Constitutional Law of India

AD-1131
Constitutional Law of India

LL.B.(Part I)(First Semester)Examination, 2016
Attempt 5 questions in all.
All questions carry 20 marks each.
Q. Describe the appointment, qualifications, tenure of Office and powers of Governor.
Who is a Governor?
Governor is a Nominal Executive Head of the state.
How is a Governor Appointed?
The Indian President appoints Governor for each state by warrant under his hand and seal. Central
Government is responsible to nominate the governor for each state.
Unlike elections of the President, there is no direct or indirect election for the post of Governor. The
office of a governor is not a part of the union executive and is an independent constitutional office.
The governor doesn’t serve the union government and neither is subordinate to it.
What is the term of the Governor’s office?
Since the Governor holds the office under the pleasure of the President, his office has no fixed
term. President can remove the Governor and the grounds upon which he may be removed are not
laid down in the constitution. Governor may also get transferred from one state to another by the
President. He also can be reappointed.
Note:
 An interregnum (a period during which the normal functions of government or control are
suspended) is not allowed; following which a Governor may sit in the office beyond 5 years
(expiry of the term) till the new governor assumes the charge of the office.
 At President’s discretion, the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned state can also
be appointed as the Governor on a temporary basis when and how the President thinks fit.
(Example – On the governor’s death, Chief Justice of HC can be appointed as the governor.)
Who is qualified to become a Governor?
Unlike Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha members or even in the case of Prime Minister or President
who have a set of qualifications to meet to hold the office; Governor has to meet only two
qualifications:
 He should be an Indian Citizen
 He should be 35 years old or more
What are the conditions of his office?
There are a few conditions for a person to be appointed as a Governor:
 He cannot be a member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. If he has been a member of either
of the house, he should vacate the seat on his first day as Governor in the office.
 He should not hold any office of profit.
 For his residence, Raj Bhavan is provided to him without the payment of rent.
 Parliament decides his emoluments, allowances, and privileges.
 When a governor is responsible for two or more states, the emoluments and allowances
payable to him are shared by the states in such proportion as the President may determine.
 Parliament cannot diminish his emoluments and allowances during his term of office.
 He is given immunity from any criminal proceedings, even in respect of his personal acts
 Arrest or imprisonment of the Governor cannot take place. Only civil proceedings can be
initiated for his personal acts that too after giving two months’ of prior notice.
What are the powers and functions of the Governor?
Executive Powers of the Governor
The following comes under his executive powers:
 Every executive action that the state government takes, is to be taken in his name.
 How an order that has been taken up his name is to be authenticated, the rules for the same
can be specified by the Governor.
 He may/may not make rules to simplify the transaction of the business of the state
government.
 Chief Ministers and other ministers of the states are appointed by him.
 It is his responsibility to appoint Tribal Welfare Minister in the states of:
o Chattisgarh
o Jharkhand
o Madhya Pradesh
o Odisha
 He appoints the advocate general of states and determines their remuneration
 He appoints the following people:
o State Election Commissioner
o Chairman and Members of the State Public Service Commission
o Vice-Chancellors of the universities in the state
 He seeks information from the state government
 A constitutional emergency in the state is recommended to the President by him.
 The governor enjoys extensive executive powers as an agent of the President during
the President’s rule in the state.
Legislative Powers of the Governor
The following are the legislative powers of the governor:
 It’s in his power to prorogue (discontinue a session of the state legislature and dissolve the
state legislative assemblies).
 He addresses the state legislature at the first session of every year
 If any bill is pending in the state legislature, Governor may/may not send a bill to the state
legislature concerning the same
 If the speaker of the legislative assembly is absent and the same is Deputy Speaker, then
Governor appoints a person to preside over the session
 As President nominates 12 members in Rajya Sabha, Governor appoints ⅙ of the total
members of the legislative council from the fields of:
 Literature
 Science
 Art
 Cooperative Movement
 Social Service
 As President nominates 2 members in the Lok Sabha, Governor nominates 1 member in
state legislative assembly from Anglo-Indian Community.
 He can consult Election Commission for the disqualification of members
With respect to the bill introduced in the state legislature, he can:
 Give his assent
 Withhold his assent
 Return the bill
 Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration (In instances where the bill introduced in
the state legislature endangers the position of state High Court.)
Note: Governor can reserve the bill for the President’s consideration in the following cases:
 When provisions mentioned in the bill violates the constitution (Ultra-Vires)
 When provisions mentioned in the bill oppose Directive Principles of State Policy
 When provisions mentioned in the bill hinders the larger interests of the country
 When provisions mentioned in the bill concern the national importance
 When provisions mentioned in the bill mention the acquisition of property that is dealt with
Article 31A in the constitution. (Read more about important articles in the Indian
Constitution in the linked article.)
