S.

n CASE NAME Article/A Subject Involved Decision Remarks

o mendmen
ts
1. Keshavnand Art.368 Validity of 24th, 25th, 29th [Theory of basic structure] See also Indira
a Bharti v. amendments to the Constitution can be amended only Nehru Gandhi v.
State of Constitution of India was to the extent of and in accordance Raj Narain AIR
Kerela challenged. The main with the provisions of Art.368. 1975 sc 2299,
(AIR 1973 question related to the Some of the provisions of the Minerva mills
SC 1461) nature, extent and scope of constitution of India form its basic ltd. V. UOI AIR
amending power of the structure which is not amendable 1980 SC1789 &
parliament under the by parliament by its constituent L.Chandra
Constitution. power under art.368. Kumar v. UOI
AIR 1997 SC
1125
2. S.R Bommai Art.356 Presidents Rule in States Main
v. UOI (AIR under Art.356- Grounds & contention
1994 SC scope of Judicial review. [Federalism]
1918)
3. State of Art.131 Nature of Indian The power of Union to Legislate in In this case
West Bengal Constitution -Federal, respect of property situated in the majority held
v. UOI (AIR Unitary, Quasi Federal. states even if the states are that
1963 SC [(i)Contract or Agreement regarded qua the union as Constitution is
1241) b/w independent & sovereign, remained unrestricted. not truly federal
sovereign units to surrender The right of the center to require & states are not
partially their authority in the province to part with property sovereign.
favor of the union; for the effective performance of However, Subba
(ii)supremacy of Central functions cannot be Rao, J. In his
Constitution; considered as detracting from dissent treats it
(iii)Distribution of Powers provincial autonomy. basically
b/w Center & State; federal.
(iv)Supreme authority of
courts to interpret
Constitution]
4. Ram Jawaya Art. 73 & Theory of separation of The petitioners have no
Kapur v. 162, Art. power; art. 73& 162 of the fundamental right which can be
State of 19 (1)(g)& constitution of India; in the said to have been infringed by the
Punjab (AIR 19(6). absence of law, state cannot action of the govt., the petition is
1955 SC monopolize any trade or bound to fail on that ground.
1241) business to the total or Further, the petitioner has no
partial exclusion of citizens fundamental right under art. 19(1)
under art. 19(6) of the (g) & the quest. Whether the govt.
constitution. Could establish monopoly without
 any legislation under 19(6) of the
constitution is altogether
immaterial.
5. Kuldeep Federal structure of the India is not a federal state in the
Nayar v. UOI Constitution was traditional sense of term. In
(AIR 2006 questioned on the ground context of India, the principle of
SC 3127) of Representation of federalism is not territory related.
Peoples Act 2003 by which Further, when it comes to
the requirement of exercising powers, it’s the centre
“domicile” in the state where the favour is heavily
concerned for getting weighed.
elected to Rajya Sabha was
deleted.
6. State of Discussion on the concept A semi federal system of Govt. Has
Haryana V. of Federation & the federal been adopted under the Indian
State of character of India. constitution.
Punjab (AIR
2002 SC
685)
7. In re Art. 3(c)& Power to cede away Indian The power to diminish the area of Add. Readings;
Berubari Art 368 territory in favor of a a state does not entitle parliament Ram Kishore
Union & foreign country - whether to cede Indian territory to a sen v. UOI AIR
Exchange of permissible; Procedure. foreign state. Parliament has no 1966 SC 644,
Enclaves power art. 3(c) to make a law to UOI v. Sukumar
(AIR 1960 implement an agreement with Sengupta AIR
SC 858) govt. Of a foreign state ceding 1990 SC 1692.
Indian territory to a foreign State.
Area Diminished under Art. 3(c)
should & must continue to be a
part of territory of India. An
amendment of Constitution,
under Art. 368, to modify the First
schedule to the constitution, is
necessary for ceding Indian
territory to a foreign state.

8. Ram Kishore 90th Constitution (Ninth Advisory opinion given by the

Sen v. UOI amendme Amendment) Act, apex court in IN Re Berubari Union
(AIR 1966 nt Act 1960-Transfer of & exchange of Enclaves AIR 1960
SC 644) 1960 certainareas to Pakistan in SC 858 was binding. After receipt
fulfillment of India-Pakistan of the advisory opinion in Re
Agreement Berubari case, the parliament
passed the constitution (9th)
 Amendment Act, 1960 to give
effect to Indo pak Agreement. The
validity of the amendment was
challenged alleging that the
language of it so far as it related to
Berubari Union no. 12 was
confusing and incapable of
implementation. It was also
contended that the transfer of
Berubari Union would result in
deprivation of citizenship and
property without compensation.

