Amit Law Institute: Constitution of India Historical Background

Amit Law Institute
Constitution of India 15. After 92nd Amendment Act, 2005, it

Historical Background consists of Articles. 26 Parts and 12
1. The Cabinet Mission came to India on schedules.
March, 1946. Constitution of India
2. As per the recommendations of cabinet Date of adoption, enactment of constitution-
Mission, the constituent assembly came Preamble declares that -26th November 1949.
into existence in November 1946. Short title - Art. 393
3. The members of Const. Assembly were This constitution may be called the constitution
elected by provincial assembly by indirect of India.
election. Date of enforcement Art. 394 - 26th January,
4. The first meeting of const. assembly was 1950.
held on 9th December 1946. Definition Clause - Art. 366
5. S.N. Sinha was elected its temporary Interpretation Clause-Art.367
chairman 9th December. Nature of the Indian Constitution-
6. On 11th December 1946 Dr. Rajendra There are two types of constitution in
Prasad was elected its permanent the world
chairman. 1. Unitary Constitution, and
7. Indian Independence Act, 1947 was 2. Federal Constitution
passed in 18 July 1947 British Parliament. In a Unitary Constitution the powers of
8. The Indian Independence Act was came the Government are centralized in one
into force on August 15, 1947 when the government viz; the central govt. The
British rule ended came to an end. provinces are subordinate to the centre.
9. On 29th August 1947 a Drafting In a federal constitution on the other
Committee of 7 members under hand, there is a division of powers between
Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the federal and the State Governments and
constituted. both are independence in their own spheres.
10. It has taken time 2 years 11 months and Essential Characteristics of a Federal
18 days. Constitution-
11. Constitution of India was adopted and The followings are main
enacted in constituent assembly on characteristics of Federal Constitution
November 26, 1949 by People of India. (American)-
12. It comes into force, on January 26, 1950 1. Division/distribution of powers between
which is called 'Republic Day" (Date of federal and provincial units.
Commencement). 2. Supremacy of Constitution
13. The Indian constitution is the largest and 3. A written constitution
most detailed constitution in the world. 4. Rigidity of Constitution (Amendment
14. It originally consisted of 395 Articles procedure is tough)
divided in 22 parts and have 8 schedules. 5. Authority of courts to solve disputes
between Central and State Governments.
8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 1

Amit Law Institute
The Indian Constitution contains/ Dr. B.R. Ambedkar- Not with standing
possesses all the essential characteristics of many provision which give the centre power to
federal constitution mentioned above. But override State Govt. nonetheless our
some scholars hesitate to accept it as federal constitution is federal constitution.
constitution. Copying
Porf. K.C. Wheare - The Indian Constitution is 1. Judicial Review
causi-federal i.e. a unitary state with subsidiary 2. Fundamental Rights U.S.
3. Impeachment
federal nature. Constitution
Prof. Jennings - Indian Constitution is federal 4. Parliamentary system
with is strong centralising tendency. 5. Art.14 (Rule of Law)
6. Suspension of F.R. United
The above professors have give this 7. Parliamentary Privileges
Kingdom
type of statement because our constitution
contains certain provisions which make it 8. Idea of Federalism with
unitary. These are following- strong Cent. Govt.
Canada
9. Residency powers to
1. Appointment of Governor - (Art. 155 &
Centre.
156)
2. Parliament has power to legislate in state
Directive Principles of
list in national interest - (Art. 249) 10. Ireland
State Policy
3. Parliaments power to form new state or Amendment of South
11.
alter boundaries of existing states - (Art.3) Constitution Africa
4. Emergency power - (Art. 352-360) 12. Freedom of Trade Australia
Procedure established
Conclusion 13. Japan
by Law
In short Indian Constitution is neither 14. Fundamental Duties U.S.S.R.
purely federal nor purely unitary but unique Germany &
combination of both and is designed to suit the 15. Emergency Govt. of
peculiar condition of India. Provisions India Act
Austin and A.R. Birch used the term 1935
Equality before Law
"Cooperative Federalism" for Indian system, 16. U.K.
(Art.14)
i.e. it is neither pure federal nor purely unitary Equal protection of Laws
17. U.S.A.
but is combination of both. (Art.14)
D.D. Basu - Indian constitution is Preamble
neither federal nor unitary but combination of The Preamble declares:
both. "We the people of India, having
Indian constitution is sui-generis, i.e. solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
different from other constitution. Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic
Supreme Court - In case of West Republic and to secure to all its citizens:
Bengal Vs UOI, it has held that Indian Justice, social, economic and political.
Constitution is not truly federal. Liberty of thought, expression, belief
Dr. V.N. Shukla - It is federal. faith and worship.

Amit Law Institute
Equality of status and of opportunity; Republic - This term signifies that there shall
and to promote among them all. be an elected head of the state who will be the
Fraternity assuring the dignity of the chief executive head. The President of India
individual and the unity and integrity of nation; unlike the British King is not a heredity
In our constitution Assembly this 26th monarch but an elected person chosen for a
day of November 1949 do hereby adopt, enact limited period. It......
and give to observes this constitution. Is Preamble a Part of the Constitution?
The words "Socialist, Secular and The Preamble is the key to open the
Integrity have been added in Preamble by mind the makers. In Re Berubari case, AIR
42nd Amendment Act. These words were 1960 the S.C. held that the Preamble was not
already given in our constitution, it was spells a part of constitution and therefore it could not
out clearly in the freamble. be regarded as a source of any substantive
The Preamble of the constitution powers.
declares India to be a Sovereign, Socialist, But in Keshwananda Bharti's case,
Secular, Democratic Republic. 1973 the S.C. rejected the above view and
Sovereign - It emphasises that India is no held that the preamble is the part of the
more depend upon any outside authority. It constitution, and its relates to its basic feature.
means that both Internally and externally India Purpose of Preamble-
is sovereign. The preamble serves the following
Socialist - The term socialist "has been added purposes
in the preamble by const. 42nd Amendment (i) It indicates the source from which the
Act, 1976. Indian Socialism means democratic constitution comes viz; the people of
socialism and not communist socialist. India.
In Excel wear Vs UOI, the S.C. held (ii) It contains the enacting clause which
that the addition of the word 'Socialist' might brings into force the constitution i.e.
enables the Court to learn more in favour of 26th November 1949.
nationalization and state ownership of an (iii) It declares the great rights and
Industry. freedoms which the people of India
In D.S. Nakara Vs UOI, the S.C. held intended to secure to all citizens and
that the basic framework of socialism is to the basic type of the Government and
provide a decent standard of life to the working polity which was to be established.
people and specially provide security from Can Preamble be amended U/Art.368-
cradle to grave. This question was raised for the first
Secular - "Secularism" means a state has no time before the S.C. in a case of Keshvananda
religion of its own. It treats all religions equally. Bharti Vs State of Kerala AIR, 1973 SC. The
Democratic - In indicates that the const. has S.C. held that since the preamble is a part of
established a form of Govt. which gets its the constitution, it can be amended like any
authority from the will of the people. The rulers other provisions of the constitution U/Art.368
are elected by the people and are responsible but subjected to restrictions as it a basic
to them. feature of the constitution.

Amit Law Institute
Part-I either house of parliament except on the

The Union and its territory- recommendation of the President and the
Article-1 president before giving such recommendation
Name and Territory of the Union required to send it to the affected state
Article-1 declares that the name of the legislature for expressing its views thereon
Union shall be India, that is Bharat. The within such period as prescribed in it.
member of the Union are the states and the In Babulal Vs State of Bombay, AIR
territories specific in the first schedule. 1960 SC, it was held that the Parliament is not
Territory of India- bound to accept or act upon the views of the
Before the constitution (7th State Legislature.
Amendment) Act 1956 the Union consisted of Note: Formation of new State etc. is depend
4 categories of states, name parts A, B, C and upon the sweet will of the Central Govt. It can
D of the first schedule. make new states by simple law and for this
The constitution 7th Amd.1956 has purpose no amendment U/Art.368 requires.
abolished and reduced these categories into Cession of Indian Territory to foreign
two. The territory of India at present consists country-
of the following: Does the Power of Parliament to
(i) States - 28 diminish the area of any state (Art 3c) include
(ii) Union Territories - 7 also the power to cede (give) Indian Territory
Article-2 to a foreign State?
Admission or establishment of new states- This que came up before for
Art 2 gives Parliament two powers consideration in reference made by the
(1) to admit into the Union new states, and President U/Art-143. The S.C. in Re Baru Bari
(2) to establish new states Union case held that the Parliament has no
Article-3 power U/Art.3(c) to cede (give) Indian Territory
Formation of new states and alteration of to a Foreign State. For this purpose the
areas, boundaries or names of existing states- Parliament has to make an amendment under
The Parliament may be law- Act.368.
(a) Form a new state- In Maganbhai Vs UOI, a dispute
i. by separation of territory from any state; or regarding the adjustment of a boundary line in
ii. by uniting 2 or more states; or Runn of Kutch between India and Pakistan
iii. by uniting any parts of states; or was referred to a Tribunal. The Govt. wanted
iv. by uniting any territory to a part of any state to implement the award without any
(b) Increase the area of any state, parliamentary legislation. It was held that an
(c) Diminish /decrease the area of any state agreement to refer the dispute to a Tribunal
(d) After the boundaries of any state did not amount to cession of Territory to a
(e) After the name of any state foreign country and hence an amendment of
Procedure - The Parliament may by law the constitution was not necessary for its
(simple majroity form a new state etc. provided implementation. It could be implemented by
that bill for purpose shall not be introduced in Govt. of India under its executive power.

Amit Law Institute
Where any state is to be included in The term "domicile' is not defined in

Indian territory, there should not be necessary the constitution there are two main types of
to amend Constitution under Article 368. domicile-
PART-II Citizenship (Art. 5-11) (1) Domicile of origin (by birth) ; and
In every country there are two types of (2) Domicile of choice
persons residing While former attaches to individual by
(i) Citizens and birth the latter is acquired by residence in the
(ii) Aliens territory. The elements are necessary for the
Citizens are different from aliens. existence of domicile-
Citizens enjoy the following rights which the (1) a residence of a particular kind, and
aliens do not enjoy (2) an intention to reside there.
(1) Fundamental rights, like - Article 15, 16, In Pradeep Jain Vs UOI the S.C. has
19 etc. held that Art.5 recognises only one domicile,
(2) Office of P.M, President, Judges etc. i.e. Domicile of India. It means that India has
(3) Right to Franchise U/Art.326. only one citizenship viz; Citizenship of India.
Citizenship at the commencement of the In Louis De Raedt Vs UOI, the S.C.
constitution, January 26, 1950. held that petitioners have failed to establish
The following persons under Articles 5 that they had intention to reside permanently.
to 8 shall become citizens of India at the For the acquisition of domicile of choice, it
commencement of the constitution. must be shown that the person concerned had
1. Citizenship by domicile (Art.5) a certain state of mind the animus manedi.
2. Citizenship by emigrants from Pakistan Article-11
(Art.6) Power of Parliament to make Law as to
3. Citizenship of migrants to Pakistan (Art.7) citizenship-
4. Citizenship of Indians abroad (Art.8) Article-11 empowers the Parliament to
Citizenship by Domicile - Art.5 make any provisions with respect to the
According to Art.5 a person is entitled acquisition and termination of citizenship and
to a citizenship by domicile if he fulfills all other matters relating to citizenship.
following conditions- Firstly - He must at the The Citizenship Act, 1955
commencement of the constitution has the The Parliament in exercise of the
domicile in the territory of India. Secondly - power given to it U/Art.11, has passed the
Such person must fulfill any of the three citizenship Act, 1955, making provisions for
conditions, namely- acquisition and termination of citizenship after
(a) he was born in India; or the commencement of the constitution.
(b) either of his parents born in India; or The Act provides for the acquisition of
(c) he has been ordinarily resident in the Indian citizenship after commencement of the
territory of India for not less than 5 years Const. in five ways i.e. birth, descent,
immediately preceding such registration, naturalization and incorporation.
commencement.

Amit Law Institute
PART-III
Fundamental Rights (Art. 12-35)
Magna Carta - It has been given by king
John of England in 1215AD to its people It
is like a F.R.
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendment
of U.S. Constitution (1689 AD) contains
fundamental rights.

Amit Law Institute
Fundamental Rights - Articles 12-35 of These rights can be taken away by

Part-III of Constitution of India contains authority of law and no amendment of
F.R. Const. U/Art. 368 is necessary.
Natural Justice - Due Process of Law (3) Legal Rights-
(America) These rights are given to any
Natural Justice contains three person by any Statute and these rights
principles- can be taken away by legislature and on
(1) Rule against bias - Memo judex in violation of any such rights person cannot
causa sua, i.e., no man can be a go to S.C. or H.C. U/Art. 32 and 226.
judge in his own cause or deciding Classification of Fundamental Rights-
authority must be impartial. The fundamental Rights can be
(2) Rule of fair hearing - audi alterem classified under the following six groups-
partem, i.e. opportunity of hearing (1) Right to equality (Art. 14-18)
must be given to all before passing (2) Right to freedom (Art. 19-22)
any order against him. (3) Right against exploitation (Art. 23-24)
(3) Reasoned decision - speaking order, (4) Right to freedom of religion (Art. 25-
i.e. the deciding authority must give 28)
reason for the decision. (5) Cultural and educational rights
Justice P.n. Bhagwati in Manka (Art.29-30)
Gandhi case has applied....................... (6) Right to Constitutional remedies
Classification of Rights - The rights are (Art.32-35)
classified into following - Imp. Points-
(1) Fundamental Rights- It cannot be  Equality before Law - It is a concept of
taken away without constitutional Dicy. It has been taken from U.K.
amendment U/Art-368. If any Act  Separation of Power - It is a concept of
passed by legislature violates F.R., Montesquieu. It means executive,
the court can exercise power of judiciary and legislature shall work
Judicial review to declare that Act as separately in their respective
null and viod. These rights have been jurisdiction.
mentioned U/Art. 12-35 of Part-III of  Division of power - Schedule-7 and
Constitution. Art.246. It means division of powers
(2) Constitutional Rights - Const. rights between Union and States.
are those rights which are mentioned  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Says -
in the constitution but are different "Fundamental Rights are most
form F.R. criticised part of the Constitution.
for eg. - Right to vote given U/Art. 326.  Austin said about constitution - It is
Right to property given U/Art.300A. first and foremost social document".

Amit Law Institute
 S.C. is called as protector and (2) The Govt. and Legislature of each
guarantor of fundamental rights. state, i.e. Executive and Legislature of
 Some F.R.s are available to citizens States.
only, i.e. Art.15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 (3) All local authorities, for eg-
whereas some F.Rs. available to all Municipality, Panchayat, Distt.
persons present in India, i.e. Art.14, Boards, Improvement Trust etc.
20, 21, 23, 25, 27and 28. (4) Other authorities.
 Generally F.Rs. are available against Other authorities -
state only, (i.e. Art.-19 and 20) but In the context of Art.12, the word
there are certain F.Rs. which are "authority" means the power to make
available against state as well as Laws, by-laws orders, regulations,
individuals also, these are Art.15(2), notification etc. which have the force of
17, 18, 23 and 24. law and power to enforce those laws.
Suspension of F. Rights - The Madras H.C. held that "other
F.Rs. are not absolute rights. It can authorities" could only indicate authorities
be curtailed a suspended in the following of a like nature, i.e. ..............
circumstances - Electricity Board, Rajasthan Vs. Mohan
(1) Art. 33 - Parliament can curtail the Lal, AIR, 1967 SC -
F.Rs. of the armed forces. In this case the S.C. held that the
(2) Art. 34 - Parliament can curtail F.Rs. expression "other authorities" is wide
when Martial Law is in force in any enough to include all authorities created
area. by the constitution or state on whom
(3) Art. 352 - During proclamation of powers are conferred by law. It is not
emergency, President U/Art.359 can necessary that the statutory authority
suspend F.Rs. (except) Art.20 & 21. should be engaged in performing
(4) Art. 368 - Parliament can amend any government or sovereign function. On this
F.R. U/Art. 368. interpretation the expression "other
Article-12 authorities" will include Rajasthan
Definition of 'State' - Electricity Board.
Definition of state given under Art. Sukhdev Singh Vs Bhagatram, AIR,
12 is applicable to Part-III as well as Part- 1975 SC
II of the constitution. The S.C. following the test laid
According to Art. 12, State down in Electricity Rajasthan case, held
includes the following agencies- that Oil and Natural Gas Commission
(1) The Govt. and Parliament of India, (ONGC), LIC, IFC are authorities within
i.e., Executive and Legislature of the meaning of Art-12 and therefore they
Union. are 'State'.