Also,
 An ordinance can be promulgated by him when either the Legislative Assembly or Council
(Unicameral/Bicameral) are not in session. (Read the Ordinance Making Power of
President & Governor in the linked article.)
 The following reports are laid by him:
 State Finance Commission
 State Public Service Commission
Financial Powers of the Governor
The following are the financial powers and functions of the Governor:
 He looks over the state budget being laid in the state legislature
 His recommendation is a prerequisite for the introduction of a money bill in the state
legislature
 He recommends for the demand for grants which otherwise cannot be given
 Contingency Fund of State is under him and he makes advances out that to meet
unforeseen expenditure. (Download the notes on the types of funds in India from the linked
article.)
 State Finance Commission is constituted every five years by him. (Read about the Finance
Commission of India in the linked article.)
Judicial Powers of the Governor
The following are the judicial powers and functions of the Governor:
He has the following pardoning powers against punishment:
 Pardon
 Reprieve
 Respite
 Remit
 Commute
President consults the Governor while appointing judges of High Court.
In consultation with the state High Court, Governor makes appointments, postings, and promotions
of the district judges.
In consultation with the state high court and state public service commission, he also appoints
persons to the judicial services.
What is the Constitutional Position of Governor?
The Constitutional Position of the governor can be understood by the following articles:
Constitutional Position of the Governor
Article Provision
Article 154 He is the executive head of the state. All the executive functions will be performed by him or by
the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution
Article 163 He will be aided and advised by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers unless he is
performing a function at his discretion
Note:
 The power to act at his own discretion is a power that is not given to the President.
 42nd Amendment Act made the advice of the Council of Ministers’ binding on the
President but not on the Governor in state
Article 164 The Council of Ministers are collectively responsible to the state legislative assembly
Note: This provision is the foundation of the state parliamentary system
The Constitution has mentioned the authority of the governor to decide the validity of his actions
taken at his own discretion in circumstances where his actions are called into action.
Governor’s Discretionary Powers
The Governor of state, unlike the President of India, is conferred with power to act at his own
discretion. There are two categories of discretion for the governor. One is Constitutional Discretion
and the other is Situational Discretion. Read more about the Constitutional Discretion of
Governor in the linked article.
Important Constitutional Articles related to the Governor
Articles Provisions
153 Governors of states
155 Appointment of Governor
156 Term of office of Governor
157 Qualifications for appointment as Governor
158 Conditions of Governor’s office
160 Discharge of the functions of the Governor in certain contingencies
161 Power of the Governor to grant pardons and others
175 Right of the Governor to address and send messages to the house or houses of the state
legislature
176 Special address by the Governor
201 Bills reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President
213 Power of Governor to promulgate ordinances
217 Governor is consulted by the President in the matter of the appointments of the judges of the High
Courts
233 Appointment of district judges by the Governor
234 Appointments of persons (other than district judges) to the judicial service of the state by the
Governor
What are the veto powers of the Governor regarding a Money Bill?
After it is passed by the state legislature, every money bill is presented to the governor for his/her
assent. The governor will have the following options.
 The assent is given to the bill, and it becomes an act
 The assent is not given, and the bill is withheld from becoming an act
 The bill may be reserved for the consideration of the President
What are the Pardoning Powers of the Governor?
The Governor can pardon, grant a reprieve, a respite, suspend or commute the punishment of any
person convicted of any offence against state law. The Governor cannot, however, pardon a death
sentence. Only suspend or remit is allowed. Only the President has the power to pardon a death
sentence.
Or
Write short notes on any two of the following:
 Prime Minister
 Council of Ministers
 Impeachment of the President
Is Prime Minister of India elected or appointed?
President of India appoints a person as the Prime Minister who is either the leader of the party which
holds a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha or is a person who is able to win the confidence of the Lok
Sabha by gaining the support of other political parties. All other ministers are appointed by
the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Note: President can also appoint Prime Minister on his own discretion but only when no party has a
clear majority in the Lok Sabha.
Power and Function of Prime Minister
Prime Minister of India serves the country by following various functions. He performs his functions
taking responsibilities as:
 The leader of Country: The Prime Minister of India is the Head of the Government of
India.
 Portfolio allocation: The Prime Minister has the authority to assign portfolios to the
Ministers.
 Chairman of the Cabinet: The Prime Minister is the chairman of the cabinet and presides
the meetings of the Cabinet. He can impose his decision if there is a crucial opinion
difference among the members.
 Official Representative of the country: Prime minister represents the country for high-
level international meetings
 The link between the President and the Cabinet: The Prime Minister acts as the link
between President and cabinet. He communicates all decisions of the Cabinet to the
President which is related to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for
legislation.
 Head: The Prime Minister is the head of Nuclear Command Authority, NITI Aayog,
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of
Space and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
 Chief Advisor: He acts as the chief advisor to the President
Like Prime Minister is the head of Union Parliament, the Chief Minister is the head of state
parliament.
