IN

Pandey
MP Jain
 #23 -

sout of India Act 1919

,

native
Introduce
participation
->

I Dial system
->
Imperial - Bicarmel
-> Position
High commission
↳
↳
Representing India
hout
of India Act ,
1935

-> Mini constitution

-> Tried to address for full consti
->
Abolition of hierarchy
Giving larger representation
->

-> UAF ->

Voting rights
-> Membership of people
↳ extended seats
-
Establishing of Federal courts ·

Constituent
-
+ Gltet
Assembly
->

C
Raja
.

Gopalachari
1942
1945-
Accepted India's
plan
296 reps .

alizlans -

Constituent Assembly
met for ist time to

discuss consti of
India -

Dehi-old Parliament
I
of
ist session -

200 members ·

Days
-

Objectives a Resolution
↓

Guided the
A
Assembly
Appointed 13 committees
↓

B R Ambedkar
Drafting
.
.

2
yes ,
11 months , 18
days .

24
January ,
1950

came
effect into
26 San 1950
-

Mahabhalata Gadh -

(union)
Arthas I
things
-
.

I g for governance
consti
->
organisation
*

Sir Ivor Jennings

To establish a convention :

Ask 3
quee .

1) What are precedents

in
2) I The actors precedents believed
that they were bound by rule ?
3) Whether there is good reason for
rule -

Egs :

Case Laws
-

① Maneka Gandhi vs . Vol

->
Passport held .

-
Right to travel under

② Chairman
Railway Board vs
Das
.
Chandrima
(2000)

③ Bodhi Satwa vs . Subhadra

Chakraborty
- Rape is violation of fundamental
rights under Article 21 .
#3
13

PREAMBLE
-

↳
indicates if the act is

comprehensive or not

of consti about
philosophy
- >

objectives that
constituent members had in
wind while -
it
enacting
Introductory statement

values &
intention ,

I
core ,
principles
history consti

Preamble
I
-

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
source Nature Statement Date of
of Adoption
OBJECTIVES
objective
-

① Source
-> 'We , the
people of Indial
shows the
who
power given
to
people
have
adopted
② Type of gout a
polity to
be estab listed
rule
-
Sovereign foreign
-
no
,
--

case :

Charan Lat sahl vis 00l

-

->
Democratic
of
-

power out is vested in

g
↳ .

droose the
the people gort
.

sout .

is responsible for

case .
Indian Medical Association vls 001(20
basic structure of consti
Democracy
-

->

-
seculat -
-> A 42nd Amendment
1976
↳ no reli

Case : SR Kumar Bomai vIS vol

-

Secularism basic structure

Socialist
-
↑
42nd Amendment
↳
equal distribution of resources for
social welfare of people
Nationalization
Eg :

DPSP 39(b) (c) -> social eco

justice
Case
-
·
 Case :

Excel wear vs VOl 1979

SC held that cont would

given weightage
more to the
nationalization 2 state
ownership
but the
should
principles
not
of socialism
be interpreted 2
implemented extent
totally
To the it

ignores the interest of private

ownership
.

case : DS Nakala VI Vol 1983

-

SC held that basic

purpose of
socialism is to provide decent
standard of
to
life 2 de
-
social

security people
.

E
Republic
↳ elect their
people own head

⑤ Rights of People
past 3 of consti
-

equality fraternity
->
liberty ,
Justice , ,

: Indiva
Sawhney (Mandal commission)
vis vol

Reservation Case
 mp huth ,
IMP 1970

↳2nd
Ament 1976

(Mini Constil

Raj Nalayan filed case

against
Indira Gandhi for section
fraud
Anahbad HC found Gandhi
guilty .

Then Indina Gandhi

imposed
emergency
.

↳
went
against written const

->
for written
imposing But
emergency app
.

is needed . Gandhi
just gave
oral intimation .

Details
-

13th words were insected in Preamble

secular socialist
, , democratic republic
Cases course outline)
-

1) Golaknath ~Is State of Punjab .