9. UOI of Articles Constitution of India, The Supreme court held that lease
Indian v. 1,3, 368 1950: Articles 1, 3, in perpetuity of Teen Bigha in
Sukumar andConsti 368 and Constitution favor of Bangladesh did not
Sengupta tution (Ninth Amendment) Act amount to cessation of Indian
AIR 1990 SC (Ninth 1960 , Agreements of 1974 territory and hence legislation not
1692 Amendme & 1982 ,Implementation of required .
nt) Teen Bigha Whether
Act,1960 involves cession of Indian
territory to Bangladesh
Sovereignty over Dahagram
& Angarpota, Whether
arises.
10. N. Masthan Art. 1 Territory of SC held term acquired; acquisition
Sahib v. (3)(c) India-Pondicherry,if part as per public intl law – if public
Chief of India.Question referred notification, declaration or
Commission to Union assertion by GoI that part area has
er of Government-Answerof been acquired ;courts bound to
Pondicherry Union Government, if recognize – conversely if GOI
(AIR 1962 binding on Courts.Orders issues statement that part area
SC 797) ofauthorities in not acquired – then also binding
Pondicherry; Appeal and on courts – Art 1(3)(c).
WritPetition,if maintainable
in Supreme
Court-Constitution of India,
Arts. 1 (3), 32 and 136.

11. R. C Poudyal Art. 2 Reservation in the Sikkim Establishment of new state as

v. UOI (AIR legislative assembly for Parliament deems fit but cannot
1993 SC Sikkimese of go against theory of basic
1804) "Bhutia-Lepcha" origin and structure.
for "Sangha" Buddhist
Lamaic monasteries was
challenged (the Sangha
reservation also used a
separate electoral roll). The
challengers argued this
reservation violated the
Constitution's essentially
republican and secular
nature and the concept of
"one person-one vote."

12. Babulal Art. 3 (b) Reference of central bills to Once the original bill is referred to
parate v. to (e) and States. the state or states, the purpose of
State of Art. 3 the proviso is served and no fresh
Bombay (Notes) reference is required every time
(AIR 1960 an amendment to the bill is
SC 51) moved and accepted according to
the rules of Procedure in
Parliament. Parliament is not
bound to accept or act upon the
views of the state Legislature,
even if those in views are received
in time.
13. U.N.R. Rao Art. 74(1) Is it essential to have a Art. 74(1) is mandatory and, Note:- Also read
v. Indira council of Ministers under therefore, the President cannot with Art. 52,
Gandhi (AIR Art. 74(1) even at the time exercise the executive Power Art. 53(2), Art.
1971 SC when the House of the without the aid and advice of the 75(1), 75 (2),
1002) People has been dissolved CoM. It is essential to have a CoM Art.85 (2) &
or its term has expired. under Art. 74(1) even at the time Representation
when the house of the people has of Peoples Act ,
been dissolved or its term has 1951.
expired.[in the result the appeal
fails and dismissed]

14. S.P. Anand v. Art. 14, Can a person who is not a [Petition Dismissed] As per the Art. 75(5)
H.D. Deve Art. 21 & member of either of the observations made Art. 75(5) requires the
Gowda (AIR Art. 75, House can be appointed as permits the president to appoint a person to be
1997 Sc 75(5) the Prime Minister of India person who is not a member of the member for
272) either House of Parliament as a at least 6
Minister, Including a Prime consecutive-e
Minister subject to the possibility months .
of his commanding the support of
the majority of the members of
Lok sabha.

15. Shamsher Art. Appellants – Punjab Civil The orders of termination of the Court also
Singh v. 163,163(1 Service (Judicial Branch) – services of the appellants were set referred to Art.
State of ), 164. Shamsher Singh & Ishwar aside. 123, 213,
Punjab (AIR Chand Agarwal terminated 331(2)(c),
1974 SC by the following order of 356,360 and
212) the Governor. – Samsher said”whenever
Singh[ Rule 9 of PCS the constitution
(Punishment & Appeals) requires the
Rules, 1952 ] satisfaction of
Ishwar Chand Agarwal [Rule the president or
7(3) in Part D of the governor , the
PCS(Judicial Branch) Rules, satisfaction is
1951] not personal
but it is the
satisfaction of
the CoM .”
16. M.P Special A.226, Whether a Governor can
Police 136 & act in his discretion and
Establishme 142. against the aid and advice
nt v. State of of the council of ministers
M.P.,(2004) in a matter of grant of
8 SCC 788 sanction for prosecution of
Ministers for offences
under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and/or
under the Indian Penal
code.
It was for the court to arrive at the See. Samsher
conclusion as regards commission Singh v. State of
of the offence of conspiracy upon Punjab [(1974)
the material placed on record of 2 SCC 831].
the case during trail which would
include the oral testimonies of the
witnesses. Such a relevant
consideration apparently was
absent in the minds of the Council
of ministers when it passed an
order refusing to grant sanction.
Where of facts the bias becomes
apparent and/or the decision of
council of ministers is shown to be
irrational and based on
non-consideration of relevant
factors, the governor would be
right, on the facts of the case to
act in his discretion and grant
sanction.
It has held that the decision of the
Council of ministers was ex facie
irrational whereas the decision of
the Governor was not.
So the Writ court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226
and also under A.136 and 142 can
pass an appropriate order which
would do complete justice to the
parties.