Who is eligible to be a Prime Minister?
To become an Indian prime minister one has to be
 A citizen of India.
 A member of either Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha
 He should have completed his 30 years if he is a member of the Rajya Sabha or can be 25
years of age if he is a member of the Lok Sabha
Position of the Prime Minister
Right from the days of the first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister is treated
at a much higher pedestal. His preeminence rests on his commanding position in the Cabinet,
coupled with fact that he is the leader of the majority party.
All these positions of power when combined in one person make him rank much above an ordinary
Minister. The death or resignation of the Prime Minister automatically brings about the dissolution of
the Council of Ministers. It generates a vacuum. The demise, resignation or dismissal of a Minister
creates only a vacancy which the Prime Minister may or may not like to fill. The Government cannot
function without a Prime Minister but the absence of a Minister can be easily compensated.
Council of Ministers
Which articles in the Constitution deal with the Council of Ministers?
Two articles – Article 74 and Article 75 of the Indian Constitution deal with the Council of Ministers.
Where article 74 mentions that the council will be headed by the Prime Minister of India and will aid
and advise the President, article 75 mentions the following things:
 They are appointed by the President on the advice of Prime Minister
 They along with the Prime Minister of India form 15% of the total strength of the lower house
i.e. Lok Sabha. (The number cannot exceed 15%)
 91st Amendment Act provided for the disqualification of the minister when he stands
disqualified as a member of Parliament. ( Difference between Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha can be referred to in the linked article.)
 A Minister ceased to exist as one if he is not a member of either house of Parliament for six
consecutive months.
 Parliament decides the salary and allowances of the council of ministers.
Is the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers’ binding on the President?
Yes, the advice is binding on the President and this provision was introduced by the 42nd
Amendment Act 1976 and 44th Amendment Act 1978. The acts also mentioned that the advice
given by the council cannot be inquired into by any court.
Collective Responsibility of the Council of Ministers
In England, the Cabinet system is based on conventions. The framers of our Constitution considered
it fit to incorporate the system in the Constitution. The principle of collective responsibility finds a
place in Art. 75(3) where it is stated that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to
the Lok Sabha. In other words, this provision means that a Ministry which loses confidence in the
Lok Sabha is obliged to resign. The loss of confidence is expressed by rejecting a Money Bill or
Finance Bill or any other important policy measure or by passing a motion of no-confidence or
rejecting a motion expressing confidence in the Ministry. When a Ministry loses the confidence of the
Lok Sabha the whole of the Ministry has to resign including those Ministers who are from the Rajya
Sabha. The Ministers fall and stand together. In certain cases, the Ministry may advise the President
to dissolve Lok Sabha and call for fresh elections.
Types of Ministers
The Indian Constitution does not categorize ministers into ranks, however, in practice seen in India,
ministers are of four types:
 Cabinet Ministers—He is present and he participates in every meeting of the Cabinet.
 Minister of State with independent charge—He is a Minister of State who does not work
under a Cabinet Minister. When any matter concerning his Department is on the agenda of
the Cabinet, he is invited to attend the meeting.
 Minister of State—He is a Minister who does not have independent charge of any
Department and works under a Cabinet Minister. The work to such Minister is allotted by his
Cabinet Minister.
 Deputy Minister—He is a Minister who works under a Cabinet Minister or a Minister of
State with independent charge. His work is allotted by the Minister under whom he is
working.
The president and judges, including the chief justice of the supreme court and high courts,
can be impeached by the parliament before the expiry of the term for violation of the
Constitution. Other than impeachment, no other penalty can be given to a president in position for
the violation of the Constitution under Article 361 of the constitution. However a president after
his/her term/removal can be punished for his already proven unlawful activity under disrespecting
the constitution, etc.[30] No president has faced impeachment proceedings. Hence, the provisions
for impeachment have never been tested. The sitting president cannot be charged and needs to step
down in order for that to happen.
Article 61 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Procedure for impeachment of the President
(1) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be
preferred by either House of Parliament
(2) No such charge shall be preferred unless
(a) the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at
least fourteen days notice in writing signed by not less than one fourth of the total number of
members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
(b) such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total membership
of the House
(3) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall
investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right
to appear and to be represented as such investigation
(4) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of
the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or cause to be
investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such
resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which
the resolution is so passed
1. Discuss the relation between the Centre and the Statein the Federal Constitution.
Or
2. Whether the Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights ? Cite leading cases in support of
your answer.
3. What do you understand by ‘Equality before law’ and ‘Equal protection of law’ ? Describe the
exceptions of the rule of Equality.
Or
4. Discuss the freedom of speech and expression. Does it include freedom of press also ?
5. How does the Constitution of India safeguard the life and personal liberty of a person ?
Or
6. Distinguish between the proclamations of emergency under Article 352 and 356.
7. Discuss the organisation, function and rights of the Supreme Court of India.
Or
8. Discuss the fact of the case and principles laid down in the case Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radha
Krishnan and others AIR 1964 SC 477.
