Insta_Legal 2.

Rankers’ Study Material

Part of the most Comprehensive Classroom Training, Prep Content & Test Series across the Nation.
From the producers of A.I.R. 2, 3 and 5 in CLAT 2019.

MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS FOR LEGAL REASONING AND THEIR LUCID EXPLANATIONS

IMPORTANCE OF INSTA_LEGAL 2.0

 We have prepared a list of around 150 topics (90 of these were shared with you earlier). There is a good possibility
that the passages in the upcoming CLAT will be around these topics. So to boost your preparation, we have
prepared a summary of each topic and will be sharing with you on our telegram channel.

 Insta_Legal 2.0 will contain the summary of not just 90 topics that we have shared earlier but also many new topics
which we have added recently.

 Those of you who have already gone through the Insta_Legal before should not skip Insta_Legal 2.0. owing to the
relevance Insta_Legal 2.0 Holds, reading it multiple times before your exam will help you in understanding the
passage with much more clarity and efficiency.

HAPPY READING 😊

JUDICIAL REVIEW

It is a means of questioning the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies, such as local councils, government
departments, police forces or health authorities. Cases usually start in the administrative division of the high court and
involve a claimant alleging that an official or minister made a mistake in law. Judicial review is a principle or a legal
doctrine or a practice whereby a court can examine or review an executive or a legislative act, such as law or some
other governmental or administrative decision, and determine if the act is incompatible with the constitution. In some
countries, like the United States, France and Canada, judicial review allows the court to invalidate or nullify the law or
the act of the legislature or the executive if they are found to be contrary to the constitution. In the United Kingdom,
judicial review powers are restricted; the courts do not have authority to nullify or invalidate legislation of the
Parliament. Likewise, there may be other countries where courts may have different kind of restrictions and may
review only one branch.

Scope of Judicial Review in India: Judicial review is one of the essential features of the Indian Constitution; it has
helped preserve the constitutional principles and values and the constitutional supremacy. The power of judicial
review is available to the Supreme Court and the High Courts in different states in the matters of both legislative and
administrative actions. Largely, this power has been applied for the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights
provided in the Constitution. To a lesser extent, judicial review has also been used in matters concerning the legislative
competence with regards to the Centre-State relations. With respect to judicial review on matters of executive or
administrative actions, courts have employed doctrines such as 'proportionality', 'legitimate expectation',
Insta_Legal 2.0

'reasonableness', and the 'principles of natural justice'. Essentially, the scope of judicial review in courts in India has
developed with respect to three issues:
1) protection of fundamental rights as guaranteed in the Constitution;
2) matters concerning the legislative competence between the centre and states; and
3) fairness in executive acts. Discussed below are some of the salient features, issues, as well as examples of the
ways in which judicial review is practiced by the Supreme Court of India.