1967S
C
I I * Subhavao said that the
objective of sought to be
achieved
is declared in
bythe the
terms
consti
of
preamble It- contains in nutshell
its ideals aspiration
2) Indiva Gandhi ils Raj Narain
(1973]
SC used
fundamente
the
structure
theory to
Art
down
clause U
of 329A which
Amewb- 1975
was
adopted by 39t
the Parliament's
since it is
beyond
a the
amending
Indian
power
Consti's basic
damages
structure .

Ament-determined to be E
- in
breach of separation of powers concept
because it
fu ly shifted 9
the
purr
hands
oudiciari
I
of
authority
legislation .
into

The modi was urtain was in

breach of Art 40 constiof
③ Minerva Mills vls vol (1970s)

Petitional
42nd constitutional or not
?
-
Issue

A
whether Preamble past of consti ?

Yes can't be in law

,

enforced .

in Re Berubali union &

exchange
of enclaves case

-
Preamble not a
pall of consti
a be
can never
regarded as
a source of any
substantive
law
conferred gout
:

u
Such powers have to be

granted in the
body of
expressly
constitution a
implied fam those SO

granted
& Keshavananda Bharati vis VOI
J .

Seagin held that preamble part ortance

of
consti a is
of extreme
impo
and constitution should be read &
interpreted in the
light of
vision
grand 2
g 10 noble
-

expressed in the preamble .

③ Charan Cal Sahi vis vol

Recog of Dreamble as
integral
part of it consti makes the preamble
makes valuable aid in constr

of can
the provisions
be amended
of the consti
within contours

of the basic
constitution .
structure of the
 MD Jain

7/23 Unit -

4 :
case

CITIZENSHIP
:

Harishchandra
Assam Sanmilita
case

Mahasangha
.

vis 00l (2015)

3-7 :
give citizenship
Art .
I 8-10 :
Termination
JusSol
en

↳ by blood

2023
Introduction to fundamental rights
CASE :
T AR
Gopal vis state
of Madras

Interpretation of fundamental
Rights .

2 Chandra ma Das Case

s Maneka Gandhi case

4 M Nabial rIs VOl
5 M
Nagraj vIs vol

Origin
traced back to 13th in
century
England
John
.

revolt
King
Magna casta 1215
1628 -

petition for vigats to K

ing Charles
Parliament from
for making sovereignity
In france , Declaration of rights of
Man and Citizen (1789)

this a concrett
political statement
fundamental
Might ssie
for
Americans
incorp .

of Rights
(1791)
Indian evolution

Consti of India Bill 1895

SWARAT BILL
fund .

right
demand for
? Plicit
consti
Made
was

Commonwealth of India Bill/

Indian Home Rule Bill (1924)

-envisaged
is identical
statement
in
of right which
so
scope and
nature to that
of Irish consti

1927 Resolution passed ,

Madias

foundation for FR as in consti today

Nehru committee report (1928)
-FR discussed
were
being .

hort of India Act (1935)

a sub
constituent
assembly (1946) ,
com

France comm for FRetc

UDHR Act:
'We P Irish ,
American . Burma .
 This became
Magna Carta of Indian
consti

6 types

D Right (14-18)
to
equality
2) Right
Ri
to

ainst
freedom (14-22)
3) ght ag exploitation
Rig fredom of religion (25-28)
E
ht to

and edu minorities

Right to culture
(29-30)
6) Right to constitutional remedy
Nature and scope

1) Art 15 ,
16 , 19 , 29 9 30

exclusive to citizens of India

2) 14 , 20 21,
,
21A ,
23 , 24 ,
25-28

people living in India except enemy/

aliens area

fundament indi 2
al
rights all
rights
enforceable not
against state and
individuals but there are
exceptions .