How a Bill becomes a Law? How a Bill is passed in India ? Types and stages of a Bill ?
The Indian Parliament legislates with the use of governmental acts. These acts are introduced into
the Indian Constitution only after the draft bills are passed by the parliament. There are various types
of bills that are introduced in either house of the Parliament to enact a law. Parliament’s primary
function is to pass new legislations, change current laws, and remove old laws. A bill gets passed in
both houses of parliament for any such process. If passed by both houses, a bill requires the
president’s approval to become an Act.
If a bill is proposed in the house by a minister, then it is known as government or public bill.
Government bill requires a 7- days notification for its introduction. The government could collapse
upon failure, based on the type of government bill as well as the majority needed to get such a bill
passed.
Steps to follow: Bill to become law
 A bill approved by both parliamentary houses goes out to the speaker.
 The speaker signs it, then the bill is submitted to the assent committee president. That’s the
final step of a bill.
 If the president approves the bill, then it becomes a law. When it is a law, it is incorporated
into the book of laws and released in Gazette.
Few important points
 A bill that is pending for more than six months in another house is considered to be rejected.
It does not mean that a bill has lapsed.
 The bill, which runs out due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, gets lapsed and no joint
sitting is required in this case.
 The challenged provisions are either fully approved in the joint sitting or rejected in entirety.
 If the president returns the bill, the entire process will be reopened, and it will take the same
procedure as before.
 The president withholds the consent, that would indicate the end of the bill.
The table below mentions the different types of bills and their significance:
Types of Bills in India
Sl.No Name of the Bill Significance
1 Ordinary Bill (Article 107, Article 108) Concerned with any matter other than financial subjects
2 Money Bill (Article 110) Concerned with financial matters like taxation, public
expenditure, etc
3 Financial Bill (Article 117 [1], Article Concerned with financial matters (but are different from
117[3]) money bills)
4 Constitutional Amendment Bill Concerned with the amendment of the provisions of the
(Article 368) Constitution.
The differences between various types of bills are given in the tables below:
Difference between Ordinary Bill and Money Bill in India
Difference Ordinary Bill Money Bill
Introduction In either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha Only in Lok Sabha
Introduced By Minister or a Private Member Only a Minister
President’s Not Needed Only after he recommends

Recommendation
Rajya Sabha’s Role Can be amended/rejected by Rajya Cannot be amended/rejected by Rajya

Sabha Sabha. (It has to return the bill with/without
recommendations)
Can be detained by the Rajya Can be detained by the Rajya Sabha for a
Sabha for a maximum period of six maximum period of 14 days only.
months.
President’s Assent Sent for his assent only after being Send for his assent only after Lok Sabha’s
approved by both the houses approval. (Rajya Sabha approval is not
required)
Can be rejected, approved, or Can be rejected or approved but cannot be

returned for reconsideration by the returned for reconsideration by the
President. President.
Joint Sitting of Both In case of deadlock, there is a No chance of disagreement, hence, no

Houses provision of a joint sitting provision of a joint sitting
Difference Ordinary Bill Money Bill
SE-212
1. When can the President issue an ordinance ? What is its duration ? Can it be re-promulgated ?
Or
2. Discuss the privileges of the Parliament.
3. How are the legislative powers divided between the Union/Centre and the States ? When does
the role of “Pith and Substance” become relevant in this respect ? Discuss.
Or
4. Can Preamble be amended ? Discuss.
5. “Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation.” Explain.

Or
6. What is the nature of rights guaranteed in the Article 19 of the Constitution ? What do you
mean by reasonable restrictions ? Discuss.
7. What are the rights of an arrested person under the Constitution of India ?
Or
8. Explain briefly the provisions regarding preventive detention inserted in the Constitution of
India.
9. Discuss the law relating to the grant of special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
Or
10. What are the provisions relating to constitutional protection of public servants ? Discuss the
Doctrine of Pleasure.
What is the Nature of the Indian Constitution ?
There is a huge difference of opinion when it comes to the nature of the Indian Constitution. Some
jurist like Kenneth C Wheare, said that India is quasi-federal i.e. “similar to a federal system”
because it has some features of federal and some of the unitary Constitution. However, according to
the makers of the Constitution, it is federal in nature. Even Dr. B. R. Ambedkar defined it as a federal
Constitution, although the centre has certain powers to override the provinces.
The question of whether the Indian Constitution could be actually called a federal Constitution could
not be answered without looking into the meaning of federalism and the essential features that are
evident in a federal state.