Amit Law Institute
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs The Int. India, Bihar Electricity Board, Indian Oil
Airport Authority of India, AIR, 1979, Corp. are the 'State' within the meaning of
SC Art.12 as they are instrumentality of state.
In this case Bhagwati, J. preferred S.M. Iiyas Vs ICAR, (1993)1 SCC
the test as laid down in Sukhdev Singh's It has been held that the Indian
case and held that if a body is an agency Council of Agricultural Research is a State
or isntrumentality of Govt. it may be an within the meaning of Art.12.
authority within the meaning of Art.12 Pradeep Kr. Biswas Vs Indian Institute of
whether it is a statutory corporation, a Chemical Biology (2002)
Govt. Company or ever a Regd. Society. It was held that CSIR is a State.
Accordingly, it was held that the Int. A. Tekraj Vasandi Vs UOI, (1988) 1 SCC
Authority which had been created by an It has been held that Inst. of Const.
Act was the 'State'. and Parliament Studies is a regd society
The Court further laid down the but not a state within the ..............
following text for determining whether a Chandra Mohan Khanna Vs NCERT, AIR
body is an agency or instruments of the 1992 SC
Government. Following the Tekraj Case the
1. Whether financial resources of the court has held that National Council of
State is the Chief Funding Source, i.e. Educational Research and Training is not
entire share capital is held by Govt. a State.
2. Whether existence of deep and Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. UOI
pervasive State Control It has been held that B.C.C.I. is not
3. Whether functional character being a state.
Governmental, i.e. the functions of G.M. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.,
Corporation are of public importance Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad,
and closely related to government AIR 2003, SC
function. It has been held that the Co-
4. Whether the corporation, enjoys operaive Sugar mill was neither
monopoly status. instrumentality nor agency of Govt. and
Ajay Hasia Vs Khalid Mujib, AIR, 1981, therefore not a 'State'. It is operated by
SC Self generated finances. The Govt. h as
It has been held that a Society no deep and pervasive control over mill.
regd. under the Society Registration Act, M.C. Mehta Vs UOI, (1987) 1 SCC
1898, is an agency of Govt. and hence a The imp. que, which was raised
'State' within the meaning of Art.12. before the court is was whether a private
It has been held that the food corporation fell within the ambit of Art.12.
corporation of India, the state authority of It has been held that it is not a 'State' but

Amit Law Institute
the court has not delivered its final if it is inconsistent with any of the
judgment on this point. provisions of Part-III of the constitution.
Whether Judiciary is a State The Doctrine of Judicial Review
In Naresh Vs State of Maharashtra (AIR, was for the first time propounded by the
1967) and A.R. Antulay Vs R. S. Nayak S.C. of America Originally, the U.S.
(both C.M.) (AIR, 1988), Constitution did not contain an express
The S.C. held that even if a Court provision for Ju. review. The power of ju.
is the State a writ U/Art.32 cann't be review was, however, assumed by the
issued to a H.C. against its ju. orders, S.C. of America in a histori case of
because such orders cannot be said to Marbury Vs. Madison, (1800).
violator the F.Rs at citizens. It can be said Judicial Review as a Basic Feature-
that "Judiciary" is state U/Art......... The Kesavanand Bharti Vs State of
following are 'State' within the meaning of Kerala AIR, 1973 SC is also known as
Art.12 F.R. case. In this case the S.C. has
 Regional Engineering College declared the power of judicial review as
established by Society. basic feature of Indian Constitution and
 Indian Statistical Institute. therefore, it can not be damaged or
 CSIR (Council of Scientific and destroyed it exercising power Under Art.
Industrial Research) 368 of the Constitution.
 ICAR, RRB, ONGC, LIC, IFC Again in L.Chandra Kumar Vs UOI,
 United India Insurance Company AIR, 1997 SC the S.C. has held that the
 IDBI Bank power of ju. review is a part of 'basic
 Delhi Transport Corporation, DDA, structure' of the constitution and cannot be
NAFED taken away U/Art.368.
The following are not 'State' U/Art.12 Again in I.R. Coelha Vs State of
 Institute of Const. and Parliamentary T.N., AIR 2009 (9th Schedule Case) the
Studies. S.C. has held that the power of ju. review
 NCERT is a basic feature and it cannot be taken
 BCCI away by any Act of Parliament.
 S.C. Monesh Vs Maharashtra Pre-Constitution Laws-
 Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs Ashok Hurra 1. No retrospective effect of Art.13
Article-13 Art.13(1) is prospective in nature.
Judicial Review - From U.S. Constitution According to Art.13(1), all pre-
Art.13 provides for 'Judicial constitutional laws or existing, laws, i.e.
Review' of all legislations in India, past as laws which were inforce immediately
well as future. This power has been before the commencement of the
conferred on S.C. (Art.32) unconstitutional constitution shall be void to the extent to

Amit Law Institute
which they are in consistent with F.Rs. imposition of restriction on a F.R. in

from the date of its commencement. They language wide enough to cover
are not void ab initio. Such incosistent restrictions, both within and without the
laws are not wiped out. So far as the past limits provided by the const. and where it
acts are concern. is not possible to separate the two, the
Leading Case - whole law is to be struck down.
Keshava Madhav Menon Vs State of In R.M.D.C. Vs UOI, AIR 1957 SC,
Bombay, AIR, 1951, SC S.C. held that where after removing the
S.C. has held that 'there is no F.R. invalid provision what remain constitutes a
that a shall not be prosecuted and complete there is no necessary to declare
punished for an offence committed before the whole Act invalid.
the constitution came into force. So far as 3. Doctrine of Eclipse -
the past act are concerned the law exists It is based on the principle that a
notwithstanding that it does not exist with law which violates F.Rs. is not void ab
respect to the future. inition, but becomes only unenforceable,
2. Doctrine of Severability i.e., remains in a moribund condition. It is
This doctrine means, if an overshadowed by the F.Rs. and remains
inconsistent provision can be separated dormant; but it is not dead. Such laws are
from that which are consistent then only not wiped out entirely from the statute
that part which is inconsistent is to be book. They exist for all past transactions,
declared as void and not the entire Act. It and for the enforcement of rights acquire
is because Art. 13 uses the words "to the and liabilities incurred before the present
extent of such inconsistency be void". constitution came into force and also for
In A. K. Gopalan Vs State of the determination of right of persons who
Madras, AIR, 1950 the S.C. while have not been given F.Rs. by the
declaring Sec.14 of the Preventive constitution, i.e. non-citizens.
Detention Act, 1950 as ultra vires, Can such a law which becomes
observed that the impugned Act minus unenforceable after the const. came into
this Sec.14 can remain unaffected. force be again revived and made effective
If the invalid portion of any Act is by an amendment in the constitution?
so closely mixed up with valid portion that It was to solve this problem, the
it can not be separated without leaving an S.C. formulated the 'doctrine of eclipse" in
incomplete remainder, then the Court will Bhikaji Vs State of M.P., AIR, 1955 SC. In
hold the entire Act, void. this case provision of C.P. and Berar
In Romesh Thapper Vs State of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947
Madras, AIR, 1950, S.C. observed that authorised the State Govt. to monopolise
where a law supports to authority any business in the province of State. This

Amit Law Institute
provision though valid when enacted, constitution law as well as post

became void on coming into force of the constitution law.
constitution as such Act violates Art 19(1) 4. Doctrine of waiver -
(g). Can a citizen waive his F.R.? In
However in 1951, Clause (6) of Bashesher Nath Vs Income Tax
Art.19 was amended by the Constitution Commissioner AIR 1959 the S.C. held that
(1st Amendment) Act, so as to authorise no citizen can waive his F.R.
Govt. to monopolise any business. In constitutional amendment a
The S.C. held that 'the effect of the "law" U/Art. 13(2)
Amendment was to remove the shadow for the purposes of Art. 13, "Law" s
from such impugned Act and free it from defined as including an Ordinance, Order,
all the infirmity. by-Laws, regulation notification, custom or
Post-Constitution Laws- usage having the force of Law.
Art.13(2) prohibits state to make In Shankari Prasad Vs UOI, AIR
any law which takes away or abridges 1951 SC, the S.C. held that the word 'Law'
rights conferred by Part-III. If State makes does not include amendment made by
such a law then it will be void ab initio to Parliament U/Art. 368.
the extent of the contravention. This decision was upheld in Sajjan
Does the doctrine of eclipse apply to a Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965
past const. Law SC. But in Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab,
In Deep Chand Vs. State of U.P. AIR, 1967 SC the S.C. overruled its
AIR, 1959 SC, the S.C. held that a post decision in aforesaid cases, and held that
const. law which contravenes is void ab the word 'Law' in Art. 13(2) includes an
initio and therefore it does not apply to amendment made by Parliament.
such laws. In order to remove the difficulty
But in State of Gujarat Vs Ambica created by the S.C.'s decision in Golak
Mills, AIR 1974, SC the S.C. modified its Nath case the constitution (24th
views as expressed in Deep Chand case Amendment) Act, 1971 was enacted. By
and held that a post const. law which is this Amendment a new clause (4) was
inconsistent with F.Rs is not void in all added in Art.13 which make it clear that
cases. Therefore, the doctrine of eclipse constitutional amendments passed under
will apply to post const. law for those Art.368 shall not be considered as 'law'
persons who are not entitled to F.Rs within the meaning of Art.13.
U/Art.19, i.e. non-citizens. The validity of constitution (24th
In Dulare Loadh Vs III ADJ, Amendment) Act, 1971 was upheld by
Kanpur, AIR,1984, S.C. held that the S.C. in Kesavanand Bharti Vs. State of
doctrine of eclipse will apply to pre Kerala (F.R. Case) AIR 1973 SC. The

Amit Law Institute
court overruled the judgement of Golak

Nath case one held that Parliament has
full power to amend F.R. subject to basic
feature.
Golak Nath case - The validity of the
const. (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, was
challenged.
Kesavanand Bharti case - 24th
Amendment Act, 1971
Minerva Mills Case - 42nd Amendment
Act, 1976.
In Golak Nath case, the S.C. (C.J.
Subba Rao) applied the doctrine of
Prospective overruling and overruled its
earlier decision in Shankari Prasad and
Sajjan Singh's cases and held that
Parliament had no power from the date of
this decision to amend Part-III. It was also
held that this decision will have only
prospective operation and therefore, the
1st 4th and 17th Amendment will continue
to be valid. It means that all cases decided
before the Golak Nath's case shall remain
valid.
Article-14
Equality before Law
Art.14 declares that 'the state shall
not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws Art-14
within the territory of India.
Equality before Law Equal protection of
from Rule of Law- law from American
England Constitution
Rule of Law - Prof. Dicy -
The guarantee of equality before the
law has been copied from Dicy's rule of law in
England. It means that no man is above the
law and that every person whatever be his

Amit Law Institute
rank is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary Indian Constitution and hence it cannot be
courts. destroyed even by an amendment of the
Dicy wrote "every official from the P.M. Constitution U/Art. 368.
to peon/top to bottom is under the same It was again repeated in Indira
responsibility for every act done without legal Sawhney Vs UOI (Mandal Case)
justification as any other citizen". "Any Person" -
Prof. Dicy gave 3 meanings of the rule In Chiranjit Lal Vs UOI, AIR, 1951 SC
of law- it was held that the protection of Art.14
(1) Absence of arbitrary power or supremacy extends to both citizens and non-citizens and
of law - to the natural as well as legal persons.
It means the absolute supremacy of Equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment
law s opposed to the arbitrary power of the of American Const.) -
Govt. In other words a man may be punished This expression is synonymous of the
for a breach of law but he can be punished for expression "equality before law" and direct
nothing else. that the State shall protect every person in
(2) Equality before the law enjoyment of rights and privileges without
It means subjection of all classes to favouritism and discrimination.
the ordinary law of the land administered by In State of W.B. Vs Anwar Ali Sarkar,
ordinary law courts. This means that no one is AIR 1952, SC. It was held that the nature of
above the law. Everyone whether he is an guarantee of both expressions is same and
official or a private person is bound to obey the both are complementary to each other and it is
same law. not possible to think that violation of one shall
(3) The constitution is the result of the no violate other.
ordinary law of the land The expression 'equal protection of
It means that the source of the right of the laws' indicate two things-
individuals is not the written constitution but Firstly - The State shall give the protection
the rule as defined and enforced by the (treatment) of all laws to every person.
Courts. Secondly - Every person is equally entitled to
The first and the second aspects apply that protection.
to Indian System but the 3rd aspect of the Thus Art.14 casts a duty upon state-
Dicey's rule of law does not apply to Indian 1. Not to deny equality before the law.
System as the source of rights of Individuals is (Negative)
the constitution of India. The constitution is the 2. To give equal protection of the laws,
supreme law of the land and all laws passed (Positive)
by the legislature must be consistent with the In Re Special Court Bill case the S.C.
provisions of the constitution. has gives guiding principle of Art.14 that all
Rule of law as 'basic feature' of Constitution- persons one things similarly circumstanced
In Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs Raj Narain shall be treated alike both in privileges
AIR, 1975, SC it was held that the rule of law conferred and liabilitys imposed by the laws.
emboided in Art.14 is the basic feature of the

Amit Law Institute
Thus the rule is that the like should be like should be treated alike and not that unlike
treat alike and not that unlike should be should be treated alike. So, a reasonable
treated alike. classification is not permitted but is necessary
Prof. Jenning - if society is to progress.
Equality before law (Art.14) means Thus, what Art.14 forbids is class
that among equals the law should be equal legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
and should be equal administered, that is like classification. The classification however, must
should be treated alike but unequal treatment not be 'arbitrary', artificial or evasive' but must
of equals is as bad as equal treatment of be based on some real and substantial
unequals. distinction bearing a just and reasonable
By nature all persons are not placed in relation to the object sought to be achieved by
same position so no uniform law can be the legislation.
possible. So what Art.14 said that in equal Art.14 applies where equals are
circumstances law should be treated equally, treated differently without any reasonable
i.e., persons present in similar situation should basis. But where equals and unequals are
be subjected to same law. treated differently, Art.14 does not apply.
Exceptions to Right of Equality under Test of reasonable classification-
Indian Constitution The classification to be reasonable
1. Foreign diplomates are immuned from must fulfill the following two conditions-
jurisdiction of ordinary courts. (1) The classification must be based on
2. Article 361 offers immunity to the intelligible differentia which distinguishes
President of India and State Governors in persons or things which are grouped
Civil and Criminal cases. together from others leftout of the group;
3. Ministers enjoys some discretionary or
powers. (2) the differentia must have a rational
4. Certain members of society like lawyers, relation to the object sought to be
doctors, Armed forces etc. are treated achieved by the Act.
differently from ordinary citizens. New Concept of equality -
5. Art. 31(B), 31 C In E.P. Royappa Vs State of T.N. AIR,
Mains' Questions - 197 the S.C. has changed the traditional
State shall not deny equality before concept of equal which was based on
the law or the equal protection of the laws. reasonable classification and has laid down a
Comment and give exceptions. new concept of equality.
Art.14 prohibits class legislation but permit Justice D.N. Bagwati propounded a
reasonable classification- new concept of equality in the following words-
The equal protection of the laws "Equality is a dynamic concept with many
guaranteed by Art.14 does not mean that aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
every law must have universal application, confined within the traditional concept of
because all persons, by nature are not in the equality".
same petition. It is based on the rule that the

Amit Law Institute
Justice Bhagwati has reaffirmed the S.C. has invalidated the rule of B.C.I
new concept of equality in Maneka Gandhi vs of max. age i.e. 45 years is violative of Art. 14
UOI, AIR, 1978 SC case. 6- Mithu Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1983
In Int. Airport Authority case, the S.C. SC
reiterated (repeated) the same principle in the In this case the S.C. struck down Sec.
following words- 303 IPC as unconstitutional as the ground that
'Art. 14 allows reasonable the classification between persons who
classifications and its strikes arbitraryness in commits murder whilst under imp for life and
State action and ensures fairness and equality persons who are not under imp. for the
of treatment. purpose of making sentence of death
H.M. Seervai has criticised this new mandatory.
concept of equality. 7- Air India Vs Nargesh Meerza, AIR, 1981 SC
Case law on Art.14- The S.C. struck down Air India and
1- Indian Express Newspapers Vs UOI, Indian Airlines regulation Act which gives
(1985) 1 SCC, compulsory retirement on the marriage of Air
It has been held that the classification Hostages.
of newspapers into small, median and big 8- State of Bombay Vs Anwar Ali Sarkar
newspapers on the basis of their circulation for (Special Court Bill Case)
the purposes of levying customs duty on S.C. held that Sec. 5(1) of W.B.
newsprints are not violative of Art.14 Special Court Act, 1950 is wholly void as this
2- D.K.Yadav Vs JMA Industries (1993) 3 Act gives discretionary power to state to
SCC classify the cases which came within the
It has been held that there is no preamble of this Act and held it constitutional.
distinction between causi-judicial and But S.C. overruled this judgment in Re
Administrative functions for the purpose of Sepcial Court Bill Act, (Special Court case).
application of rule of natural justice. 9- Revathi Vs UOI, AIR, 1988
3- Bhagwanti Vs UOI, AIR, 1989 SC The S.C. upheld Sec.198(2) C.P.C.
It has been held that the classification and 497 IPC as constitutional. It was
marriage during service and marriage after contended that the right to prosecute the
retirement for the purpose of giving family adulterer is only given to husband of
pension is abirtrary and violative of Art.14. adulteress but has not been given to wife of
4- Randhir Singh Vs UOI, AIR, 1982, SC adulterer.
S.C. has held that although the 10- C.I.W.T. Corp. Ltd. Vs Brojo Nath, AIR,
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not 1986
expressly declare by our Const. to be a F.R. It is rule of natural justice is applied in
but it is certainly a Const. goal U/Articles-14, Art.14.
16 and 39(d). 11-BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs UOI,
5- The Indian Council of Legal aid and advice AIR 2002 SC
Vs B.C.I., (1995) S.C. has taken the view that there can
be no ju. review of economic policy of the

Amit Law Institute
Govt. unless there is violation of the S.C. has held that Sec.118 of Indian
constitution or any Act. Succession Act, 1926 is discretionary and
12- Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 violative of Art.14.
SC 17. Javed Vs State of Haryana, AIR, 2003 SC
In this landmark judgment the S.C. S.C. held that the Haryana Panchayat
has laid down exhaustive guidelines to prevent Raj Act which disqualifies a person having
sexual harassment of working woman in more than 2 children to be candidate in
places of their work unless a legislation is Panchayat Election, is not violative of Art.14
enacted for this purpose. 18. Chiranjit Singh Vs UOI
The petition was filed by way of P/L for The S.C. held that a single individual
the enforcement of rights of working woman may constitute a class.
under Article 14, 19 and 21 and in finding Education can be a basis of
suitable method for realization of true concept classification.
of gender equality. 19. Sarbanand Sonowal Vs UOI, AIR 2005
13- AIIMS Students Union VS AIIMS 2001 S.C. held that Illegal Migrants
S.C. has held that institutional (Determination by Tribunal) Act 1983 violates
(incampus) reservation in P.G. courses is void Act 14 hence void ............
as violatining Art.14. It was laid down that P.G.
Course admission must be on merit basis.
14- R.K. Garg Vs UOI, AIR, 1981
This case is popularly known as the
Bearer Bond's Case. The S.C. upheld the
validity of Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities
and exemption) Act upon the ground that the
classification made by the Act between
persons having black money and persons
having not black money was based on
intelligible differentia having rational relation
with the object of the Act.
15- Danial Latifi Vs UOI, AIR, 2001 SC
The validity of Sec-3 & 4 of the Muslim
Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
198 was challenged on the ground that it was
violative of Art.14. The S.C. upheld the valdiity
of Section 3 & 4 and hence after dissolution of
marriage of a muslim woman cannot claim
maintenance U/Sec.125 Cr.P.C. but they can
claim this maintenance under the provisions of
this Act.
16. John Vollamattom Vs UOI, AIR 2003 SC

Amit Law Institute
children. It is because of women and

children require special treatment an
account of their very nature.
(3) Art.15(4), this clause was added by
the Const.
(1st Amendment) Act, 1951 as a
result of the decision in State of Madras
Vs. Champakam Dorairajan. To multiply
this decision of S.C., Art-15 was amended
and new clause (4) was added.
Under clause (4) the state is
empowered to make special provisions for
the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens
or for the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes.
Article-15 The provisions made under clause
By clause (1) of Art-15 the state is (4) is only an enabling provision and does
prohibited to discriminate between citizens not impose any obligation on the State to
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, take any special action under it. It merely
sex, place of birth or any of them. confers a discretion to ac if necessary by
But the word "only" used in Art- way of making special provisions.
15(1) indicate that if the other ground is (4) Art-15 (5), this clause has been added
also added the state may discriminate. by 93rd Constitution Amendment Act,
for eg. - Classification only the ground of 2005. This amendment has been done to
sex only is wrong but if it is based on sex nullify the judgment of S.C. in cases of
+ physical fitness then it is valid, i.e.- T.M. Pai Foundation Vs State of
employment in heavy industries. Similarly, Karnataka, AIR, 2003 SC. Islamic
nursing job is suitable to woman only. Academy Vs State of Karnataka, AIR,
Exceptions of Art.15(1)- 2003, SC P.A. Inamdar Vs State of
Art. 15(1) has certain exceptions in Maharastra, AIR, 2005, SC.
which state can make discrimination only In the above cases the S.C. had
on above grounds- held that the state cannot make
(1) In Army, nursing job, heavy industries reservation of seats in admission in
etc. privately run educational institutions.
(2) Art-15(3) empowers the state to make The new clause (5) empowers the
special provisions for women and State to make any special provision of