Exceptions
D Art 17
untouchability
-

2) Right agains I exploitation (Art 23 & 24)

3) " Ho personal liberty [Art 2)

case : ① IR Coelho vis state
of TN
L
fund . A provides checks
against
authorities
violations by state

② PULL vIS VOl

people's union
for Civil liberties

Limitations
31A , B ,
C
↓ for
legitimacy
↓ ↳ to laws
abolition land DSP5
Of raws
zamindari

Concept of state
evolution
Locke's
theory most rational
-

social contract
Theory
Coercive
Theory
Evolutionary theory
S 12
.

of bare act .
 State
↑

I I

GOVt .
hort local other
9 9 authorities authoriti
es
Parliament State
Leg
LokS abha s 3
.
(3) of
Rajy
a Sabha

Prez
General Clauses
At

Other authorities

2023

Univ of Madras vis Shanta Bai

(1954)
cyusdem genesis
2
Ujjam Bai vIs State
of UP (1962)
no common
grounds .

Rajasthan Electricity Board vIs Mohd

3 .

(1967)
1st consti bench
It was held that other authorities S
Wide
enought to include within it
statute
every authority pleaded big
a

on which powers are confereed to

carry gortal/or out quasi gort , a

is functioning within Indian
territory
or under the control of gort of .

India -

But it includes those authorities which

invested in
sovereign
are is who
powers
can make rules do to administer them
2 enforce them to detriment of citizens

def of
i . 2 when this fall as the state .

V IMP
-

--

case Sukhdev
:

singh vis
Bhagat
RD Shethy
-

see ref .

Hi out

parties
:

ONGC ,
IfC , LC
Ratio 4: 1

Al bodie
3
Statutory were
given
birth statute
by
State financial Support +
degree of
control of gort .

2
Performance of public functions
a
3
Instrumentality Agency
↳ combination of State aid + Public firnct .

which in formation
results
of agency
 22/07/2023

Due Process ris procedure established

by law .

see ref : Maneka Gandhi vIs Vol

Shamshel
singl case

check once

Case RD rIs
:

Shetty Int.

Airport Authority
(1979)
Act 1971
↓
24/07/2023
6 grounds/tests

1 entire held
Sc
by gout .

2) financial assistance is so

much its
that meeting the
illustrative entire expenditure of cork
,
not is met by
exhaustive 3) status which
Monopoly is

n) State controlled/protected .

existence
of deep a pervasive
state control
5) functions
of cor are
public
imp
6) Dept of transferred
gont
is
to a ,

Soham case
Case :

Ajay Hasia UIs Khalid

CAIR 1981
Mejit
SC 487)

Society Actre under 39K

Reg of
soc .

Engineering college in
Srinagar sponsored
by gort .

petitiones appeared for exam 2

viva Gen
ques
.

The result came out to be arbitrary

Writ
petition filed .

Risp stated
they are not statutory
and
·
ust
body soc can't
a So up
I
.

be filed .

Issue -
IS soc .
a state or
not ?

bench
5
judge consti
Held :
SO2 is state because :

1) The term state is not wito be intepreted

in such wide terms -

2) Rule a
reg of a mymt of soc. was in

accordance hi central gort .

 3)
sponsored by gont/money provided by
gort for .

college .

a)
centre a state had
say
in
affairs
of college
5)
If mismanagement ,
then state gort .

with prior approval of centre can

take over administrative

6)
Board of Governors were
including
I
Chief Ministers etc .

I they only
aidout guideline
e
for adm of

Precedent :

Airport case .

⑤
->
Whether BCCI is a state ?

case : Zee telefilms vis 00I(2005)

↳
??
under in
B Act
g
.

invited tinder for exclusive

rights
4
for yrs .

