CONSTITUTION CASE LAWS

Keshava madhava menon vs union of India

FACTS OF THE CASE

Keshavan Madhava Menon, the appellant, was the secretary of ‘People’s

Publishing House Ltd.’. This co. was registered as per the ‘Indian

Companies Act’. The co. in Bombay, published a pamphlet, in September

1949. It was under the name ‘Railway Mazdooran Ke Khilaf Nayi

Saazish’.

The contention laid down by the defense was that an offense had been

committed by Keshavan Madhava Menon, since, before publishing the

pamphlet, he was required to take permission as per the Indian Press

(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931; but he didn’t do so. Hence, prosecution

proceedings were commenced against Keshavan Menon.

Initially, the case was heard in the trial court with Keshavan being the

petitioner wherein it was decided that this case includes a question of law
and therefore, it should be dealt with in the High Court. Meanwhile, the

Constitution of India came into force on the 26th January 1950, and on

3rd March 1950, the petitioner submitted a written statement, that S. 2(6),

that defined a newssheet, and Sections 15 & 18 of Indian Press

(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 were ultra vires, as they were said to

violate Article 19(1)(a) & Article 13 of the Constitution. Hence, the

hearing of the case didn’t go further until the High Court of Bombay had

looked into this.

JUDGMENT 

The HC of Bombay, in this case, held that the term ‘void’ in Article 13(1)

of the Indian Constitution refers to the meaning ‘repealed’, and this

attracts S.6 of General Clauses Act along with that of the Constitution’s

Article 367. The court said that the proceedings which took place before
the advent of the Indian Constitution will not be affected. The petition, as

filed by the petitioner, was thereby dismissed.

The decision was taken by the HC of Bombay in favor of the respondents

and an appeal to the same was filed in the Supreme Court of India. The

SC upheld the decision taken by the HC of Bombay and gave a judgment

in favor of the respondents once again. The court interpreted Article 13

and held that a law can be held void only to the extent of its

inconsistency. All laws will have a prospective effect until and unless it is

made retrospective expressly. The language of this Article doesn’t permit

retrospective effect and doesn’t declare such laws to be void ab initio.

So, as the fundamental rights got introduced with the Constitution, the

pre-existing laws will be (to the required extent) void from that date i.e.

26th January 1950; not before. But this doesn’t imply that a person will

not be prosecuted or punished for any offense done before the advent of

the Constitution. In this case, it was held that at the time of the offense,
the appellant didn’t have the right of freedom of speech [Article 19(1)

(a)]. Hence, Article 13 was held to not be applicable in this case.

State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd.

Facts: in this case, held that a post-Constitution law which is inconsistent

with fundamental rights is not nullity or non-existence in all cases and for

all purposes. After the Ambica Mills judgment, the doctrine of Eclipse

mention the views expressed by the Supreme Court applies to both pre-

and post-Constitution laws. In this case, the provision of the Bombay

labor welfare fund act were challenged by the Ambica Mills on the

grounds that the imposed provision in French its fundamental right to

property article 19(1(f))the act being a post-constitutional law. The High

Court favored Ambica Mills holding in punched provisions

unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court however took a contrary

view.
Judgment: the apex court held that just as a pre-constitutional law or a

branding or taking away fundamental rights remained after the

Constitution came into force as respect to non-citizens as it was not

inconsistent with their fundamental rights, so also a post-constitutional

law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not nullity or non-

existent in all cases and for all purposes. In the present case, the Ambica

Mills, being a company, was a non-citizen for the purpose of article 19.

Thus, the Bombay labor welfare fund act was valid with respect to non-

citizens.

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras vs. State of M.P.

Facts: the provision of Berar Vehicles Act 1947 authorized the state

government to take over the entire motor transport business in the

province which led to exclusion of motor transport operators. This

provision, though valid when enacted, became void on the coming into
force of the Constitution in 1950 as they violated article 19 1G of the

Constitution. However in 1951 the Constitution 1st amendment act

clause(6) of article 19 was amended so as to authorize the government to

monopolize any business.

Held: it was held that the effect of the amendment was to remove the

shadow and to make the punched act free from all blemish or infirmity.

Thus, making it enforceable.

Javed & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 3057

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was passed by the Haryana

government. This is a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of a

law in Haryana's Panchayati Raj system that prohibits anyone with more

than two living children from holding certain public offices.The

government's main goal is to disqualify people with more than two

children from running for Panchayat elections at all levels after one year
from the date of the Act's inception, and to promote the Family Planning

Program. In light of the disqualification provided by Section 175(1)(q)

and Section 177(1) of the Act, some persons (who are the writ petitioners

or appellants in this batch of cases) were disqualified from contesting the

elections and from continuing in the office of Panch or Sarpanch. The

writ was filed in order to challenge the legality of these two provisions of

the Act.The law was found to be constitutional by the Court. The law is

not arbitrary, according to the Court, because the two groups of people

who have two children and those who have more than two living children

are well-defined, and the classification is based on discernible differences

with the goal of promoting the family planning programme. The Court

also concluded that the law promotes objectives because it is linked to the

Panchayats' role in promoting economic and social schemes and ensuring

that they adhere to family planning programmes.