Amit Law Institute
reservation for the advancement of any race or tribe can be done by Parliament by
socially and educationally backward law.
classes of citizens or for the SCs or the Under Art.342 the President may
STs in respect of admissions to with the Governor of the State, by public
educational institutions including private notification, specify the tribes or tribal
educational institutions. But those private communities which for the purposes of
educational institutions which are this constitution be deemed to be STs in
established by minorities under Art.30(1), relation to that state.
the provision clause (5) of Art-15 will not The Parliament may by law include
apply. or exclude from the list of STs specified in
What are backward classes - Art.340 the notification issued as above.
The word "backward classes" has NOTE:- In case of SCs and STs, the
not been defined in the constitution. President is the sole authority to
Art.340 empowers the President of India determine as who are SCs and STs.
to appoint a commission to investigate High Caste Girl marrying Scheduled Tribe-
conditions of socially and educationally Art.15(4)
backward classes. On the basis of the In Dr. Neelima Vs Dean of P.G.
report of the commission the President Studies, A.P. Agriculture University,
may specify who are to be considered as Hyderabad, AIR 1993 it has been held
backward classes. On this report the State that if a female of high caste marrying a
may reserve the posts for backward boy belonging to STs is not entitled to the
classes. The recommendation/report is benefit of reservation available to STs.
subjected to judicial review. Art.16
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Equality of opportunity in public
Tribes -Art-341 and 342 employment
The constitution does not define as Clauses(1) and (2) of Art-16 lay
to who are persons who belong to SCs down the general rule that no citizen can
and STs. Art-341 and 342, however, be discriminated against or be ineligible
empower the President to draw up a list of for any "employment" or "office" under the
these castes and tribes. State on grounds only of religion, race,
Under Art-341 the President after caste, sex, descent residence, or place of
consultation of the Governor with respect birth.
of the State, specify the casts, races or Exceptions- Art.16 (1) and (2)
tribes for the purpose of the constitution. The above general rule has
Any inclusion or exclusion from the following exceptions-
Presidential notifications of any caste,

Amit Law Institute
(1) Art.16(3)- The Parlament may by law amende Act 16 and added new clause
discriminate between citizens on the 4(B).
basis of "residence". Art-16(4)
(2) Art.16(4)- The state can make It empowers the State to make any
provision for the reservation of provision for the reservation of backward
appointments or posts in favour of any classes in public employment, provided it
backward class of citizen. must fulfill the following two conditions-
(3) Art.16(5)- Officers connected with (1) Such person must belong to B.C. of
religion institutions may be reserved citizen,
for that community. (2) Such class is not adequately
Clause 4(A) has been added by represented in the service of the
77th Amendment Act, 1995 which State.
empowers the State to make any Balaji Vs State of Mysore, AIR 1963
provision for reservation for promotion for The S.C. held the following
SCs and STs and further 85th determination-
Amendment has made a change in it and (1) Caste should not be sole basis for
it gives power to State to give reservation reservation
with consequential seniority (retrospective (2) No distinction between backward
promotion) class and more B.C.
Clause 4(B) has been added by (3) Art.16(4) is an exception to Art.16(1)
81st Amendment Act, 2000 which seeks (4) Reservation limit should not exceed
to end 50% limit for SCs and STs and 50%
OBCs in backlog vacancies which could Indra Sawhney Vs UOI - The Mandal
not be filled up due to the non-availability Case AIR, 1993
of eligible candidates of these categories The scope and extent of Art.16(4)
in the previous year or years. has been examined thoroughly by the
Devadasan Vs UOI, AIR, 1964 the S.C. in this case, popularly known as
SC struck down the "carry forward rule" Mandal case. The majority opinion of S.C.
for reservation of SCs and STs in public as various aspects of reservation of given
employment and held it as in Art.16(4) may be summarised as
unconstitutional. But in Indra Sawhne Vs follows-
UOI, AIR, 1993 the S.C. has overruled its (1) Bakward class of citizen in Art.16(4)
above previous judgment and held that can be identified on the basis of caste
"the carry forward rule" is valid but and not only on economic basis. At
reservation limit should not exceed 50%. this point court has overruled its
To nullify this judgment of 50% previous judgment in Balaji case.
limit in backlog vacancies, Parliament

Amit Law Institute
(2) Art 16(4) is not an exception to but creamy layer should be excluded from
Art.16(1). It is an instance of it.
classification. At this point SC has M. Nagrajan Vs UOI, 2007
overruled its pre-judgment in Balaji S.C. has held that Art.16 (4A), Art.-
case. 16(4A) and Art.335 (proviso) is
(3) Backward classes in Art.16(4) are not constitutionally valid.
similar to as socially and educationally Art.17
backward in Art.15(4). Abolition of Untouchability
Art. 16(4) does not contain Art.17 abolished 'untouchability'
qualifying word "socially and and forbids its practice in any form. It
educationally backward class" as provides that the enforcement of any
does in Art.15(4). disability arising out of untouchability is to
(4) Creamy layer must be excluded from be an offence punishable in accordance
backward classes. with law. "Untouchability" has not been
(5) Art.16(4) permits classification of defined.
backward classes into backward and In exercise of the powers
more backward classes. At this point conferred by Art.35/17, Pariament has
S.C. has overruled the Balaji case. enacted the Untouchability (offence) Act
(6) Reservation should not exceed 50% 1955. This Act was amended by the
but in area like Nagaland, it can be Untouchability (Offences) Amendment
exceeded. Act, 1976, in order to make law more
(7) Reservation can be made by an stringent to remove untouchability from
"Executive Order It need not be made the Society. It has now been renamed as-
by Parliament or Legislature. The Protective of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
(8) No reservation in promotions The expression "Civil Rights" is defined as
th
But parliament by 77 Const. 'any right accruing to a person by reason
Amendment Act, has added new of the abolition of untouchability by Art.17.
clause 4A to Art.16 to nullify this It should be noted that Art.15(2)
judgment. Now reservation can be also helps in eradication of untouchability.
made in promotion. Thus on grounds of untouchability no
Any dispute regarding report of person can be denied excess to shops,
Mandal Commission can be raised in S.C. public restaurants, hotels and places of
only. entertainment or the use of wells, tanks,
Ashok Thakur Vs UOI, 2008 bathing ghats, road and places of public
S.C. has held that reservation of resort maintained wholly or partly out of
OBC in Central Govt. Institutions is valid state funds.

Amit Law Institute
To finish untouchability and to of exceptional and distinguished services

save people from atrocities the Govt. has of the high integrity in any field.
enacted a statute known as SC/ST In Balaji Raghwan Vs UOI (1996)
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. the petitioners challenged the validity of
Art.18 these National award and requested the
Abolition of Titles court to prevent Govt. from conferring
Art.18(1) prohibits the State to these awards.
confer titles on any body whether a citizen The S.C. held that these National
or a non-citizen. But Military and Awards do not amount to "titles" within the
Academic distinctions are exempted from meaning of Art.18
this prohibition. In view of clause (f) of Art.51A(f.
Clause (2) prohibits a citizen of duties) it is necessary that these should
India from accepting any title from any be a system of award and decorations to
foreign State. recognise excellence in performance of
Clause (3) provides that a duties.
foreigner holding any office of profit or Right to Freedom (Art.19 -22)
trust under the State cann't accept any Personal Liberty
title from any foreign state without the Personal liberty is the most
consent of the President. important of all F.Rs. Art-19-22 deal with
Clause (4) provides that no person different aspects of this basic rights.
holding any of profit or trust under the Art.19 - The Six freedoms-
State shall accept, with the consent of the Art.19 guarantees to the citizens of
President any present, emolument or India the following six fundamental
office of any kind or under any foreign freedoms-
state. (1) Art.19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and
Military Title - Major, Captain, Carnel, expression. (2)
General, etc. (2) Art.19(1)(b) - Freedom of assembly.
Academic title - Professor, Dr. etc. (3)
The result conferment of titles of (3) Art.-19(1)(c) - Freedom to form
"Bharat Padma Vibhushan", "Padma Shri" associations. (4)
etc. are not prohibited as they merely (4) Art.19(1)(d) - Freedom of movement
denote State recognition of good work by throughout India,
citizens in the various fields of activity. (5) Art.19(1)(e) - Freedom to reside and
These National award seems to fit in settle. 95)
within the category of "academic (6) Art.19(1)(g) - Freedom of profession,
distinctions". These National award are occupation, trade or business. (6)
given on the Republic Day in recognition

Amit Law Institute
These 'six freedoms' are not (4) It provides a mechanism by which it

absolute. The guarantee of the above would be possible to establish a
rights is restricted by the Const. itself by reasonable balance between stability
conferring upon the State a power to and avoid change.
impose by law reasonable restrictions as Freedom of Press -
may be necessary in the larger interest of The freedom of speech and
the community. The restrictions on these expression including liberty to propgate
freedoms are provided in clauses (2) to (6) not one's views/ideas only but the
of Art.19. views/ideas of other people also. Thus this
Right to property [Art.19(1)(f) and Art.31] freedom includes the freedom of the
The fundamental right to property press.
has been abolished by Const. 44th Lord Mansfield in Lowell Vs Griffin
Amendment Act, 197. Now this right of (19........) defined the "freedom of press"
property is only a constitutional right under as it consists in printing without any
Art.300-A. licence subject to the consequences of
Freedom of Speech and expression law, i.e. it should not violate any general
Art.19(1)(a) and A-1992) law of the country. This freedom of press
Freedom of 'speech and express' is not confined to newspapers but also to
means the right to express one's own idea other modes by which a person
or opinion freely by words of mouth, communicates its ideas.
writing, printing, pictures or any other In Romesh Thoper Vs State of
mode (media). The word "expression" has Madras, AIR, 1950 S.C. has held that the
a wide interpretation. It thus includes the freedom of speech and expression log is
expression of one' ideas through any foundation of all Democratic organization
communicable medium or visible and without free political discussion and
representation, such as gesture, signs and public education, no function of popular
the like. Govt. is possible.
Purposes - Indian Express Newspapers In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs Asstt.
Vs UOI (1985). Comm. Tax Officer (1994) S.C. has held
Freedom of expression has four that no sales tax can be imposed on sale
broad special purposes to serve - of newspapers in the country. However,
(1) It helps an individual to attain self the court clarified that this does not mean
fulfillment. that press is not immune from taxes
(2) It assist in the discovery of truth. imposed from general laws.
(3) It strengthens the capacity of an Shakal Papers Ltd. VS UOI, AIR,
individual in participating in decision 1962.
making, and Pre-censorship-invalid

Amit Law Institute
In Brij Bhusan Vs State of Delhi, Dinesh Trivedy Vs UOI

AIR,1950 the S.C. has held that the LIC Vs Manubhai
imposition of censorship on a journal Right to Information Act, 2005
previous to its publication would amount to UOI Vs Asso. for Democratic
an infringement of Art.19(1)(a). The court Reforms. AIR, 200.......S.C. has held that
further held that restrictions can only be the people have F.R. to know about the
imposed on grounds mentioned in candidates who are going to contest
Art.19(2). election. These information are like- their
R. Rajagopl Vs State of T.N. educational qualification, assets, cr.
(1994)- Auto Shanke Case - The S.C. has records, pending cases and their liabilities
held that the Government has no authority towards Govt. (loan etc.)
to impose a prior-restraint upon National Anthem (song) case - Bijoe
publication of defamatory materials Emmanual Vs State of Kerala (1986)
against its officials. They could take action The S.C. has held that no person
for damages after the publication of such can completed to sing the national
material if they prove that the publication anthem, if he has genuine conscientious
was based on false facts. objections based on his religious faith.
Ministry of I & B Vs Cricket Asso.of UOI Vs Naveen Jindal the S.C.
Bengla (1995) - S.C. has held that the has held that the right to fly national flag
Govt. has no monopoly on electronic freely with respect and dignity is a F.R.
media and a citizen has U/Art. 19(1)(a) a within the meaning of Art.19(1)(a). It being
right to telecaste and broadcaste to the "expression of nationalism.
viewers/listeners through electronic Right to "Commercial Speech" /
media. The imposition of restriction can advertisement -
only be possible on grounds mentioned Tata Press Ltd. Vs MTNL
U/Art.19(2). Grounds of restrictions - Art.19(2)
Communist Party of India Vs Art.19(2) contains the grounds on
Bharat Kumar & Others, AIR, 1998 - S.C. which restrictions on the 'freedom of
has held that calling for and holding of speech and expression" can be imposed-
"Bandh" by political party or organisation (1) Sovereignty and integrity of India
is unconstitutional as it violates the F.R. of (added by 16th Const. Am. Act) -
citizens U/Art.19(1)(a) and 21 in addition 124A, 153A IPC
to causing national loss. (2) Security of the State - for eg. wage
Kameshwar Singh Vs State of war, rebellion
Bihar, AIR, 1962 - Demonstration or (3) Public Order - for eg. Sec.144 Cr.P.C.
picketing is protected U/Art. 19(1)(b). (by 1st Amend)
Right to know -

Amit Law Institute
(4) Friendly relation with foreign states Art.19(1)(C) guarantees to all

(by 1st Amend) citizens of India the right to form
(5) Decency Morality - for eg. 292-294 associations and Unions". It also includes
IPC a right to form company, society, political
In Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs State of parties and not to form or join any
Maharashtra, Act, 1965 the S.C. accepted association.
the test laid down in the English case of R. Restrictions - (1) Sovereignty and Integrity
Vs Hicklin to judge the obscenity of a of India (2) Public order (3) Morality.
matter. In this case the court upheld the Art-19(1)(d) and Art.19(5)
conviction of the appellant, a book seller, Freedom of Movement
who was prosecuted U/s 292 IPC for Art.19(1)(d) guarantees the
selling and keeping the book. "The lady citizens of India the right "to move freely
Chatterly's Lover". Applying the above throughout the territory of India". It is to be
test, the court held the novel as absence. noted that Jammu & Kashmir is not a part
(6) Contempt of Court. of India. In other words, this Article
(7) Defemation - for eg. 499 IPC guarantee to citizens to go wherever they
(8) Incitement to an offence. like in Indian Territory without any kind of
Art.19(1)(b) and 19(3) restrictions whatsoever.
Freedom of Assembly peaceable Restrictions- The State may under Clause
Art.19(1)(b) guarantees to all (5) of Art.19 impose reasonable
citizens of India right to assemble restrictions on the "freedom of movement
peaceably and without arms". This right of on two grounds-
assembly includes the right to hold (1) In the interest of general public.
meeting and to take out processions. (2) For the protection of the interest of
Restrictions- Scheduled Tribes.
The above right is subjected to In State of U.P. Vs Kaushalya AIR,
following restrictions- 1964 the S.C. has held that the right of
1. The assembly must be peaceable. movement of prostitutes may be restricted
2. It must be unarmed. on grounds of public health and in the
3. Reasonable restrictions U/Art.19(3) i.e. interest of public morals.
a. the sovereignty and integrity of In Ranjit Kappoor Vs UOI, 2007 it
India. has been held that the requirement of
b. Public order - for eg. -107, 144, wearing helmet is not a restriction free
150, 151, 129 CPC. movement of citizen. It is to save his life.
Art. 19(1)(c) and Art 19(4) For protection of interest of S.T.
Freedom to form Associations & Unions the restriction can be imposed. These
tribes have their own cultural, language,

Amit Law Institute
customs and manners. It was feared that Second Part- This part of clause (6) of
uncontrolled mixing of the tribes with the Art.19 has been added by 1st Const.
people of other areas might produce Amendment Act, 1951.
Art.19(1) (e) and 19(5) (i) Professional and technical
Freedom of Residence qualifications- The State can by prescribe
According to Art. 19(1)(e) every professional or technical qualification
citizen of India has the right "to reside and necessary for practising any profession or
settle in any part of the territory of India". carrying on any occupation, trade or
It is to be noted that the state of business.
Jammu & Kashmir is not a part of India, for eg. - Medical Practise-MBBS degree is
hence no citizen has a right to settle in necessary.
Jammu & Kashmir. Law Practise-LL.B. degree is necessary.
Restrictions- (ii) State trading and nationalization-
(1) In the interest of general public Clause (6) (ii) enables the State to
(2) For the protection of S.T. nationalise any trade or business. This
Art.19(1)(g) and Art.19(6) clause was added by Const. 1st
Freedom of profession, occupation, trade Amendment Act, 1951. This Amendment
or business. had become necessary as a result of the
Art.19(1)(g) guartees that all decision in the case of Motilal Vs U.p.
citizens shall have the right to practise any Govt., AIR, 1951
profession, or to carryon any occupation, Sadan Singh Vs UOI
trade or business. This right not an Olga Telis Vs State of Maharashtra
absolute, It can be restricted and Establishment of Educational Institution-
regulated by authority of law. In P.A. Inamdar Vs State of
Restrictions- Under clause (6) of Art.19 Maharashtra, AIR, 2005 - the S.C. has
the state is authorised to impose held that the right to establish an
reasonable restrictions on this right. Thus education Institution, for charity or profit,
State can U/clause (6) make any law. being an occupation is guaranteed U/Art.-
First Part - imposing reasonable restriction 19(1)(g) to all citizens and to minorities
on this right in the interest of general U/Art.-30.
public- The expression "in the interest of Hawker's Right to trade on pavement of
gen. public in Art.19(6) is of wide import Roads-
comprehending public order, public health, In Sodan Singh Vs Delhi Municiple
public security, morals, economic welfare Committee AIR, 1989 the S.C. has held
of the community and the object that hawkers have a F.R to carry on trade
mentioned in Part-IV of the constitution. or business on pavement of roads, but

Amit Law Institute
subjected to reasonable restrictions was prescribed in the statute at the time of

