S.

n CASE NAME Article/A Subject Involved Decision Remarks

o mendmen
ts
1. Keshavnand Art.368 Validity of 24th, 25th, 29th [Theory of basic structure] See also Indira
a Bharti v. amendments to the Constitution can be amended only Nehru Gandhi v.
State of Constitution of India was to the extent of and in accordance Raj Narain AIR
Kerela challenged. The main with the provisions of Art.368. 1975 sc 2299,
(AIR 1973 question related to the Some of the provisions of the Minerva mills
SC 1461) nature, extent and scope of constitution of India form its basic ltd. V. UOI AIR
amending power of the structure which is not amendable 1980 SC1789 &
parliament under the by parliament by its constituent L.Chandra
Constitution. power under art.368. Kumar v. UOI
AIR 1997 SC
1125
2. S.R Bommai Art.356 Presidents Rule in States Main
v. UOI (AIR under Art.356- Grounds & contention
1994 SC scope of Judicial review. [Federalism]
1918)
3. State of Art.131 Nature of Indian The power of Union to Legislate in In this case
West Bengal Constitution -Federal, respect of property situated in the majority held
v. UOI (AIR Unitary, Quasi Federal. states even if the states are that
1963 SC [(i)Contract or Agreement regarded qua the union as Constitution is
1241) b/w independent & sovereign, remained unrestricted. not truly federal
sovereign units to surrender The right of the center to require & states are not
partially their authority in the province to part with property sovereign.
favor of the union; for the effective performance of However, Subba
(ii)supremacy of Central functions cannot be Rao, J. In his
Constitution; considered as detracting from dissent treats it
(iii)Distribution of Powers provincial autonomy. basically
b/w Center & State; federal.
(iv)Supreme authority of
courts to interpret
Constitution]
4. Ram Jawaya Art. 73 & Theory of separation of The petitioners have no
Kapur v. 162, Art. power; art. 73& 162 of the fundamental right which can be
State of 19 (1)(g)& constitution of India; in the said to have been infringed by the
Punjab (AIR 19(6). absence of law, state cannot action of the govt., the petition is
1955 SC monopolize any trade or bound to fail on that ground.
1241) business to the total or Further, the petitioner has no
partial exclusion of citizens fundamental right under art. 19(1)
under art. 19(6) of the (g) & the quest. Whether the govt.
constitution. Could establish monopoly without
 any legislation under 19(6) of the
constitution is altogether
immaterial.
5. Kuldeep Federal structure of the India is not a federal state in the
Nayar v. UOI Constitution was traditional sense of term. In
(AIR 2006 questioned on the ground context of India, the principle of
SC 3127) of Representation of federalism is not territory related.
Peoples Act 2003 by which Further, when it comes to
the requirement of exercising powers, it’s the centre
“domicile” in the state where the favour is heavily
concerned for getting weighed.
elected to Rajya Sabha was
deleted.
6. State of Discussion on the concept A semi federal system of Govt. Has
Haryana V. of Federation & the federal been adopted under the Indian
State of character of India. constitution.
Punjab (AIR
2002 SC
685)
7. In re Art. 3(c)& Power to cede away Indian The power to diminish the area of Add. Readings;
Berubari Art 368 territory in favor of a a state does not entitle parliament Ram Kishore
Union & foreign country - whether to cede Indian territory to a sen v. UOI AIR
Exchange of permissible; Procedure. foreign state. Parliament has no 1966 SC 644,
Enclaves power art. 3(c) to make a law to UOI v. Sukumar
(AIR 1960 implement an agreement with Sengupta AIR
SC 858) govt. Of a foreign state ceding 1990 SC 1692.
Indian territory to a foreign State.
Area Diminished under Art. 3(c)
should & must continue to be a
part of territory of India. An
amendment of Constitution,
under Art. 368, to modify the First
schedule to the constitution, is
necessary for ceding Indian
territory to a foreign state.

8. Ram Kishore 90th Constitution (Ninth Advisory opinion given by the

Sen v. UOI amendme Amendment) Act, 1960- apex court in IN Re Berubari Union
(AIR 1966 nt Act Transfer of certainareas to & exchange of Enclaves AIR 1960
SC 644) 1960 Pakistan in fulfillment of SC 858 was binding. After receipt
India-Pakistan Agreement of the advisory opinion in Re
Berubari case, the parliament
passed the constitution (9th)
 Amendment Act, 1960 to give
effect to Indo pak Agreement. The
validity of the amendment was
challenged alleging that the
language of it so far as it related to
Berubari Union no. 12 was
confusing and incapable of
implementation. It was also
contended that the transfer of
Berubari Union would result in
deprivation of citizenship and
property without compensation.