(a) Individual and Group Rights Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India provides that: "The State shall not make
any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III - Fundamental Rights) and any law
made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void." B. R. Ambedkar, the chairman
of the 21 Constitution drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly, has termed this provision as the 'heart
of the Constitution'. This Article provides explicitly the powers of judicial review to the courts in the matters of
fundamental rights. Furthermore, Article 32 offers the Supreme Court the power to enforce fundamental rights, and
provides one the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of those rights. From this article, the Supreme
Court derives authority to issue directions or order or writs in the nature of:
1) habeas corpus, i.e., to order the release of person is unlawfully detained;
2) mandamus, i.e., to order to a public authority to do its duty;
3) prohibition, i.e., to prevent a subordinate court from continuing on a case;
4) quo warranto, i.e., to issue directive to a person to vacate an office wrongfully occupied; and
5) certiorari, i.e., to remove a case from a subordinate court and get the proceedings before it. Like Article 32, Article
226 is a parallel provision for High Courts in states and allows one to institute similar writs in the High Courts for the
enforcement of fundamental rights. Courts, through its judicial review practice, have liberalized the doctrine of locus
standi (right to appear before or petition the court) for the enforcement of fundamental rights of those who lack
access to courts due to the reasons of poverty or social and economic disabilities. This method led to the development
of Public or Social Action Litigation (PIL or SAL) whereby any public spirited person can petition or write letters to
courts on behalf of the human rights violation victims or aggrieved parties. This topic has already been dealt with
elsewhere in this Unit; students may refer to the relevant section for more on this topic.
(b) Centre-State Relations Judicial review has also been used in matters concerning the legislative competence
with regards to the Centre-State relations. Article 246 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament has exclusive
powers to make laws with respect to matters itemized in the 'Union List' (List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution). It provides further that both the Parliament and the Legislature of any State have powers to make laws
with respect to matters enumerated in the 'Concurrent List' (List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution). With
respect to the States, it provides that the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws with respect to
matters listed in the 'State List' (List II of the Seventh Schedule). This Article delivers clear division of lawmaking
powers (division of powers) as well as room for intersection between the Centre and the State. Judicial review helps
demarcate the legislative competencies and ensures that Centre does not exert its supremacy over the state 22
matters and likewise states do not encroach upon matters within the ambit of the Centre.
(c) Fairness in Executive Actions In matters of executive or administrative actions, judicial review practice of courts
have often employed doctrines like 'principles of natural justice', 'reasonableness', 'proportionality', and 'legitimate
expectation'; discussed below are few examples. There is a Latin phrase audi-alterampartem, which literally
means 'listen to the other side'. This phrase is an established principle in the Indian law practice and was applied
by the Supreme Court in several cases including the landmark decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 2 of 6
Insta_Legal 2.0

Decolonization of MAURITIUS: Advisory Opinion by ICJ

What is the Issue?
The Chagos Archipelago is a group of seven atolls comprising more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean about 500
km south of the Maldives.
It had been part of Mauritius since the 18th century when the French first settled the islands. All of the islands
of French colonial territory in the region were ceded to the British in 1810.
Before Mauritian independence, in 1965, the UK split the archipelago from the territory of Mauritius to form the
British Indian Ocean Territory and permitted the US to use it for defence purposes for 50 years (until December
2016) followed by a 20-year optional extension and US Military Base was setup in Diego Garcia, the largest of
the islands.
2,000 inhabitants were resettled in Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The UN resolutions banned the dismemberment of colonial territories before independence.
Therefore Mauritius claims sovereignty over the islands and states that Britain’s claim is a violation of
law and of UN resolutions.
In late 1960s and early 1970s, all Chagossians were removed from the Chagos Islands under UK-orders. They
were deported either to Mauritius or the Seychelles, with no compensation or support arriving for several years.
All those removed to the Seychelles never received any compensation, whilst many in Mauritius report receiving
significantly reduced amounts. The resettled inhabitants now number around 10,000 including their
descendants and they wish to resettle.
UK declared Marine Protected Area around Chagos in 2010, which prohibits fishing and extractive industry and
has the effect of preventing any resettlement.
In 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that that the move to declare Marine Protected Area around
Chagos in 2010 as illegal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
In November 2016, the U.K. ruled out the resettlement of the islanders on the grounds of feasibility, defence,
security interests and the cost.
UK also renewed the lease for Diego Garcia with US, up until 2036.
Subsequently, Mauritius warned that it would push to take the matter to the ICJ. Mauritius had filed a claim in
the top UN court demanding its right over the islands, an assertion which was backed by India during the legal
proceedings.
In its advisory opinion, which is not legally binding, ICJ concluded that the archipelago had not been lawfully
separated from Mauritius, a former British colony which gained independence in 1968.
The ICJ ruled that the process of separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius during decolonisation in
the 1960s constituted an “unlawful detachment” and was a “wrongful act”.
Mauritius argued it was coerced into giving up the Chagos Islands, while the UK government had told the court
it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Indian Ambassador said the historical survey indicated that the Chagos Archipelago throughout the pre and
post-colonial era had been a part of the Mauritian territory.
Many of the evicted islanders were sent to Mauritius and the Seychelles but eventually resettled in the UK.
They have fought in British courts for years to win the right to return to their homes.