Board decided ze
Zee
filed wo far cancellation
of whole tender process
Issue BCCI
:

NOT
:
State or
Society ?
STATE
Ratio : 3 : 2

not created by statute

no so was held by gort in BCCs

hardly any financial assistance by gorl

status not state confered
monopoly
state
05
protected

2 BC21 ils Cricket Association of Binar

(2015)
IPL booking
2
judge DB

but
:

Held Not a state amneable

to writ
juris under
alt- 226 .
 29/07/2023
Judiciary: a state or not?
CASES :

I Ratical vls state of Bombay (1953)

: Palmatma Sharan vis Chief Justice
(1964)

3 Naresh Shridhal vis State of MH (1967)

Article 13
A . B is
imp for :

Judicial Review
Doctrine
of Eclipse
Doctrine
of severability
Art 13 (1) -

Pre consti , Prospective

case :
Keshavan Madhava Menon vis
State of Bombay
~
Behram vls state of Bombay
Exceptions
) certain
to
fundamental
in the
rights gulanted
everyone
&A
country .

A 1 . .
21 -> available to non citizens as
well
 Take notes from
DOCTRINE Of ECLIPSE vidhi

Case
V IMP
:

Bhikaji ils
CV., Mp>
State
↳ CpBerar &
of Motor
MP
Vehicle
(1955)
At 1947
A
void
infringe lim ment") 19
.

as it

clearn w facts) removed

in 1951
by 1st

making
amendment
it enforceable

① -
from vidhi
It enforceable
2 became
citizens and non-citizens
against .
both

s The law was

merely eclipsed for
the fundamental
time
being by the
the eclipse
right removed as soon as

is ,
the law
begins to
operate from the date of removal
3 RR Punacha vis State of Karnataka
Banglor dev act-constitutional ?
prec assent
issue Art 31(3)
: void or not
? -

needed
Me

can't be -

declared void so the ,

act in
ques valid .

-
- -

↳> cross check .

Later Art 31(2) was repealed from

consti
Take interpretation from vihaan

2
Deep Chand vis State of Up (1959)
UP Transport service dev act .
.

issue :

Doctrine of eclipse applicable on

·
N
St inottis post consti law ? No .

only on
pre
born
ana consti
void
-
But in contravention to fundamental
rights .
 " Mahendralal Jain vls State of UP

upheld deep chand case .

Is State of Anjalat vis Ambica Mills .

V IMP
.

(1974)

fund
Bombay Labour Act
Unpaid
to
accumulation
Provision
by in industries
labourers -
the act .

Ambica challenged this act

that is contravention
on
grounds it in

to Art 19(1) (f)

held
court fundament
Rights all with
:

citizens a Ambica Mill is

not a citizen ,
so no fund .

right
mill .
is
and
infringed
act was
for the
valid .

The Sc held that Bomb

valid any Welfare Act
was in respect of non-citizen
Ambica
not
Mills
being
citizen
a

and
CO /

could
was :

not
a
take the
plea that its
right
to
property underl 19 (1)If) was

being taken

of law
or abrished wo

modified
the

authority
its view taken
.

in
Hence Sc
Deep chand case
and held that a post const Law .
 which is inconsistent with
FR non-existent
melity
is not
in all cases all
purposes
the doc .

of absolute
mullity isn't
a universal truth and there are

exceptions to it
many
.

Applicability of DOC .
of Eclipse
on Post Const law

- ↳ /

On citizens On non- citizens .

6 Dularu Road rls

 1108/23
Doctrine of severability
Doctrine
of
RMDC severability
Semi
case

CASE : RMDC Case

Act's
invalid
purpose
prov
of
&
lobject
valid prov- ? /5108123)
Doc
severability afp

Sc
proposition laid out :

1) The intention legislature is the of

determining factor in
determining
whether the valid
palt of the
Statute separable from the invalid
pasts .

will
In
deciding this ,
it be
to take into
legitimate
account the
history of legislation ,

its object title and the

I ,

preamble .