There are certain features which are essential to be present in the federal Constitution. Some of
them are discussed below:
Federal Principle
The basic principle of federalism is the “division of power”. The centre and the state are not
subordinate but coordinate with each other. They work independently in their own sphere. In other
words, it seeks to bring unity in diversity and the achievement of common national goals. Prevention,
as well as the settlement of conflict of the interests of the Centre and the States, is an important part
of federalism. This is the reason why the Indian federalism was devised with a strong Centre. The
Indian Constitution has adopted federal features, though it is not a complete federal nation.
Essential characteristics of a federal Constitution
There are various characteristics which are quintessential for a Constitution to be termed as a
federal Constitution.
Supremacy of law
The Constitution is the supreme law. The term “law” involves rules, regulations, bylaws, notifications,
orders, ordinances and even the customs having a force of law. A federal-state derives its existence
from the Constitution. Every type of power; be it legislative, administrative or judicial, irrespective of it
being at the centre or the state level, is controlled by or is subordinated to the Constitution. Article
13(2) provided that the State shall not make any law which takes away any of the rights guaranteed
under Part III of the Indian Constitution and to the extent of such contravention, the law is considered
void.
Distribution of Power
In federalism, distribution of power forms an important and integral part. Distribution of power
between the centre and the state and other coordinate bodies present in the Constitution.
This division of governmental powers into national and regional governments is done by way of 3
lists which are the Union, State and the Concurrent lists. These lists provided in the 7th Schedule to
the Constitution. Only the Central government deals with the issues mentioned in the Union List.
State government legislates on the areas mentioned in the State List while the Concurrent List
contains subjects where both the Center and the State can function. This concept is borrowed from
the Canadian Constitution. However, there are certain items which do not present in any of these
three lists. These are called residuary powers and lie primarily with the Centre as per the Entry 97
of Article 248. The reason behind this is to make the Parliament competent enough to legislate on
any subject which is not identifiable at present. Thus, the principle of division of powers, which the
concept under context, promotes, highlights the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.
Written Constitution
A federal Constitution must be written. Since the federal nature of the Constitution involves a lot of
contracts hence it would be impractical not to have these written. Moreover to maintain the
supremacy of the Constitution it is imperative to have a written Constitution.
The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution and therefore it is not regarded as a
federal country. The States in a federal system, come together and enter into a treaty and the terms
of the treaty are required to be in writing in the form of a written Constitution. There is no denial of
the fact that a written Constitution brings stability in the overall governance of the country. If there
were no written Constitution defining the scope of the powers of Centre and the States, there will be
chaos and confusion. Moreover, misunderstandings and conflicts will arise between the Centre and
the States who would seek to cross over each other’s authority.
Rigidity
The Constitution should be rigid and permanent. A lousy set of the document cannot be said to a
federal Constitution. The method of the amendment should be rigid, otherwise, the basic principles
of the Constitution would be under threat. However, the rigidness of the Constitution should not be
confused with inflexibility. The Constitution is an organic document and should be flexible enough to
accommodate according to the changing times.
Rigidity in a Constitution also means that it cannot be amended unilaterally without the participation
of the states. In the United States, that is an example of classical federalism, it is an established rule
that no part of the Constitution can be amended without the ratification of at least 3/4th of the
individual States. Another example is Switzerland, where no amendment can be brought into force
unless it is ratified by a majority of votes i.e. referendum. Same is the case with Germany, where the
states do have a major role to play in the amendment of the Constitution but even the German
parliament cannot amend as far as the federal features are concerned like division of the federation
into States or the participation of the States in making amendments in the legislature, these features
are exclusively made non-amendable because Germany is also a federal country.
These examples justify that the rigidity of the Constitution is a primary feature of any federal form of
government and the same has been imbibed in India too. In India, any provisions which deal with the
centre and state relations could be amended only after all the states have ratified the amendment
which is proposed. It is also important to note that the ratification must come from at least 50% of the
states. For example, in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu & Ors where the court rejected the
addition of Para 7, which affected the jurisdiction of the high courts present in the State, in the 10th
Schedule by way of 52nd Constitutional Amendment. This amendment was passed by both the
houses of parliament and was not sent for the ratification of the states, so it was ultra vires and the
Supreme Court declared the 52nd Amendment and the 10th Schedule to be unconstitutional and
void. The doctrine of Severability was applied and only Para 7 was removed and the remaining part
of it was held to be valid.
Authority of Courts
The judiciary has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. The rationale for this provision is
that only an independent tribunal which is authorized to resolve disputes between the Centre and the
States could impartially resolve all the disputes between the Centre and the State government. As
regards to India, the Supreme Court is that federal tribunal which has such powers and competency.
