1. Legislative Relations.

(doctrines)
a. Territorial nexus
b. Harmonious construction
c. Pith and substance
d. Colourable legislation
e. Repugnancy
f. Residuary powers
2. Administrative relations – Provisions only
3. Union Executive – Provisions
A. Power of President to grant Pardon - judicial
B. Ordinance Making Power of President - legislative
C. Doctrine of Pleasure
D. Rajya sabha – non requirement of domicile
4. Parliament
A. Office of Profit
B. Anti-Defection Law – 10th schedule
C. Powers, privileges and immunities
D. Parliament process
5. Judiciary
A. Contempt of Court
B. Jurisdiction
 Original –
 Appellate
 Advisory
 Review
 Special Leave Petition
 Tribunals – 323A and 323B
C. Appointment
6. Trade Commerce and Intercourse
7. Amendment of Constitution
8. Emergency – national and state
9. Financial Relations
CASES
LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus
1. Wallace v. Commissioner, Income Tax
2. TISCO v. State of Bihar
 Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947
3. State of Bombay v. RMDC
 Prize Competition Act
4. State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi
 Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950
5. GVK industries v UOI - Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Principle of Harmonious Construction
1. In re Central Provinces and Berar Sale of Motor Lubricant and Spirits (Taxation) Act,
1938
2.. Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills v. State of UP
 Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
 UP Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971
3. Tika Ramji v State of UP
4.ITC Limited v Agricultural Produce Market Committee – Question of sale of raw tabocco
relied on Tika Ramji v State of UP

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

1. State of Bombay v. FN Balsara
 Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
2. Praful Kumar Banerjee v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna
 Bengal Moneylenders Act, 1946
3. State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla
 Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952
4. State of Karnataka v. Drive-in Enterprises
5. Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd & Anr v State of UP

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

1. KC Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa
 Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952
 Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950
2. State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh
 Bihar Land Reforms Act

Doctrine of Repugnancy
1. Hoeschest v State of Bihar
2. M.karunanidhi v UOI
3. Deep chand v State of UP
Residuary Powers
1. UOI v H.S.Dhillon
 Union Executive –
A. A.72 – Pardoning power-
1. K M Nanawati v State of Bombay
2. Khehar Singh v UOI.
3. Kuljeet singh vs lieutenant gov of Delhi
4. Maruram v UOI
5. Epuru Sudhakar v Govt of Andhra P
6. Devendra pal singh Muller v NCT of Delhi
• Commutation – a. Change the punishment to a lesser degree b. decrease the no of years
• Pardon – absolved of crime
• Respite – temporary suspension of punishment when punishment is oongoing
• Reprieve – execution of sentence postponed
K M Nanawati v State of Bombay
- Appeal was pending in SC
- Pardon was granted before the matter decided SC
- So until and unless the SC has decided the matter, the power of psrdon should not be
exercised
- Later pardon was granted by Vijay Laxmi Pandit govt.
Khehar Singh v UOI
- Convicted for murder of Sonia Gandhi
- Death sentence was given by SC
- His representatives were not allowed to meet to President
- SC said that President can act on his account but he is wrong on not taking into account the
merits of case and see the facts.
Kuljeet singh vs lieutenant gov of Delhi
- Children were kidnapped and brutally murdered
- His murderers were named as Langa and change
- SC confirmed the death penalty
- Mercy petition under A.72
- President is bound to act reasonably and fairly and has to state the reason for his decision.
Maruram v UOI
- Ther was amnendment in CrPC 433A – people who has been given LI
- Conflict b/w power of President and legislature.
- President and govn can’t exercise his power arbitrarily and mala fide.
Epuru Sudhakar v Govt of Andhra P
- His farher was a member and was murdered by a congress member
- SC given
- Governor was member of UPA and HC quashed the Decisoin of governor
- SC again upheld the HC decision and laid down guideline
- 1. Non application of mind
- 2. Mala – fide intention
- 3. Extraneous or irrelevant consideration
- 4. Relevant material not considered
- 5. Order suffered from arbitrariness
- 6. Order obtained by fraud
Devendra pal singh Muller
- Killed 9 people in bomb blast
- Grant of pardon was neither a matter of grace or privilege but a constitutional responsibility
and has to be exercised on aid and advice of CoM, can not be arbitrarily decided, has to be
exercised by keeping in mind larger public interest.

B. Ordinance Making Power of President – legislative

1. D.C. Wadhwa v State of Bihar
2. Krishan kumar singh v State of Bihar
3. A.K. Roy v UOI
4. M. Nagaraj v UOI

1. King Emperor v banwari lal - O. is subjective satisfaction of prez

2. SKG Suagr limited v State of Bihar - G is sole judge of circumstances

3. R.C Cooper v UOI - ordinance was replaced by act so SC left it.

4. AK Roy v UOI - Judicial review is not totally excluded in regard to the question relating

to the president satisfaction. Can't be used recklessly, mala fide.

