SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category – I by UGC

Program: BA LLB (H)

Batch: 2021-26

Semester: II

Course Name: Constitutional Law I

PRN: 21010125390

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mention your details only in the space provided above. If any other details
name, contact detail etc. are written anywhere else in the answer script it
will be treated as adoption of unfair means.
2. Use diagrams and sketches wherever required.
3. Submission must be done by the student through google form link provided
by the examination department and all submissions must be in the word
format only(.doc/.docx). Submission of any other format will not accept.
4. Submission will not be accepted beyond the deadline given by the
examination department in each subject. Student will be marked absent in
case of late submission.
5. Formatting guidelines: Font size & name: 12 & Times New Roman; Line
spacing 1.5; Justified; Page size: A4; No borders
6. Write your answer in your own language and do not copy paste from any
source. Read the question carefully and write your answer fulfilling the
requirements of the question.
7. If the students copy from each other’s assignment, it will be considered as
unfair means case and performance will be treated as null and void for the
 ANSWER 1

Article 21- Right to Life

“The right to life which is the most fundamental of all is also the most difficult to define.”

Article 21 states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless it is done in
accordance with legal procedures.

The court noted in the case of Kehar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 that unlike
the other fundamental rights, this right is available to non-citizens, as well as the citizens of
the country. This right has been regarded as the paramount right by the court.

Three basic concepts of the right

Life

Liberty

Procedure established by law

 LIFE
- In the case of Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877), the term life was defined by the
court. When the term "life" is used in this context, it refers to more than only animal
existence. The resistance to its deprivation spreads to all of the limbs and faculties
that allow us to enjoy life.
 PERSONAL LIBERTY
- In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295, defined personal
liberty as term which included all the rights which would make up the personal
liberties of a human being other than those dealt within the clauses of Article 19 (1).
- It was established in the case that the expression has the widest amplitude of
interpretation and covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal
liberty.
 PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW
- Article 21 states that no one's life or personal liberty can be taken away from them
unless they follow a legal procedure.
- "Procedure established by law" was deemed more specific by the Drafting
Committee. The ruling in the Maneka Gandhi case, on the other hand, has introduced
the concept of "due process of law" again.

Article 19- Right to Freedom

“No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting
the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever.”

~ Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8

— Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Article 19 of the constitution guarantees six rights under the ambit of freedom of speech. As
stated by the court in the case of State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal, AIR 1954 SC 92, 95; the
rights given under Article 19(1) are the basic rights and liberties which any citizen should be
getting by the very virtue of their birth. The rights under this article are available only to the
citizens. No foreigner has any rights under this article, this was established under the case of
Anwar v. State of J&K, (1971) 3 SCC 104, as these rights are exclusively given to the citizen
of India.

The rights included under Article 19 (1) are listed below. It also included the right to
“acquire, hold and dispose of property”, but was later repealed and inserted under Article
300-A as a constitutional right.
 (a ) F re e d o m o f S p e e c h a n d E x p re s s io n

(b ) F re e d o m o f a sse m b ly

(c ) F re e d o m to fo rm A s so c ia ti o n s

(d ) F re e d o m to m o ve fre e ly th ro u g h o u t In d ia

(e ) F re e d o m to re s id e in a n y p a rt o f th e c o u n try

(g ) F re e d o m to p ra c ti c e a n y tra d e o r o c c u p a ti o n

Freedom of Speech and Expression

 Speech is a gift from God to humans. A human being communicates his thoughts,
opinions, and feelings to others through speech and expression. Thus, freedom of speech
and expression is an inherent right that every human being is born with. Throughout
India's independence fight, there was a constant demand for a codified Bill of Rights for
the Indian people, which included the provision of free expression.
 Understandably, the Indian Constitution's Founding Fathers placed a high value on
freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and
expression in particular. The right basically connotes the freedom to express one’s views,
opinions and beliefs. Similar to the other fundamental rights, this right is not absolute and
is subject to certain reasonable restriction.
 The Indian Constitution's Preamble guarantees the people's freedom of opinion,
speech, belief, faith, and worship. One of the most coveted fundamental rights in the
world is freedom of speech.
 Nature and Scope
 While other rights under Article 19 give the right to do something. The right under
Article 19 (1) (a) gives the ‘right to freedom’ to do something. This makes it one of
the most important rights and it precedes and gives the basis to all other rights.
- Master Right: The first requirement of liberty is freedom of speech and
expression. It is stated of freedom of expression that it is the mother of all other
rights since it holds a favoured and significant place in the hierarchy of liberty.
  Essence of Society: The right to free speech is widely regarded in modern times as the
essence of a free society, and it must be protected at all times. The free flow of ideas
in an open forum is the basic premise of a free and fair society.