9. UOI of Articles Constitution of India, The Supreme court held that lease
Indian v. 1,3, 368 1950: Articles 1, 3, in perpetuity of Teen Bigha in
Sukumar andConsti 368 and Constitution favor of Bangladesh did not
Sengupta tution (Ninth Amendment) Act amount to cessation of Indian
AIR 1990 SC (Ninth 1960 , Agreements of 1974 territory and hence legislation not
1692 Amendme & 1982 ,Implementation of required .
nt) Teen Bigha Whether
Act,1960 involves cession of Indian
territory to Bangladesh
Sovereignty over Dahagram
& Angarpota, Whether
arises.
10. N. Masthan Art. 1 Territory of India- SC held term acquired; acquisition
Sahib v. (3)(c) Pondicherry,if part of as per public intl law – if public
Chief India.Question referred to notification, declaration or
Commission Union Government- assertion by GoI that part area has
er of Answerof Union been acquired ;courts bound to
Pondicherry Government, if binding on recognize – conversely if GOI
(AIR 1962 Courts.Orders ofauthorities issues statement that part area
SC 797) in Pondicherry; Appeal not acquired – then also binding
and WritPetition,if on courts – Art 1(3)(c).
maintainable in Supreme
Court-Constitution of India,
Arts. 1 (3), 32 and 136.

11. R. C Poudyal Art. 2 Reservation in the Sikkim Establishment of new state as

v. UOI (AIR legislative assembly for Parliament deems fit but cannot
1993 SC Sikkimese of "Bhutia- go against theory of basic
1804) Lepcha" origin and for structure.
"Sangha" Buddhist Lamaic
monasteries was challenged
(the Sangha reservation
also used a separate
electoral roll). The
challengers argued this
reservation violated the
Constitution's essentially
republican and secular
nature and the concept of
"one person-one vote."

12. Babulal Art. 3 (b) Reference of central bills to Once the original bill is referred to
parate v. to (e) and States. the state or states, the purpose of
State of Art. 3 the proviso is served and no fresh
Bombay (Notes) reference is required every time
(AIR 1960 an amendment to the bill is
SC 51) moved and accepted according to
the rules of Procedure in
Parliament. Parliament is not
bound to accept or act upon the
views of the state Legislature,
even if those in views are received
in time.
13. U.N.R. Rao Art. 74(1) Is it essential to have a Art. 74(1) is mandatory and, Note:- Also read
v. Indira council of Ministers under therefore, the President cannot with Art. 52,
Gandhi (AIR Art. 74(1) even at the time exercise the executive Power Art. 53(2), Art.
1971 SC when the House of the without the aid and advice of the 75(1), 75 (2),
1002) People has been dissolved CoM. It is essential to have a CoM Art.85 (2) &
or its term has expired. under Art. 74(1) even at the time Representation
when the house of the people has of Peoples Act ,
been dissolved or its term has 1951.
expired.[in the result the appeal
fails and dismissed]

14. S.P. Anand v. Art. 14, Can a person who is not a [Petition Dismissed] As per the Art. 75(5)
H.D. Deve Art. 21 & member of either of the observations made Art. 75(5) requires the
Gowda (AIR Art. 75, House can be appointed as permits the president to appoint a person to be
1997 Sc 75(5) the Prime Minister of India person who is not a member of the member for
272) either House of Parliament as a at least 6
Minister, Including a Prime consecutive-e
Minister subject to the possibility months .
of his commanding the support of
the majority of the members of
Lok sabha.

15. Shamsher Art. Appellants – Punjab Civil The orders of termination of the Court also
Singh v. 163,163(1 Service (Judicial Branch) – services of the appellants were set referred to Art.
State of ), 164. Shamsher Singh & Ishwar aside. 123, 213,
Punjab (AIR Chand Agarwal terminated 331(2)(c),
1974 SC by the following order of 356,360 and
212) the Governor. – Samsher said”whenever
Singh[ Rule 9 of PCS the constitution
(Punishment & Appeals) requires the
Rules, 1952 ] satisfaction of
Ishwar Chand Agarwal [Rule the president or
7(3) in Part D of the governor , the
PCS(Judicial Branch) Rules, satisfaction is
1951] not personal
but it is the
satisfaction of
the CoM .”
16. M.P Special A.226, Whether a Governor can
Police 136 & act in his discretion and
Establishme 142. against the aid and advice
nt v. State of of the council of ministers
M.P.,(2004) in a matter of grant of
8 SCC 788 sanction for prosecution of
Ministers for offences
under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and/or
under the Indian Penal
code.
It was for the court to arrive at the See. Samsher
conclusion as regards commission Singh v. State of
of the offence of conspiracy upon Punjab [(1974)
the material placed on record of 2 SCC 831].
the case during trail which would
include the oral testimonies of the
witnesses. Such a relevant
consideration apparently was
absent in the minds of the Council
of ministers when it passed an
order refusing to grant sanction.
Where of facts the bias becomes
apparent and/or the decision of
council of ministers is shown to be
irrational and based on non-
consideration of relevant factors,
the governor would be right, on
the facts of the case to act in his
discretion and grant sanction.
It has held that the decision of the
Council of ministers was ex facie
irrational whereas the decision of
the Governor was not.
So the Writ court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226
and also under A.136 and 142 can
pass an appropriate order which
would do complete justice to the
parties.