5. SR Bommai v UOI - O. can be challenged if mala fide, or based on wholly extraneous,

irrelvant grounds

6. T. Venkatta Reddy v State of AP - irreversible character

7. K .Nagaraj v State of AP - cant be invalidated on basis of non-app of mind

8. State of Raj v UOI - review can be done whether ordinance is based on relevantly

material or not, mala fide and facts duly verified or not

9. RK Garg v UOI - it was contended that O. can't alter tax laws but was denied.

10. Orissa v Bhupendra Kumar Bose - rights created by it are enduring in nature and will

not be expired after the O. is expired

11. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar - seven successive repromulgations of the first

ordinance issued in 1989 was fraud on the Constitution especially when none of the

ordinances were ever tabled before the Bihar Legislative Assembly as required under Article

213(2) of the Constitution. I am in complete agreement with the view expressed by my

esteemed brother Dr. Chandrachud, J. that repeated repromulgation of the ordinances was a

fraud on the Constitution especially when the Government of the time appears to have

persistently avoided the placement of the ordinances before the legislature.

12. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar -

C. Doctrine of Pleasure
1. B.P Singhal v UOI
D. Non requirement of Domicile in Rajya sabha
A. Kuldip nayar v UOI
 PARLIAMENT
A. Office of Profit
1. Shibu Soren v Dayanand sahay
2. Biharilal Dobrey v Roshan lal Dobrey
3. S.C. Raju v V. Pradeep Kumar Dev
4. Jaya Bachhan v UOI
B. Anti-Defection Law
1. Kiyoto Holohan v Zachillu
C. Power, Privileges & Immunities
1. P.V. Narsimha Rao v State (Yes it’s only State)
2. Dr. Jatish Chandra Gosh v Hari Sadan Mukherjee
3. Suresh Chandra Bannerjee v Puneet Goala
4. Pandit MSM Sharma v Srikrishna Sinha
5. In Re Keshav Singh
6. Raja Rampal v Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
7. Manoj Narula v UOI
 JUDICIARY
A. Contempt of court
1. C.K. Daphtari v OP Gupta
2. P N Duda v P shivshankar
3. Delhi judicial appointment commission v State of Gujrat
4. Income tax appellate tribunal v V K Agarwal
B. Appointment
1. SP Gupta v UOI
2. SC AOR association v UOI -1993
3. In re Presidential reference
4. SC AOR association v UOI 2016 – NJAC
C. Jurisdiction
 Original – A.32 and 131
a. Bandhua mukti morcha v UOI
b. SC AOR association v UOI
c. Tamil Nadu cauvery water dispute
d. RS Deodhar v State of Maharashtra
e. MC Mehta v UOI
f. MC Mehta v kamal nath
g. State of RAJ v UOI
h. State of Karnataka v UOI
i. State of Bihar v UOI
j. UOI v State of RAJ
 Advisory –In Re: Cauvery Water Dispute
In Re: Keshav Singh
In Re: Beruberi Union
In Re: Ram Janam Bhoomi ETC.
 Review –A.R. Antulay v R.S Naik
 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra – Curative petition.
 Special Leave Petition –
a. Konkan Railway v Rani construction
b. SBP & co. v Patel engineering
c. Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank
d. Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Laxmi Chand
e. Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Union

D. Tribunals – 323A and 323B

a. L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
b. Madras bar association v Union of india
Freedom of Trade, commerce and intercourse
1. Atiabary tea co. v state of assam
2. Autombile transport ltd. V State of Rajasthan
3. State of Mysore v M Sanjeeviah Reddy
4. Jindal stainless steel ltd. v State of Haryana
Emergency
A. A. D. M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
B. Minerva Mills v. UOI, AIR 1980 SC 1789
C. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
D. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
E. Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker & Ors. C.A.no 6203-6204 of 2016
 Amendebility

1. Shankri Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 4582.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 8453.
3. I.C Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 16434.
4. Keshvananda Bharthi v. State of Kerela AIR 1973 S5.
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 22996.
6. Minerva Mills v UOI, AIR 1980 SC 1789
7. Waman Rao And Ors vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.,
8. I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861
 FINANCIAL RELATIONS

REFUND OF TAXES

 Mafatlal Industries v UoI

 Central Excise Act and refund was sought
 B.R. Metals Pvt. Ltd. v Uoi
 Custom duty in excess, no refund made.
 Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Laxmeendra Teerth Swamiar
 Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmwnets Act
 S. 76(1) empowered the body to levy tax
 Question: if it is a tax or fees
 (Distincttion between tax and fees)
 HC of Australia- Mathews v Chicory

INTER GOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITY:

 Int Airport Auth v Municipal Corporation of Delhi

 IAA Act
 Article 285
 Tax on the development of Indira Gandhi International Airport
 New Delhi Mun Corp v State of Punjab
 w.r.t. Part C