2) If the valid a invalid prov are

mixed that
SO
can't
extricably they
Al separated from
one another then the

invalidity of a
portion must
result in the
invalidity of
entirety
the act in its /

3) On the other hand , if they are

and that
so distinct
separate invalid
out what
after striking is ,

what Survives can stand

and is workable
independently
 4) Even if the valid provisions are
distinct and supalate from the
invalid provisions but if they
all
form palt of single scheme
which is intended to
operate
as a whole then the
invalidity
of a
past will result in failure
of the whole .

5)
Though the valid and invalid part
of statute all independant & not

part of the same scheme but

what is
left after the
ommittingand
invalid portion is so thin
truncated as to be in substance

different from what it was when

it
emerged out of the
legislature .

then it will be
rejected in its

entirety ↑

6) If after the invalid portion is

from what
expunged the statute
remains can't
and
be enforced wo
making
alterations modification therein
the H the whole of it has to be
struck down .

7) The
severability
invalid
of the valid &
prov does not
depend on
whether the brov are enacted in the

section it
same or diff section
,
is

mi
not the but the substance
of the matter that is material .

IT Act 66A in
Eg :

to Art 19/(A)
contravention
,

a
Gambling skill based

games .

CASE :

State ON Ballara
of Bombay vls
(1957)
bench
7
judge
Prohibition
Bombay Act
3/08/2023
Waiver of fundamental rights

Behram ils State

CASE of Bombay
:

CAR1955
S
she : Ist case where waiver of FR
&
alqued
was in issue it was
in SC .

Sc held :

-> In this case coult held that doctrine

of waiver has no
application dec

provision of law enshrined in Palts

of consti It is not
open to an
waive
accused person to or
give up
his
The
consti
rights dated get
the
convicted
doctrine
.

court
rep
·

of waiver that
aying fundamental
S

not the
rights were
put in
individual
consti
merely far
benefit &
These ri
glts were there
as a matter of policy and therefore
the doctrine of waiver have no

application to fundamental rights .

② Bashasharnath ils CIT 1959

↓ Taxation of income comm act sect 511 -.

unconsti
ultra vires to Art 14
.

i) Sc observed that Art In can't be

waived far it is an admonition to
the state as a matter
of public
policy with a view to implement
its object of ensuring equality .

act
No person can .
by any
or

conduct relieve the State of its

objigation imposed upon by

consti

ii) None of the FR can be waived

by a

person . The FR are mandating on the

stalt and no
citizen can
by state
his
act or conduct relieve the

by of
the
it
solemn
obligation imposed
on

iii) An individual can waive a FR

which was far his personal benefit
but he could not waive a
right
which was for the
benefit of
genulal public .

Nause (2000)
ough Pal vIs v0I
3

Take notes
from
someone .
 5108/23
Whether doctrine of eclipse applicable on post-
constitutional laws?

There's no direct Sc case on the

point The nearest
authority o

the point is the Kshama Rap

case (1967) . Here an act was

challenged
excessive
an the
ground ofthe
delegation is latule
pending
decision the
legAt passed
an
amending 9
seting to
remove the
defect The
·
SC
ruled
an act
by a

is
may ority
carred on
that
the
when

ground of excessive
delegation it
is still book void
ab initio .

revived
It can't be
by an

amending
the
act
vice .
seeking
The
Ho
who le act
remove
should
be ve- enacted in the modified
form .

RMDC case
Doctrine
of severability
Act's purpose lobject
invalid prov 2 valid prov- ?
DOC .

of severability abp
 Judicial review
CASE :
Marbury vls Madison (1803)
facts Prez John Adam lost election to
Thomas Jefferson -

Meanwhile he named 22 Eurtices of

peace out of which William

Marbury was one

nomi
The Senate confirmed the MO

However the
acting Sec of State John
deliver
Marshall
failed to 4

of the commission incl

marbuly
when I.

Jefferson took
office of
Prez he ordeled
, withholding the
↳
remaining commission
of
Marbury
Madison to obtain
sec
his
state
Commission .