17. S.P Gupta v. A.226 & It laid the foundation of It court held that any member of
Union of 32 Public Interest Litigation the public having “Sufficient
India AIR (PIL) interest” can maintain an action for
1982 SC 149 judicial redress for ‘Public injury’ in
Judges relation to any constitutional or
Transfer legal provision, under Article 226 &
Case Article 32, by a letter addressed to
the Court.
18. Epuru A.72 & In this case a congress The Pardoning powers of the
Sudhkar v. A.161 worker was convicted for President under Art. 72 and the
Union of the murder of a worker of Governors under Art.161 are
India, AIR the Telugu Desham and he subject to judicial review.
2006 SC 338 was awarded death Pardoning power cannot be
sentence. The state exercised arbitrarily on the basis of
 Governor granted pardon caste or political reasons.
to him.

19. Rameshwar A.356 The Constitutional validity The President proclamation

Prasad v. of Notification dated 23
Union of May, 2005 ordering
India, AIR dissolution of Legislative
2006 SC 980 Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue.
dissolving state assembly in Bihar
under A.356 were unconstitutional
and based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.

Proclamation under A.356 on

“immorality” is not a valid ground.
TOPIC 4- PARLIAMENT
AND STATE
LEGISLATURES
20 B.R.Kapur v. A.164(1) Conviction of a person for A person who is convicted for a
State of & 164(4) an offence- disqualified to criminal offence and sentenced to
Tamil Nadu be a member of the state imprisonment for a period of not
AIR 2001 SC legislature. Can such a less than 2 years cannot be
3435 person be appointed as appointed the Chief Minister of the
Chief Minister? state under Articles 164(1) read
“Jayalita with A.164(4) and cannot continue
Case” to function as such.
21. Special A.356 & The President has referred The SC held that A.174 (1) does not
Reference A.143 the important question apply to a ‘dissolved assembly’ but
No. 1 of regarding interpretation of to a ‘live assembly’. A.174 (1)
2002 (Re A.174 and A.324 to the SC neither relates to elections nor
Gujrat for it advisory opinion does it provide any outer limit for
Assembly under A.143 of the holding elections for constituting
Election Constitution. the Assembly. The holding of
Matter), AIR elections is the exclusive domain of
2003 SC 87 election commission under A.324.
Merely because the time schedule
fixed under A.174 cannot be
adhered to that per se cannot be a
ground for bringing into operation
A.356. Since A.174(1) does not
apply to dissolved legislative
assembly and as such there being
no infraction of A.174(1) in
preparing schedule for election by
the commission, the question of
 applicability of A.356 does not
arise. The question of declaration
of state emergency under A.356
has no relevance to fixation of
election schedule.
22. Anil kumar A.164(1) The exercise of the power The SS held that it to be an
Jha v. UOI under A.164 (1) was in arbitrary and malafide exercise of
AIR (2005)3 issue. The Governor of the power by the Governor, which
SCC 150 Jharkhand appointed the is a fraud on the constitution. The
leader of party/political Court preponed the floor test to
alliance, not commanding determine primacy between
support of majority of contending political alliances and
legislators, as Chief issued other directions to ensure
Minister. fairness of the floor test. Pro tem
speaker of the Assembly was
directed to have proceedings of
the floor test video-recorded and
copy thereof sent to SC.
23. Jaya A.102(1)(a The Court interpreted the The Apex court upheld her
Bachchan v. ) of the expression ‘office of profit’ disqualification from the
UOI, AIR Constituti in the context of membership of Rajya Sabha.
2006 SC 980 on disqualification for the
membership of Parliament.
‘office of
profit’ ‘Office of Profit’ is an office
which is capable of yielding
a profit of pecuniary gain.