17. S.P Gupta v. A.226 & It laid the foundation of It court held that any member of
Union of 32 Public Interest Litigation the public having “Sufficient
India AIR (PIL) interest” can maintain an action
1982 SC 149 for judicial redress for ‘Public
Judges injury’ in relation to any
Transfer constitutional or legal provision,
Case under Article 226 & Article 32, by
a letter addressed to the Court.
18. Epuru A.72 & In this case a congress The Pardoning powers of the
Sudhkar v. A.161 worker was convicted for President under Art. 72 and the
Union of the murder of a worker of Governors under Art.161 are
India, AIR the Telugu Desham and he subject to judicial review.
2006 SC 338 was awarded death Pardoning power cannot be
sentence. The state exercised arbitrarily on the basis
Governor granted pardon of caste or political reasons.
to him.
19. Rameshwar A.356 The Constitutional validity The President proclamation
Prasad v. of Notification dated 23 dissolving state assembly in Bihar
Union of May, 2005 ordering under A.356 were unconstitutional
India, AIR dissolution of Legislative
and based on extraneous and
2006 SC 980 Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue. irrelevant grounds.

Proclamation under A.356 on

“immorality” is not a valid ground.
TOPIC 4- PARLIAMENT
AND STATE
LEGISLATURES
20 B.R.Kapur v. A.164(1) Conviction of a person for A person who is convicted for a
State of & 164(4) an offence- disqualified to criminal offence and sentenced to
Tamil Nadu be a member of the state imprisonment for a period of not
AIR 2001 SC legislature. Can such a less than 2 years cannot be
3435 person be appointed as appointed the Chief Minister of
Chief Minister? the state under Articles 164(1)
“Jayalita read with A.164(4) and cannot
Case” continue to function as such.
21. Special A.356 & The President has referred The SC held that A.174 (1) does
Reference A.143 the important question not apply to a ‘dissolved assembly’
No. 1 of regarding interpretation of but to a ‘live assembly’. A.174 (1)
2002 (Re A.174 and A.324 to the SC neither relates to elections nor
Gujrat for it advisory opinion does it provide any outer limit for
Assembly under A.143 of the holding elections for constituting
Election Constitution. the Assembly. The holding of
Matter), AIR elections is the exclusive domain
2003 SC 87 of election commission under
A.324.
Merely because the time schedule
fixed under A.174 cannot be
adhered to that per se cannot be a
ground for bringing into operation
A.356. Since A.174(1) does not
apply to dissolved legislative
 assembly and as such there being
no infraction of A.174(1) in
preparing schedule for election by
the commission, the question of
applicability of A.356 does not
arise. The question of declaration
of state emergency under A.356
has no relevance to fixation of
election schedule.
22. Anil kumar A.164(1) The exercise of the power The SS held that it to be an
Jha v. UOI under A.164 (1) was in arbitrary and malafide exercise of
AIR (2005)3 issue. The Governor of the power by the Governor, which
SCC 150 Jharkhand appointed the is a fraud on the constitution. The
leader of party/political Court preponed the floor test to
alliance, not commanding determine primacy between
support of majority of contending political alliances and
legislators, as Chief issued other directions to ensure
Minister. fairness of the floor test. Pro tem
speaker of the Assembly was
directed to have proceedings of
the floor test video-recorded and
copy thereof sent to SC.
23. Jaya A.102(1)(a The Court interpreted the The Apex court upheld her
Bachchan v. ) of the expression ‘office of profit’ disqualification from the
UOI, AIR Constituti in the context of membership of Rajya Sabha.
2006 SC 980 on disqualification for the
membership of Parliament.
‘office of
profit’ ‘Office of Profit’ is an office
which is capable of yielding
a profit of pecuniary gain.