Held :
court held that Madison's refusal
to deliver commission
not order
was
illegal
but it did Madison

comply
to

Moreover ,
the coult struck down
S 13 .

of Judiciary At ,
1789 to extend

enlargedbeyond
it the
original jusis
of se the limits
a
permite repugnant
oust
- by ;

to consti is void!
 With these words written
by
C3 Marshall the SC
for the Ist

time declared a law un consti

passed congres and signed

by
Prez
by
Nothing in the consti
gave the
this
court specific power .

Article 13
POSITION Of CUSTOMS EXISTING IN
INDIA BEFORE COMMENCEMENT Of CONSTI

CASE :

① Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vIs

State of Andhra Pradesh

Consti bench of sc
expressed the
view that Art 13(1) which
says
laws enforced in India
before
const commencement shall be
void if inconsistent with
fundamental
rights Includes custom
.

or
usage having farce of law .

. Even
if a custom is
recognized
that custom must
by law

yield to R .
② Ahmedabad Women Action Group
vIs VOI

S held that personal laws such

as hinde law , mustin law 2
Christian law are excluded from def
of law for the
pulpose of Art 13 .

3 Shankali Prasad vIs vol (1959)

in Shankari Prasad Sc held that

word law' in 13(2) does not incl
consti amendment , So Pallia
could amend the
prov dealing
with +R

4 Golaknath vis State of Punjab (1967)

Sc overruledthe above mentioned
decision a held that Palliament
can't amend the FR
They expressed the view that ,

word law im Art 13(2) includes

consti amendments In order ·

to
mulify
decision in colaknath
24th amendment conti Aet 1971
inserted Art 13(4) & Art 368 (2) & above
mentioned amendment was upheld By
Ic in Reshavnanda Bhartivls state of
Kenela .
Article 14
Equality before law
means to ensure that thele is

wedge
·
no special prive in
favour
of anyone . All are
eq nally subject
to the
ordinary law
of the land
a that O
person whatever
be his rank or condition in
above law .

However this ,
is not an absolute
rull & have a no .

of exceptions
to it -

EXCEPTIONS
1) Prez/Governor is not answerable
to
any
court
for the exercise
and
performance of the power &
duties
act
of
done
his
him
office for any
the
by im
exercise In
performance of these
and duties (Art 361)
powers .

No Criminal/civil proceedings ca

be instituted
against them or

outd.
tenure .
against them
during their

2) No
person shall be liable to any
civil criminal in
or

to
proceeding
in
respect publication newspaper
radio etc
de

of
by or
by Television .

G
substantially true
report of
 any
Rajya
proceedings
Sabha or
of lok

legislative
Sabha

assembly
,

or council .

3) Rulers of
foreign countries ,

their amb ausadors S

enjoy
they civil
immunity from wim &
cases .

4) UN and its
agencies are
entitled to
diplomatic immunity
5) MP's 2 MLA's are not liable
in respect of any thing
said or
done within the house .

[Art 105 & 194)

6) Art 31(C)
forms an
exception
excluding some
by the laws from

purview of Article K .

Equal protection under law: treating equals equally

the concept of equal proth of law

dobs not mean that
every law -

must have a universal application

within the county of difference
irrespective
of circumstances .

It
postulates the
application of
same loss alike who discrimination
 to all
persons .

Similarly situated .

It of
denotes
equality treatment
in circumstances
equal
: -

IMP
It the
implies that
amongst equal
law should
equal and
equally
administered -

LIMITATIONS
Reasonable
① Doctrine
of Classi

② Doctrine of Anti ·
Arbitrariness

S
CASE Budhan of
: ,
Chaudhary vis
Binar
State

(1955)

- It should not be arbitrary or

artificial
or evasive
should based
It be on
intelligible
differention
distinction
,
some real and substantial
which
distinguishe persons
things from grouped together in
ar

das others .

basis
- The differentia adopted as a

of class
,
fication must have a

rational or reasonable nexus w

 object be achieved
the
the
soughtin to

by statute
question .