24. Rameshwar A.356 The Constitutional validity The President proclamation

Prasad v. of Notification dated 23 dissolving state assembly in Bihar
UOI, AIR May, 2005 ordering under A.356 was unconstitutional
2006 SC 980 dissolution of Legislative
and based on extraneous and
“Bihar Assembly of the state of
Bihar was in issue. irrelevant grounds.
Assembly
Dissolution Proclamation under A.356 on
Case’ “immorality” is not a valid ground.
25. In Re Keshav
Singh, AIR
1965 SC 745

26. Raja Ram Art.105(3) The Constitutional validity The court held that there is no
Pal v. of the expulsion of certain power of expulsion in the
Hon’ble MPs by the Parliament was Parliament, either inherent or
Speaker, Lok in issue. traceable to Art. 105(3). Expulsion
 Sabha by the house will be possible only
(2007) 3 if Art. 102 or Art. 101 are suitably
SCC 184 amended or if a law is made under
Art. 102 (1) (e) enabling the house
to expel a member found
unworthy or unfit of continuing as
member.
Topic -5 Legislative
Power of the Executive
(Ordinances)
27. D.C Art.123/2 This case is example of Abuse The court called it a ‘subversion of
Wadhwa v. 13 of ordinance power. 256 democratic process’ and ‘colorable
State of ordinances promulgated in exercise of powers’ and held that
Bihar, AIR the state, and all of these kept this amounted to a fraud to the
alive by re promulgation
1987 SC 579 constitution. The executive cannot
without being brought before
usurp the function assigned to the
the legislature, between 1976-
81. legislature under the constitution.
28. A.K. Roy v. Art.123/2 The SC upheld the An ordinance has been held to be a
UOI, AIR 13 constitutional validity of the law under A. 21 of the
1982 SC 710 NSA and held that it is not Constitution. As the legislature the
violative of Art. 14. President can also repeal or amend
“National an existing legislation.
Security Act An ordinance is like a
(NSA)” Parliamentary law. However it held
that ordinance would be subject to
the test of vagueness,
arbitrariness, reasonableness, and
public interest.

The court held that right of legal

representation before the board is
not permissible.

Topic-6 Union and

State Judiciary
29. Rupa Ashok A.137 & Although a writ petition under
Hurra v. A.32 A.32 against a final judgment
Ashok Hurra /order of the S.C after disposal of
(2002) 4 review petition under A.137 is not
SCC 388 : maintainable yet the Court can, in
AIR 2002 SC rarest of rare cases, reconsider its
1771 final judgment to prevent abuse of
process of the court to cure a gross
miscarriage of justice.
30. Zakarius A.32 A writ petition was filed It was held that the writ petition
Lakra v. UOI before the SC for quashing the under A.32 was not maintainable.
(2005) 3 death sentence, imposed on The appropriate remedy is only to
SCC 161 petitioner’s son by the trial file a curative petition.
court and confirmed by the
high court and in appeal by
the SC. A School certificate
was produced as additional
evidence in support of the
ground that the convict was
juvenile at the time of
commission of the offence. In
review petition earlier filed by
the appellant, this ground was
stated to have been noticed
while dismissing the petition.
31. S.P.Gupta v. A.32 & Independence of Judiciary; No primacy needs to be given to The said
President of A.226,A.1 Public interest litigation, Locus the opinion of the Chief Justice of decision was
India, AIR 24(2),A.21 standi, privilege under Article India; It is the executive which has very much
1982 SC 149 7(1),A.222 74(2). primacy. criticized.
(1)
It led the foundation of Public
“Judges
interest Litigation(PIL).
Transfer
Case”