24. Rameshwar A.356 The Constitutional validity The President proclamation

Prasad v. of Notification dated 23 dissolving state assembly in Bihar
UOI, AIR May, 2005 ordering under A.356 was unconstitutional
2006 SC 980 dissolution of Legislative
and based on extraneous and
“Bihar Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue. irrelevant grounds.
Assembly
Dissolution Proclamation under A.356 on
Case’ “immorality” is not a valid ground.
25. In Re Keshav
Singh, AIR
1965 SC 745
26. Raja Ram Art.105(3) The Constitutional validity The court held that there is no
Pal v. of the expulsion of certain power of expulsion in the
Hon’ble MPs by the Parliament was Parliament, either inherent or
Speaker, Lok in issue. traceable to Art. 105(3). Expulsion
Sabha by the house will be possible only
(2007) 3 if Art. 102 or Art. 101 are suitably
SCC 184 amended or if a law is made under
Art. 102 (1) (e) enabling the house
to expel a member found
unworthy or unfit of continuing as
member.
Topic -5 Legislative
Power of the Executive
(Ordinances)
27. D.C Art.123/2 This case is example of Abuse The court called it a ‘subversion of
Wadhwa v. 13 of ordinance power. 256 democratic process’ and ‘colorable
State of ordinances promulgated in exercise of powers’ and held that
Bihar, AIR the state, and all of these kept this amounted to a fraud to the
alive by re promulgation
1987 SC 579 constitution. The executive cannot
without being brought before
usurp the function assigned to the
the legislature, between
1976-81. legislature under the constitution.
28. A.K. Roy v. Art.123/2 The SC upheld the An ordinance has been held to be
UOI, AIR 13 constitutional validity of the a law under A. 21 of the
1982 SC 710 NSA and held that it is not Constitution. As the legislature the
violative of Art. 14. President can also repeal or
“National amend an existing legislation.
Security Act An ordinance is like a
(NSA)” Parliamentary law. However it
held that ordinance would be
subject to the test of vagueness,
arbitrariness, reasonableness, and
public interest.

The court held that right of legal

representation before the board is
not permissible.
 Topic-6 Union and
State Judiciary

29. Rupa Ashok A.137 & Although a writ petition under

Hurra v. A.32 A.32 against a final judgment
Ashok Hurra /order of the S.C after disposal of
(2002) 4 review petition under A.137 is not
SCC 388 : maintainable yet the Court can, in
AIR 2002 SC rarest of rare cases, reconsider its
1771 final judgment to prevent abuse of
process of the court to cure a
gross miscarriage of justice.
30. Zakarius A.32 A writ petition was filed It was held that the writ petition
Lakra v. UOI before the SC for quashing the under A.32 was not maintainable.
(2005) 3 death sentence, imposed on The appropriate remedy is only to
SCC 161 petitioner’s son by the trial file a curative petition.
court and confirmed by the
high court and in appeal by
the SC. A School certificate
was produced as additional
evidence in support of the
ground that the convict was
juvenile at the time of
commission of the offence. In
review petition earlier filed by
the appellant, this ground was
stated to have been noticed
while dismissing the petition.
31. S.P.Gupta v. A.32 & Independence of Judiciary; No primacy needs to be given to The said
President of A.226,A.1 Public interest litigation, Locus the opinion of the Chief Justice of decision was
India, AIR 24(2),A.21 standi, privilege under Article India; It is the executive which has very much
1982 SC 149 7(1),A.222 74(2). primacy. criticized.
(1)
It led the foundation of Public
“Judges
interest Litigation(PIL).
Transfer
Case”

32. In Re Special A.32 & The SC pronounced its advisory

reference A.226,A.1 opinion in this case, in which it
No.1 of 24(2),A.21 provided some more safeguards
1998 7(1),A.222 regarding appointment and
(Judges (1) transfer of Judges viz.
Appointmen “Consultation of Plularity of
t Case), AIR judges”.
 1999 SC 1 The CJI had to consult four senior
most judges of the SC and if two
of the four disagreed on some
name it could not be
recommended.
33. National A.124(2)& The Commission (NJAC) is It would consist of
Judicial A.217(1) established by 99th CJI+
Appointmen Amendment. 2 senior most judges of SC next to
t CJI
Commission Union law Minister + 2 eminent
persons nominated by a
committee consist of Prime
Minister, CJI and Leader of
Opposition.
34. L. Chandra A.323-A & Whether ouster of power of A.323A, clause 2(d) and Clause
Kumar v. A.323-B judicial review to the total 3(d) of A.323B, to the extent they
UOI, AIR exclusion of the High Court’s exclude the jurisdiction of the high
1997 SC under A.226 of the court’s and SC under A.226/227
Constitution Permissible?
1125 and 32 of the Constitution, are
unconstitutional.
35. Asif A.32/226 Mandamus cannot be issued to
Hemeed v. the legislature to enact a
state of particular legislature.
J&K., AIR
1989 SC
1899
36. Rudal Shah A.32 In a writ petition for Habeas The court felt that not awarding
v. State of Corpus the court awarded damages in the instant case would
Bihar,AIR damages to the petitioner “be doing merely lip service to the
1983 SC against the state for breach of Fundamental Rights to liberty
his right of personal liberty
1086 which the state government has
under A.21 as he was kept in
so grossly violated”.
jail for 14 years even after his
acquittal by a criminal court.
37. M.C. Mehta A.32 The Apex court widened the It held that a poor can move the
v. UOI, AIR scope of PIL. court by writing a letter (even
1987 SC without an affidavit) to any
1086 judge(instead of the entire
court).The Court has power to
grant relief, in form of
compensation, where violation of
fundamental right is “gross and
patent” and “affects persons on a
large scale”. The Court can appoint