The Supreme Court is authorised, to exercise such power, by way of the Article 131 of the Indian
Constitution. However, for solving the Inter-State Water Disputes the parliament has to create an ad-
hoc tribunal to resolve a specific water dispute between two states, for instance, the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal which is dealing with the water dispute between Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu. This power given to the Central Government to create a separate tribunal is although small
but significant unitary feature, the Bedgaon Border dispute case pending in Supreme Court. It is
between Maharashtra and Karnataka in which Maharashtra claims that the majority of the people in
that region are Marathi speaking so the region should belong to them while the Karnataka demands
just the opposite. Thus, an independent judicial court is a very necessary federal feature of the
Constitution.
LA-148
What are the reasons that the Indian Constitution is the lengthiest ? Describe in brief the
other features of Constitution. What are the salient features of the Indian Constitution ?
It was on 26th November 1949 that the Indian Constitution was finally adopted, after close to 3 years
of intense debates and discussions among the members of the Constituent Assembly, and it came
into force on 26th January 1950.
The Constitution of India is a unique document influenced by the Constitutions of many nations. The
country’s founding fathers were wise enough to borrow good features from others and mould it in a
way that suited Indian aspirations and challenges.
Indian Constitution is unique in its way as it is the most detailed constitution across the globe. It
originally consisted of 395 articles which have now increased to 448. In contrast, the American
Constitution has only seven articles, and the Australian Constitution has 128 articles.
Lengthiest Written Constitution: At present, after several amendments, we have 448 articles
divided into 25 parts along with 12 schedules.
Factors responsible-
 Geographical vastness and diversity of India.
 Historical acts during the British rule.
 Single constitution for state and centre: USA has only 7 articles while India has 395 articles.
 Dominance of legal luminaries.
Drawn from various sources:
Major Sources of Indian Constitution
Constitution Features
Constitution of the United States of
America
Fundamental Rights
Federal Structure of Government
Electoral College
Independence of the Judiciary and separation of powers
among the three branches of the Government
Parliamentary Government.
Bicameralism.
Single citizenship.
British Constitution
Directive Principles of State Policy

Irish Constitution
Method of Election of President
French Constitution The ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A

Constitution of the Soviet Union (USSR)
Emergency Provisions
Constitution of Germany
Rigidity and flexibility

Indian Constitution is neither completely rigid nor completely flexible but a mix of both. This is
depicted through article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure ) where
different types of majority are required for amendment in the constitution.
Types of majority
 Simple- More than 50% of present in voting.
 Absolute- More than 50% of the total members of the house.
 Effective- More than 50% of the effective strength (excluding the vacant).
 Special majority- More than 2/3rd members present and voting along with 50% of the total
strength of the House.
Parliamentary form of Government:
 Indian Parliament is a republic and there exists cooperation between executive and
legislature.
 Presence of a nominal head (President) and a real head (Prime Minister).
 Rule of majority party.
 Collective responsibility of the Executive to the Legislature.
 There is amalgamation of parliamentary sovereignty and Judicial supremacy under article
368.
Integrated and Independent Judiciary.
 The Judiciary is not dependent on the executive.
 There exists division of courts in the form of a supreme court at center, high courts at state
level and district courts at district level.
Fundamental Rights
 Enforced by court (Justiciable).
 Mentioned in the constitution from article 12-35 in part III.
 These are not absolute.
 There are 6 fundamental rights as of today.
 Provision of writs in case of violation of fundamental rights.
Directive Principles of State Policy
 Listed in part IV of the constitution from article 36-51.
 These are non-justiciable but fundamental for the governance in the country.
 They aim to establish a welfare state.
Fundamental Duties
 Non-justiciable.
 Added by 42nd amendment act 1976 in the Article 51 A of the constitution.
 There are 10 duties included in the constitution on the recommendations of the Swaran
Singh Committee. The 11th Fundamental duty was added later after the 86th Constitutional
Amendment Act.
Secular State
 The term secular has been added through 42nd constitutional Amendment Act 1976.
 No state religion.
 This provision of granting equal status to all religions is guarded by Article 25-28.
Universal Adult Franchise
 Article 326 provides universal adult suffrage.
 The 61st constitutional amendment act 1988 reduced the age limit from 21 to 18 for voting.
Single Citizenship
 This promotes a sense of brotherhood.
Independent Bodies
 The constitution has provisions for appointment of other independent bodies apart from
Legislature, executive.
 ECI (Election Commission of India) conducts elections of the Parliament and for Legislative
assembly and Legislative Councils of other states.
 CAG (Comptroller Auditor General) audits accounts of Central and state governments.
 UPSC conducts exams for recruitment to all India services.
Emergency Provision
 These provisions are included in part VIII of the constitution.
 National emergency- under article 352.
 State emergency- under Articles 356 and 365.
 Financial emergency- under article 360.
3-tier Government
 Apart from governments at center and state level, the constitutional amendment acts in 1992
included provisions for government at local level.
 The 73rd amendment act introduced panchayats in rural areas.
 The 74th amendment act introduced municipalities in urban areas.