 ‘Speech and Expression’: The phrase speech and expression per se is different from
the right. The latter is a composite expression with a constitutional backing.

 Purpose: It primarily has four basic purposes-

It assists in the discovery of truth

It helps in achieving self-attainment.

It improves an individual's ability to participate in

decision-making processes.

It provides a method by which an acceptable balance between stability and

societal change can eb achieved

Telephone Tapping
 Telephone tapping violates Article 21, which is Right to life, since it includes the right
to privacy under its wide ambit as well. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,
AIR 1963 SC 1295, the court held that right to privacy is an essential ingredient under
the law. It is a right of an individual to be free from encroachments or restrictions,
whether they are directly imposed or brought upon by indirect measures.
 Since, freedom of speech is guaranteed under the constitution of our country, the
freedom to express one’s convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing,
printing, picture, or in any other manner. Thus, if a person is speaking on the phone,
he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression.
 Telephone tapping or listening and intercepting the phone conversation would then be
violation of Article 19 (1) (a) unless and until, the tapping is justified under the
grounds of restriction of freedom of speech and expression enunciated under Article
19 (2) of the constitution.
 Based on the above rationale, the court gave the decision in favour of the public in
the case of People’s Union’s Freedom for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1
SCC 301.
  Telephone tapping violates Article 21, which is Right to life, since it includes the right
to privacy under its wide ambit as well. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,
AIR 1963 SC 1295, the court held that right to privacy is an essential ingredient under
the law. It is a right of an individual to be free from encroachments or restrictions,
whether they are directly imposed or brought upon by indirect measures.

Analysis of Case at hand

 The tapping of phones, calls, texts, emails of people is an encroachment on the personal
communication of the country with no proper justification. The protection of the citizens
and the nation should not be achieved at the cost of their basic rights. The regulations and
restriction placed by the government are arbitrary.
 The spirit of constitution of a democratic country is in the sprit of constitutionalism of it.
The thesis of constitutionalism is an ant-thesis of arbitrariness and the move by the
government is wholly arbitrary.
 The tapping of phones is in contravention with the general principles and right guaranteed
by the constitution.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the detailed explanation of the provisions of the Indian constitution
and the fact of the case at hand along with the valuable judicial precedents, we can conclude
the that the tapping done by the government is violative of Article 21 and Article 19, and is
thus illegal and unjust.
 ANSWER 2

Article 12- The State

 Part III of the Indian Constitution under Fundamental Rights defines ‘State’ under Article
12. The defines states that a state will include the authorities and institutions which are
within or outside the territory of India, will be deemed to be a part of the state. There are
primarily four types or components of state specified under it-

Government & the Parliament of India

Government & the Legislature of each
States
Local Authorities

Other Authorities

 This definition of the state is not exhaustive, rather it is inclusive. Thus, if any other
institution or authorities qualify the characteristics and the rationale of Article 12, then
they can be deemed state as well.