enforcement of Fundamental
rights under A.32.
38. Bandhua A.32 An organization informed the
Mukti SC through the letter about
Morcha v. the inhuman and intolerable
UOI, AIR conditions of bonded labours
working in stone quarries in
1984 Sc 802
Faridabad.
39. Bhim Singh A.32 The Petitioner(an MLA) was
v. State of J. arrested and detained in
& K., AIR police custody and
1986 SC 494 deliberately prevented for
attending session of legislative
assembly.
The conduct of the magistrate
was criticized who passed an
order remanding the accused
to police custody without the
accused having been
produced before him
personally.
commission or any device for the
The court treated the letter as a
writ petition and appointed a
commission to make an enquiry.
The Court explained the nature
and purpose of PIL.
Under A.32 only requirement to
approach the court is through
‘Appropriate Proceedings’ and this
requirement has to be judged in
the light of the purpose for which
proceeding is to be taken, namely
enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights.
The SC awarded compensation to
the petitioner for his illegal
detention in police custody which
was held to constitute violation of
his rights under Art.21 and Art.22
(2).
Topic 7 – Distribution of Legislative Powers
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
40 State of Bihar v. Article 245 Smt. Charushila Das Does the State The Court held that a State
Charushila Dasi (Extent of held that the trust in Legislature have power legislature has power to
law made by question is a private trust to legislate with respect legislate with respect to a
AIR 1959 SC Parliament created for the worship to a charitable and charitable and religious
1002 and by the of a family idol in which religious trust situated trust situated within its
Legislature the public are not within its territory, territory, even though any
[Doctrine of States) interested therefore when a small or large part of trust proper, small
Territorial Nexus] Bihar Hindu Religious part of the property is or large may be situated in
Article 226 Trusts Act, 1950 do not situated in another another State.
No law made by (Power of apply to it. State? The petition of Smt.
Parliament shall High Court to She made an application Charushila Dasi stood
be deemed to be issue certain to the High Court under dismissed with costs.
invalid on the writs) Article 226 of the
ground that it Constitution in which
would have Section 59 of asked for a writ or order
extra-territorial Hindu to be issued quashing the
operation’. Religious proceedings taken
Trusts Act, against her by Bihar
1950 State Board of Religious
Trusts.
41 State of Bombay Article 245 State levied a tax on Does State act in The Court held that a
v. R. M. D. C (Extent of lotteries & prize Extra-terrotorial sufficient territorial nexus
law made by competitions in State. jurisdiction and so exist for the State to tax
AIR 1957 SC 699 Parliament The tax was extended to impugned Act ultra the newspapers.
and by the newspaper printed & vires the competency
[Doctrine of Legislature published in Banglore, of State?
Territorial Nexus] States) but had wide circulation
in Bombay. The prize
No law made by entries were received
Parliament shall from Bombay through
be deemed to be agents & depots
invalid on the established in State.
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
42 Tata Iron & Steel Article 245 In this case, the appellant Does theory of nexus The fact that the goods
Co. Ltd. v. State of (Extent of company had its applies to tax statue as being in Bihar at time of
Bihar law made by registered office in the goods are sold, sale or
Parliament Bombay, factory & delivered & consumed produced/manufactured in
AIR 1958 SC and by the works in Bihar & its head outside the State? Bihar doesn't constitute
452 Legislature sales office in West sale but were used for
States) Bengal. The State under locating situs of sale in
[Doctrine of Bihar Sales Tax Act, Bihar State. These
Territorial Nexus] 1947, imposed a sales tax ingredients only furnishes
No law made by on the connection between
Parliament shall (i) Goods which are taxing State & Sale.
be deemed to be actually in Bihar at the Nexus theory doesn't
invalid on the time of sale & impose a tax, it only
ground that it (ii) Goods which are indicates circumstances in
would have produced & which a tax imposed by
extra-territorial manufactured in Bihar. legislature may be
operation’. enforced in particular
case. The court thus
upheld the levy of tax.
43 G.V.K. Industries Article 245 Appellant had (i) Is Parliament The court held 1st issue in
v. Income Tax (Extent of challanged the order of constitutionally affirmation & 2nd in
Officer law made by Respondent that restricted from negative.
Parliament Appellanr was liable to enacting legislation
(2011) 4 SCC 36 and by the withhold a certain w.r.t extra-territorial
Legislature portion of monies being aspects or causes that
[Doctrine of States) paid to foregin company do not have nexus with
Territorial Nexus] & also challanged the India or its
No law made by Article 260 vires of sec 9(1)(vii)(b) inhabitants?
Parliament shall (Jurisdiction of Income Tax Act 1961 (ii) Does Parliament