U/Art.-19(6). commission of crime. But the accused can
State Lotteries not trade or business, but take benefit of it i.e. if punishment of any
gambling- crime is reduced during trial the benefit of
In M/s B.R. Enterprises Vs State of it must be given to the accused but if the
U.P., AIR, 1929 S.C. has held that punishment is increased after the date of
lotteries are not trade or business but a commission of crime, the accused will not
gambling and hence not protected U/Art.- be subjected to such inhance punishment.
19(1)(g) and Art.-301-303 of constitution. In Ratan Lal Vs State of Punjab
Prohibition on sale of eggs within AIR, 1965 a bay of 16 years convicted and
municipal limit of Rishikesh is reasonable sentenced to 6 months r.i. U/s 354 IPC.
restrictions- After the judgment the Probation of
In Om Prakash Vs State of U.P., Offenders Act, 1958, came into force. It
AIR, 2004 S.C. has held that restriction on provides that a person below 21 years of
sale of 'eggs' and meat in three age should not ordinarily be sentenced to
municipalities, namely -Rishikesh, imprisonment. S.C. held that 'an ex post
Haridwar and Har Ke Peti (Muni ke Peti) is facto law' which is beneficial to the
not unreasonable restriction on freedom of accused is not prohibited by Art.20(1).
trade and commerce given U/Art.19(1)(g). - Imposition of tax is civil liability. So it can
Art.20 be Retrospectively inhanced.
Protection in respect of conviction for Protection against double jeopardy -
offences Art.20(2) says that 'no person shall
Art-20 provides the following be prosecuted and punished for the same
safeguards to the persons accused of offence more than once. The protection
crime- under Art.20(2) is narrower than that given
(1) Clause (1) - Ex post facto law - (No in American and British Constitutions.
retrospective effect of cr. law) Under American and British Const. the
(2) Clause (2) - Double jeopardy/memo protection against double jeopardy is
debet vis vexari/Autre fois convict- given for second prosecution for
(No man should be put twice in peril .......offence irrespective of whether an
for the same offence) accused was acquitted or convicted in the
(3) Clause (3) - Prohibition against sefl- first trial.
incrimination. Protection against self-incrimination-
Art 20(1) makes/declares that Cr. Art. 20(3) provides that no person
law shall have retrospective effect/ accused of any offence shall be compelled
operation. An accused cannot be to be a witness against himself.
convicted for greater punishment than that

Amit Law Institute
Explaining the scope of this clause Art-21

in M.P. Sharma Vs Satish Candra, AIR, Protection of life and personal liberty
1954 the S.C. observed that this right Art-21 says that -
embodies the following essentials- "No person shall be deprived of his
(1) Person must be accused of an life or personal liberty except according to
offence. procedure established by law".
(2) It is protection against "compulsion to Art.21 confers on every person the
be a witness". F.R. of life and personal liberty. This right
State of Bombay Vs Kathikalu, AIR is available to citizens as well as non-
1961. citizens. A person can be deprived of his
Parshadi Vs U.P. State, AIR, 1957 life and personal liberty if two conditions
In both cases it has been held that are complied with -
information given by accused after First - there must be a law, and
arrest to Police Officer which leads to Second - there must be a procedure
the discovery of a fact U/s-27. IEA is prescribed by that provided that the
admissible in evidence U/Art.20(3) procedure is just, fair and reasonable.
and Sec.27 EA is constitutionally Life and Liberty -
valid. In A.K. Gopalan Vs UOI, AIR, 1950
(3) It is protection against such S.C. has defined the expression "life and
compulsion relating to his giving liberty" in a very narrow concept and held
evidence "against himself" that life and liberty means life of physical
In Nandini Satpathy Vs P.L. Dani , existence and freedom from
AIR 1977 S.C. has held that unlawful/arbitrary detention.
protection given U/ Art.20(B) is also But in Kharak Singh Vs State of
extended to police investigation and U.P. AIR 1963 the S.C. has defined the
not only trial stage. expression "life and liberty in a broad
In Usufalli Vs State of Maharashtra, terms and followed the difinition of life and
AIR 1968, S.C. held that tape liberty" given by Justice field (U.S.) in the
recorded statement of accused case of Munn Vs Illinois (1876) and held
though made without knowledge of that the expression used here is
accused and without force or something more than mere animal
oppression is admissible evidence. existence and it contains all those rights
In Amrit Singh Vs State of Punjab, by which life can be enjoyed.
AIR 2007 it has been held that asking Maneka Gandhi's Case -New Demension
an accused of his hair for purpose of In Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI, AIR,
identification amount testimonial 1978 the S.C. has not only overruled
compulsion.

Amit Law Institute
Gopalan's case but has widened the judgement, Justice Bhagwati held that the
scope of the words 'personal liberty'. order of impounding passport is not only
Justice Bhagwati observed that - breach of statutory provisions (Passport
the expression 'personal liberty' in Art.21 Act) but also Art.-14, 19 and 21. Sec.10(3)
is of widest amblitude and it covers a (c) was not declared to be
variety of rights which go to constitute the uncon.........because Central Government
personal liberty of man and some of them has agreed to make changes in Passport
have raised to the status of distinct F.Rs Act so that the person whose passport is
and given additional protection U/Art.19. impounded could be given reason for
Facts - impounding.
In the present case the petitioner's Procedure established by law -
passport was impounded by the Central This expression means procedure
Govt. U/s 10(3)(c) Passport Act, 1967. laid down by a statute or law accordingly.
The Act authorised the Government to do There are three conditions which the law
so if it was necessary in the interest of the has to follow-
general public. The Govt. of India declined (1) There must be a law justifying
in the interest of the general public to interference with life and personal
furnish the reason for impounding. liberty.
The petitioner challenged the (2) Such law must be a valid law.
validity of the said order of impounding on (3) Procedure laid down by that law
the following grounds- should have been strictly followed.
(1) Sec-10 (3)(c) was violative of Art.14 In Maneka Gandhi case, Justice
as conferring an arbitrary power since Bhagwati held that "the procedure
it did not provide opportunity of established by law" under Art.21 must
hearing before impounding the follow the test of reasonableness (Art.21)
passport. Natural Justice as well as Art.19. In other
(2) Sec.10(3)(c) was violative of Art.21, words the law must be just, fair and
since it did of prescribe 'procedure' reasonable.
within the meaning of Art.21. In Mithu Vs State of Punjab, AIR,
(3) Sec.10(3)(c) was violative of Art.19(1) 1983. S.C. has held Sec.303 IPC
(a) and (g) since it permitted unconstitutional being unreasnable and
imposition of restriction not provided hence violative of Art.21 read with Art.14.
in clause (2) or (6) of Art.19. Before this case S.C. has only test the
The S.C. held that the Government validity of procedural law but in this case it
was not justified in withholding the has checked the validity of substantive
reasons for impounding the passport from law.
the petition. Deliver.....the majority Relationship among Articles - 14, 19 & 21-

Amit Law Institute
In A.K. Gopalan's case the S.C. Art.20 and 21 will never be suspended
has denied any relationship between during proclamation of emergency.
Art.19 and 21. It stated that both rights are What is expanding horizon of Art.21-
different in origin and the validity of any
law passed U/Art.21 cannot be checked
U/Art.19. In other words ARt.21 has not
application enacted U/Art.21. Thus the
view taken by the majority in the above
case was that so long as a law of
preventive detention satisfies the
requirements of Art.22 it would not be
required to meet the challenges of Art.19.
But in Maneka Gandhi case the
S.C. has overruled its previous its
previous views/judgment given in A.K.
Gopalan case and held that Art.21 and 19
are will connected (21 is controlled by 19)
and any procedural law passed under
Art.21 must fulfill the test of Art.19 as well
as the test of reasonableness as laid
down under Art.14.
The S.C. observed -
The law must therefore now be
settled that Art.21 does not exclude Art.19
and that even if there is a law prescribing
a procedure for depriven a person of
personal liberty, and there is consequently
no infringment of the F.R. conferred by
Art.21. Such a law in so far as it abridges
or takes away any F.R. U/Art.19 would
have to meet the challenges of that Art.
(19). Thus a law depriving a person of his
personal liberty has not only to stand the
test of Art.21 but it must stand the test of
Art.19 and Art.14 of constitution.
44th Const. Amendment Act, 1978
amended Art.359 and according to it

Amit Law Institute
any civilised society implies the right to food,

water, decent environment education, medical
care and shelter.
(5) Virginity test violates Art-21-
In Surjit Singh Thind Vs Kanwaljit Kaur
the Punjab Haryana H.C. held that allowing
medical examination of a woman for her
virginity amounts to violation of her right to
privacy and personal liberty enshrined
U/Art.21.
(6) Right to medical assistance -
In Parmananda Katara Vs UOI, AIR,
1989 the S.C. has held that it is the
Leading cases of Art.21- professional obligation of all doctors, whether
(1) Right to live with human dignity- Government or private to extend medical aid
In Maneka Gandhi's case the court to the injured immediately to preserve life
gave a new dimension to Art.21. It held that without waiting legal foramlities to be complied
right to 'live' is not merely confined to physical with by the police under Cr.P.C. Act 21 casts
existence but it includes within its ambit the the obligation on the state to preserve life.
right to live with human dignity. (7) Right to die - not a F.R. U/Art.21-
(2) Right to livelihood- In P. Rathinam Vs UOI (1994) a
In Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municiple division been of S.C. agreeing with the view of
Corp. AIR, 1986 popularly known as pavement the Bombay M. in Maruti Sripati Dubal Case
dewellers case the court ruled that the life in (1st case in this regard) held that "the right to
Art.21 includes the right to livelihood also. live" in Art.21 includes "the right not to live"
(3) Right to privacy- and declared Sec.309 IPC as unconstitutional.
In PUCL Vs UOI AIR, 1997 (Phone But in Gian Kaur Vs State of Punjab
Taping Case) the S.C. has held that telephone (1996) a five judge constitution Bench of S.C.
tapping is a serious invasion of an individuals has now overruled the P.Rathinam's case and
right to privacy which is part of the right to life held that "right to life" U/Art.21 does not
and personal liberty enshrined U/Art.24 and it include "right to die' or "right to be killed".
should not be resorted to by the State unless The court according held that Sec.309
there is public emergency or interest of public IPC is not violative of Art.21 of the
safety requires. Constitution.
(4) Right to shelter - (8) Right to get pullution free water and air-
In Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. M.C. Metha Vs UOI (1996) Vellore
(1996) The S.C. has held that right to shelter is Citizen's Welfare Forum Vs UOI (1996). The
a F.R. U/Art.21. Right to live as human being S.C. has held that pollution free water and air
is secure benefit only when he is assured of all is included in 'right to life" U/Art.-21. Court held
facilities to himself. Right to live guaranteed in that the 'Precautionary and Polluter pays

Amit Law Institute
principles (essential features of sustainable childhood care and education to children

development) have been accepted as part of below 6 years of age.
law of the land. Art.21 guarantees protection of Further this amendment added
life and personal liberty. Arts. 47, 48A and Art.51A(K) which provides that it is the duty of
51A(g) mandate to protect and imfront the parents or Guardian to provide opportunity for
environment. Apart from it many legislation education to his chilldren or ward between the
cast ....................... age of 6-14 years.
(9) Noise Pollution : Art.21 includes freedom (11) Right of prisoner/right against solitary
from noise - confinement
In In Re Noise Pollution, AIR 2005 the The protection of Art.21 is available
S.C. has held that U/Art.21 every person has even to convicts in jail the Sunil Batra Vs Delhi
the right to live with a noise free atmosphere Adm. AIR198. The S.C. has held that the writ
which cannot be defeated by exercise of right of habeas corpus can be issued not only for
U/Art.-19(1)(a). The S.C. has issued directions releasing a person from illegal detention but
in this regard U/Art.-141 and 142 and held that also for protecting prisoners from in human
it shall be binding on Govts. and municipal and barbarous treatment.
authorities in every cities. In Babu Singh Vs State of U.P. AIR
(10) Right to education is F.R. U/Art-21- 1978 it was held that 'refusal to grant bail' in a
Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka (1992) murder case without reasonable ground would
Unni Krishnan Vs State of A.P. (1993) amount to deprivation of personal liberty.
In Mohini Jain's case, S.C. has held (12) Right to free legal aid-
that the right to education is a F.R. U/Art.-21 M.H. Hoskot Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 197
which cannot be denied to a citizen by 9
charging higher fee known as "Capilation fee". Hussainara Khatun Vs State of Bihar AIR 1979
But in Unnikrishnana's case the S.C. It has been held that is F.R. as in the
partly overruled the Mohini Jain case and held duty U/Art.39A to "free legal aid provide state
that the right to free education is available only to poor.
to a children until they complete the age of 14 (13) Right to speedy trial -
years. But if that the obligation of State to In Hussainara Khatun Vs State of
provide education is subject to the limits of its Bihar S.C. has held that the right to speedy
economic capacity. Arts.41, 45 and 46 makes trial F.R. flowing from Art.21 is available to
obligation on State to provide from education accused at all stages namely the stage of
to children. investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision
The Constitution (86th Ame.) Act, 2002 and retrial.
This Amendment Act, added Art-21A (14) Right against handcuffing -
which provides for free and compulsory
education to all children of age 6 to 14 years is
F.R.
Further this amendment has made
changes in Art.45 which provides for early

Amit Law Institute
In Prem Shanker Vs Delhi Adm. AIR, In Deena Vs. UOI (1983) the
1980 the S.C. held that the handcuffing should Constitution validity of Sec.354(5) Cr.P.C. was
be resorted to only when there is "clear and challenged on the ground that hanging by rope
present danger to escape" breaking out the as prescribed by this section was barbarous,
police control are for this there must be clear in human and degrading and therefore
material not more in an assumption. violative of Art.21.
(15) Compulsory blood test to determine The Court held it. const. valid.
paternity violates Art.21 (18) Right against public hanging -
In Ningammer Vs Chikkaih AIR 2000 In Attorney Gen. Vs Laxma Devi AIR,
the Karnataka H.C. has held that compelling a 1986 S.C. held .................
person to submit himself to med. examination (19) Protection against illegal arrest and
of his blood test without his consent or against detention-
his wish amounts to interference with his F.R. Joginder Kr. Vs. State of U.P. (1994)
of life or liberty and hence such order is In D.K. Basu Vs State of W.B. (AIR 1997)
violative of Art.21. The S.C. has given detailed guidelines
(16) Right to food - to be followed in all cases of arrest and
In PUCI Vs. UOI (2000) the S.C. has detention. The guidelines (protection) flow
held that the people who are starving because from Arts.-21 and 22 hence it must be strictly
of their inability to purchase foodsgrains have followed.
right to get food U/Art.21. They should be (20) Custodial death -
provided food free of cost by State out of Nilawati Behera Vs State of Orissa (1999)
surplus food stock. In Shakila Abdul Gafar Vs V. R. Dhokle AIR
(16) Smoking but public place is violation of 2000
Art.21 The S.C. directed the state to pay
In Murli H. Deora Vs UOI, AIR 2002. compensation to the family of deceased.
S.C. has held that smoking at public place is (21) Right to debtor -
violation of Art.21 and hence illegal. The Court In Jolly George Varghese Vs Bank of
directed Governments to immediately issue Cochin, the S.C. has held that the arrest and
orders banning smoking in public places like- detention of any honest judgment debtor in
Hospital, health institute public offices, public civil prison, who has no more to pay debt (in
transports, court buildings, edu. institutions, absence of malafide and dishonesty) violates
libraries and auditoriums. Art.21.
(17) Death Sentence and Art.21 (22) AIDS patients have right to employment-
In Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab In 'X' Vs 'Y' case the Court held that
AIR 1983 the S.C. held that the provision of the AIDS patients have F.R. to employment.
death penalty U/s 302 IPC as an alternative (23) Right to move abroad -
punishment for murder is not violative of
Art.21, but it must be awarded in "rasest of the
rare cases".

Amit Law Institute
In Satwant Singh Vs Asstt. Passport (28) Prevention of sexual harrassment of

Office New Delhi, AIR 1967 the S.C. further working women -
extended the scope of Art.21 and held that the In Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR
"right to travel abroad' was part of a person's 1997, the S.C. has laid down exhaustive
personal liber within the meaning of Art.21. guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of
(24) Uniform Civil Code- working women in places of their work until a
Art.44 requires the State to secure for legislation is enacted for the purpose. The
the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the Court held that is the duty of employer whether
territory of India. public or private, to prevent sexual harassment
Sarla Mudgal Vs UOI (1995) the Court of working women. It was held on P/L seeking
has held that if a Hindu married U/Hindu law, enforcement of F.R. of working women
after conversion to Islam, without dissolving U/Art.14, 19 & 21.
the 1st marriage solemnises a second (29) Chakmas Refusee case - non citizen also
marriage can be prosecuted for bigamy U/s entitled U/Art.-2
494 IPC. N.H.R.C. Vs State of Art. P (1996)
(25) Compensation for Violation of Art.21
Rudal Shah Vs State of Bihar (1983)
Bhim Singh Vs State of J.K. (1985)
P.U.D. Rights Vs Police Comm. Delhi (1989)
Saheli Vs Police Comm., Delhi (1990)
In the above cases the S.C. has held
that the Court has power to award monetary
compensation in appropriate cases for
violation of Cont. rights and consequently
awarded compensation.
(26) Compensation to persons killed in "Fake
Encounter" -
In PUCL Vs UOI, AIR 1997 the S.C.
held that killing of persons in fake encounter
by the police was clear violation of Art.21 and
the defence of sovereign immunity does not
apply in such cases.
(27) Gang rape on Bangladesi woman -
In Chairman, Rly. Board Vs
Chandirma Das, AIR 2000, S.C. has held that
compensation can be awarded U/public law
(constitution) for violation of F.Rs. and since
the rape was committed by Rly. employee
hence compensation was awarded against
Rly. on ground of vicarious liability.

