Sample Assignment

It may thus be seen that there is no overlap whatsoever so far as the subject ‘co-operative
societies’ is concerned. Co-operative societies as a subject matter belongs wholly and
exclusively to the State legislatures to legislate upon, whereas multi-State cooperative societies
i.e., co-operative societies having objects not confined to one state alone, are exclusively within
the ken of Parliament. This being the case, it may safely be concluded, on the facts of this case,
that there is no overlap and hence, no need to apply the federal supremacy principle as laid
down by the judgments of this court. What we are therefore left with is the exclusive power to
make laws, so far as co-operative societies are concerned, with the State Legislatures, which is
contained in Article 246(3) read with Entry 32 of List II. In fact, in K. Damodarasamy Naidu
& Bros. v. State of T.N., (2000) 1 SCC 521, this court held: “21. Parliament, when exercising
the powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, cannot and does not amend State Acts.
There is no other provision in the Constitution which so permits and there is no judgement of
this Court that so holds. The power to make laws for the States in respect of matters listed in
List II in the Seventh Schedule is exclusively that of the State Legislatures. ” (Emphasis
supplied). It may be seen that Article 368(1) refers to Parliament, which may exercise its
“constituent power” to amend the constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any
provision of the Constitution. This however has to be in accordance with the mandatory
procedure laid down in the Article.

1. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court has struck down the 97th
Constitutional Amendment to the extent it relates to co-operative Societies?

A. State of T.N. v. K. Shobana, (2021) 4 SCC 686

B. State of M.P. v. Mahendra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 965
C. Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021 SCC OnLine SC 474)
D. Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar [(2021) 9SCC 770]

CORRECT OPTION: C
EXPLANATION:
A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Rohinton Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai dismissed
the appeals filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the
case of Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021 SCC OnLine SC 474). The bench
 unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required ratification by at least one-
half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, since it dealt with a entry
which was an exclusive state subject (co-operative societies). Since such ratification was not
done in the case of the 97th Constitutional amendment, it was liable to be struck down.
Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-strikes-down-97th-
constitutional-amendment-to-the-extent-it-relates-to-cooperative-societies-177789

2. Identify the correct statement from the following as regards to the procedure of
amendment by the Parliament to an entry mentioned in the State List?

A. Any amendment proposing to deal with an entry being an exclusively state subject, the
same shall be thereby ratified by at least one – half of the state legislatures.
B. Any amendment proposing to deal with an entry being an exclusively state subject, the
same shall be thereby ratified by more than one – half of the state legislatures.
C. Any amendment proposing to deal with an entry being an exclusively state subject, the
same shall be thereby ratified by at least two – third of the state legislatures.
D. Any amendment proposing to deal with an entry being an exclusively state subject, the
same shall be thereby ratified by all of the state legislatures.

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION
The bench unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required ratification by
at least one-half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, since it dealt
with an entry which was an exclusive state subject (co - operative societies). [Union of India
v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021 SCC OnLine SC 474)]

SOURCE
Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-strikes-down-97th-
constitutional-amendment-to-the-extent-it-relates-to-cooperative-societies-177789

3. Which of the following statements with regards to the power exercised by the Parliament
while amending the constitution under Article 368 is true?
 A. Under Article 368, the Parliament, while amending the constitution by way of addition,
variation or repeal of any provision of the Constitution, may exercise its constituent
power.
B. Under Article 368, the Parliament, while amending the constitution by way of addition,
variation or repeal of any provision of the Constitution, may exercise the constituent
power, provided it doesn’t amend the Fundamental Rights in any way.
C. Under Article 368, the Parliament, while amending the constitution by way of addition,
variation or repeal of any provision of the Constitution, may exercise absolute powers
since law made by Central govt., shall be super – imposing over the states.
D. None of the above

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION
It may be seen that Article 368(1) refers to Parliament, which may exercise its “constituent
power” to amend the constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision of
the Constitution.
Statement B is incorrect as by the 44th Amendment, a fundamental right-right to property was
removed from fundamental rights. Therefore, it is true that the Parliament reserves such a
power to amend the fundamental rights.
Statement C is incorrect, given that federalism based on the subject lists of Schedule VII,
demarcates the power between the Centre and the States. Therefore, whilst the Centre is
definitely more powerful than the States, the same doesn’t oust the position of states.

SOURCE: Taken from the para itself.

4. Which of the following statements with relation to the doctrine of severability is correct?
A. When a particular provision of a statute offends or is against a constitutional limitation, the
President of India with the consultation of the Council of Ministers, shall strike down such
statute rendering it as void.
 B. When a particular provision of a statute offends or is against a constitutional limitation and
such provision is separable from the rest of the statute, then only such provisions will be
declared void by the courts and not whole of the statute.
C. When a particular provision of a statute offends or is against a constitutional limitation,
then the whole of the statute will be rendered as void by the courts irrespective of the fact
that such provision is separable from the rest of the statute or not.
D. When a particular provision of a statute offends or is against a constitutional limitation
and that provision is not separable, then only such provisions will be declared void by the
courts and not whole of the statute.

CORRECT OPTION: B
EXPLANATION
The doctrine of severability means that when some particular provision of a statute offends or
is against a constitutional limitation, but that provision is severable from the rest of the statute,
only that offending provision will be declared void by the Court and not the entire statute.
SOURCE
Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-
severability/#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20severability%20means,and%20not%20the%
20entire%20statute.

5. Which of the following statements is not true regarding the doctrine of colourable
legislation?
A. The doctrine of colourability is the concept that when a legislature aims to do something
that it is unable to do or is beyond its capability or authority, it colours the law with a
concealed motive or purpose, allowing it to accomplish its original hidden goals.
B. The doctrine of Colourable Legislation is founded on the Latin maxim “Quando aliquid
prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”.
C. The doctrine of colourable legislation is well elaborated, discussed and prohibited upon,
under the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
 D. This doctrine checks upon the legislature of doing any such act, enacting any such law,
which it might have not been capable to do or enact in a direct manner.

CORRECT OPTION: C
EXPLANATION
The doctrine of colourability is the concept that when a legislature aims to do something that
it is unable to do or is beyond its capability or authority, within the limitations of its
government’s constitution, it colours the law with a concealed motive or purpose, allowing it
to accomplish its original hidden goal
The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is founded on the Latin maxim “Quando aliquid
prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” which states that whatever is unable to be
done directly, cannot also be done indirectly
However, the statement under option (C) is not true because the doctrine of colourable
legislation is concerned with the power to legislate, given under the Article 246, where if the
concerned legislature (of State/Union) is not competent to enact a law on a given subject, then
the same cannot be done with the aid of indirect legislations.

6. In which of the following judgements, the Supreme Court has struck down the WB HIRA
Act, being repugnant to the RERA Act?
A. Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of W.B., (2021) 8 SCC 599
B. State of W.B. v. West Bengal Dairymens Association, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 472
C. Sk Jalaluddin v. State of West Bengal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 397
D. Swapan Roy v. State of West Bengal, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2090

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION
The Supreme Court in the case of Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of W.B., (2021)
8 SCC 599 struck down the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WBHIRA),
holding it to be unconstitutional in view of the 2017 Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act (RERA) which is the central legislation on the identical subject-matter.

However, with a view to prevent any chaos in the real estate industry in the state, the Court in
exercise of its powers under Article 142, clarified that all sanctions and registrations previously
granted under the HIRA prior to the date of this judgment shall continue to prevail.
The Court also added that the striking down of the 2017 state Act would not revive the 1993
Act which was in force in the state for the regulation of promotion of construction as the same
stood impliedly repealed by the enactment of the RERA.