Scope of Article 12

 The first two categories, that is the Government and Parliament, and the Government and
Legislature are the legislative and executive wings of the Union and the States, and have a
fairly narrow interpretation.
 But, the other two categories, that is the Local and Other authorities are not specific or
self-explanatory and are open to a broader perspective and interpretation. These are the
ones which require most of the interpretation.
 Local Authorities: As the name suggests, these are the authorities which are working at a
local level, implementing and take care of responsibilities of the state at the local or
regional level. In the case of Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana AIR 1950 SC
163, is one of the earliest cases where a local authority, which in this case was the
Municipal Board, declared as the state. Some other examples of a local authority as a
state would be panchayats, municipalities, trusts etc.
 Other Authorities:
- The article does not give any qualifications or restrictions for other authorities. These
were left for the interpretation of the judiciary. In some cases, like the University of
Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67, it was held that the since the first three
categories included government and legislative institutions, the other authority should
be esjudem generis or of the same kind. Thus, any authority which did any
governmental function would be included.
- But later on, in the case of Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857, this
approach was criticised. The approach of ‘same kind’ is inappropriate and is
restrictive. The court said that the term would include all authorities which are created
by the constitution or statute. The court also clarified that it was not the necessary that
authority should perform a governmental or executive function. Through the bodies,
which perform commercial, economic or educational functions to be included in the
definition as well.
- Also, in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar, (1975) 1 SCC 421 the
question of whether the statutory corporations, for instances the oil corporations and
insurance companies will be included under the term. They were considered ‘state’
because the court opined that they are bodies created by statute and thus are under
considerable governmental control. It was also held that since state is a fairly abstract
entity, it could take up business or trades through Article 298, by means of agency,
instrumentality or a juristic person.
- The rationale of the above case was also utilised in the case of Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, for declaring
airport as state.
- Political Parties are not considered to be a part of the state as no writ can be issued
against them by the Supreme Court under Article 32 or by the High Court under
Article 226.
- Authorities which are even present abroad can be said to be state if they are under
control of the government of India.
- Judiciary: -
a) The judiciary per se is not considered as a state. It depends on the merits of the
case and the type of function it is performing, to determine whether it is included
under the state. If the court is performing non-judicial functions which are fall
under the administrative branch, then they are included under the state.
 b) In America, this is well that the judiciary is subject to the 14th Amendment's ban.
The judiciary, it is said, should be included in the words 'other authorities' even
though it is not explicitly named in Article 12 since courts are established by
statute and exercise power bestowed by law. It is stated that discrimination can be
caused by the court, and that the prohibition of Article 14 extends to any activities
of the state that deny equal protection of the laws, regardless of which of the three
arms of the state is involved.
c) Despite the fact that the judiciary is not specifically mentioned in Article 12, it
is believed that it should be included in the concept of state. The Supreme Court,
according to one school of thought, has the authority to set rules (to control court
practise and procedure), appoint its personnel, and determine its service conditions
(as mentioned in Article 147 and 146 of the Indian Constitution). As a result, it
serves as a state.
d) In the case of Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCR (3) 744, the Supreme
Court had to decide whether the judiciary was included in the term of "State" in
Article 12. Even though a Court is the State, a writ under Article 32 against its
judicial orders cannot be sent to a High Court of competent jurisdiction, because
such orders cannot be argued to infringe basic rights. Court believes the judiciary
should be included in the concept of "the State," and that a judge functioning as a
court is subject to the Supreme Court's writ-jurisdiction.

Ajay Hasia Case

 The above cases and precedents were finally summarised and laid down properly in
the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 SCC 722. They are laid down below.
a) If the government owns the whole share capital of a body, it is a strong indicator
that the entity is a government tool.
b) If the government owns all of a company's stock, it's a good bet that the company
is a government tool.
c) It's a safe bet that if the government owns all of a company's equity, the company
is a government tool.
d) Deep and widespread state control might indicate that the body is a state tool.
e) It is a relevant element to regard the body as a government tool if the functions
performed by the body are of public importance and closely tied to governmental
activities.
 f) When the government provides financial aid that covers practically all of the
body's expenses, it may imply that the body is imbued with governmental
characteristics.

Conclusion

According to the country's highest court's interpretation of Article 12, even if it is inclusive,
Article 12 is not exhaustive. It also comprises additional authorities, which meet the criteria
for "local authorities" and "other authorities" within the definition of the state, in addition to
the executive and legislative branches of government.

The definition of "other authorities" has undergone a significant evolution in the judiciary. To
ensure that the greatest number of individuals can assert their fundamental rights, the
judiciary has repeatedly attempted to incorporate more and more entities under the notion of
state. Furthermore, it has been determined that the judiciary is not a state when performing
judicial duties.
 ANSWER 3

Article 13 is the guardian of Rights mentioned in Part III of our Constitution.

Introduction

Article 13 of the constitution expressly lays down the supremacy of the fundamental rights of
the constitution over any other law which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the state.

Clause (3) of the article defines the term ‘law’ and ‘law in force’. The definition provided
under the article is rather enumerative than substantive, that is, it mentions some of the
normal forms in which the law finds its substance and expression.