32. In Re Special A.32 & The SC pronounced its advisory

reference A.226,A.1 opinion in this case, in which it
No.1 of 24(2),A.21 provided some more safeguards
1998 7(1),A.222 regarding appointment and
(Judges (1) transfer of Judges viz.
Appointmen “Consultation of Plularity of
t Case), AIR judges”.
1999 SC 1 The CJI had to consult four senior
most judges of the SC and if two of
the four disagreed on some name
it could not be recommended.
33. National A.124(2)& The Commission (NJAC) is It would consist of
Judicial A.217(1) established by 99th CJI+
Appointmen Amendment. 2 senior most judges of SC next to
t CJI
Commission Union law Minister + 2 eminent
persons nominated by a
committee consist of Prime
Minister, CJI and Leader of
Opposition.
34. L. Chandra A.323-A & Whether ouster of power of A.323A, clause 2(d) and Clause 3(d)
Kumar v. A.323-B judicial review to the total of A.323B, to the extent they
UOI, AIR exclusion of the High Court’s exclude the jurisdiction of the high
1997 SC under A.226 of the court’s and SC under A.226/227
Constitution Permissible?
1125 and 32 of the Constitution, are
unconstitutional.
35. Asif A.32/226 Mandamus cannot be issued to the
Hemeed v. legislature to enact a particular
state of legislature.
J&K., AIR
1989 SC
1899
36. Rudal Shah A.32 In a writ petition for Habeas The court felt that not awarding
v. State of Corpus the court awarded damages in the instant case would
Bihar,AIR damages to the petitioner “be doing merely lip service to the
1983 SC against the state for breach of Fundamental Rights to liberty
his right of personal liberty
1086 which the state government has so
under A.21 as he was kept in
grossly violated”.
jail for 14 years even after his
acquittal by a criminal court.
37. M.C. Mehta A.32 The Apex court widened the It held that a poor can move the
v. UOI, AIR scope of PIL. court by writing a letter (even
1987 SC without an affidavit) to any
1086 judge(instead of the entire
court).The Court has power to
grant relief, in form of
compensation, where violation of
fundamental right is “gross and
patent” and “affects persons on a
large scale”. The Court can appoint
commission or any device for the
enforcement of Fundamental
rights under A.32.
38. Bandhua A.32 An organization informed the The court treated the letter as a
Mukti SC through the letter about writ petition and appointed a
Morcha v. the inhuman and intolerable commission to make an enquiry.
UOI, AIR conditions of bonded labours The Court explained the nature
working in stone quarries in
1984 Sc 802 and purpose of PIL.
Faridabad.
Under A.32 only requirement to
approach the court is through
‘Appropriate Proceedings’ and this
requirement has to be judged in
the light of the purpose for which
proceeding is to be taken, namely
enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights.
39. Bhim Singh A.32 The Petitioner (an MLA) was The SC awarded compensation to
v. State of J. arrested and detained in the petitioner for his illegal
& K., AIR police custody and detention in police custody which
1986 SC 494 deliberately prevented for was held to constitute violation of
attending session of legislative
his rights under Art.21 and Art.22
assembly.
(2).
The conduct of the magistrate
was criticized who passed an
order remanding the accused
to police custody without the
accused having been
produced before him
personally.