Or
1. Discuss the legislative and judicial powers of the President of India.
2. Whether the Constitution of India can be amended ? If so, state the procedure for the
amendment of the Constitution.
Or
3. How are the legislative powers divided between the Union/Centre and the States ? When does
the role of “Pith and Substance” become relevant in this respect ? Discuss.
4. Describe “Right to Freedom” in the Constitution and write its effect on the society.
Or
5. “Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation.” Explain.
Describe in brief the nature of fundamental duties of citizens and their importance.
Introduction to 11 Fundamental Duties in India
The fundamental duties which were added by the 42nd Amendment Act of the Constitution in 1976,
in addition to creating and promoting culture, also strengthen the hands of the legislature in
enforcing these duties vis-a-vis the fundamental rights.
The list of 11 Fundamental Duties under article 51-A to be obeyed by every Indian citizen is given in
the table below:
S.No 11 Fundamental Duties
1. Abide by the Indian Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the
National Anthem
2. Cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired the national struggle for freedom
3. Uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
4. Defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so
5. Promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending
religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the
dignity of women
6. Value and preserve the rich heritage of the country’s composite culture
7. Protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures
8. Develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform
9. Safeguard public property and to abjure violence
10. Strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement
11. Provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the age of six and fourteen
years. This duty was added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002
Importance of Fundamental Duties- Part IV-A

Fundamental Duties are an inalienable part of fundamental rights. The importance of these are
given in the table below:
S.No Importance of Fundamental Duties
1. They remind Indian Citizens of their duty towards their society, fellow citizens and the nation
2. They warn citizens against anti-national and anti-social activities
3. They inspire citizens & promote a sense of discipline and commitment among them
4. They help the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law
Or
Under what circumstances can the President issue proclamation of emergency ? What is the
effect of proclamation on fundamental rights and legislative powers of the State ? Discuss.
A state of emergency in India refers to a period of governance that can be proclaimed by
the President of India during certain crisis situations. Under the advice of the cabinet of ministers,
the President can overrule many provisions of the Constitution, which guarantees Fundamental
Rights to the citizens of India.
 The emergency provisions are contained in Part XVIII of the Constitution of India,
from Article 352 to 360. These provisions enable the Central government to meet any
abnormal situation effectively.
 The rationality behind the incorporation is to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, integrity
and security of the country, the democratic political system and the Constitution.
 The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies-
1. National Emergency
2. Constitutional Emergency
3. Financial Emergency
NATIONAL EMERGENCY
 National emergency can be declared on the basis of war, external aggression or armed
rebellion. The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote an
emergency of this type.
 Grounds of declaration:
o Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of
India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.
o The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of
war or armed rebellion or external aggression
o When a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external
aggression’, it is known as ‘External Emergency’. On the other hand, when it is
declared on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal Emergency’.
This term ‘armed rebellion’ is inserted from
the 44th amendment. Before this term it was known as internal
disturbance.
 Example:
o If India and Pakistan openly accept that they will use armed forces against each other is
simply war.
o If there is no formal declaration that there will be armed forces used against a country is
External aggression.
o And if because of these two grounds an emergency is proclaimed as an external
emergency.
Facts
 The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the declaration of National Emergency immune to
judicial review. But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of
1978.
 In Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that National Emergency can be
challenged in the court on the ground of malafide or that the declaration was based on wholly
extraneous and irrelevant facts.
 Parliamentary approval and duration
o The proclamation of emergency must be approved by both the houses of parliament
within one month from the date of its issue.
o However, if the proclamation of emergency is issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has
been dissolved or the dissolution takes place during the period of one month without
approving the proclamation, then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first
sitting of Lok Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the
meantime approved it.
o If approved by both the houses, the Emergency continues for 6 months and can be
extended to an indefinite period with an approval of the Parliament for every six months.
o Every resolution approving the proclamation of emergency or its continuance must be
passed by either House of Parliament by a special majority.
 Revocation of proclamation
o A proclamation of Emergency may be revoked by the President at any time by a
subsequent proclamation. Such proclamation does not require parliamentary approval.
o The emergency must be revoked if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution by a simple
majority disapproving its continuation.
 Effects of national emergency
o A proclamation of Emergency has drastic and wide-ranging effects on the political
system. These consequences can be grouped into 3 categories:
 Effects on the centre-state relations: While a proclamation of Emergency is in
force, the normal fabric of the Centre-State relations undergoes a basic change.
this can be studied under three heads:
o Executive: Centre becomes entitled to give executive directions to a state on
‘any’ matter
o Legislative: The parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any subject
mentioned in the state list, the president can issue ordinances on State subjects
also, if the parliament is not in session. The laws made on state subjects by the
parliament become inoperative six months after the emergency has ceased to
be in operation.
o Financial: the president can modify the constitutional distribution of revenues
between the centre and the states.