Through the basic definition of law, it includes the following-

Statutory Law

Custom

Fatwa

Judicial Decisions

Diving in the provision

 Any legislation having legal effect on Indian territory is included in Article 13(3)(a),
including any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or
usage. In essence, the Clause does not include every statute that infringes on basic
rights, but it does include all of them.
 Before Constitution, laws passed or made by the legislature or another competent
body in the Indian subcontinent that have not yet been repealed are covered by Article
13(3)(b). It is equivalent to the definition of "existing law" in Article 372 of the Indian
Constitution.

Personal Laws

 In the case of State of Bombay v. Narasu, AIR 1952 Bom 84, the court held that In
Article 13, the term "personal law" is not used since, in any case, it was the intention
 of the Constitution's drafters to exclude personal laws from the purview of Part III.
They must have been aware that there were several material aspects of these personal
laws that required revision, and they actually desired to abolish these various personal
laws and create a single, universal rule. Nevertheless, they did not intend to include
these personal laws under the concept of "laws in force" since they did not want the
provisions of the personal laws to be contested due to the basic rights provided in Part
III of the Constitution.
 The Hon'ble Supreme Court got the chance to see the addition of personal laws in
Article 13 in the 2017 case Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. (commonly
known as the Triple Talaq judgement). The Court, however, held that Muslim men's
rights to issue triple talaq and obtain divorces were arbitrary and unjustified since
Shariat law is a statutory law that has been codified by the national legislative
assembly.
 The Sabarimala Case, also known as Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State
of Kerala, addressed this issue in 2018. The Indian Constitution is centred on the
"person," according to the Court in this decision, and any legislation that had an
impact on that individual might be covered by Article 13. (3).

Conclusion

Although Article 13's composition and intent first seem straightforward, they have been
subject to several interpretations throughout the years. With each decision addressing its
effects on both pre- and post-colonial legislation, Article 13 and its scope have grown. It
was crucial for our Constitution since it was able to render some oppressive laws null and
void and, in some circumstances, rendered them ineffective. It is also crucial to keep in
mind that Article 368 prohibits the legislature from interfering with judicial review. It is
an inherent and unstated restriction on the legislative branch's ability to modify the
constitution.
 ANSWER 4

“Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it, social democracy. It
means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity which are not to be
treated as separate items in trinity.”

Article 29 & 30- Cultural and Educational Rights

India is home to a diverse population of individuals from many civilizations. India is home to
a diverse population of individuals from many civilizations. Every person has the right to
develop their own culture. Education is crucial to everyone, in addition to cultural
rights.  Everyone has the right to an education and the ability to learn on their own. Every
individual has the right to educate himself or herself. Everyone has the right to learn new
things and to have helpful thoughts.

Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution provide minorities specific rights. Article 29
safeguards minorities' interests by stating that each citizen/section of citizen with a separate
language, writing, or culture has the right to preserve it.

Article 29: Protection of Minorities- (1) Any group of citizens residing in India's territory
or any part of it who speak a separate language, script, or culture has the right to preserve
such language, script, or culture. (2) No citizen shall be refused entry to any state-run
educational institution or receive state-funded aid solely on the basis of religion, race, caste,
language, or any combination of these factors."

Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and to administer educational institutions-

(1) All minorities, regardless of religion or language, have the right to create and run their
own educational institutions. (2) In awarding financing to educational institutions, the state
shall not discriminate against any educational institution that is managed by a minority,
whether on the basis of religion or language."

Scope of Article 30

 It can be contended that when Article 29 and 30 are grouped together, the right to
administer educational institution given only to minorities is wrong. But if a
collaborative analysis is done of both the articles we will understand how Article 30 is
valid.
  A minority may administer an institution of religious education which is wholly
unconnected with the conservation of their culture or heritage under Article 30(1). As
the article may be unconnected with the motive of conservation of the same.
 Article 29(1) and 30 (1) may overlap, but the former cannot restrict the scope of the
latter.
 The scope of Article 30 rests on the fact that the right to establish and administer
educational institutions is only guaranteed to the linguistic or religious minorities.
Further, the right to given to linguistic minorities is irrespective of their religion.
Thus, it is impossible to exclude Article 30 from the area of secular education.
 The term ‘minorities’ is not defined under the article, but the Supreme Court in the
Kerala Education Bill, 1957 has referred to the term as aany community which is
numerically less than 50 percent of the population of a particular state as a whole
when a law about which the question of minority right is to be determined by state
law.

