The binding force is ofcourse related to the implementation of the law (enactment of constitutional) and I would firmly maintain that the acts and laws laid down in consitution are applicable with the same vigour and their punishable, as laid down.

For more details, we can continue the discussion in Cons law section, if you feel the necessity for the same.

All the best~

Brother I analysed it from your reply and pointed with sincerity not for challenge.
Again checkout your reply the bold letters.....acts and laws laid down in the cont. Const me act awr laws hoti hain?

[striver]

Dear Brother, ik taraf ap kehtay hain challange nahin... dosri taraf meri "bold font" bi highlight kartay hain... khula tazaad hai..

Anyhow, by laws of constitution I meant stipulations laid down in constitution. Please donot expect such primitive errors from me. If you wish, we may contemplate on more detailed issues but only in the respective section.

All the Best~