JGU Id. No.

_____________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
Re-sit Examinations – Semester A

Course Name : Constitutional Law I

Course Code : LW 1608
Programme : LL.B. – Year II
Session : 2014 – 2015
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has three (3) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:
1. This paper has a total of 7 questions. Subject to the instruction no. 2, you can attempt any 5 out of
these 7 questions. All questions are for equal marks.
2. Question nos. 1 and 2 are compulsory and must be attempted.
3. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
4. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
5. Start each question on a new page.
6. Use of mobile phone or any electronic storage and access system is prohibited.
7. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a partially open-book examination. Students are allowed to carry a copy of the Constitution of India with
them. No other material is allowed in the examination hall.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.

JGLS [Re-sit Examination of Semester A, December’2015] Page 1

1. The Samurai Priesthood is a well-respected religion with several millions practicing its tenets in India. One
of the practices of the Priesthood was to offer prayers 5 times a day. There were elaborate rituals that were
laid down in the central book of the Priesthood. The book was originally called the Book of 47 Rituals. It is
now known only as Rituals. The Samurai Priesthood bore close resemblance to Zen Buddhism as practiced
in Japan. The offering of prayers at 5 specific designated times in a day in the elaborate manner laid down in
the Rituals was a compulsory ritual for all those practicing the Priesthood. But the Rituals also laid down
exemptions on certain grounds. Eventually, these verses in the Rituals were interpreted by the Priesthood
monks to make the rule of 5 daily prayers binding only on the monks while others were allowed to offer
prayers once a day. Chanting of Ritual Hymns during all 5 prayers by 25 monks in unison was a necessary
part of the prayer ritual as described in the Rituals.

A Temple of the Priesthood was located close to the central market in a residential area in Sonepat. During
the five daily prayer offering, the head monk in the Temple used to relay the ritual chanting of the hymns
using high powered speakers. This caused considerable problems to the residents of the locality. The
residents took the issue to the local municipality. The Municipal Commissioner issued Municipal Decree No.
86 banning the use of high powered speakers between the hours of 5 AM and 10 PM in the local municipal
area. As a result of the Decree, the head monk was not able to use the high powered speakers while chanting
of Ritual Hymns. The head monk decided to challenge the constitutional validity of Decree No. 86 on the
grounds that it violated his rights under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

A special 3 judge bench was assembled to decide the case. You are the senior most judge on the bench. How
would you decide this case? Write a judicial opinion examining the constitutional validity of Decree No. 86
against articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. (10 Marks)

2. The local police in Karnal received an anonymous tip about a possible terrorist attack during a political rally
that the Chief Minister of Haryana was holding in Karnal after a week. According to the tip, some terrorist
elements had planned to assassinate the Chief Minister either by gun-shot or by a bomb during this rally. The
tip was instantly relayed to the Anti-Terrorist Cell of Haryana Police and the State Intelligence Bureau. The
Cabinet Secretary called an emergency meeting the C.M. was apprised of this and requested to delay or cancel
the meeting but he refused. Accordingly instructions were given to the State Police to beef up security
measures and apprehend these terrorists before they could implement their plans.

The Police investigation, with substantial help from the State Intelligence Bureau, resulted in arrest of 5 men
and 1 woman. A sniper rifle of Russian make with 20 rounds of ammunition, a few automatic weapons with
200 rounds of ammunition, side arms with 200 rounds of ammunition and 2 kilograms of military grade
explosives were recovered from their possession. All these suspects were prosecuted in the Sessions Court,
Karnal under relevant provisions of applicable criminal laws (the primary charges against them were
conspiracy to commit murder and sedition).

During the trial, their defense counsel raised an objection as to the use of certain statements that they gave to
the State Police. After their arrest the police injected three of these suspects with a chemical famously known
as the ‘truth-serum’. After being injected with this chemical the injected person loses control over the ability

JGLS [Re-sit Examination of Semester A, December’2015] Page 2

 to rationally censor what he/she is saying. Consequently they become more open in their conversations and
say things that they otherwise would not say. After being injected with the ‘truth-serum’ they gave certain
statements to the police that resulted in recovery of the above mentioned arms and explosives. Defense
counsel invoked article 20 and 21 of the Constitution and cited relevant judicial precedents and argued two
things – first, that the statements made under the influence of ‘truth-serum’ are inadmissible into evidence;
and second, that any items recovered by the police on the basis of such inadmissible statements is also
inadmissible into evidence. Since there was a constitutional point involved the Sessions Judge referred the
case to the High Court under section 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Chief Justice set up a special
three judge bench to decide this issue.

You are one of the judges in this three judge bench. How would you decide this case? Identify all the potential
constitutional issues that arise in this case and decide those issues be referring to relevant judicial precedents.
(10 Marks)

3. Free Exercise of Religion is protected under the Constitution. However, the State is also allowed to regulate
private conduct on certain well defined grounds that are also mentioned in the Constitution. Write an essay
on describing and analyzing standard of judicial review by which these conflicting claims are resolved by the
Supreme Court. (10 Marks)

4. Write a short note on the following – (5 X 2 = 10 Marks)

i. Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness in State Action
ii. Minorities Rights under the Constitution
iii. Freedom of Trade and Occupation
iv. Obscene Speech
v. Creamy Layer and Affirmative Action

5. In the famous Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, referred by some as the Basic Structure Case and by
others as Fundamental Rights Case, the majority decided that under article 368 of the Constitution the
Parliament does not have the competence to amend and alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Is it now
an accepted proposition of constitution law of India to say that Fundamental Rights are a part of the Basic
Structure of the Constitution? (10 Marks)

6. The Life and Liberty Clause (article 21) has undergone major transformation since the Constitution was
adopted in 1950. Its understanding immediately after the Constitution was adopted has been changed
dramatically in and since Maneka Gandhi case. Write an essay describing the changes that were brought
about by this case in the Life and Liberty Jurisprudence in India. Also describe in your essay what in your
opinion are the major achievements of the post Maneka era Life and Liberty Jurisprudence. (10 Marks)

7. The Constitution of India grants several fundamental rights – some to citizens and others to all persons within
the territory of India. These rights are enforceable against the ‘State’ which is defined in Article 12. How
has the Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 12 of the Constitution? (10 Marks)

JGLS [Re-sit Examination of Semester A, December’2015] Page 3