RATIONAL NEXUS BIN BASIS Of CLARIFICATION

& OBJECT TO BE ACHIEVED

major
S 11 .

of ICA
sound mind

CASE : Sanaboina
vis
Saty amarayana
Gout .

of Andhra Pradesh
(2003)

SCOPE
MISSIBLE
Of CLASSIFICATION

1) Art 14 forbids class

legislation but
not reasonable classification
2)
Intelligible differentia
nex us
,
reasonable

3) Baris of classification can be

anything nulers it is
consti
expressly
prohibited
classi
by the

or historical
can

basis
be on

or
geographical
income or

qualification basis or
any
other
baris which is
intelligible
4) An
classification/categorization
are done
by Rocess of generalization
instead of mentioning each individual
intended be the
to overed .

So
 classify in
under
formula
inclusion
might or
suffer
over inclusion
from

They are not water

fight compartment
5) The
legislatureharm can
recognise the

degree of and
may
allow
classification to be done by
the executive but it is
that
legislaturethe
rece a lay down the policyto
and
which
guidelines
the
according
executive is to
do The classification

6) If the
legislature how failed to
indicate the
legislative policy /

both the law and classification

made it
any void
under would be .

7) Art in can be invoked for

challenging the
of
validity adm law

as well as that of action .

8) There
presumption
is
of constitutionality
in
favor of law & burden of
proof vie on the
person who

challenges its consti

validity /

In words
other / unequal treatment
by itself
bulden
is
is
not discrimination .

The on the
petitioner to
 show that in particulal case ,
there's

present not only differential treatment

wo
but
diff . treatment reason .

9) In
:

clars there are 3

every
elements to be noticed
req/ .

a
diff treatment meted out to a

group
D . the
defining characteristics of
group for
C .
the
purp ose " which this diff .

treatment is to be metted
out to intends
a
group ,

to seve .

10) The count doce examine

legitimacy
not the

of the
purpose unlers it is
expressly
or
impliedly prohibited by the consti
Reasonablenes does not
cally any
cannotation of fairness ,
it is
enough
Ho &
prove that the object the

differentia are related

together
and
logically rationally i e . .

the differentia iS relevant to the

object to be achieved
 .
CASE :

Chiranjit Cal
chandhaly vis vol

(1951)

Take notes .

(special coults)

Salkar (1952)
2 State
of WB ils Anwal A

(Did
Take notes .
not
lay down
17/08/2023 basis
of clarification)
Kathi
S
Raning Rawat vIS State
Salashtra
of
(1952)

Take notes .
(Basis of Clarification
clear)

It also controlled discretion of gort .

4 bethi adm ils BC/VC Shukla (1980)

Take notes
Doctrine of anti-arbitrariness
'

CASE E P
Royappa vIs State of TN
: . .
. .
.

Take notes

2 Maneka Gandhi vIs VOI

arbitrariness
Equality as wel as

and
was further polished flashed
out
held articles
Sc that
trinity of
14 19921
,
are
mutually related .

The court co-related principle

of reasonable mes under alt 19 ,

w non arbitrariners with

substantive due
procedure under
art 21

I
h
Bhagrat repeated Royakpa case
read reasonableness as

embodied
equality
in cause .

Art in strikes at arbitrarines

in state action and ensures

fairness and
treatment .
equality of
IMP
3 R D Int
. .

Shetty vis .

AirportAuthority
Art 14 .

J
Bhagwati held that Art In
.

strikes at albitrariners in state

action h in order to bu Or

albitrary ,
state action must be
based on some rational I
relevant principle which is non-

not
discriminatory and should
be
guided by any irrelevant
A extraneous considerations .

Ajay Hasiya case .

Article 15
Take notes

16/09/23

ARTICLE 19

CASE :
Waman Rao vIs vol (198)

finish Art 13 9 14 consti

CPC
3
maybe company ,
stalt It if pors.

Saturday Sunday family law

+ -