About International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations
Seated in The Hague, Netherlands.
Consist of 15 judges elected by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council for a term of nine
years.
A President and a Vice-President is elected by the Court for a term of three years.
One-third of the Court is elected every three years by the two UN bodies and during this course, judges are
eligible for re-election.
In case of a death or resignation before the completion of term, another judge is elected for the remaining term.
Both organs of the UN, the General Assembly and the Security Council vote at the same time but separately.
A judge is elected once it receives an absolute majority of the two organs, due to which the voting takes place
in several rounds.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 3 of 6
Insta_Legal 2.0

Alternate Energy Resources – “A Legal Battle Ahead”

Energy security and energy threat are worldwide issues as fossil fuels are exhaustible due to the robust development
and economic growth. Many countries across the border support the efforts for alternative energy generation to ensure
their energy supply. An energy transition from unsustainable fossil fuel sources to renewable energy (RE) has been
reflected by the promulgation of various law and policies in numerous regions and the establishment of the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Malaysia has also taken several measures to accelerate RE
development including the enactment of the Renewable Energy Act 2011 (Act 725). This study focuses on the
importance of RE in securing energy supply in Malaysia and discusses the implementation of t he Renewable Energy
Act 2011 in the country. This study adopts a doctrinal approach by analyzing existing RE law in Malaysia.

China, India and Pakistan (CIP) contain almost 40% of the world population and constitute a developing region which
is desperately seeking energy resources to fulfill the growing economy requirements. CIP are three main countries of
South Eastern Asia with nuclear capability and have greater potential of energy sharing for the regional prosperity
and socio economic development. The total energy consumption of China and India is 3682.15 Million tons of Oil
Equivalent (MTOE) which is approximately 28% of the world. The energy consumption of Pakistan is far less i.e.
85.75 MTOE however, it can play a pivotal role by providing energy sharing opportunities in the region. This paper
presents a comparative and comprehensive review of CIP renewable energy sectors and possible sharing
opportunities. Cleaner and abundant Renewable Energy Sources (RES) like hydro, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear and
geothermal have been discussed and compared in context of CIP energy requirements. CIP relations and energy
sharing opportunities have also been elaborated in context of regional peace and security situation. Exploitation of
the CIP energy potential and energy sharing opportunities might contribute to global peace and prosperity.

Plea against “Triple Talaq”

What is Talaq?
Talaq is an Islamic word for divorce, denoting dissolution of marriage when a Muslim man can severe all marital ties
with his wife. Under the Muslim law, Triple Talaq means liberty from the relationship of marriage, eventually or
immediately, where the man, by simply uttering the word ‘talaq’ three times, ends his marriage. This instant divorce
is called Triple Talaq, also known as ‘talaq-e-biddat’.

What is the Triple Talaq law?

Triple Talaq, also known as Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, was passed by the Indian
Parliament as a law on July 30, 2019, to make instant Triple Talaq a criminal offence.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill, with 99 votes in its favour and 84 against it. The Triple Talaq law makes the
instant triple talaq a criminal offence and provides for a jail term of three years for a Muslim man who commits the
crime.
The law also makes Triple Talaq a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Introduced in the Lok Sabha by Minister
of Law and Justice Ravi Shankar Prasad on June 21, 2019, the Bill replaced an Ordinance promulgated on
February 21, 2019.
As the Bill was pending for consideration in the Rajya Sabha and the practice of Triple Talaq divorce system was
continuing, there was an urgent need to take immediate action to prevent such a practice by making strict provisions
in law.
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 had legalised and allowed the practice of Triple Talaq
which gave a Muslim husband special privileges over his wife.
A bench headed by Justice N V Ramana issued notice and tagged the plea of the All India Muslim Personal Law
Board (AIMPLB) with other pending matters challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Act, 2019 which makes talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having effect of instantaneous and irrevocable
divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband void and illegal.
The bench, while hearing a petition filed by Seerath un-Nabi Academy.
Any Muslim husband who pronounces the illegal form of talaq upon his wife is to be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years, and also be liable to fine.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 4 of 6
Insta_Legal 2.0