R.K. Garg And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors,1982 133 ITR 239

SC

The constitutionality of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and

Exceptions) Act, 1981 was challenged in this case. The legislation was

enacted by the Indian Parliament with the goal of putting unaccounted

money held by citizens to productive use.The Act was challenged on the

grounds that it created an unfair distinction between those who illegally

avoided paying taxes and those who followed the law. It was argued that

such a provision in the law was unethical because it provided tax evaders

with immunities and exemptions, putting them in a better position than

those who followed the law.The Supreme Court dismissed the Petitioners'

writ petition, ruling that there had been no violation of Article 14 [Right

to Equality] and that the President's ordinance-making power over

taxation issues was not ultra vires of the Indian constitution. The Court

upheld the legislation drafted by Parliament, stating that it was necessary

because there was widespread circulation of black money in the economy,

which was impeding the country's development.

P. Rajendran vs State Of Madras & Ors,1968 AIR 1012

The Supreme Court upheld the backwardness test, which was solely

based on caste and went against the Balaji decision.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)

The Province of Madras had issued an order that fixed a number of seats

for particular communities in the State's Engineering and Medical

Colleges- It was held that the communal G.O. constituted a violation of

the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens of India by Article 29(2) of

the Constitution of India and was thus void under Article 13- The

directive principles of State Policy laid down in Part IV of the

Constitution of India. This is a landmark constitutional decision that

paved the way for the Indian Constitution's first amendment. By

introducing clause 4 in the Constitution, the 1st Amendment included the

addition of a reservation policy to the Constitution. The state is given the

right to work for the backward classes, or Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe, through provisions that are educationally and socially favorable,

according to clause 4 of the Constitution as it stands today.

Devadasan v. Union of India

Also known as carry forward rule case, the scope of Article 16(4) was

contemplated. In this case the government's "enforcement guidelines" for

the appointment of retrograde class persons to public services was

included. The overall language concerning the quantum in Balaji took on

a whole new facet in this case.

In this case the petitioner, a Central Secretariat assistant level IV was

competent for the next Unit Officer grade. The U.P.S.C. in 1961,

organized a competitive examination which was held for the position of

Assistant Superintendent to fill 45 vacancies of which 29 vacancies were

reserved for SCs and STs and the subsequent vacancies remained open.

The petitioner challenged the government to have a reasonable chance of

being selected for the post if it restricted the normal quota of 17% for

Scheduled Castes and Tribes, because then more vacant jobs could have

been made. Furthermore, in 1952 the government had introduced the

"carry forward law".

It was decided that it is a guarantee to each individual citizen, and that

anyone seeking employment or appointment to a State office is entitled to

be allowed to apply for those positions whenever they are intended to be

filled.
Only proper reservations, i.e. reservations for backward classes made

under Article 16, are subject to the 50% rule (4). This rule is in effect. The

law, on the other hand, cannot be applied to retroactive exemptions,

concessions, or reliefs granted in accordance with Article 16 (4).

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (Balaji) wherein the newly inserted Article

15(4) was examined by the Supreme Court.Under challenge here was a

governmental order issued by the State of Mysore, wherein backward

classes were identified exclusively on the basis of caste. The five-judge

bench of the Supreme Court struck down this classification for several

reasons – the chief of which is the Court's interpretation of the words in

Article 15(4) as being "classes of citizens", not as "castes of citizens". he

Court in Balaji acknowledged that caste plays a role in the social

superiority and inferiority of people; however, it cautioned against

exaggerating the role of caste.

Chitralekha vs State of Mysore

It was held that upheld an order of the government that defined

"backwardness" without any reference to caste using other criteria such as

occupation, income and other economic factors. The Court ruled that

while caste may be relevant to determine backwardness, the mere

exclusion of caste does not impair the classification if it satisfied other

tests.

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975)

In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), the Supreme Court did extend

the benefit of reservations to promotions while upholding the rule that

gave further exemption of two years to SC/ST candidates in passing the

tests.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that for the purposes of Article

20(3), “self-incrimination must mean conveying information based upon

personal knowledge of the accused person and shall not include the

mechanical process of producing documents in court of law unless such

documents contain any statement of the accused based on his personal

knowledge.” It was held that “to be a witness” would not be alike to

“furnishing evidence” in any sense.

Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka

It has given a good fight on behalf of humanity against technology. The
judgement delivered by the then Hon’ble Cheif Justice himself and two of his
other companion judges rendered the practise of narcoanalysis, brain mapping,
FMRI and polygraph test to be unconstitutional and void. One of its kinds; this
judgement given by a three judges bench deals primarily with an all new aspect
of privacy and right against self-incrimination’ protected by Article 20(3) of
the constitution. In short this is a landmark judgement in the history of Indian
Judiciary.