Amit Law Institute
with it would then be deprivation of

personal liberty.
There are two types of arrest
U/Art.-22-
(1) Arrest of persons under ordinary law.
(Clauses (1) & (2))
(2) Arrest of persons under law of
"Preventive Detention" (Clauses (3) to
(7))
Rights of arrested persons under ordinary
law-
Clauses (1) and (2) of Art.22 lay
down the procedure which has to be
followed when a man is arrested and
detained under the ordinary law. In other
words clauses (1)and (2) guarantee four
rights on a person who is arrested for any
offence under on ordinary law.
(a) the right to be informed "as soon as
may be" of grounds of arrest, Ss.-50,
50A Cr.P.C.
(b) the right to consult and to be
Article-22 represented by lawyer of his choice,
Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and Hussainara Khatoon's case.
detention (c) the right to be produced before a
According to Art.21 no person can Magistrate within 24 hours, Sec.57
be deprived of his life or personal liberty Cr.P.C.
except according to procedure established (d) the freedom from detention beyond
by law. This means that a person can be the said period except by the order of
deprived of his life or personal liberty the Magistrate, Sec.57
provided his deprivation was brought In Joginder Kumar Vs State of U.P.
about in according with the procedure 1994) the S.C. has laid down guidelines
prescribed by law. Art.22 prescribes those governing arrest of person during the
procedural requirements which must be investigation.
adopted and included in any procedure In D.K. Basu Vs State of W.B.
enacted by the legislature. If these (1997) the S.C. has laid down certain
procedure requirements are not complied

Amit Law Institute
basic "requirements" to be follow in all Advisory Board (Judge of H.C.) is

cases of arrest and detention. necessary.
Exceptions - (2) Communication of grounds of
Clause (3) of Art.22 provides two detention- 22(5)
exception to the rule contained in clauses The clause (5) imposes an
(1) and (2). It provide that the rights given obligation on the detaining authority to
under clauses (1) and (2) are not available furnish the detenue the grounds for
to following persons- detention "as soon as possible".
(a) an enemy alien, (3) Right of representation - 22(5)
(b) a person arrested and detained under Art.22(5) imposes on obligation on
a "Preventive Detention Law". detaining authority to give the earliest
Procedure to be followed if person is opportunity of making a representation
arrested U/P.D. Law - against detention order. It means that the
Clauses (4) to (7) of Ar.22 provide detenue must be furnished sufficient
the procedure which is to be followed if a particular of grounds of his detention to
person is arrested under the law of enable him to make a representation
preventive detention. which on being considered may give him
Preventive Detention Law relief.
- COFEPOSA, 1974 Exception -
- NSA, 1980 Clause (6) is an exception to
In A.K. Roy Vs UOI AIR 1982 clause (5) of Art.22 which provides that if
which is popularly known as NSA case, the detaining authority is of opinion that
the S.C. upheld constitutional validity of the disclosure of facts is against the public
the NSA. interest then he may not be required to
Constitutional safeguard against furnish such grounds to detenue.
Preventive Detention Laws- Clause (7)
Clauses (4) to (7) of Art.22 Clause (7) empowers only
guarantee the following safeguards to a Parliament to make law for the following
person arrested under Preventive purposes-
Detention Law- (1) the circumstances under which a
(1) Review by Advisory Board - 22(4) person may be detained for a period
Where any person is arrested longer than 3 months without
under any preventive Detention Act, he obtaining the opinion of an Advisory
can be detained in a Custody for 3 months Board.
without producing before Magistrate for (2) the maximum period for which a
detention of such person for more than 3 person may be detained under any
months the permission/report of an Preventive Detention Law.

Amit Law Institute
(3) the procedure to be followed by an That is why Art.39 imposes upon the State
advisory board. an obligation to insure that the health and
Right Against Exploitation strength of workers, men and women and
(Arts. 23-24) the tender age of the children are not
Prohibition of "traffic in human beings" and abused and that citizens are not forced by
"forced labour" - economic necessary to enter avocations
Art.23(1) prohibits traffic in human unsuited to their age or strength.
being and 'beggar' and other similar forms In pursuance to the above duty,
of forced labour. Secon part of this clause the State has enacted the following Acts-
declares that any contravention of this 1. Employment of Children Act,
provision shall be an offence punishable in 2. Child Labour (Prevention) Act,
accordance with law. 3. The Factories Act
Traffic in human beings means 4. Mines Act
selling and buying men and women like 5. The Merchant shipping Act
goods and includes immoral traffic in 6. The Motor Transport Workers Act
women and children for 'immoral' or other 7. The Plantation Labour Act
purposes. Slavery is example of traffic in 8. The Bidi and Cigar Workers Act
human being. 9. The Apprentices Act
Under Art.35 parliament is These all prohibits employment of
authorised to make laws for punishing child below a certain age.
acts prohibited by this Article. In Right to freedom of religion
pursuance of this Article-35 the Parliament (Arts.25-28)
has passed the Immoral Traffic India is a "secular" state -
(Prevention) Act, 1956 for punishing acts The concept of "secularism" is
which result in traffic in human beings. implicit in the Preamble of the Constitution
In PUOR Vs UOI, AIR 1982, the which declares the resolve of the people
S.C. considered the scope and ambit of to secure to all its citizens "liberty to
Art.23. The "traffic in human beings", thought, belief, faith and worship". The
"beggar" and other forms of forced labour 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 has inserted
was explained. the word 'Secular' in the Preamble.
Prohibition of employment of children in In India, a Secular State was never
factories etc. - considered as an irreligious State. It only
Art.24 prohibits employment of means that in matters of religion it is
children below 14 years of age in factories neutral. It is the ancient doctrine in India
and hazardous employment. that the State protects all religions but
This provision is in the interest of interferes with none. The State can have
public health and safety of life of children.

Amit Law Institute
no religion of its own. It should treat all the right to convert other persons to one's
religions equally. our religion
In a secular state, the state is only (National anthem case)
concerned with the relation between man In Bajoe Emanual Vs State of
and man, it is not concerned with the Kerala (1984) the S.C. has held that no
relation of man with God. S.R. Bommai Vs person can be compelled to sing national
UOI, AIR, 1994, in this Case the S.C. has anthem if he has genuine conscience,
held that "Secularism is a basic feature of religious objections but to stand
the Constitution. It means the Parliament peacefully.
can not delete the word "secularism" by Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhut Vs
amendment U/Art.368. Comm. of Police, Calcutta (1984)
Art.25(1) guarantees to every person- (Anand Margi Case)
(i) the freedom of conscience; and The S.C. has held that tandav
(ii) the freedom to profess, practise and dance with human scull and lethal
propagate religion weapons in public places was not
The freedom of 'conscience' is essential religious rites, hence order by
absolute inner freedom of the citizen to police to stop such function is not violative
mould his own relation with God in of Art.25(1) of Constitution.
whatever manner he likes. When this In Athiest Society of India Vs Govt.
freedom become articulates and of A.P, AIR 1992 the S.C. has held that
expressed in outward from it is "to profess, breaking of coconuts, performing of
practise and propagate religion. poojas, chanting of mantras or suras of
Exceptions - different religions are part of Indian
The right guaranteed U/Art.25(1) is tradition and hence not against
not an absolute right. This right is secularism.
subjected to following- Explanation 1 of Art.25 provides
(i) Public order ; health and morality; that the wearing and carrying of Kripans
(ii) To the other provisions of Part-III; shall be deemed to be included in the
(iii) State can make any law to regulate or profession of the Sikh religion.
restrict any economic financial political or In Jabed Vs Haryana, AIR, 2003
other activities which are associated with the S.C. has held that Sec.175 of Haryana
religious practise. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which
(iv) State can make any law providing for disqualifies persons having more than 2
social welfare and reform. children from consti........ election for the
In Rev. Stainislaus Vs State of post of sarpanch does not violate Art.25.
M.P., AIR 1977 the S.C. held that the right In Muslim 4 marriage is allowed. The
to propagate one's religion does not grant

Amit Law Institute
State can make law in the interest of Art.27

special welfare and reforms. Freedom from taxes for promotion of any
Art.26 particular religion-
Freedom to manage religious affairs Art.27 provides that no person
According to this Art. every shall be compelled to pay any tax for the
religious denomination have right to promotion or maintenance of any
establish and maintain institution for particular religion or religious
religious and charitable purposes. The denomination. This Art emphasises the
right guaranteed U/Art 25 is an Individual secular character of the State. The Public
whereas right guaranteed U/Art. 26 is a money collected by way of tax cannot be
right of group of persons. spent by the State for the promotion of
Thus Art.26 gives every religious any particular religion.
denomination the following rights- Art.27 prohibits levying of tax and not of
(1) to establish and maintain institutions fee-
for religious and charitable purposes. In Sri Jaggannath Vs State of
(2) to manage its own affairs Orissa, AIR, 1954 the S.C. has held that
(3) to own and acquire movable and levy under the Orissa Hindu Religious
immovable property. Endovements Act, 1939, was in the nature
(4) to administer such property in of fee and not tax. The payment was
accordance with law. demanded only for the purpose of meeting
Restrictions- the expenses of the Commissioner and
1. Public order his office which was the machinery set up
2. Morality and for due adm. of the affairs of the religious
3. Health Institution.
In Bramchari Sidheshwar Shai Vs Prohibition of Religious instruction in
State of W.B. (1995) the S.C. has held State aided institution Art.28
that R.K. Mission is not a minority group it According to Art.28(1) no religious
is a group of persons who worship special instructions shall be imparted in any
type of meditation/pooja but they are educational institution wholly maintained
within Hindu Religion. That is why they are out of state funds.
denomination and entitled to get rights (1) Institutions wholly maintained by the
mentioned in Art.26 and not U/Art.-..... State.
In Azeez Bashu Vs UOI, AIR, 1968 (2) Institutions that are receiving aid out
the S.C. has held that AMU has been of the State fund.
established by an Act of Parliament and (3) Institutions that are administered by
not by any Minority Institution. So it is not the State but are established under
a minority institution. any trust or endowment.

Amit Law Institute
In the Institutions of (1) type no religious is under the management of a minority

instructions can be imparted. In (2) type whether based on religion or language.
and (3) type institutions religious The above right is subject to
instructions may be imported only with the clause (2) of Art.29, according to which no
consent of the individuals. In the (4) type citizen shall be denied admission into any
institution, there is no restriction on educational institutions maintained by the
religious institute. State or receiving aid out of state funds on
In D.A.V. College, Jullundhar Vs grounds only of religion, race, caste,
State of Punjab AIR, 1971, S.C. has that language or any of them.
the study and research on the life and In D.A.V. College, Bhatinda Vs
teaching of Guru Nanak does not amount State of Punjab AIR 197 the University
religious instructions or promotion of any declared that Punjab would be the sole
partial religion and therefore is not medium of instruction in the affiliated
violative of Art.28. colleges.
Cultural and educational Rights The Court held that the right of the
(Arts. 29-30) minority to establish and administer edu.
Art.-29-Protection of interests of institution of their choice includes the right
minorities- to have a choice of medium of instruction
Art.29(1) guarantees to any also and the University circular was
section of the citizens residing in any part directly infringing upon the rights of
of India having a distinct language, script minorities to have instructions in Hindi as
or culture of its own, the right to conserve their own language and therefore, was
the same. violative of Arts.-29(1) and 30(1).
A minority community can Bramchari Sidheswar Vs State of
preserve its language script or culture by W.B. (1995). This case is popularly known
and through educational institutions. as R.K. Mission Case. The S.C. in this
Therefore, the right to establish and case, has held that the R.K. Mission
maintain institutions of their choice is established by Swami Vivekanand to
guaranteed to them by Art.30(1) which propagate Vedant values is not a minority
says that all minorities whether based on religion separate and distinct from hindu
religion or language shall have the right to religion, but a religious denomination of
establish and administer educational Hindu religion and therefore not entitled to
institutions of their choice. This right is claim F.R. U/Art.-30(1) of establishing and
further protected by Art.30(2) which administering educational institutions of
prohibits the State in granting against any their choice.
educational institution on the ground that it In Re Kerla Education Bill, AIR,
1958 (Art.143), the S.C. said that the

Amit Law Institute
fundamental right given to all minorities Art.31A provides that no law made
U/Art.-30(1) to establish and administer for acquisition of any estate/land shall be
educational institutions of their choice deemed to be void on the ground that it is
does not affect the claim of state to insist inconsistent with or takes away or
that in granting aid the state may not abridges any of the rights conferred by
prescribe reasonable regulations to Art.-14 and 19. Art.31A was introduced
ensure the excellence of the institution. into the constitution with 'retrospective
However the condition for granting aid effect' from the date of commencement of
should not be imposed in such a manner the Const. i.e., 26 Jan. 1950.
so as to take away she right of minorities Provided that where such law is a
guaranteed U/Art.30(1). law made by the legislature of a State,
Frank Anthony Public School that bill shall be reserved by the Governor
Employees Association Vs UOI, (1986), for the consent of the President. After
the S.C. has held that the statutory consent of President, the Act shall be
measures regulating terms and conditions applicable.
of service of teacher and other employees Provided further that if estate/land f
of minority edu. institution for maintaining a person is in his personal cultivation
edu. standards and excellence are not which is to be acquired, the compensation
violative of Art.30(1). at market value shall be given to him by
T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs State of the State.
Karnataka AIR 2000. In pursuance of the above.
Islamic Academy of Edu. Vs State of Art.31-B
Karnataka AIR 2003. Validation of certain Acts and
P.A. Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra Regulations
AIR, 2005. Arts.31-B and 9th schedule were
In Ball Patil Vs UOI, AIR 2005 the added by 1st const. Amendment Act,
S.C. has held that identification of minority 1951. Art. 31-B provides that no Act or
should be on state basis and not an all Regulations put in 9th schedule shall be
India basis. deemed to be void on the ground of
In this case it was held that 'Jain violation of F.Rs. conferred by Part-III.
Community' is not minority in Maharashtra In Waman Rao Vs UOI, AIR, 1981
state. the validity of Arts.-31-A, 31-B, 31-C and
Saving of Certain Laws 9th Schedule was challenged on the
(Arts.-31A, B & C) ground that they damaged the basic
Art.-31A Saving of laws providing for feature of the constitution.
acquisition of estates, etc. - (Ins. by Const. The S.C. held that they are
1st Am. Act, 1951) constitutionally valid and being within the

Amit Law Institute
amending power of the Parliament. that if state will make any law to
Regarding Art.31-B it was held that all implement Directive Principles, it can not
laws put in 9th Schedule on or after the be challenged in any court on grounds of
decision of Kesavanand Bharti Case (24 violation of fundamental Rights conferred
April, 1973) are open to challenge on the by Part-III.
ground that they damage the basic This Amendment has been
structure of the constitution. challenged in Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs UOI,
In I.R. Coelho Vs State of T.N. AIR 1980 case. The S.C. has held that the
(2007) [9th Schedule] a 9 judge amended part of Art.31C is
constitution Bench held that any law put in unconstitutional hence void.
9th schedule after 24 April, 1973 when Arts. 32-35
Kesvananda Bharti judgment was Right to constitutional remedies
delivered (Ju. Review is basic feature) will L. Chandra Kr. Vs UOI, AIR 1977.
be open to challenge on the ground that The power of Ju. review over legislative
they damage the basic feature of the action vested in H.C. U/Art.226/227 and
constitution. SC. U/Art.32 is basic feature. Jurisdiction
Art.31-C U/Art.32 is basic feature.
Saving of laws giving effect to certain B.R. Ambedkar-32 is soul of
directive principles constitution most criticised Art.
This Art.31-C was added by the Art.32
Const. 25th Amendment Act, 1971. It Under Art.32 the S.C. has been
provides that if the State makes any law to assigned with special role of protector,
implement Art.-39(b) and 9c) then- guarantor and guardian of fundamental
(i) it will not be deemed to be void on rights. Art.32 is itself a fu. right so the S.C.
the ground of violation of Arts.14 cannot not refuse to grant relief on he
and 19. ground that -
(ii) The validity of such law cannot be (i) the aggrieved party has alternative
challenged in any court. remedy,
In Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of (ii) disputed fact must be investigated
Kerala case the S.C. has held that Part (i) firstly before issue of writ,
of Art.31C is valid but part (ii) of Art.-31C (iii) Petitioner has not prayed a proper
is void as it takes away the power of writ.
judicial review which is the basic feature of Art.32(1) guarantees the right to
the constitution. move the Supreme Court by 'appropriate
Again the Parliament has passed proceedings" for the enforcement of the
42nd Amendment Act, 1976 and amended F.Rs. conferred by Part-III of the
Art.31C which contained the provisions Constitution.

Amit Law Institute
Art.32(2) confers power on the never be suspended even during the

S.C. to issue app. direction or orders or proclamation of emergency is in operation.
writs for the enforcement of any of the Curative Petition - (Review to Review)
rights conferred by Part-III. held allowed in case of Gross miscarriage
U/Art.-32(3) Parliament may by law of justice.
empower any other court to exercise Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs Ashok Hurra (2002)
within the local limits of its jurisdiction all Public Interest Litigation
or ay of the powers exercisable by the (A Dynamic Approach)
S.C. under clause (2) of Art.32. The traditional rule is that the right
Suspension of right guaranteed by Art.32 - guaranteed U/Art.32 to move the Supreme
Art.32(4) provides that the right Court is only available to those who has
guaranteed by Art.32 shall not be Locus-Standi, i.e. whose F.Rs. has been
suspended except as per the provisions of infringed.
the constitution. It means the right This traditional rule of locus standi
guaranteed by Art.32 can be suspended has now been relaxed by the S.C. in its
when National Emergency is in operation recent rulings. The Court now permits
in Country. (352). The President by order P.I.Ls./S.I.Ls. at the instance of Public
U/Art.359 can suspend the orders of spirited citizens for the enforcement of
enforcement of all the F.Rs. except Constitution and other legal rights of any
Arts.20 and 21. person or group of person who because of
In other words - According to their poverty or socially or economical
clause (4) of Art.32 the right to move the disadvantaged positions are unable to
S.C. for the enforcement of the approach the court for relief.
fundamental right can not be suspended In A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly.) Vs UOI,
except as otherwise provided by the AIR, 1981, it was held that the ABSK
constitution. There is only one situation Sangh (Rly.) though an unregistered
when this right can be suspended. When association could maintain a writ petition
a proclamation of emergency Under U/Art.32 for the redressal of common
Art.352 is declared, the president is grievance.
empowered under Art.359 to declare that Justice Krishna Iyer declared-
the right to move any Court for the Access to justice through "class
enforcement of such right conferred by actions; PIL, and Representative
Part-III may remain suspended for the proceedings is the present constitutional
period during which the proclamation of jurisprudence.
emergency is in operation. In S.P. Gupta Vs UOI, AIR, 1982
But the right to move S.C. for the (Judges Transfer Case), the S.C. has
enforcement of F.Rs. U/Art.20 and 21 can firmly established the rule regarding the

Amit Law Institute
P/L. Justice Bhagwati stated the rule as 2. The S.C. exercising power U/Art.32
follow. can grant compensation to aggrieved
In case of violation of any person whose F.Rs. has been
constitutional or legal rights of any person violated.
or group of persons who are capable to Cases of P.I.L. from Art.21- PUCL, Saheli,
approach the court by reason of maintain M.C. Mehta, etc.
an application for an appropriate direction Criticism of PIL - The new trend is
order or writ in the H.C. U/Art.226 and in criticised by many -
case of violation of Fundamental Rights, in 1. It is said that court will be flooded with
the S.C. U/Art.32. litigation if it entertain cases through
Widening the scope of Art.32, the letter.
S.C. has issued appropriate writs, orders 2. It is said that there would be delay in
and directions on the basis of PIL in deciding many other imp. cases.
following cases- 3. Interference by court through PIL in
 Bihar blinding case sphere of executive and legislative is
 Injustice done to children in jail. not justified.
 Protection of pavement and slum 4. The court has no capacity to enforce
dwellers of Bombay its orders.
 Payment of minimum wages Misuse /Abuse of PIL -
 Abolition of bonded labours. It was said that it is "publicity
 Protection of environment and interest litigation". The S.C. in Guruvayur
ecology. Devasawom Managing Committee Vs
Hawala Scam, Uria Scam, Fodder G.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 has given guideline
Scam in Bihar, St. Kits Scam, Ayurvedic to check the abouse of PIL.
Medicine Scam and Illegal allotment of Judicial Activism
Govt. House & Petrol Pumps have come Art.32 provides for judicial remedy.
to light through PIL. We know that no remedy can be
In another landmark judgment in effectively exercised without appropriate
case of M.C. Mehta Vs UOI, AIR, 1987 the remedy. Under Art.32 the S.C. is
S.C. has further widened the scope of PIL empowered to issue directions, orders and
under Art.32. Justice Bhagwati laid down writs to enforce the F.Rs. of citizens. So
the following guidelines- Art.32 makes the S.C. the protector, watch
1. The poor can seek enforcement of dog, sentinel of the F.Rs. of citizens.
their F.Rs from the S.C. by writing a For effective discharge of this duty
letter to any judge. Mohan Lal Sharma the S.C. has relaxed the traditional
Vs State of U.P., Sunil Batra Vs Delhi concepts like rule of locus standi and now
Adm., Veena Sethi Vs. St. of Bihar. through PIL any person can approach the