The plea by AIMPLB and Kamal Faruqui has challenged the Constitutional validity of the Act on grounds that
it is manifestly arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 15, 20 and 21 of the Constitution and makes
unwarranted/wrongful interference in the Muslim Personal Law as applicable to Hanafi Muslims.
The Plea Submitted on following grounds:

The impugned Act is a criminal statute having adverse impact on the life and personal liberty of those on whom penal
consequences are to be visited. It is the elementary principle of law that any act or omission which is dealt with penal
consequences should be defined with accuracy and precision, the plea submitted.
A Muslim husband whose act or omission may be visited with penal consequences must have fair notice of ingredients
of act or omission that is declared criminal so that such person can organize his affairs in such a way to avoid any
conflict with law," the plea of AIMPLB submitted.
Talaq e Biddat, pronouncement of triple Talaq in one sitting, has already been declared to be unconstitutional and its
practice set aside, such utterance has no legal/civil consequence.
Consequently, despite such utterances, marriage survives. Therefore, it was totally redundant and irrational to declare
statutorily the practice of Talaq e Biddat as void.
Section 3 of the Impugned Act also suffers from internal contradiction because if any act which is declared void has
no existence in the eyes of law and it is redundant and contradictory to declare non-existent act illegal.

Anti-Competitive Agreement

Competition Act, 2002, was enacted by Parliament of India to establish a commission, to protect the interest of
the consumers and guarantee freedom of trade in markets in India.

What is an Anti-competitive Agreement?

The Act under Section 3(1) prevents any enterprise or association from entering into any agreement which causes
or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) within India. The Act clearly envisages
that an agreement which is contravention of Section 3(1) shall be void.

How to determine AAEC?

The Act provides that any agreement including cartels, which-
Directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices;
Limits production, supply, technical development or provision of services in market;
Results in bid rigging or collusive bidding (illegal practice of bidding)
Anti-competitive agreements are further classified into Horizontal agreements and Vertical agreements.

What are Horizontal Agreements?

Horizontal agreements are arrangements between enterprises at the same stage of production.
Under the Act horizontal agreements are placed in a special category and are subject to the adverse presumption of
being anti-competitive. This is also known as ‘per se’ (by or in itself). rule. This implies that if there exists a
horizontal agreement under Section 3(3) of the Act, then it will be presumed that such an agreement is anti-competitive
and has an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

What are Vertical Agreements?

Vertical agreements are those agreements which are entered into between two or more enterprises operating at
different levels of production. For instance between suppliers and dealers.
The ‘per se’ rule as applicable for horizontal agreements does not apply for vertical agreements. Hence, a
vertical agreement is not per se anti-competitive or does not have an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 5 of 6
Insta_Legal 2.0

LEADING CASES:
1. Hyundai India Fined Rs. 87 Cr for Anti-Competitive Practices Allegations: Hyundai entered into exclusive supply
agreements and refusal to deal arrangements with its distributors. Further, by prescribing maximum permissible
discounts to its dealers, it was alleged that it was engaging in resale price maintenance. Additionally, it was alleged
that it tied sale of CNG kits, lubricants, oils and car insurance.
2. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has held the conduct of Star India Pvt Ltd and Sony Pictures
Network Pvt. Ltd. in allegedly using reference interconnect offer (RIO) agreement with highly onerous terms as a
mechanism of refusal to deal to be prima facie an anti-competitive practice.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 6 of 6