be deemed to be of the Union for want of legislative have the powers to
invalid on the in relation to competence & violation legislate "for" any
ground that it territories of Article 14 of territory, other than the
would have outside India) Constitution. territory of India or any
extra-territorial part of it?
operation’.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
44 In Re C P & Berar Sec 3(1) of The Union Government Whether a tax imposed The Central Legislature
Sales of Motor the Central contended that an excise by a provincial will have the power to
Spirit & Provinces duty may be imposed on legislature on the sale impose duties of excisable
Lubricants and Berar home produced goods 'at of oil was bad as it was articles before they
Taxation Act Sales of any stage' from in essence of excise become part of the general
Motor Spirits production to the duty? stock of the Province i.e.
AIR 1939 FC 1 and consumption. The at the stage of
Lubricants provincial legislature manufacture or
[Doctrine of Taxation Act, could not levy sales tax production and the
Harmonious 1938 on sales of motor spirits Provincial Legislature an
Construction] as 'sale' is a stage exclusive power to
Overlapping/ between production and impose a tax on sales
conflicting entries consumption. thereafter.
in the three lists The provincial The Court reconciled the
must be Government contended federal power to impose
reconciled to that 'excise duty' was a 'excise duty' and the
bring “harmony tax on production or States' power to impose
between them” manufacturing of goods 'sales tax'.
only and that it could not
be levied at a later stage.
45 Gujarat Item 11 of Shrikant, a student of St. Does a state have The Court held that the
University v. List II or Xavier college, competence under the power to legislate with
Krishna State List in University of Gujarat State List to prescribe respect to medium of
Ranganath conflict with was denied permission to any particular medium education is a necessary
Mudholkar Item 66 of take admission to classes of instruction in respect incidence of coordination
List I or for the Intermediate Arts to higher education? and determination of
AIR Union List examination of standards, the State law
1963 SC 703 'coordination University (English was invalid.
and medium) to Shrikant
[Doctrine of determination stating that in view of the
Harmonious of standards provision of Gujarat
Construction] in institutions University Act, 1961 he
Overlapping/ of higher could not attend classes
conflicting entries education.' in which instructions
in the three lists were imparted through
must be medium of English.
reconciled to
bring “harmony
between them”
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
46 Prafulla Kumar v. Sec 100, 107 Validity of Bengal Does the impugned act The pith & substance of
Bank of of GOI Act; Money Lenders Act deals with central impugned Act being
Commerce, Kulna 1940, which limits matter & is ultra vires money-lending, a State
Entry 28, List amount & rate of interest the legislative power subject, and it was valid
AIR 1947 PC 60 I; recoverable by money of state? even though it trenched
Entry 21, List lender on any loan was incidentally on
[Doctrine of Pith II challenged on the ground „Promissory Notes‟, a
and Substance] of GOI Act that it was ultra vires the Central subject.
If law dealing in Bengal legislature in so
one list touches far as it relates to
another, true „Promissory Notes‟, a
object & scope & Central subject.
its effects is to be
ascertained.
47 State of Karnataka Article 246 The levy of tax in respect Whether state is The Court held that in pith
v. M/s. Drive-in (Subject-matt of “drive-in-cinema” was competent to enact law & substance, the levy is on
Enterprises er of laws in issue. The state levies under entry 62 to levy the person who is
made by entertainment tax on entertainment tax on entertained & it is wholly
AIR 2001 SC Parliament person being entertained entry of car/motor immaterial in what name
1328 and by the as well as on admission vehicle inside such & form it is imposed. The
Legislatures of car inside the theatre. theatre? word „entertainment is
[Doctrine of Pith of the State) wide enough to
and Substance] comprehend in it the
If law dealing in Entry 62, List luxury or comfort with
one list touches II which a person entertains
another, true himself.
object & scope &
its effects is to be
ascertained.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
48 State of Rajasthan Article 246 Validity of Ajmer (Sound Does the impugned act The end & purpose of the
v. G. Chawla (Subject-matt Amplifiers Control) Act deals with central legislation furnishes the
er of laws 1952, restricting the use matter & is ultra vires key to connect it with state
AIR 1959 SC 544 made by of sound amplifiers was the legislative power list. So, held to be intra
Parliament challenged on the ground of state? vires the competency of
[Doctrine of Pith and by the that it overlaps the state legislation.
and Substance] Legislatures subject matter in Union
If law dealing in of the State) List.
one list touches
another, true Article 132
object & scope & (Appellate
its effects is to be jurisdiction
ascertained. of SC in
appeals from
High Courts
in certain
cases)