Topic 7 – Distribution of Legislative Powers

Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
40 State of Bihar v. Article 245 Smt. Charushila Das Does the State The Court held that a
Charushila Dasi (Extent of held that the trust in Legislature have State legislature has
law made by question is a private power to legislate power to legislate with
AIR 1959 SC Parliament trust created for the with respect to a respect to a charitable
1002 and by the worship of a family charitable and and religious trust
Legislature idol in which the religious trust situated within its
[Doctrine of States) public are not situated within its territory, even though
Territorial interested therefore territory, when a any part of trust proper,
Nexus] Article 226 Bihar Hindu Religious small or large part of small or large may be
(Power of Trusts Act, 1950 do not the property is situated in another
No law made by High Court apply to it. situated in another State.
Parliament shall to issue She made an State? The petition of Smt.
be deemed to be certain application to the High Charushila Dasi stood
invalid on the writs) Court under Article dismissed with costs.
ground that it 226 of the Constitution
would have Section 59 in which asked for a
extra-territorial of Hindu writ or order to be
operation’. Religious issued quashing the
Trusts Act, proceedings taken
1950 against her by Bihar
State Board of
Religious Trusts.
41 State of Bombay Article 245 State levied a tax on Does State act in The Court held that a
v. R. M. D. C (Extent of lotteries & prize Extra-terrotorial sufficient territorial
law made by competitions in State. jurisdiction and so nexus exist for the State
AIR 1957 SC Parliament The tax was extended impugned Act ultra to tax the newspapers.
699 and by the to newspaper printed vires the competency
Legislature & published in of State?
[Doctrine of States) Banglore, but had wide
Territorial circulation in Bombay.
Nexus] The prize entries were
received from Bombay
No law made by through agents &
Parliament shall depots established in
be deemed to be State.
invalid on the
ground that it
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
42 Tata Iron & Article 245 In this case, the Does theory of nexus The fact that the goods
Steel Co. Ltd. v. (Extent of appellant company had applies to tax statue being in Bihar at time of
State of Bihar law made by its registered office in as the goods are sold, sale or
Parliament Bombay, factory & delivered & produced/manufactured
AIR 1958 SC and by the works in Bihar & its consumed outside in Bihar doesn't
452 Legislature head sales office in the State? constitute sale but were
States) West Bengal. The State used for locating situs of
[Doctrine of under Bihar Sales Tax sale in Bihar State.
Territorial Act, 1947, imposed a These ingredients only
Nexus] sales tax on furnishes the connection
No law made by (i) Goods which are between taxing State &
Parliament shall actually in Bihar at the Sale. Nexus theory
be deemed to be time of sale & doesn't impose a tax, it
invalid on the (ii) Goods which are only indicates
ground that it produced & circumstances in which
would have manufactured in Bihar. a tax imposed by
extra-territorial legislature may be
operation’. enforced in particular
case. The court thus
upheld the levy of tax.
43 G.V.K. Article 245 Appellant had (i) Is Parliament The court held 1st issue
Industries v. (Extent of challenged the order of constitutionally in affirmation & 2nd in
Income Tax law made by Respondent that restricted from negative.
Officer Parliament Appellant was liable to enacting legislation
and by the withhold a certain w.r.t extra-territorial
(2011) 4 SCC 36 Legislature portion of monies aspects or causes that
States) being paid to foreign do not have nexus
[Doctrine of company & also with India or its
Territorial Article 260 challenged the vires of inhabitants?
Nexus] (Jurisdiction sec 9(1)(vii)(b) of (ii) Does Parliament
No law made by of the Union Income Tax Act 1961 have the powers to
Parliament shall in relation to for want of legislative legislate "for" any
be deemed to be territories competence & territory, other than
invalid on the outside violation of Article 14 the territory of India
ground that it India) of Constitution. or any part of it?
would have
extra-territorial
operation’.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
44 In Re C P & Sec 3(1) of The Union Whether a tax The Central Legislature
Berar Sales of the Central Government imposed by a will have the power to
Motor Spirit & Provinces contended that an provincial legislature impose duties of
Lubricants and Berar excise duty may be on the sale of oil was excisable articles before
Taxation Act Sales of imposed on home bad as it was in they become part of the
Motor produced goods 'at any essence of excise general stock of the
AIR 1939 FC 1 Spirits and stage' from production duty? Province i.e. at the stage
Lubricants to the consumption. of manufacture or
[Doctrine of Taxation The provincial production and the
Harmonious Act, 1938 legislature could not Provincial Legislature
Construction] levy sales tax on sales an exclusive power to
Overlapping/ of motor spirits as 'sale' impose a tax on sales
conflicting is a stage between thereafter.
entries in the production and The Court reconciled
three lists must consumption. the federal power to
be reconciled to The provincial impose 'excise duty' and
bring “harmony Government the States' power to
between them” contended that 'excise impose 'sales tax'.
duty' was a tax on
production or
manufacturing of
goods only and that it
could not be levied at a
later stage.
45 Gujarat Item 11 of Shrikant, a student of Does a state have The Court held that the
University v. List II or St. Xavier college, competence under the power to legislate with
Krishna State List in University of Gujarat State List to prescribe respect to medium of
Ranganath conflict with was denied permission any particular education is a necessary
Mudholkar Item 66 of to take admission to medium of incidence of
List I or classes for the instruction in respect coordination and
AIR Union List Intermediate Arts to higher education? determination of
1963 SC 703 'coordinatio examination of standards, the State law
n and University (English was invalid.
[Doctrine of determinatio medium) to Shrikant
Harmonious n of stating that in view of
Construction] standards in the provision of
Overlapping/ institutions Gujarat University
conflicting of higher Act, 1961 he could not
entries in the education.' attend classes in which
three lists must instructions were
be reconciled to imparted through
bring “harmony medium of English.
between them”
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
46 Prafulla Kumar Sec 100, 107 Validity of Bengal Does the impugned The pith & substance of
v. Bank of of GOI Act; Money Lenders Act act deals with central impugned Act being
Commerce, 1940, which limits matter & is ultra money-lending, a State
Kulna Entry 28, amount & rate of vires the legislative subject, and it was valid
List I; interest recoverable by power of state? even though it trenched
AIR 1947 PC 60 Entry 21, money lender on any incidentally on
List II loan was challenged on ‘Promissory Notes’, a
[Doctrine of Pith of GOI Act the ground that it was Central subject.
and Substance] ultra vires the Bengal
If law dealing in legislature in so far as
one list touches it relates to
another, true ‘Promissory Notes’, a
object & scope Central subject.
& its effects is to
be ascertained.
47 State of Article 246 The levy of tax in Whether state is The Court held that in
Karnataka v. (Subject- respect of “drive-in- competent to enact pith & substance, the
M/s. Drive-in matter of cinema” was in issue. law under entry 62 to levy is on the person
Enterprises laws made The state levies levy entertainment who is entertained & it
by entertainment tax on tax on entry of is wholly immaterial in
AIR 2001 SC Parliament person being car/motor vehicle what name & form it is
1328 and by the entertained as well as inside such theatre? imposed. The word
Legislatures on admission of car ‘entertainment is wide
[Doctrine of Pith of the State) inside the theatre. enough to comprehend
and Substance] in it the luxury or
If law dealing in Entry 62, comfort with which a
one list touches List II person entertains
another, true himself.
object & scope
& its effects is to
be ascertained.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
48 State of Article 246 Validity of Ajmer Does the impugned The end & purpose of
Rajasthan v. G. (Subject- (Sound Amplifiers act deals with central the legislation furnishes
Chawla matter of Control) Act 1952, matter & is ultra the key to connect it
laws made restricting the use of vires the legislative with state list. So, held
AIR 1959 SC by sound amplifiers was power of state? to be intra vires the
544 Parliament challenged on the competency of state
and by the ground that it overlaps legislation.
[Doctrine of Pith Legislatures the subject matter in
and Substance] of the State) Union List.
If law dealing in
one list touches Article 132
another, true (Appellate
object & scope jurisdiction
& its effects is to of SC in
be ascertained. appeals
from High
Courts in
certain
cases)