Amit Law Institute
S.C. for the enforcement of F.R. of those - Protection of Environmental and

citizens who cannot approach to the Court ecology
due to their poverty or other disabilities.  M.C. Mehta Vs UOI
In discharge of pious duty the S.C. - Rape on working women-Guidelines
has many times issued the writs against for rehabilitation & compensation
executive and legislative bodies. These - Power to award compensation
directions are criticised on ground of U/Art.32 on violation of F.R.
encroachment on the domain (area) of  M.C. Mehta Vs UOI
other organs of the Government. Some - Corruption in Public life and P.I.L.
people criticised this act of S.C. and called - Free legal aid is F.R.s, Speedy Trial.
it "judicial activism".  Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of
In present day situation this Bihar
activism is necessary because other - Right to education
organ of the Govt. like executive or  Unnikrishnan
legislative body are due to their political Art.33
reasons failed to perform their duties and Restrictions on F.Rs. of members of
many times they are loose/unaware Armed forces
towards citizen problem. In this situation Art.33 is an exception to the F.Rs.
people is moving towards Court to give conferred by Part-III (Art.13(2)). This Art.
directions to those organs of Govt. to empowers the Parliament to restrict or
Peform their role. In these situations S.C. abrogate by law (Army Act, 1950) F.Rs. in
cannot deny to issue writs because it is its the application to-
constitutional duty and also the F.Rs. of (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or
citizens. (b) the forces charged with the
Many scams of Govt., corruption of maintenance of public order; or
Ministers etc. came in light through P.I.L. (c) the persons employed in any
(Ju. Activism). The following judgments bureau/org. established by the State
are came as a result of activist approach for purposes of intelligence - (RAW,
of S.C. ISI Pakistan).
- Ban on smoking in public places. (d) the persons employed in connection
- Protection against inhuman treatment with the telecommunication system
in jail. set up for purposes of any force,
 Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Adm. bureau or organisation referred in
 Veena Sethi Vs State of Bihar clauses (a) to (c) of Art.
- Child Welfare, Child Labour abolition- The object of this restriction U/Art
 Sheela Barse Vs UOI, M.C. 33 is the ensure the proper discharge of
Mehta VS State of T.N.

Amit Law Institute
their duties and maintenance of discipline Directive Principles of State Policy -

amongst them. (Arts. 36-51)
Hence a law passed U/Art.33 It is borrowed from the Const. of
cannot be challenged under Art.13 clause Ireland. The Directive Principles of State
(2) of constitution. Policy contained in Part-IV of the
Art.34 - Restriction (by law of Parliament) constitution set out the aims and
on F.Rs while Martial Law is in force in ay objectives to be taken up by the States in
Area. the Governance of the Country. It lays
Art.35 - Only Parliament has power to down certain economic and social policies
legislate to give effect to ................ to be pursued by the Governments in
Can F.Rs. be enforced against private India; they impose certain obligation on
persons? the State to take positive action in certain
Generally we can say that F.Rs directions in order to promote the welfare
can be enforced against State but certain of the people and achieve economic
situation it may be enforced against democracy.
private persons also. Art.36 - Definition of "State" -
Indian Council for Enviro legal Action Vs It has the same meaning as in
UOI, (1996) Part-III (Art. )
The S.C. has held that a writ can Art.37 - Application of Part-IV -
be issued against private persons also if The provisions contained in Part-IV
they violate the F.Rs of citizens. shall not be enforceable by the Court but
Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs the principle contained in Part-IV are
State of Gujarat (1991) fundamental in the Governance of the
The S.C. convicted 7 Police Country and it shall be the duty of the
Officers for Cr contempt of Court through State to apply these principles in making
writ U/Art.32. law.
M.K. Sharma Vs B.E.L. (1987) Art.-42 - Just and human conditions of
The S.C. ordered to give work.
compensation to such employees who Art.-43 - Living wage etc. for workers -
become ill due to radiation of X-Ray In pursuance of this Art. State has
during their job. passed Labour laws which makes
Sunil Batra vs Delhi Adm. provisions for living wages etc.
A writ of habeas corpus was Art.44 - Uniform Civil Code for citizens -
issued to check the torture to Sunil Batra Art.44 requires the State toe
against jailor (personally), secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil
Part-IV Code throughout the territory of India.

Amit Law Institute
In Sarla Mudgal Vs UOI (1995) the In pursuance of this directive the

S.C. has directed the Government to Parliament has passed 73rd Amendment
make uniform civil code for the citizens of Act, 1992 and added Part IX .........which
India. This direction was given by the deals with Panchayat at village level And
court while dealing with case/question 74th IXA.
whether a Hindu husband married under Art.41- Right to work, education and pub.
Hindu Law has converted into Islam and assistance -
remarried without dissolving the 1st Art.41 directs the State to ensure
marriage, can be prosecuted for bigamy the people within the limits of its economic
U/s-494 IPC. capacity make effective provisions for
In Danial Latif Vs UOI, AIR 2001 securing the right (a) to work (b) education
the S.C. upheld the Const. validity of the (c) pub. assistance, in cases of
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on unemployment, old age, sickness. etc.
Divorce) Act, 1986 and held that a Muslim In pursuance of this directive state
divorced women has right to maintenance has passed National Rural Employment
even after Iddat period under Act of 1986. Guarantee Act, 2005 and Right to
In JOhn Vallamatton Vs UOI, AIR Education Act.
2003 the S.C. once again directed the All marriages must be registered - U.C.C.
Govt. to implement 'UCC'. In this case In Ashwani Kumar Vs Seema,
S.C. has held that Sec.118 of (2005) a landmark judgment the S.C. has
Ind.................. held that all marriages, irrespective of their
Art.38 - State to secure social order - religion, must be compulsorily, registered.
Justice - Social, economic and It is an important step towards
political. formation of Uniform Civil Code.
Art.39(d) - Equal pay for equal work. Art-45 Early childhood care and education
Art39A- Equal justice and free legal aid- to children below the age of six years-
nd
Art-39A is added by the 42 In landmark judg. Unni Krishnan
Amendment Act, 197 'Free legal aid' and Vs State of A.P. (1993) the S.C. has held
'speedy trial' have now been held to be that the "Right to Education" up to the age
F.Rs. U/Art-21 available to all prisoners of 14 years is a F.R within the meaning of
and enforceable by the Courts. The State Art.21, but the obligation of the State to
is under duty to provide lawyer to a poor provide education is subject to its
person by rulings in M.H. Hoskot Vs State economic capacity.
of Mahabharat and Hussainara Khatoon 86th Amendment Act, 2002, Right to
Vs State of Bihar. education is F.R.
Art.40- Organization of Village This amendment has added a new
Panchayats- Art.21A which has made the right to

Amit Law Institute
education a F.R. It provides 'the state shall Sites and Remains (Declaration of
provide free and compulsory education to National Importance) Act, 1951.
all children of the age of 6-14 years in Art-50 - Separation of judiciary from
such manner as the State may, by law executive - To promote the rule of law it s
determine. very essential.
Art.46-Promotion of education and Art-51 - Promotion of International peace
economic interests of SCs/STs and and security -
OBCs- The State shall strive to -
In pursuance of this Art - The a. Promote international peace &
Parliament has added new clauses in security.
Art.15 & 16 to make provision for the b. Maintain just and honorable relations
reservation for SC, ST and OBCs. between Nations.
Art.47 - Duty to raise the level of nutrition, c. Foster respect for International Law,
and these standard of living and to treaty etc.
improve public health. d. Encourage settlement of int. disputes
In particular, the State should bring by arbitration.
about prohibition of the consumption In pursuance of this Art.51,
except for medicinal purposes of Parliament has passed the "Protection of
intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are Human Rights Act, 1993.
injurious to health - IAS Gramophone Company Vs
Art.48 - Organization of agriculture and Virendra
animal husbandry. The S.C. has held that if any
and the State shall take steps for International Law violates / contravenes
preserving and improving the breeds and the Indian Law the S.C. can stop such
prohibiting the daughter of cows and International Law and will enforce the
calves and other milch draught cattle. Municiple Law.
Art.48A- Protection and improvement of It is because of we adopt "Specific
environment and safeguarding forests and adoption theory".
wild life - Relationship between F.Rs and DPSP-
Added by 42nd Amendment Act, Fundamental rights are judicialy
1976. enforceable whereas Directive Principles
Art.49-Protection of monuments and are not. According to Art.37 the Directive
places & objects of National importance- Principles are Fundamental in the
In pursuance of this Art. governance of the country and it shall be
Parliament has enacted "The Ancient and the ........ of the State to apply these
Historical Monuments and Archaeological principles in making laws, but they are not
ju. enforceable by Court. On the other

Amit Law Institute
hand F.Rs. are enforceable by the Courts complementary and supplementary to

U/Art.32 and 226 and the Courts are each other.
bound to declare any law as void that is After some times the Parliament
inconsistent with F.Rs. has passed 25th Const. Amd. Act, 1971
So it is always a conflict that when and added Art.31C which contains
a State wants to enforce the Directive provisions that if state makes any law to
principles, whether it has to follow the implement Art.39(b) and (c) then -
requirements of F.Rs. (i) it will not be deemed void on
In Champakam Dorairajan's case, ground of violation of Art.14, 19 &
1951 the S.C. has held that Directive 31.
Principles are subordinate to F.Rs. ....... (ii) the validity of this law can not be
and has to be enforced in conformity with challenged in any court.
F.Rs. In Kesavananad Bharti Case the
In this case the State, for S.C. upheld the validity of Part (i) of Art.
implementing Art.46 has given reservation 31C but invalidation part (ii) of Art.31-C as
to every castes in accordance with their it takes away the power of judicial review
population. which is the basic feature of the
The S.C. declared it as constitution.
unconstitutional. As a result Parliament Then again the Parliament has
has passed the 1st Const. Amendment passed 42nd Const. Amd. Act, 1976 and
Act, 1951 and added a new clause (4) in amended Art.31-C which contains the
Art.15 to give reservation to SC, ST & provision that if state makes any law to
OBC. implement Directive Principles, it cannot
But in Re Kerala Education Bill, be challenged in any Court on the ground
1957 the S.C. observed that though the of violation of Arts.14, 19 & 31.
directive principles is not override the This Amendment has been
F.Rs, nevertheless in determining the challenged Minerva Mills case. In this
scope and ambit of F.Rs. the Court may case the S.C. has held that the provisions
not ignored the D.Ps, but should adopt added in Art.31-C by 42nd amendment
"the principle of harmonious construction Act, is constitutional and hence void. In
and should attempt to give effect to both this case C.J. Chandrachud observed -
as much as possible". Our and D.Ps and to give primacy to any
In C.B. Hoarding and Lodging Vs one, if will disturb such harmony.
State of Mysore the S.C. has observed Conclusion -
that it did not see any conflict between So S.C. has always tried to make a
D.Ps. and F.Rs. and held that they are harmonious balance between F.Rs. and
D.Rs. In Bhandhua Mukti Morcha Case,

Amit Law Institute
SC held that it can not enforce d.ps. but if (e) To promote hormony and spirit of
state makes any legislation on its comm. brotherhood; renounce
enforcement then we an direct the Govt. practices derogatory to the dignity of
to enforce it if it is not willing to do that. women.
The Judiciary has now taken the (f) To value and preserve rich heritage of
responsibilities of implementing the D.Ps. our composit cutlure.
In its recent judgments the court has (g) To protect and improve natural
declared many directives as F.Rs. and environment.
has enforced them. (h) To develop scientific temper etc.
Equal pay for 39 equal work, (National Award)
Protection of children from exploitation (i) To safeguard Public property &
Abolition of child labour in hazardous absure violence.............
work, free and compulsory education to Part-V
children below age of 14 years, free legal The Union Executive -
aid, speedy trial of under trial prisoners,  President
Right to work, Protection of .................  Vice President
Part-IVA  Council of Ministers
Fundamental Duties (Art.51A) The President
This new part which consists of Art.52 says that there shall be a
only one Art.51A was added by the 42nd President India. He is the head of the
Amendment Act, 1976. Primarily it has 10 State. Art.53 says that the executive
th
duties but now 11 F. duty was added by power of the Union shall be vested in the
86th Const. Amendment Act, 2002. The President and it shall be exercised by him
new clause (K) provides that who is parent either directly or through officers
or guardian to provide opportunity for subordinate to him in accordance with this
education to his child between the age of constitution. Art.53(2) says that the
6 to 14 years. supreme command of the defence forces
Duties - of the Union shall be vested in the
(a) To abide by the Constitution and President and the exercise thereof shall
respect National Flag and National be regulated by law.
Anthem. Election of President - Art.54 & 55
(b) To cherish and follow noble ideals, Art.54 provides that the President
(c) To uphold and protect the sovereignty, of India shall be elected by an electoral
unity and integrity of India. college consisting of
(d) To defend the country and render (a) the elected members of both houses
National service when called upon to of Parliament.
do so.

Amit Law Institute
(b) the elected members of the legislative (iii) A Minister either for the Union or
assemblies of the states. for any state adopted for voting is
The election of the President shall secret ballot.
be held in accordance with the system of Population of that State
Vote of MLA= (1971sensus)
proportional representative by means of No. of elected MLAs x 1000
If remainder is more than 500 then
the single transferable vote. the
one is added to number of votes.
system.......
Total no. of votes of MLAs of all
Term of office of President - Art.56 Vote of MPs= states
Total number of elected MPs.
The President shall held office for
If remainder is half or more then
a term of 5 years from the date on which
one is added to the number of votes.
he enter upon his office. Even after the
 By 84th Const. Amendment Act, total
expiry of his term he shall continue to hold
seats of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
office until his succession enters upon this
has been ceased up to 2026.
office. He is also eligible for re-election
 The present distribution of seats are
(Art.57).
as per 1971sensu.
The President may by writing
 But 'D' limitation of seats has been
under his hand addressed to the Vice-
done as per 2001 sensus.
President resign his office.
Disputes regarding the Election - Art.71
The President may be removed
Art.71 provides that all
from his office by impeachment U/Art-61
disputes/doubt arising out of or in
for violation of the Constitution.
connection with the election of the
Qualifications - Art.58
President or Vice-President shall be
(a) He must be a citizen of India.
'inquired' into 'decided' by the Supreme
(b) He must have completed the age of
Court whose decision shall be final.
35 years.
Oath or affirmation by the President -
(c) He must be qualified for election as a
Art.60
member of the House of the people
According to Art.60, before
(d) He must not hold any office of profit
entering upon his office, the President has
U/the Govt.
to take an oath or affirmation in the
The following persons shall not be
Presence of C.J.I., or in his absence, the
deemed to hold any office of profit under
Senior most judge of S.C. available to
the Govt.
preserve, protect and defend the
(i) The President of Vice President of
constitution and the Law and to devote
the Union.
himself to the Service and well being of
(ii) The Governor of any State.
the people of India.

Amit Law Institute
Procedure for impeachment of (b) He must have completed the age of

President 35 years.
(Art. 61) (c) He is qualified for election as a
The President can be removed member of the Council of States.
from his office by a process of (d) He must not hold any office of profit
impeachment for the "violation of the U/Govt.
constitution". The impeachment charge Term of office of Vice-President - Art.67
may be initiated against him by either The Vice-President shall hold
house of Parliament. The charge must office for a term of 5 years from the date
come in the form of a proposal contained on which he enters upon his office.
in a resolution signed by not less than The V.P. may, by writing under his
1/4th of the total members of the house hand addressed to the President, resign
and move resolution must be passed by a his office.
majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total The V.P. may be removed from his
membership of the House. The charge is office by a resolution of Rajya Sabha
then investigated by the other house. The passed by a majority and agreed to by the
president shall have opportunity to be Lok Sabha. Such resolution can be moved
heard at such investigation. If the other only after giving 14 days prior notice of
House after investigation passes a intention to move the resolution.
resolution by 2/3rd majority declaring the Council of Ministers
the charge is proved such (Arts. 74 & 75)
resolution.................................... Art.74 provides that there shall be
Vice President of India a council of ministers with the P.M. as its
According to Art.63, there shall be head to aid and advice the President who
a vice President of India. Art.64 says that shall in the exercise of his functions, act in
he shall be an ex-officio chairman of the accordance with such advice.
Rajya Sabha. Art.75 provides that the P.M. shall
Election of Vice-President - Art.66 be appointed by the President and the
Art.66 says that the Vice-President other ministers shall be appointed by the
shall be elected by an Electoral College President on the advice of the P.M.
consisting of the members of both Houses Maximum number of Ministers - 91 st Amd.
of Parliament in accordance with the Act, 2003
system of proportional representation by Clause (1A) was added by the
means of the single transferable vote and above amendment which provides that the
the voting shall be by secret ballot. total number of ministers, including the
Qualifications - Art.66(3) P.M. in the Council of Ministers shall not
(a) He must be a citizen of India.