Entry 6, List
II; Entry 31,
List I
49 K.C. Gajapati Article 246 Validity of the Orissa Whether the impugned The court held that the
Narayan Deo v. (Subject-matt Agricultural Income Tax act was introduced state had undoubted
State of Orissa er of laws (Amendment) Act, 1950 under the guise of a competency to legislate
made by was challenged on the taxation statue with a the impugned Act in Entry
AIR 1953 SC 375 Parliament ground that it is a view to accomplish an 46 of List II. Both in form
and by the colourable piece of ulterior purpose, & substance the Act was
[Colourable Legislatures legislation, the real namely, to inflate the agricultural income tax
exercise of of the State) object of which is to deductions for the legislation & motive of
Legislative reduce the net income of purpose of valuing an state regarding reduction
Power] Entry 46, List intermediaries, so that estate so that the in compensation is not
If constitutional II compensation paid under compensation payable material as far as
transgressing Orissa Estate Abolition w.r.t it might be as competency of statue is
legislation is Act 1952 might be kept small as possible. concerned & held not to
made to appear as down to a low figure. be colourable statue.
if it is quite
constitutional,
then it is fraud on
constitution.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
50 Union of India v. Article 248 Parliament amended the (i) Whether scope &The court held that:
H. S. Dhillon (Residuary Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 by extent of Article 248
(i) Parliament is
powers of Finance Act, 1969, to should be identified
empowered to make law
AIR 1972 SC legislation) include the capital value with Entry 97; w.r.t matter in Entry 97, by
1061 of agricultural land for (ii) Whether the
virtue of Article 246(1) &
Article 246 the purpose of subject matter of Entry
not by Article 248. So,
[Residuary Power (Subject-matt computing net wealth 97, by virtue of words
Entry 97 of List I is
of Legislation] er of laws which was challenged in 'any other matter not
distinct from Article 248.
made by the court. enumerated in List II &
(ii) The words 'any other
Parliament List III', is inclusive of
matter' in Entry 97 really
and by the subject matters of refer to matters contained
Legislatures entries 1-96. in each entries 1-96 &
of the State) Article 248 includes those
matters which are not
Entry 86, List enumerated in any of 3
I; Entry 49, lists.
List II; Entry Parliament can enact in a
97, List I single statue, the matters
which call for exercise of
two or more entries. Thus,
impugned act is valid.
51 Hoechst Article 254 The conflict arises Whether there is a The court held that the
Pharmaceuticals (Inconsistenc between Union Law repugnancy between two Acts (one made under
Ltd. v. State of y between (Essential Commodities Union Law & State List II & the other under
Bihar laws made by Act) & State Act (Bihar Law or not? List III) operate on two
Parliament & Finance Act). While separate & distinct fields
AIR 1983 SC laws made by former Act confers a & both are capable of
1019 legislatures right on manufactures or being obeyed. There is no
of state) producers to pass on question of any clash
[Doctrine of liability of sales tax on between the two laws &
Repugnancy] consumers, the latter Act the question of
Union Law must prohibits such passing of repugnancy doesn‟t come
prevail over State surcharge. into play.
Law in case of
latter being
repugnant to or to
any provisions of
former.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
52 Zaverbhai v. State Article 254 Parliament enacted an Which Act needs to be The court held that as both
of Bombay (Inconsistenc Essential Supplies Act followed in Bombay? occupied same field, the
y between which provides Bombay Act was
AIR 1954 SC 752 laws made by penalties. Later Bombay impliedly repealed by
Parliament & legislature passed an act Parliament Act, because
[Doctrine of laws made by enhancing the penalties. of repugnancy.
Repugnancy] legislatures Subsequent to Bombay
of state) Act, amendments were
Union Law must made in Central Act by
prevail over State Parliament with changes
Law in case of in Punishment.
latter being
repugnant to or to
any provisions of
former.
Topic-8 Freedom of
Trade, Commerce and
Intercourse
53 Automobile A.301 The validity of the tax The court held that the
Transport levied under the tax was not hit by Art.
(Rajasthan)Ltd. V. Rajasthan Motor 301 as it were a
State of Vehicles Taxation Act, compensatory tax having
Rajasthan, AIR 1951 was challenged. been levied for the use of
1962 SC 1406 the roads provided for
and maintained by the
“Compensatory state.
taxes”