Entry 6, List
II; Entry 31,
List I
49 K.C. Gajapati Article 246 Validity of the Orissa Whether the The court held that the
Narayan Deo v. (Subject- Agricultural Income impugned act was state had undoubted
State of Orissa matter ofTax (Amendment) Act, introduced under the competency to legislate
laws made 1950 was challenged guise of a taxation the impugned Act in
AIR 1953 SC by on the ground that it is statue with a view to Entry 46 of List II. Both
375 Parliament a colourable piece of accomplish an in form & substance the
and by the legislation, the real ulterior purpose, Act was agricultural
[Colourable Legislatures object of which is to namely, to inflate the income tax legislation
exercise of of the State) reduce the net income deductions for the & motive of state
Legislative of intermediaries, so purpose of valuing regarding reduction in
Power] Entry 46, that compensation paid an estate so that the compensation is not
If constitutional List II under Orissa Estate compensation material as far as
transgressing Abolition Act 1952 payable w.r.t it might competency of statue is
legislation is might be kept down to be as small as concerned & held not to
made to appear a low figure. possible. be colourable statue.
as if it is quite
constitutional,
then it is fraud
on constitution.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
50 Union of India Article 248 Parliament amended (i) Whether scope &The court held that:
v. H. S. Dhillon (Residuary the Wealth-Tax Act, extent of Article 248
(i) Parliament is
powers of 1957 by Finance Act, should be identified
empowered to make law
AIR 1972 SC legislation) 1969, to include the with Entry 97; w.r.t matter in Entry 97,
1061 capital value of (ii) Whether the by virtue of Article
Article 246 agricultural land for subject matter of 246(1) & not by Article
[Residuary (Subject- the purpose of Entry 97, by virtue of
248. So, Entry 97 of List
Power of matter of computing net wealth words 'any other I is distinct from Article
Legislation] laws made which was challenged matter not
248.
by in the court. enumerated in List II
(ii) The words 'any other
Parliament & List III', is matter' in Entry 97
and by the inclusive of subject
really refer to matters
Legislatures matters of entries 1-
contained in each
of the State) 96. entries 1-96 & Article
248 includes those
Entry 86, matters which are not
List I; Entry enumerated in any of 3
49, List II; lists.
Entry 97, Parliament can enact in
List I a single statue, the
matters which call for
exercise of two or more
entries. Thus, impugned
act is valid.
51 Hoechst Article 254 The conflict arises Whether there is a The court held that the
Pharmaceuticals (Inconsisten between Union Law repugnancy between two Acts (one made
Ltd. v. State of cy between (Essential Union Law & State under List II & the other
Bihar laws made Commodities Act) & Law or not? under List III) operate
by State Act (Bihar on two separate &
AIR 1983 SC Parliament Finance Act). While distinct fields & both
1019 & laws former Act confers a are capable of being
made by right on manufactures obeyed. There is no
[Doctrine of legislatures or producers to pass on question of any clash
Repugnancy] of state) liability of sales tax on between the two laws &
Union Law must consumers, the latter the question of
prevail over Act prohibits such repugnancy doesn’t
State Law in passing of surcharge. come into play.
case of latter
being repugnant
to or to any
provisions of
former.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
52 Zaverbhai v. Article 254 Parliament enacted an Which Act needs to The court held that as
State of Bombay (Inconsisten Essential Supplies Act be followed in both occupied same
cy between which provides Bombay? field, the Bombay Act
AIR 1954 SC laws made penalties. Later was impliedly repealed
752 by Bombay legislature by Parliament Act,
Parliament passed an act because of repugnancy.
[Doctrine of & laws enhancing the
Repugnancy] made by penalties. Subsequent
legislatures to Bombay Act,
Union Law must of state) amendments were
prevail over made in Central Act by
State Law in Parliament with
case of latter changes in
being repugnant Punishment.
to or to any
provisions of
former.
Topic-8 Freedom of
Trade, Commerce and
Intercourse
53 Automobile A.301 The validity of the The court held that the
Transport tax levied under the tax was not hit by Art.
(Rajasthan)Ltd. Rajasthan Motor 301 as it were a
V. State of Vehicles Taxation compensatory tax
Rajasthan, AIR Act, 1951 was having been levied for
1962 SC 1406 challenged. the use of the roads
provided for and
“Compensatory maintained by the
taxes” state.