Protection of Interest under Article 30

 Article 30 cannot be interpreted irrespective of the persons who established the

institution in the state for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person, be it
minority or non-minority in other place, can administer and run such an institution, as
explained in the case of DAV College Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC
14, 34.
 Article 30 does not mention the qualification of minority by citizenship. The minority
is competent to avail the right if they are a minority residing in India. In the case of
S.K. Patro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 259, it was explained by the court that
Article 30 does not expressly refer to citizenship as a qualification for the members of
the minority.
 But this inference, is not extended to give right to foreigners not resident in India to
set up educational institutional for minorities under this provision. This issue was
raised in the case of St Stephen College v. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630,
where the court clarified that “The minority under Article 30 must necessarily mean
those who form a distinct and identifiable group of citizens of India”.
 This article does not confer upon the minority to necessarily establish such education
institution for linguistic or religious minorities to teach their language or beliefs. The
 article leaves it to their choice to establish such an educational institutional as will
serve the purpose of conserving religion, language or culture and also serve the
purpose of good education among the children of the country.
 The words ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ must be read conjunctively. That is, the
minority must be given the right not only to establish the institution but also to run it.
Here, establish means to ‘bring into the existence’ as explained in the case of S. Azeez
Baba v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662.
 Article 30 (1) does not make recognition and affiliation a right under this article, but it
cannot be denied or subjected to conditions in order to rob the minorities under this
article as well. But, in such a matter, the authorities are always free to check whether
the recognition and affiliation are for educational purposes or for some other
monetary or selfish interests.
 TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
- The court stated that it should left on the authorities of the institution regarding the
reservation of seats for their communities.
- The court also drew a distinction between the admissions at school and
undergraduate levels where merit does not play a role and admissions at higher
education and professional level where merit plays an important role.
 For the application of article 29 and 30, the minority institution is divided in three
categories-
1. Institutions that demand recognition from the State and not aid

2. Institutions that demand recognition and aid from the State.

3. Institutions that neither demand recognition nor aid from the State

- Institutions that want recognition from the State and get funds from it or not must
abide by its rules, which cover the employment of teaching personnel, conduct,
academic standards, and hygiene, among other things. These organisations must
also follow by general laws like labour, contract, industrial, etc. even if they are
free to conduct their business in accordance with their own rules. The state-
mandated qualification standards must also be followed by these schools. They
may only choose teachers after following a methodical selection process.
 In the decision it issued in the case Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic College
v. T. jose & ors. (2006), the Honorable Supreme Court stated that under Article 30 of
 the Constitution, the right granted to minorities is to ensure equality with the majority,
not to grant them a preferential position, and that general laws will apply to all
educational institutions. The argument that Article 30A forbids the teaching of the
Bhagvat Geeta, Vedas, Puranas, etc. has also been brought forth. The Indian
Constitution does not contain Article 30A, according to the court.
 Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, it was stated that Every government
regulation pertaining to a minority institution shall only be lawful if it passes the twin
criteria, i.e., it is regulating and does not undermine the organization's minority
character and it makes the minority institution an effective vehicle of minority
education. This was the dual test.

Conclusion

The purpose of the provision in the next article is to ensure that minorities, both linguistic
and religious, are allowed to establish and run educational institutions of their choice in
order to provide their children with the best general education possible so that they will
grow up to be fully functional members of society.
 ANSWER 5

Right to Equality – An Introduction

Article 14 through 18 of the Indian Constitution ensures the right to equality. Article 14 is the
most important of the Constitution's provisions, which run from 14 to 18. At each point when
segregation is asserted, situations not covered by Article 15 to 18, the basic rule of Equality is
demonstrated in Article 14, is drawn in. Article 14 through Article 18 exemplify the goal set
forth in our Constitution with regard to status and opportunity

Article 14- Equality before law

Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination

Article 16- Equality of opportunities

Article 17- Abolition of Untouchability

Article 18- Abolition of Titles

Though most of the constitution only contain the right to equality, that is Article 14, our
constitution did not consider it alone to be sufficient in ensuring and achieving the objective
and thus included Article 15 to 18. These additional provisions expressly abolished and
prohibited the existing inequalities practiced.