Amit Law Institute
exceed 15% of the total no. of members of In Ram Jawaya Vs State of

house of People. Punjab, AIR, 195, the S.C. observed that
According to clause (2), the under Art.53(1), the executive power of
ministers shall hold office during the the Union is vested in President but
pleasure of the President. Art.74 states that there shall be a council
According to clause (3), the council of Ministers to advice President. So we an
of ministers shall be collecting responsible say that the President is a formal or
to the house of the people. constitutional head and the real executive
According to clause (4), the power is vested in Council of ministers.
President shall administrative to all In Shamsher Singh Vs State of
ministers an oath of office and of secrecy. Punjab, the S.C. held that the President
According to clause (5), a Minister and Governors are only constitutional
who for any period of six consecutive head and they have to exercise their
months is not a member of either house of executive powers as per advice of council
Parliament shall at the expiration of that of ministers.
period cease to be a Minister.  Constitutional mandate is supreme
Art..75(5) & 164(4) - Non-member cannot and not public mandate.
be reappointed - S.R. Chauhan Vs State President Governor
of Punjab, AIR, 2001  Art.52- There  Art.53 - There
Relationship between President and P.M. shall be a shall be a
- Art.74 President. Governor for
Before 42nd Amd. Act, 1976 the  Art.53- Ex- each State.
President has discretionary power and he power of Union  Art.154-Ex.p of

was not bound by the advice of council of vested in State shall be
ministers, but after 42nd Amd. Act, the President vested in
President is bound by the advice of the  Art.54 & 55- Governor
council of ministers. Election of  Art.155-Appoint
The 44th Amd. Act, 1978 added a President of Governor.
proviso in Art.74 which gives some  Art.72-  Art.161-
discretionary power to the President as he Pardoning Pardoning
may return the Proposal of council of power power.
ministers for reconsideration but if the  Art.73-Extent of  Art.162- Extent
council if ministers return it to President executive power of executive
without any reconsideration then of the Union power of the
President is bound................................the  Art.74-Council State
council of Ministers. of ministers to  Art.163 Council
aid and advice of ministers to

Amit Law Institute
the President aid and advice The President is component part of

 Art.75-App. of the Governor the Parliament. Every bill passed by
P.M. by  Art.164-App. of Parliament must be sent to President for
President C.M. by his assent.
 Art.76-App. of Governor (6) Ordinance making power - 123
Attorney  Art.165- App. of If at any time, when both houses of
General by Advocate Parliament is not in session and the
President General by the President is satisfied that circumstances
Governor. exists which render it necessary for him to
Powers of the President- take immediate action, he may issue such
(1) Executive powers - ordinance. It shall cease to operate at the
President is the const. head. expiry of six weeks.
U/Art.-53 the executive power of the Union (7) Pardoning power - Art.72
of India is vested in him All the executive Under Art.72, the President has
functions are executed in his name. power to grant pardon.
(2) Appointing powers - (8) Emergency power - Arts.-352-360
President has power to appoint If the President is satisfied that the
P.M. and on his advice other Ministers of security of India is in danger, he may
the Union, Governor of States Judges of issue a proclamation of emergency.
S.C. and H.C., the Attorney Gen., the Emergencies are of three kinds-
comptroller and Auditor Gen., the (i) Emergency out of war, external
Chairman & members of Public Service aggression or armed rebellion
Commission, members of finance (Art.352)
commission Chairman of S.C./S.T. (ii) Emergency due to failure of Const.
Commission etc. machinery in the State. (Art.356)
(3) Military power- (iv) Financial Emergency - (Art.360)
The President is the Supreme Discretionary powers of President -
Commander of the defence forces of the After 42nd Amd. Act. 1976 the
Country. He has power to declare war and President has very limited discretionary
peace in accordance with law. powers. These are as follows-
(4) Diplomatic powers- (1) Appointment of P.M. (Art.75)
As the head of the State, the (2) Proviso of Art.74 added by 44th Amd.
President sends and receives Act, (reconsideration)
Ambassadors and other diplomatic (3) Information from P.M. about affairs of
representatives. All treaties etc. re Union. (Art.789(a))
negotiated in his name. (4) He is not bound by the minority
(5) Legislative powers - Government.

Amit Law Institute
(5) At the time of death of P.M., he can grant pardons reprieves, respites or
appoint working P.M. at his discretion. remissions of punishment or to suspend,
Discretionary powers of Governor- remit or commute the sentence of any
(1) Art.163 - Governor is bound to act on person convicted for any offence. But
the advice of the council of ministers there is a difference between the
except on those matters on which pardoning power of the President and
constitution requires his discretion. Governor. Under Art.72, Presidents power
What are the mater on which he has is wider than Governors of Sates-
discretion is decided by himself. It is a
very big discretion. President Governors
(2) Under Art.356, he can recommend of (Art.72) (Art.161)
State emergency. 1. He can pardon 1. He has no such
(3) Under Arts.200 & 288, he has a sentence power.
discretionary power to reserve the Bill awarded by
for assent/approval of the President. Court-Marshal.
(4) Under Arts.-371, 371-A-371-1, 2. He has power to 2. He has power to
Parliament has made special pardon in case pardon in case
provisions in respect of States of of offence of offence relate
Nagaland, Sikkim, Goa etc. where relating to law of to law of State
Governor of that States has more Union executive.
discretionary powers than other State Executive.
Governor. 3. He has 3. He has no
(5) In Union Territories (not assembly), exclusive power power to pardon
Governors have additional powers. to pardon a death sentence
(6) Governor cannot be impeached by death sentence. but to suspend,
State. Assembly but can only be remit or
removed by President. committee the
Ordinance making power of Governor- death sentence.

Commutation - exchange of one thing for
Art.213
another (i.e. r.i. to simple)
It may be promulgated when both
Remission - reduction without changing its
of State legislature is not in session. It
character (i.e. 1 yr. to 6m)
shall cease to operate after the expiry of
Respite - awarding lesser punishment on
six weeks when the House is reassemble.
special grounds (i.e. Pregnancy)
It may ...............................
Reprieve - Temporary suspension of
Pardoning Powers
death sentence (i.e. people a proceeding
U/Art-72, the President and U/Art.-
for pardon)
161, the Governor of State have power to

Amit Law Institute
Effect of Pardon - A pardon completely President

immunes the offender from all Qualifications -
punishments and disqualification and (a) He must be a (a) He must be
places him in the same position as if he citizen of India. citizen of India.
had never committed the offence. (b) He has been for (b) He has been for
In K.M. Nanawati Vs State of at least 5 yrs a at least 1 yrs
Bombay, 1961, the S.C. has held that the judge of a H.C. Judicial office or
Governor's power to suspend sentence or 10 yrs. and 10 yrs an
U/Art.161 is subject to rules made by S.C. Advocate of a Advocate of a
U/Art.145. The Governor cannot suspend H.C. H.C.
the sentence when such matter is (c) He is, in the
subjudice before the S.C. opinion of
In Kuljeet Singh, Kehar Singh and President a
Jumman Khan cases the S.C. has held distinguished
that the President U/Art.-72 and the juris
Governors U/Art.161 have full Retirement- 65 yrs 62 yrs.
discretionary power regarding the Grounds of Proved
pardoning power. No person can claim a impeachment- misbehaviour or
legal right to be pardoned. Proved incapacity
Pardoning power - Subject to ju. review- misbehaviour or
In Epuran Sudhir Vs Govt. of incapacity.
Andhra Pradesh (2006), the S.C. has held Types of Justices -
that the pardoning power of the President (i) Regular (i) Regular
and the Governor are subject to judicial (ii) Ad hoc (127) (ii) Additional/acting
review. The S.C. has used its power of ju. (iii) Retired (128) (iii) Retired
review under Art.142 and not U/Art.13 to Pay and Pension-
check the use of pardoning power on Salaries are Pension from
malafide grounds. S.C. further observed- charged on consolidated fund of
 that the pardoning power must be consolidated fund India but salary
based on report of Home Ministry. of India from consolidated
 It must not be malafide, arbitrary etc. Practise- fund of State.
 It must not be exercised on the ground Not entitled to He is entitled to
of caste, religion, political practice after practise in S.C. and
consideration etc. retirement other H.C. in he
Judiciary was not a judge.
Appointment of Judges of S.C./H.C.-
S.C. (Art.124) H.C. (Art.217)
Appointment - By By President

Amit Law Institute
According to Arts.124 and 217, the of the collegium give adverse opinion
President of India shall appoint the judges the CJI shall not send
of S.C. and H.C. with the consultation of recommendation to the President.
CJI and other Judges of S.C. and H.C. as (2) In case of appointment of Judges of
he thinks fit. H.C. U/Art.217 the CJI shall consult
In S.P. Gupta Vs UOI, AIR 1982 with the collegium of two senior most
which is also known as Judges Transfer judges of S.C.
Case-1, the S.C. has held that the opinion (3) In case of transfer of Judges of H.C.,
of CJI is not binding on the President in the CJ shall consult with the collegium
matters of appointment of Judges of S.C. of four senior most judges of S.C. and
and H.C. the C.J. of two H.Cs. (one from which
But in S.C. Advocate on Records the Judge is being transferred and the
Association Vs UOI (1993), popularly other receiving him)
known as Judges Transfer Case-II the If in the matter of transfer of judges of
S.C. has overruled its earlier judgment in H.C. the above procedure has not been
S.P. Gupta case and held that the opinion followed then that transfer order shall be
of CJI is binding and final in the matter of subjected to judicial review.
appointment of Judges but the CJI must Removal of Judges : Impeachment
form his opinion with other senior most [Arts.124(4)]
Judges of the S.C. A judge of S.C./H.C. may be
In Re Judges Appointment and Transfer removed from his office by an order of
case, AIR 1999 President only on grounds of proved
The President U/Art.143 asked an misbehaviour or incapacity. The order of
advice of S.C. on appointment of Judges, President cant only be passed after it has
whether opinion of CJI which is not formed been addressed to both Houses of
with the consultation of other senior most Parliament in the same session. The
judges of S.C. is binding on the President. address must be supported by a majority
The S.C. has held that the sole of total membership of that House and
opinion of CJI is not binding on the also by a majority of not less than 2/3 of
President (Plurality of Judges). In this the member ....................................
case S.C. has given detailed guideline for Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
the appointment of judges. These are as The Jurisdiction of the S.C. can be
follow - classified into the following heads-
(1) In matter of appointment of Judges of 1. It is a Court of Record
S.C. U/Art.-1 (2), the CJI shall consult 2. Original jurisdiction
"a collegium of four senior most 3. Appellate jurisdiction
Judges of the S.C." and if two judges 4. Advisory jurisdiction

Amit Law Institute
1- A Court of Record- Art.32 confers original jurisdiction

Art.129 makes the S.C. as 'Court of the S.C. to enforce F.Rs of citizens.
of record' and confers all the powers of S.C. is a protector and guarantor of the
such a court including the power to punish F.Rs. U/Art.32 a person can directly go to
for its contempt. A court of record has two the S.C. to enforce his F.Rs.
meanings- 3- Appellate Jurisdiction-
(a) The proceedings and judgements of The S.C. is the highest court of
these courts shall be writtenand appeal in the Country. Its appellate
preserved so that it can be used in jurisdiction (Arts.132-136) can be divided
future as precedent. into 4 categories-
(b) These courts have power to punish (i) Constitutional matters.
any person for its contempt. (ii) Civil matters
2- Original jurisdiction (iii) Criminal matters
Art.131 confers original jurisdiction (iv) Special leave to appeal
to S.C., i.e.- all the disputes between (i) Appeal in Const. matters -
centre and states etc. shall be solved by Arts.132+134A
the S.C. All the cases regarding these Art.132(1) provides that an appeal
disputes can only be filed in S.C. shall lie to S.C. from any judgment decree
But the original jurisdiction of the or final order of a H.C. in Civil, Criminal or
S.C. however does not extend to the other proceeding if H.C. certifies U/Art-
following matters- 134A that the case involves a substantive
(a) Art.131, proviso- to a dispute arising question of law which requires
out of any treaty, agreement, interpretation of constitution by S.C.
covenant etc. entered before the Here "other proceeding" means
commencement of this constitution proceeding other than civil and criminal,
which contains provision regarding the ie-proceeding of constitutional matters,
exclusion of Jurisdiction of S.C taxation matters and Revenue matters.
(b) Art.262- Parliament may by law (ii) Appeal in Civil cases - Art.133+134A
exclude the jurisdiction of the S.C. in Art.133 provides that an appeal
matter of distribution or control of shall lie to the S.C. from any judgment
wates of any inter-state river. decree or final order of H.C. in civil cases
(c) Art.-280- Matters referred to the only if the H.c. certifies U/Art.134A that -
Finance Commission (a) the case involves a substantial que. of
(d) Art.-290- the adjustment of certain general important
expenses between the Union and the (b) in the opinion of H.C. such que. needs
State. to be decided .....
Enforcement of F.Rs. -

Amit Law Institute
(iii) Appeal in criminal matters - He may refer the question for

Art.134+134A advisory opinion of S and the Court may
According to Art.134, an appeal after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to
shall lie to S.C. from any judgment, final the President its opinion thereon.
order or sentence in a Cr. proceeding of a Clause (2) of Art.143 provides that
H.C. in two ways- if the President refers to S.C. the matters
(a) without certificate of H.C. which are excluded from its jurisdiction
(b) with certificate of H.C. under the proviso of Art.131, the Court is
Without Certificate of H.C. - Art.134(a) is bound to give its opinion thereon.
H.C. has an appeal reverse an order of References made by President to S.C.-
acquittal and passed a death sentence. (1) In Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951
Art.134(b) if H.C. has withdrawn (2) In Re Kerala Education Bill, 1958
the trial from subordinate Court and (3) In Re Berubari Union Case, 1960
convicted the accused to death. (4) In Re Sea Customs Act, 1962
With certificate of H.C.- (5) In Re Parliamentary Privileges case,
Art.134(c) if H.C. certifies U/Art.- 1965
134A then an appeal may lie to the S.C. (6) In Re Presidential Bill, 1974
* Art.134A has been added by 44th Amd. (7) In Re Special Court Bill, 1978
Act. 1978 (8) In Re Kaveri Water Dispute Tribunal,
(iv) Special leave to appeal - 1992
Under Art.136 the S.C. may in its (9) In Re Special Reference No.1 Bill,
discretion grant special leave to appeal 1993
from any judgment decree, sentence or (10) In Re Special Reference (Judge App.
order in any matter passed by any Court 4 Transfer case), 1998
or Tribunal in the Territory of India. (11) In Re.................
But this provision shall not apply to
any Court or Tribunal constituted by law
relating to Armed forces.
4- Advisory jurisdiction -
Art.143 provides that if at any time
appears to the President that-
a question of law or fact has arisen Writs
or is likely to arise, and Under Arts.226 H.C. can issue
the question is of such a nature writs for inforcement of F.Rs given in Part-
and of such public importance that it is III of the Constitution as well as for the
expedient to obtain the opinion of the S.C. enforcement of other legal rights. Not to
upon it.

Amit Law Institute
be exercised if alternative remedy duty. This writ can only be issued where
available. applicant has right to compel the
But U/Art.-32 the S.C. can issue performance of such duty imposed on
writs only for the enforcement of F.Rs. as public authority?
provided in Part-III of the Constitution. When it will not lie -when the duty of an
In this context we can say that the authority is merely a discretionary in
writ jurisdiction of H.C. is wider than the nature. It cannot be granted against
writ jurisdiction of S.C. private person. It cannot be issued to
1- Habeas Corpus - enforce the obligation arises out of
Habeas Corpus is a latin term contract.
which means "You have the body". This 3- Prohibition -
writ is issued in the form of an order A writ of prohibition is issued
calling upon a person by whom another primarily to prevent an inferior court or
person is detained to bring that person tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, or
before the Court and to let the Court know acting contrary to the rule of natural
by what authority he has detained that justice.
person. If the cause shown discloses that It can be issued on following
there is no legal justification for detention, grounds-
the Court will not grant this writ. (i) There is excess of jurisdiction
An appeal lies against an order of (ii) There is absence of jurisdiction
H.C. granting or rejecting the application (iii) There is violation of rule of natural
for issue of writ of hebeas corpus U/Arts.- justice
132, 133, 134 or 136. 4. Certiorary -
Locus Standi- Sunil Batra case, the S.C. This writ is issued by S.C./H.C. to
has relaxed the traditional rule of locus an inferior court or body exercising judicial
standi and held that any person on behalf or cause judicial functions to remove a suit
of detained person can .............. from such inferior court and adjudicate
2. Mandamus - upon the validity of proceedings held by
The word "mandamus" means "the such judicial or causi-judicia body. In this
order" thus the writ of mandamus is an writ court orders the inferior court to
order by a Superior Court commanding a present its judgment before it so that
person or a public authority to do or superior court can examine the validity of
forbear to do something in the nature of judgement it may cancel such judgment if
public duty or in certain case of statutory it is against the rule of natural justice.
duty. Difference between Prohibition &
When it will lie- This writ would be issued Certiorary-
when there is failure to perform mandatory

Amit Law Institute
Both writs are issued with the 3. Salary of judges is fixed by Const. and
object of restraining the inferior Court from is charged or C.F.I. It is not subject to
exceeding its jurisdiction. When the case vote of legislature.
is pending before Court but it has not 4. 138, Parliament can exceed but not
been finally decided, then both writs can curtail the jurisdiction and power of
be issued together - prohibition to prevent S.C.
the Court to proceed further with the case 5. Arts.121, 211- No discussion in
and certiorary for quashing what had legislature (Parts. & St. leg.) on the
already been decided. conduct of judges.
When the inferior court has already 6. Arts.-129, 215-Power to punish for its
give its judgment or decision then only writ contempt.
of Certiorary can be issued. 7. Appointment of judges of S.C./H.C. by
5. Quo Warranto- Executive with the binding consultation
The word 'Quo Warranto' means of C.J.I.
"What is your authority'. By this writ a 8. Salary of judges cannot be reduced
holder of a public office is called upon to during these tenure except in financial
show to Court under what authority he emergency.
holds the office .............................. 9. Prohibition on practice after retirement.
Independence of Judiciary- 10. Transfer of judges of H.C. with
Importance of independence of permission of C.J.I.
judiciary is placed at priority in democratic Independence of judiciary is a basic
country like-India. It is necessary because feature-
only on impartial and independent In S.P. Gupta Vs UOI case the
judiciary can protect the rights of the S.C. has held that independence of
individual and provide equal justice judiciary is a basic feature of the
without fear. Independence can only be constitution, hence it can not be amended
achieved by separating it from executive by an amendment of const. U/Art.368.
or legislative interference i.e.- Non-
interference by the Govt.
The Constitution has made
following provision to ensure
independence of judiciary-
1. Art.50 - separation of judiciary from
executive.
2. Security of Tenure of judges Relations between Union & States
Q. What is legislative Relations
between Union and the States? In