(Regional
interests must
not altogether
be ignored)
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
54 Jindal Stainless A.301 Whether a Doctrine of “direct and
Ltd. V. State of (compensatory) tax immediate effect’ of the
Haryana, AIR imposed on traders impugned law on trade
2006 SC 2550 having no direct and commerce under
nexus with trading A.301 as propounded in
[Concept of facilities but used for Atiabari tea Co. Ltd. V.
“compensatory purposes the benefit State of Assam and the
tax” vis-à-vis whereof to the working test
Article 301.] trader was only enunciated in
indirect or Automobile
incidental, covered Transport(Rajasthan)Lt
and therefore stood d.v. State of Rajasthan
protected from for deciding whether a
being hit by Art. 301. tax is compensatory or
not will continue to
apply.

Taxing laws are not

excluded from the
operation of Art. 301.
55 G.K. Krishnan v. A.301 The writ petitions Whether the tax in Laws which are merely
State of Tamil challenged the validity question is a regulatory (incidental
Nadu (1975) 1 of the notification by restriction on the or indirect restrictions)
SCC 375 the Govt. of Tamil freedom of trade, or which impose purely
Nadu enhancing of commerce and compensatory taxes are
motor vehicles tax on intercourse outside the scope of
omnibuses from Rs. 30 guaranteed by Art.301.
per seat per quarter to Article 301 of the The word “free” in
Rs. 100 per seat per constitution? Art.301 does not mean
quarter. freedom from
regulation.
Thus, such measures as
traffic regulation,
licensing of vehicles,
charging for the
maintenance of the
roads etc. facilitate the
free movement of trade
or commerce.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
56 Shree Mahavir Article 301 The Govt. of J&K Whether such The exemption granted
Oil Mills v. State and issued notification exemption has by Notification to local
of J.& K. (1996) Art.304(a) under S.5 of the J&K brought about manufactures/produce
11 SCC 39 General Sales Tax Act, discrimination by rs of edible oil is
1962 granting taxation prohibited violative of the
exemption to local by Article 304(a) of provisions contained in
manufacturers/produc the Constitution. Article 301 and
ers of edible oil. Art.304(a)
57 Atiabari Tea Co. A.301 The Petitioners were Validity of the Assam Held that the tax
v. State of carrying on the Taxation (on grounds imposed on the goods
Assam, AIR 1961 business of growing carried by road or directly restricted their
SC 232 tea and exporting it to inland waterways) transport or movement
Calcutta via Assam, Act, 1954 was and therefore offended
[Doctrine of thus liable to the tax challenged on the against Art. 301.
“direct and under the aforesaid ground that it
immediate Act while passing the violated Art.301.
effect”] Assam State.

Topic- 9 Emergency
Provisions
58 State of A.356, States filed suits Whether imposition Sufficiency of grounds
Rajasthan v. A.74(2) challenging the validity of President Rule of executive action
Union of India, of the directions under Article 356 in under A.356(1) is non-
AIR 1977 SC issued by the Home States is open for justiciable (Not open for
1361 Ministers to Chief Judicial Review? judicial review ). Article
Ministers to dissolve 74(2) bars the courts to
their Assemblies and inquire into advice
seek a fresh mandate. tendered by the
So President‘s Rule ministers to the
was imposed on the President.
ground that the
assemblies in these
States no longer
represents the wishes
of electorate.
Cas Articles
Name Facts Issue Decision
e No Involved
59 S.R.Bommai v. A.356, States of Karnataka, President’s Rule in Proclamation under
Union of India, A.74(2) Megalaya, Nagaland, States under A.356- A.356 is amenable to
AIR 1994 SC Rajasthan, M.P, and grounds and scope judicial review.
1918 H.P. Challenged the of judicial review Though the subjective
imposition of satisfaction of the
(Secularism is a President’s Rule under President cannot be
basic feature of A.356. reviewed by the court
the but material on which
Constitution) satisfaction is based is
open to judicial review
on grounds of illegality,
malafide,extraneous
considerations,
abuse of power.
60 Rameshwar A.356 In a unique case of its The Constitutional The President
Prasad v. Union kind even before the validity of proclamation dissolving
of India, AIR first meeting of the Notification dated 23 state assembly in Bihar
2006 SC 980 legislative assembly, May, 2005 ordering under A.356 were
its dissolution had dissolution of unconstitutional and
(“Bihar been ordered on the Legislative Assembly based on extraneous
Assembly ground that attempts of the state of Bihar and irrelevant grounds.
Dissolution were being made to was in issue.
Case”) cobble a majority by Proclamation under
illegal means and lay A.356 on “immorality”
claim to form the is not a valid ground.
government in state
and if attempts
continued, it would
amount to tampering
with constitutional
provisions.