Scope and Duality of the right

 Though Article 14 has a much wider scope, than Article 15 to 18, it should still be read in
conjunction with them.

'Uniformity under the steady gaze of Law' & 'Equal protection of law'

 Our constitution uses the two articulations of Equality under the constant gaze of the law
and Equal security under the law. The two articulations may appear to be identical at first
glance, yet they have different meanings.
 The constitutional right is divided in two parts- it not only prohibits any act which harms
the principle of equality but also ensures that the state shall provide equal protection to
each and every individual.
 This was further discussed in the case of State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952
SC 75, where the court said that even though the two expressions might sound similar,
they are very different. They are a corollary of each other. In the former sense, law is used
in the general or specific sense, that is in general the person should not be denied equal
treatment. But in the latter sense it is used with a more specific meaning, that is
specifically the law of the land. It is providing them protection from the laws and through
the laws.
 Nature of the right: This right was initially considered a negative right which directed the
state and the citizens to not discriminate, it was not wide enough to include the existing
inequalities in the society. This is why the addition of Article 15-18 was done by the
drafters.

Test of Reasonable Classification

 Principle of right to equality: Equal protection before the law or equal protection
of the law, both do not imply the same treatment to everyone. The basic rationale
behind this is that no two human beings are similar in every respect. Thus, treating
them the same in every aspect will be problematic. The underlying principle of
equality is not the ‘uniformity of treatment’. Rather, it means the same treatment
in attributes they are similar and different treatment with respect to the attributes
they are different.
 To ensure the application of the principle enunciated above, the law at times
requires do draw classifications. In the case of State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,
it was stated by the court that Article 14 does not prohibit the classification done
reasonably for the purpose of legislation. Also, in the case of Kedar Nath v. W.B.,
AIR 1953 SC 404, it was said that Article 14 does not imply that all laws should
be general or universal in application, which justifies special laws and
classification.
 Test for Valid Classification:
A) The case of Anwar Ali Sarkar lays down the following two conditions for the
classification to be reasonable-
1) Intelligible Differentia- Classification must be based on a discernible
differentiation that separates those who are grouped together from those who are
not.
 2) Relation with Objective: The differentia must have a reasonable relationship to
the Act's objective, which it aims to achieve.

Illustration: In the case of Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P, 2003 Supp (1) SCR
874 They devised a plan to prevent violence against women. Prisoners were likewise divided
into two categories in prisons: those who had committed crimes against women and those
who had not. Prisoners who have committed crimes against women had petitioned the court,
claiming that their right to equality has been violated. The court that classification since it
satisfied the above test of lawfully achieving a rational and legal objective.

B) If the classification is done for a group which has uniformity or similarity among it, then
the classification will be considered justified. Provided the advantage which they are
getting advantage over others in a way that they are not singled out for some special
treatment.
C) The classification will be considered valid as long as the objective it aims to achieve or
achieves is lawful. But if its not and the objective offends Article 14, then the law will
immediately strike it down. It is also possible that at one point of time if an object was
lawful, it can become unlawful at some other point, as pointed out by the court in the case
of John Vallamanttom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
D) The court has further in the case of Ram Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538,
has further expanded the scope of reasonable classification by giving the following
guidelines:
1. A legislation may be lawful even though it applies to a single individual if that single
individual can be treated as a class by himself due to some specific circumstances or
reasons that apply to him but not to others;
2. There is always a presumption in favour of an enactment's validity, and that the
burden of proof rests with the person who challenges it to establish that the
fundamental principles have been clearly violated;
3. It must be assumed that the legislature recognises and understands the needs of its
own people, that its laws are tailored to problems identified through experience, and
that its discriminations are justified;
4. The legislature is free to distinguish between degrees of harm and to limit its limits to
those instances in which the necessity is assessed to be the most pressing;
 5. In order to uphold the presumption of constitutionality, the court may consider items
of common knowledge, matters of common report, historical context, and any state of
facts that can be envisioned existing at the time of legislation;
6. Good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are
presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances
brought to the court's attention on which the classification may reasonably be regarded
as based.
7. A classification may not always pass the scientific or logic test.
8. The validity of the classification has to be determined by looking at its overall effect
and not just one exceptional case.