Amit Law Institute
what circumstances Parliament particular subject falls in the sphere of one

can make law on State list? or the other Govt.
Ans. Legislative relations between The S.C. has evolved the following
Union & States- principles of interpretation in order to
The Constitution makes two-fold determine the respective power of the
distribution of legislative powers- Union & the States under the three lists -
(1) Doctrine of territorial nexus - Art.245 (1) Supremacy of Union -
Art.245 provides that the Union list shall prevail over State
parliament may make laws for the whole list.
or any part of the territory of India, and the (2) Doctrine of harmonious construction-
legislature of a State may make laws for The Court shall always try to make
the whole or any part of the State. harmony between Union List and State
State of Bombay Vs R.M.D.C. list.
(2) Subjectwise distribution of leg. power - In State of Bombay Vs F.N.
Art.246 Balsara, AIR, 1951 the Bombay
(i) Parliament has exclusive power to Prohibition Act, which prohibited sale and
make laws with respect to any of matters possession of liquirs in the State, was
enumerate in Union List of seventh challenged on the ground that it
schedule, 97 entries. incidentally encroached upon import and
(ii) The State Legislature has export of liquors across custom frontier- a
exclusive power to make laws with respect Centre subject.
to any of the matters enumerate in State The Court held that the pith &
List of Seventh Schedule. 66 entries. substances of the Act fell under the State
(iii) The Parliament and State list and not Union list, hence the Act. was
Legislature have power to make laws with valid.
respect to any of the matters enumerated (3) Doctrine of pith and substance-
in concurrent list of Seventh Schedule of According to this doctrine, if the
the Constitution. 47 entries. pith and substance of law ie. the true
In case of repugnancy in concurrent list, object of the legislation relates to a matter
law made by Parliament shall prevail with the competence of the legislature
Art.254. which enacted it, it should be held to be
Principles of interpretation of list- intra vires even though it might incidentally
The powers of Centre and States trench of other's matter.
are divided. They cannot make laws State of Bombay Vs. F.N. Balsara
outside their allotted subjects. It is true Profulla Kumar Vs Bank of India
that a scientific division is not possible and (4) Doctrine of colourable legislation-
questions constantly arise whether a KCG Narayan Dev Vs State of Orissa

Amit Law Institute
The doctrine is based on the the Territory of India for implementing

maxim that you cannot be indirectly what any International treaty etc.
you cannot do directly. In these cases the Question
Court will look in the true nature and the The Trade, Commerce and
character of the legislation and for that its Intercourse throughout the Territory of
object, purpose or design to make law on India shall be free. Give its exceptions.
the subject is relevant and not motive. Answer
In State of Bihar Vs Karmeshwar According to Art.19(1)(g), all
Singh, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 citizens of India shall have the
was held void on the ground that though fundamental rights to practice any
apparently it purported to lay down profession or to carry on any occupation,
principle for determining compensation yet trade or business. Only citizens can claim
in reality it did not. their right under this Art.
In following circumstances, According to Art.301, the trade,
Parliament can make law on state list- commerce and intercourse throughout the
1. Art.246(4) - Parliament may make law territory of India shall be free. Anyone can
with respect to any matter claim their right to business. It is statutory
enumerated in State List for the Union right.
Territory. Atiabari Tea Com. Vs State of Asam
2. Art.249- If the Council of States by 2/3 Restrictions on Trade and Commerce-
majority has passed a resolution that Arts.19(1)(g) is subjected to
particular subject of State list is Art.19(6) and Art.301 is subjected to
national interest, parliament can Arts.302-305 -
legislature on that subject of State list (1) Parliaments power to regulate trade
which will remain enforce for one year. and commerce in the public interest -
3. Art.250- During the proclamation of Art.302, 303
national emergency, parliament can (2) States power to regulate laws
legislate on state list and that law shall providing for State monopalies
remain enforce for six months after Art.305.
expiration of emergency. (3) Saving of existing laws and laws
4. Art.252- If two or more state legislature (4) Under Art.19(6) in national interest.
consent that Parliament should Doctrine of pleasure - Art.310
legislate at any subject of state list, The doctrine of pleasure as
then Parliament can legislate on that mentioned in Art.310 is adopted from
subject of state list. England. In England, the rule is that a civil
5. Art.253- Parliament has power to servant holds his office during the
make any law for whole or any part of pleasure of the crown and the crown can

Amit Law Institute
remove any such person from his office Art.315 makes provision for the
without assigning any reason and such establishment of Public Service
person can not claim arrears of his salary, Commission for the Union and for each
pension etc. State.
In India, Art.310 provides that It further provides that two ore
every person in Defence Services or Civil more states may agree to have common
Services of the Govt. of India holds his public service commission that is called
office during the pleasure of the President. 'Joint Commission'.
Similarly, members of the State services The UPSC, if requested by the
hold their officer during the pleasure of the Governor of the may with the approval of
Governor of that State. the President, agree to act for the State.
Restrictions on Doctrine of Pleasure- Appointment and terms of office of
But the Doctrine of pleasure as in members-
England has not been fully adopted by Art.316 - provides that the
India. It has certain restrictions given in Chairman & members of the UPSC and
Art.311. Joint Commission are appointed by
(1) Art.311(1) provides that no person President and in case of a State
can be removed from his office by an Commission by the Governor.
officer who is below the rank of this Qualifications-
appointing officer. As nearly as may be one-half of
(2) Art.311(2) provides that no person the members of every Public Service
can be removed from his office Commission must be persons who have
without giving him an opportunity of held office for at least 10 years under the
hearing. Rule of Natural Justice. Govt. of India or State.
(3) Some authority is not came under the Terms -
pleasure of the President. These are A member of Pub. Ser. Com. shall
as follow- hold office for a period of 6 years unless
(i) President of India he attains the age of 65 years in case of
(ii) Judges of H.C. and S.C. UPSC or 62 years in case of State Pub.
(iii) Election Commissioner Ser. Com., whichever is earlier.
(iv) Chairman and members of Public Removal of members - Art.317-
Service Commission The Chairman and any other
(v) Auditor and Comptroller General of member of a P.S.C. shall only be removed
India from his office by an order of the ground of
(4) The Doctrine of Pleasure is subjected misbehaviour after the S.C. on reference
to the F.Rs. made to it by President has held him
Public Service Commission guilty.

Amit Law Institute
Functions of Pub. Ser. Commission Art.352 provides that if the

Art.320 provides that it shall be President is satisfied on the written
duty of the UPSC and SPSC to conduct recommendation of Council of Ministers
examinations for appointments to the that a grave emergency exists whereby
Services. If requested by two or more the security of India or any part of India is
states, it shall be obligatory on UPSC to threatened he may make a proclamation
assist them in framing of joint recruitment of emergency on the following grounds-
for services requiring special (i) War
qualifications. (ii) External aggression
The UPSC and State PSC must be (iii) Armed rebellion
consulted The word "armed rebellion" has
(a) in all matters relating to methods of been added to 44th Amendment Act,
recruitment to civil posts. 1978. It has replaced the word "internal
(b) on the principles to be followed in disturbance'.
making appointment. President may issue such
(c) on disciplinary matters affecting a proclamation before the actual occurrence
person in service. war, etc, if he satisfied that there is
(d) on any claim by such person for the imminent danger.
costs incurred in defending legal Duration of National Emergency -
proceedings instituted against him. The proclamation of emergency
(e) on any claim for compesation in issued under Art.352 shall cease to
respect of injuries sustained by a operate at the expiration of one month
person while in service. unless it is approved by the parliament.
 the functions of P.S.C. are only If both houses of Parliament have
advisory not binding on Govt. approved this proclamation by a
 The P.S.C. not to be consulted in resolution, it will remain enforce for six
respect of reservation of post for months.
SC/ST and OBC- Arts. 16(4) and 335 If during the proclamation of
 .............. emergency the house of people has been
dissolved, the resolution must be passed
The Emergency Provisions - Arts.352-360 by the Council of State then the
The Constitution of India provides proclamation shall cease to operate at the

for the three types of emergencies - expiry of 30 days from the date on which
(1) National Emergency - Art.352 the House of People first sits after its
(2) State Emergency - Art.356 reconstitution.
(3) Financial Emergency - Art.30 Revocation of Proclamation - [Art.352(7) &

National Emergency (8)]

Amit Law Institute
The President shall revoke the (5) Art.358 provides that the F.Rs. given
proclamation if the House of People in Art.19 shall automatically be
passes a resolution disapproving it. suspended when emergency is in
But as per clause (8) of Art.352, if operation on the ground of war or
at least 1/10th of total members of House external aggression.
of People give notice for such revocation- (6) Art.359 provides that the enforcement
(a) to speaker, if House is in Session or of all other F.Rs. (except Arts.20 &
(b) to President, if House is not session 21) can be suspended if the President
for special sitting of house then the special issue a proclamation for this purpose.
sitting of house shall be held within 14 A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs Shukla (Habeas
days from the date of receipt of such Corpus Case)
notice by the speaker of the President as Before 44th Amendment Act,
the case may be. S.C. has held that no person has
Effect of proclamation of emergency - legal right to move S.C. for the
[Art.353, 354, 355, 359, 83(2)] enforcement of F.Rs. during the
(1) The executive power of the Union proclamation of emergency.
shall extend to the giving of directions After 44th Amendment Act,
to any state as to the manner in which It has been held that any person
the executive power thereof is to be can go to S.C. for the enfrocement of
exercised. [Art.353(a)] F.Rs. guaranteed U/Arts.20 & 21 during
(2) Parliament is empowered to make the proclamation of emergency
laws on the matter not enumerated in State Emergency Art.356
Union List. [Art.353(b)] Art.356 provides that if the
(3) U/Art-354, Centre is empowered to President is satisfied on the report of
alter revenue distribution between the Governor or otherwise (Art.365, failure to
Union and State. comply with Union's direction) that the
(4) Art.83(2), proviso-It provides that Constitutional machinery is failed in that
while the proclamation of emergency State, he may issue a proclamation of
is in operation, the Parliament may by State Emergency.
law extend the life of the House of The President my by such
people for a period not exceeding one proclamation-
year of people for a period not (i) assume himself or anybody all the
exceeding one year of a time and not executive power of State Govt.
exceeding in any case beyond the (ii) declares that the legislative power shall
period of six months after the be exercised by the Parliament.
proclamation has cease to operate. Duration of Emergency

Amit Law Institute
The proclamation of emergency The S.C. has held that

U/thi Art. shall case to operate at the proclamation of State Emergency in Bihar
expiration of two months unless before the was unconstitutional and was based on
expiration of that period it has been extrenious and irrelevant ground.
approved by resolution of Parliament. S.C. held that Governor has
If the Parliament has approved this mislead the Centre in recommending the
proclamation, it shall continue to operate dissolution of Assembly and Union
upto six months. If it is approved again by Council of Ministers should have verified it
Parliament it will continue for further before accepting it as gospel truth.
period of six months. Financial Emergency Art.360
If the Union wants to extend the If the President is satisfied that the
period of emegrency beyond a period of financial stability of India is threatened, he
one year, the certificate of election may issue a proclamation of financial
commission is necessary which report that emergency. It will continue for two
the election is not possible in that state. months. If Parliament approval it will
Sate of Rajasthan Vs UOI continue for six months.
The Court held that 'satisfaction' of During this period salary of judges
President can only be challenged on the of S.C./H.C. may be reduced.
ground that- Amendment of the constitution
(i) It has been exercised malafide. Art.368
(ii) It is based on wholly extraneous or Power of Parliament to amend the
irrelevant grounds. constitution and procedure there -
The Court held that "Satisfaction" The provision of amendment of the
in Art.356 does not mean the "personal Constitution has been made with a view to
satisfaction" of the President but it is overcome the difficulties which may come
satisfaction of council of .............. in future in the working of the constitution.
S.R. Bommai Vs UOI The procedure for amendment is
The Court has held that order of neither very easy nor very difficult. They
President rule in the State is subject to are of three types-
judicial review U/Art.142 and it has given (1) Amendment by simple majority - (50%
guidelines to prevent the misuse of this +1)
power. Articles that can be amendment by
Held-secularism is basic feature of Parliament by simple majority as that
the Constitution and if any State Govt. act required for passing of any ordinary law.
against it, President rule can be imposed These Arts. are following -
there. (i) Art.5- Citizenship.
Rameshwar Prasad Vs UOI

Amit Law Institute
(ii) Art. 169- Abolition or creation of Procedure for amendment-

legislative councils ins states. A Bill to amend the constitution
(iii) Art.239A- Creation of local legislature may be introduced in either House of
or Council of Ministers or both for Union Parliament. After it is passed by
Territory. Parliament, it shall be presented to the
These Articles are excluded from the President for his assent who shall give his
purview of Art.368. assent to Bill and thereupon constitution
(2) Amendment by special majority- shall stand amended.
Articles that can be amended by Amendment of F.Rs.-
special majority as laid down in Art.368. The question is whether F.Rs. can
All constitutional amendments, other than be amended under Art.368 came for
those referred above, come within this consideration of S.C. in Shankari Prasad
category and must be passed by the Vs UOI, AIR, 1951.
majority of the total membership of each In this case the validity of 1st
house of Parliament as well as by majority Const. Am. Act, which inserted Arts.31A
of not less than 2/3 of the members of the and 31B as challenged the ground that it
House Present and voting. takes away the rights conferred by Part-III
(3) Amendment by special majority and of the constitution.
ratification by States The S.C. held that the power to
Articles which require, in addition amend constitution U/Art.368 also
to the special majority mentioned above, includes the F.Rs and the word "law in
ratification by not less than 1/2 of the Art.13(2) incldues only an ordinary law
State legislature. and not constitutional amendment.
The following provisions require In Sajjan Singh Vs State of
such ratification- Rajasthan, AIR, 1965 the validity of 17th
1. Election of the President - Arts.54 & 55 Amendment Act, 1964 was challenged.
2. Extent of the executive power of the The S.C. approved the judgment given in
Union and States - Arts. 73 & 162 Shankari Prasad case.
3. Articles dealing with Judiciary - In Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab,
Arts.124-147, 214-231-241 AIR, 1971 the validity of 17th Amd. Act
4. Distribution of Leg. power between which inserted certain Act. in 9th schedule
Union & States - Arts.245-25.. was again challenged.
5. Any of the lists of the VIIth schedule- S.C. overruled it earlier decision in
VIIth schedule Shankari Prasad's and Sajjan Singh's
6. Represent states in Parliament- IVth cases and held that Parliament has no
Schedule. power to take away or abridge F.Rs of
7. Articles 368 itself. citizens. The S.C. applied the Doctrine of

Amit Law Institute
prospective overruling and held that this To remove all the limitations
decision will have only prospective imposed the amending power of the
operation. It held that an amendment of Parliament by the ruling of S.C. in
Cosnt. is a "Law" within the meaning of Kesvananda Bharti's case, the Parliament
Art.13(1) and if any amement violates any enacted 42nd Amd. Act, and added new
of the FRs. the court would declare such clauses (4) and (5) to Art.368 which
amendment as void. removed all the limitations imposed on
24th Amendment Act, 1971 Parliament by S.C.
In order to remove difficulties In Minerva Mills Vs UOI, AIR 1980
created by decison of S.C. in Golak Nath's the S.C. struck down clauses (4) & (5) of
case, Parliament enacted the 24th Am. Art.368 as it destroyed the basic feature of
Act. which has added a new clause (4) in the constitution. In this case S.C. held that
Art.13 which provides that an amend is following are also basic structure of the
not a law. constitution-
Theory of Basic Structure- (1) Limited power of Parliament to amend
The validity of 24th Const. Amd. the constitution.
Act, was challenged in Keshvananda (2) Harmony and balance between F.Rs.
Bharti Vs Kerala, AIR, 19.....popularly and D.P.S.P.
known as F.R. case. (3) Fundamental Rights in Certain cases.
In this case S.C. has held that the
Parliament has full power to amend any
provision of the constituon including Part-
III but it has not power to amend the basic
feature or framework of the constitution.
Judges enumerated certain
essentials of basic-feature in this case-
(1) Supremacy of the constitution
(2) Republic democratic and secularism.
(3) Separation of powers
(4) Federal character of the constitution
(5) Rule of law
(6) Judicial review
(7) Democracy which implies free and fair
election
(8) Jurisdiction of S.C. U/Art.32
42nd Amendment Act, 1976-

Amit Law Institute
Lists of High Courts in India - Total 21
Name of H.C. Year Jurisdiction Seat Bench

Allahabad 1866 U.P. Allahabad Lucknow
Andhra Pradesh 1954 A.P. Hyderabad
Bombay (Chartered) 1862 Maharashtra, Mumbai Nagpur, Panji, Aurangabad
Dadranagar,
Haweli, Goa,
Daman Div
Kolkata 1862 Andman Kolkata Port Blair
Nikobar
Delhi 1966 Delhi Delhi
Gowahati 1948 All Union Gowahati Kohima, Shilang, Imfal,
Territories Agartalla
(North East
States)
Gujarat 1960 Gujarat Ahemdabad
Himachal Pradesh 1977 H.P. Shimla
Jammu & Kashmir 1957 Jammu & Jammu &
Srinagar Srinagar
Kanataka 1884 Karnataka Bangaluru
Kerala 1956 Kerala & Ernakula
Lakshwadeep
M.P. 1956 M.P. Jabapur Gwalior, Indore
Madras (Chartered) 1862 Tamilnadu & Chennai
Pondicherry
Orrisa 1948 Orrisa Cuttuck
Patna 1960 Bihar Patna
Punjab & Haryana 1966 Punjab, Chandigarh
Haryana &
Chandigarh
Rajasthan 1950 Rajasthan Jodhpur Jaipur
Sikkim 1975 Sikkim Gangtok
Uttaranchal 2001 Uttaranchal Nainital
Chattisgarh 2001 Bilaspur Bilaspur
Jharkhand 2001 Jharkhand Ranchi

Amit Law Institute: Constitution of India Historical Background

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amit Law Institute: Constitution of India Historical Background

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amit Law Institute

Constitution of India 15. After 92nd Amendment Act, 2005, it

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 1

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 2

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 3

Part-I either house of parliament except on the

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 4

Where any state is to be included in The term "domicile' is not defined in

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 5

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 6

Fundamental Rights - Articles 12-35 of These rights can be taken away by

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 7

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 8

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 9

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 10

which they are in consistent with F.Rs. imposition of restriction on a F.R. in

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 11

provision though valid when enacted, constitution law as well as post

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 12

court overruled the judgement of Golak

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 13

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 14

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 15

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 16

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 17

children. It is because of women and

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 18

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 19

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 20

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 21

To finish untouchability and to of exceptional and distinguished services

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 22

These 'six freedoms' are not (4) It provides a mechanism by which it

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 23

In Brij Bhusan Vs State of Delhi, Dinesh Trivedy Vs UOI

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 24

(4) Friendly relation with foreign states Art.19(1)(C) guarantees to all

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 25

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 26

subjected to reasonable restrictions was prescribed in the statute at the time of

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 27

Explaining the scope of this clause Art-21

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 28

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 29

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 30

any civilised society implies the right to food,

Leading cases of Art.21- professional obligation of all doctors, whether

(2) Right to livelihood- In P. Rathinam Vs UOI (1994) a

(3) Right to privacy- and declared Sec.309 IPC as unconstitutional.

safety requires. Constitution.

In Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. M.C. Metha Vs UOI (1996) Vellore

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 31

principles (essential features of sustainable childhood care and education to children

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 32

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 33

In Satwant Singh Vs Asstt. Passport (28) Prevention of sexual harrassment of

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 34

with it would then be deprivation of

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 35

basic "requirements" to be follow in all Advisory Board (Judge of H.C.) is

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 36

8, Marutipuram, Faizabad Road, Lucknow 37