LL.B.

III Semester Annual Exams

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Paper Code: LB 301

Marks : 100 Time: 3:00 hours

Instructions:

All questions carry equal marks(25 marks for each question).

Answer any four questions from questions given below:

Q1.A complaint was made against Ministers in the X State Government for illegal release of
land. After investigation the Lokayukta submitted a report holding that there were sufficient
grounds for prosecuting the Ministers under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offences of criminal conspiracy
punishable under Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Sanction was sought from the Council of
Ministers for prosecuting the two Ministers. The Council of Ministers refused sanction on the
ground that no prima facie case had been made out against them. The Governor then
considered grant of sanction, and on the basis of available documents and evidence, granted
sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Examine whether the Governor can proceed contrary to the opinion given by Council of
Ministers while exercising discretionary powers ? Discuss in the light of relevant case law.

Q2. Allegations was imposed on members of Parliament regarding accepting bribe, as

consideration for raising certain questions in the House. The Presiding Officers of each of the
Houses of Parliament instituted inquiries through separate Committees. After detailed
inquiry, the Committees arrived at the conclusion that allegations of acceptance of money by
members had been established and that such acceptance of money had a direct connection
with the work of Parliament, that such conduct on their part was unethical and called for strict
action. On the basis of the report members were expelled from membership. The validity of
this expulsion was challenged by members on the ground that Parliament or its Houses did
not have the privilege to expel members. Decide with the help of constitutional provisions
and relevant cases.

Q3. Valston is a democratic country having federal structure of States. The Constitution of
Valston originally provided for the procedure for the transfer and appointment of Judges and
functioning of Supreme Court and High Courts of the various States of Valston. The
Government of Valston amended Constitution by 99th Constitutional Amendment which
replaced the previous collegium system for the transfer and the appointment of Judges by
NJAC Act, 2014 and introduced the setting-up of a Commission known as National Judicial
Appointments Commission that consists of the Chief Justice of Valston (Chairperson ex-
officio), two other senior judges of Supreme Court (next in seniority to the CJ of Valston),
the Union Minister in-charge of the law and justice (ex-officio), two eminent persons
(nominated by a committee consisting of Chief Justice, Prime Minister and Leader of
Opposition of the lower house of Valston) for appointment and transfer of judges. Following
the enforcement of NJAC, the country of Valston witnessed a huge chaos and a disruption
between the two limbs of the State i.e. the judiciary and legislature resulting in the challenge
of the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 before the Supreme Court of
Valston. Decide the validity of 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act with the help
of relevant case laws.

Q4.The State of West Bengal in exercise of concurrent legislative power under entry 25 List
III enacted “The West Bengal Universities Act 1999” which prescribes Bengali as the
exclusive medium of instruction and examination at all levels of University education in the
State. Manish,who wants to pursue his LL.B. course through the English medium seeks to
challenge the validity of the State law on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative
power of Parliament under entry 66 List l.The relevant legislative entries are:

Entry 25 of List III – “Education, including technical education, medical education and
universities subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1.”

Entry 66 of List I – “Coordination and determination of standards in institution for higher

education or research and scientific and technical institutions.”

Decide the validity of State Act with the help of relevant principles of constitutional
interpretation and case laws.
Q5.The Parliament of Dharmanagarin 1952 enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
providing for a maximum imprisonment of three years for any person found adulterating food
items.This Act was applicable to whole of Dharmanagar.The State of Mansoulwithin the
country of Dharmanagarconsidered that the maximum punishment of three years
imprisonment provided by above Act was not adequate and with the object of enhancing the
punishment provided therein, enacted Act 36 of 1954 and increased the imprisonment
to seven years. This amendment made by legislature of Mansoul received the assent of the
President. Act 36 0f 1954 prevailed in state of Mansoul subject to “further legislation with
respect to the same matter”, that might be enacted byParliament. Subsequently, there was
such further legislation by the Parliament of Dharmanagar in 1958 and imprisonment of four
year was provided for person found adulterating food items. Examine the validity of the state
amendment after the subsequent amendment by Parliament with the help of relevant
provisions and decided case laws.

Q6. Aryavarta is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic having 28 states and 9
Union Territories. Constitution of Aryavarta provided a federal form of government wherein
powers were divided between the Union and States. Delta Pradesh is one of the 28 States of
Aryavarta. The Legislative Assembly of Delta Pradesh was dissolved by a Proclamation
issued by the President on the basis of the report given by its Governor that attempts were
being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and to lay claim to form the Government in
the State. The report also indicated that if these attempts continued, it would amount to
tampering with constitutional provisions. The validity of the Proclamation was challenged by
elected members of dissolved Assembly on the ground that the report of the Governor
suffered from serious legal and factual infirmities and is tainted with pervasive mala fides to
prevent political party led by Mr. X to form the Government. Analyse the validity of the
Proclamation dissolving the Legislative Assembly with the help of constitutional provisions
and decided cases.