Contemporary Analysis

The classification done by the law is not always lawful or constructive. For instance,
under S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, the second exception classifies between married
and unmarried woman with regards to the offence of rape. It states that a wife cannot sue
her husband for the offence of rape if she is of the age of majority. This classification has
faced much criticism and is still under consideration. As the classification done does not
serve any lawful objective, it is rather in contravention with Article 14, as it denies equal
protection to women regardless of their marital status against rape.

Conclusion

Article 14 is one of the most important rights which the Indian Constitution has given to its
citizens. The right to equality is framed in such a way that it can be interpreted liberally
through diverse perspectives, and can be used a guarantee as well as a safe guard against for
the citizens. The test of reasonable classification is one of the most important features of the
provision and has evolved through the years and is an asset for the marginalised classes.
 ANSWER 6 (b)

Article 21- Right to Life

“The right to life which is the most fundamental of all is also the most difficult to define.”

Article 21 states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless it is done in
accordance with legal procedures.

Despite the fact that Article 21 is one of the Constitution's shortest articles, it sparked a lot of
debate in the Constituent Assembly. "No one shall be deprived of his life or liberty without
due process of law," the Article said at the time. The phrases "unless pursuant to procedure
established by law" were replaced with the words "without due process of law" by the
Constituent Assembly's Drafting Committee.

"Procedure established by law" was deemed more specific by the Drafting Committee. The
ruling in the Maneka Gandhi case, on the other hand, has introduced the concept of "due
process of law" again.

Due Process

 In layman’s language due process of law means that the government of the country
must respect and protect all the legal rights that it owes to a citizen according to law.
Since the constitution makers had chosen not to include the term, it was difficult for
the judiciary to give it a definition in definite terms.

Due process

Procedural Substantive

 While procedural Due process analyses if a government entity has taken a person's
right to life and liberty without the fear procedure as required by the law; Substantive
due process on the other hand enables the judiciary to determine the constitutionality
of the law itself, rather than question the process of the law.
  It was evident that a mechanism to keep the system in check has to be in place, the
idea of due process was developed by the judiciary using the concept of ‘procedure
established by law’. According to which the procedure must be just, fair and
reasonable. This originated from the interactions between articles 14, 19 and 21.

Difference between “due process of law'' and “procedure established by law”

Procedure Established by Law Due Process of Law

It indicates that a legislation that has been It checks whether the law under
lawfully passed by the legislature or other consideration or in question is fair and just,
relevant body is legal if the proper steps have and not arbitrary.
been taken to establish it.
The Judiciary would determine whether the Any law that the Supreme Court of India
Legislature was competent to enact the finds to be unfair shall be ruled null and
legislation and if it had adhered to the invalid. This philosophy ensures that
prescribed method for legislating, but it individual rights are treated more fairly.
would not determine the bill's objective. Any
law that the Supreme Court of India finds to
be unfair shall be ruled null and invalid. This
philosophy ensures that individual rights are
treated more fairly.
The risk of compromising an individual's life A person's legal rights must be respected by
and personal freedom as a result of unjust the state at all times, and any laws that states
laws created by the law-making authorities pass must be in accordance with the laws of
may increase with tight and inflexible the nation. This is known as due process.
adherence to the method provided by the law.
Therefore, legal procedures safeguard the
person against the executive's arbitrary
actions. A person's legal rights must be
respected by the state at all times, and any
laws that states pass must be in accordance
with the laws of the nation. This is known as
due process.
Its reach is limited in comparison to "due The Supreme Court has broad authority
process of law" since it does not consider under the rule of law to uphold the rights of
whether the relevant legislation is in conflict its citizens.
with justice and equitable principles.
When evaluating whether a statute is The Supreme Court has the authority to
constitutional, the Supreme Court solely declare laws unconstitutional and invalid for
considers the substantive question of whether violating basic rights on both substantive and
the law falls within the purview of the procedural grounds.
relevant authority.