(Regional
interests must not
altogether be
ignored)
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
54 Jindal Stainless A.301 Whether a Doctrine of “direct and
Ltd. V. State of (compensatory) tax immediate effect’ of the
Haryana, AIR imposed on traders impugned law on trade
2006 SC 2550 having no direct nexus and commerce under
with trading facilities A.301 as propounded in
[Concept of but used for purposes Atiabari tea Co. Ltd. V.
“compensatory the benefit whereof to State of Assam and the
tax” vis-à-vis the trader was only working test enunciated
Article 301.] indirect or incidental, in Automobile
covered and therefore Transport(Rajasthan)Ltd.v
stood protected from . State of Rajasthan for
being hit by Art. 301. deciding whether a tax is
compensatory or not will
continue to apply.

Taxing laws are not

excluded from the
operation of Art. 301.
55 G.K. Krishnan v. A.301 The writ petitions Whether the tax in Laws which are merely
State of Tamil challenged the validity question is a regulatory (incidental or
Nadu (1975) 1 of the notification by restriction on the indirect restrictions) or
SCC 375 the Govt. of Tamil Nadu freedom of trade, which impose purely
enhancing of motor commerce and compensatory taxes are
vehicles tax on intercourse outside the scope of
omnibuses from Rs. 30 guaranteed by Article Art.301.
per seat per quarter to 301 of the The word “free” in
Rs. 100 per seat per constitution? Art.301 does not mean
quarter. freedom from regulation.
Thus, such measures as
traffic regulation,
licensing of vehicles,
charging for the
maintenance of the roads
etc. facilitate the free
movement of trade or
commerce.
56 Shree Mahavir Oil Article 301 The Govt. of J&K issued Whether such The exemption granted
Mills v. State of and notification under S.5 of exemption has by Notification to local
J.& K. (1996) 11 Art.304(a) the J&K General Sales brought about manufactures/producers
SCC 39 Tax Act, 1962 granting discrimination by of edible oil is violative of
exemption to local taxation prohibited by the provisions contained
manufacturers/producer Article 304(a) of the in Article 301 and
s of edible oil. Constitution. Art.304(a)
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
57 Atiabari Tea Co. v. A.301 The Petitioners were Validity of the Assam Held that the tax imposed
State of Assam, carrying on the business Taxation (on grounds on the goods directly
AIR 1961 SC 232 of growing tea and carried by road or restricted their transport
exporting it to Calcutta inland waterways) Act, or movement and
[Doctrine of via Assam, thus liable to 1954 was challenged therefore offended
“direct and the tax under the on the ground that it against Art. 301.
immediate aforesaid Act while violated Art.301.
effect”] passing the Assam State.

Topic- 9 Emergency
Provisions
58 State of A.356, States filed suits Whether imposition of Sufficiency of grounds of
Rajasthan v. A.74(2) challenging the validity President Rule under executive action under
Union of India, of the directions issued Article 356 in States is A.356(1) is non-justiciable
AIR 1977 SC 1361 by the Home Ministers open for Judicial (Not open for judicial
to Chief Ministers to Review? review ). Article 74(2)
dissolve their bars the courts to inquire
Assemblies and seek a into advice tendered by
fresh mandate. So the ministers to the
President‘s Rule was President.
imposed on the ground
that the assemblies in
these States no longer
represents the wishes of
electorate.
59 S.R.Bommai v. A.356, States of Karnataka, President’s Rule in Proclamation under
Union of India, A.74(2) Megalaya, Nagaland, States under A.356- A.356 is amenable to
AIR 1994 SC 1918 Rajasthan, M.P, and H.P. grounds and scope of judicial review.
Challenged the judicial review Though the subjective
(Secularism is a imposition of President’s satisfaction of the
basic feature of Rule under A.356. President cannot be
the Constitution) reviewed by the court but
material on which
satisfaction is based is
open to judicial review on
grounds of illegality,
malafide,extraneous
considerations,
abuse of power.
Case Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
No Involved
60 Rameshwar A.356 In a unique case of its The Constitutional The President
Prasad v. Union kind even before the validity of Notification proclamation dissolving
of India, AIR 2006 first meeting of the dated 23 May, 2005 state assembly in Bihar
SC 980 legislative assembly, its ordering dissolution of under A.356 were
dissolution had been Legislative Assembly unconstitutional and
(“Bihar Assembly ordered on the ground of the state of Bihar based on extraneous and
Dissolution that attempts were was in issue. irrelevant grounds.
Case”) being made to cobble a
majority by illegal Proclamation under
means and lay claim to A.356 on “immorality”
form the government in is not a valid ground.
state and if attempts
continued, it would
amount to tampering
with constitutional
provisions.