 The phrase "according to procedure established by law" would do a huge disservice to

the people and the country, Kazi Syed Karimuddin warned. When a legislation is
passed by the legislature and the authority follows it, a procedure is established. In
that case, even if the authority's judgement is unfair or was made in error, the courts
cannot challenge it. He thus proposed changing the phrase "unless pursuant to
procedure established by law" to read "without due process of law."
 Contrarily, B.N. Rao, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly,
thought that the courts would be given enormous authority if due process was
followed.

Conclusion

If a legal method is arbitrary, harsh, or fantastical in character, it shouldn't even exist as a

legal procedure because that would violate Article 21’s elements. The tussle and debate
between the due process of law and the procedure established by law is a long one, the
judiciary has tried balancing between the two and applying the concept which is needed at
that particular situation. But it still has a long way to go.
 ANSWER 6 (d)

Introduction

The right secure under Article 20 (2) is based on the legal maxim nemo debet bis vexari,
which means a man should not be brought into danger for the same offence more than once,
he can take the defence of his former acquittal or conviction, as the situation may deem fit.

The US constitution’s 5th Amendment which declares that no person shall be subject to trial
for the same offence twice and also the existing law in India under S. 26 of the general
Clauses Act, 1897 and S. 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, formed the background for
the fundamental right which protects against double jeopardy.

In order to bring the prosecution of a person under this concept, it must be shown that the
person had been prosecuted before a court and was punished by the court for the same
offence for which he is prosecuted again. This is the general principle of the concept of
double jeopardy.

Essentials of Double Jeopardy

A) There must be a person accused of an offence. The word ‘offence’ has to be

interpreted according to the General Clauses Act, 1897 which states that an act or
omission made punishable by law for the time in force is an offence.
B) The proceedings or the prosecution should have taken place in front of a court or
judicial tribunal recognised by law.
C) The proceedings should have taken before the judicial tribunal or court in reference to
the law which creates offences.

Judicial Perspective

 Nemo debet bis vexari si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa, which
literally translates to "no one should be troubled twice if it seems to be for the same
reason," is the aphorism that the courts claim codified the principle of double
jeopardy. In the case of Union of India v. P.D. Yadav, (2002)1SSC 405, the court
made this declaration. Following this, the courts examined and further clarified the
doctrine's finer points in further cases.
 The courts make it clear that a probe is not the same as a prosecution. This was
accomplished in the instance of Venkatraman v. UOI, (1954) SCR1150, where the
 accused was fired from his position following an investigation by the inquiry
commissioner. He was charged after his dismissal under the IPC and the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He asserted double jeopardy, but the courts ruled that the inquiry
conducted by the enquiry commissioner to terminate his employment was not
comparable to prosecution, and that the charges may be applied, and the double
jeopardy defence was dismissed.
 In a situation where an acquittal has been appealed, we are unable to apply the
concept. This was declared in the court case Kalwati v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
AIR 1953 SC 131 in which the accused was cleared of the allegation of murder. The
accused argued against double jeopardy, and the state appealed the court's ruling.
According to the ruling, double jeopardy could not be utilised in this case because the
accused had not already received punishment, hence the appeal was granted.
 Under the case State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh, AIR 2003 SC 791, the courts went
on to say that, as long as the offences in the two parts are separate, prosecution and
punishment carried out under two different sections of the same Act would not
constitute double jeopardy. However, O.P. Dhaiya v. UOI, (2003)1 SCC 122
established that if the accused was neither found guilty nor exonerated throughout the
course of their trial, then instituting a new trial against them would not constitute
double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy and issue estoppel

 In the criminal trial of Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 961, the rule of
issue estoppel was explained. The issue estoppel is where an issue of fact has been
decided by the court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of
an accused, such a finding will put an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution,
not as a bar to the trial and prosecution of an accused for a different offence.
 But, only barring the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the
accused is tried subsequently even at a different trial.
 The court clarified that the principle of issue estoppel was distinct from the rule of
double jeopardy under the article. To operate as a bar under the article, the second
prosecution and the consequential punishment must be for the same offence.
Conclusion

The doctrine of double jeopardy is vitally important to our judicial system because when
someone has been found guilty and punished for their crimes, they should understand that
they have made their payments and do not need to worry about receiving more punishments.
The concept is a fair rule with origins in equity and justice that has existed in legal systems
for all of recorded history.