 Effect on the life of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly:
o While a proclamation of National Emergency is in operation, the life of the Lok
Sabha may be extended beyond the normal term for one year at a time.
However, this extension cannot continue beyond a period of six months after the
emergency has ceased to operate.
o Similarly, the Parliament may extend the normal tenure of a state Legislative
Assembly by one year each time during a national emergency, subject to a
maximum period of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.
 Effect on fundamental rights: Articles 358 and 359 describes the effect of a
National Emergency on the Fundamental Rights. These two provisions are
explained below:
o Suspension of Fundamental rights under Article 19: According to Article
358, when a proclamation of National Emergency is made, the six fundamental
rights under article 19 are automatically suspended. Article 19 is automatically
revived after the expiry of the emergency.
o The 44th Amendment Act laid out that Article 19 can only be suspended when
the National Emergency is laid on the grounds of war or external aggression
and not in the case of armed rebellion.
o Suspension of other Fundamental Rights: Under Article 359, the President is
authorised to suspend, by order, the right to move any court for the enforcement
of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. Thus, remedial
measures are suspended and not the Fundamental Rights.
 The suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental
Rights that are specified in the Presidential Order.
 The suspension could be for the period during the operation of
emergency or for a shorter period.
 The Order should be laid before each House of Parliament for
approval.
 The 44 Amendment Act mandates that the President cannot suspend
the right to move the court for the enforcement of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed by Article 20 and 21.
Declarations made so far: This type of emergency has been proclaimed three times so far- in
1962, 1971 and 1975
o The first proclamation of National Emergency was issued in October 1962 on account of
Chinese aggression in the NEFA and was in force till January 1968.
o The second proclamation of National Emergency was made in December 1971 in the
wake of the attack by Pakistan.
o Even when the emergency was in operation, the third proclamation of National
Emergency was made in June 1975. Both the second and the third proclamations were
revoked in March 1977
President’s Rule
o Article 355 imposes a duty on the centre to ensure that the government of every state is
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
o It is this duty in the performance of which the centre takes over the government of a state
under Article 356 in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a state.
o This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’.
o Grounds of imposition: the president’s ruler can be proclaimed under Article 356 on
two grounds:
1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation if he is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a
state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution.
2. Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give
effect to any direction from the centre, it will be lawful for the
President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government
of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution.
 Parliamentary approval and duration: A proclamation imposing president’s rule must be
approved by both the houses of parliament within two months from the date of its issue.
However, if the proclamation of President’s rule is issued at a time when the
Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes
place during the period of two months without approving the proclamation,
then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok
Sabha after its reconstitution, provided that the Rajya Sabha approves it in
the meantime
Consequences of the President’s rule: The President acquires the following extraordinary
powers when the President’s rule is imposed in a state:
o He can take up the functions of the state government and powers vested in
the governor or any other executive authority in the state.
o He can declare that the powers of the state legislature are to be exercised by
the parliament.
o He can take all other necessary steps including the suspension of the
constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority in the state.
Scope of judicial review: The 38th Amendment act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the
President in invoking Article 356 final and conclusive which would not be challenged in any
court on any ground.
But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of
1978 implying that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond judicial
review.
Financial Emergency
 Grounds of declaration: Article 360 empowers the president to proclaim a Financial
Emergency if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen due to which the financial stability or
credit of India or any part of its territory is threatened.
 Parliamentary approval and duration: A proclamation declaring financial emergency must be
approved by both the Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue.
However, if the proclamation of Financial Emergency is issued at a time when the
Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place
during the period of two months without approving the proclamation, then the
proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after its
reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime approved it.
Once approved by both the houses of Parliament, the Financial Emergency
continues indefinitely till it is revoked.
Effects of Financial Emergency
 Extension of the executive authority of the Union over the financial matters of the States.
 Reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in the State.
 Reservation of all money bills or other financial bills for the consideration of the President after
they are passed by the legislature of the State.
 Direction from the President for the reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of
persons serving the Union; and the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Criticism of the Emergency Provision
 Some members of the Constituent Assembly criticised the incorporation of emergency
provisions in the constitution on the following grounds:
o The federal character of the constitution will be destroyed and the union will
become all-powerful
o The powers of the State- both the Union and the Units- will entirely be concentrated
in the hands of the union executive.
o The president will become a dictator
o The financial autonomy of the state will be nullified
o Fundamental rights will become meaningless and, as a result, the democratic
foundation of the constitution will be destroyed.’
 While defending the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly, Dr Ambedkar
accepted the possibility of their misuse. He observed, ‘I do not altogether deny that there is a
possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes.’
6. Explain the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs Krishna
Sinha and others AIR 1959 SC 395.
Or
7. Discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in P.L.Dhingra Vs Unioon of India AIR 1958 SC
36.
LB-118
1. Review the ‘Westminster model’.
Or
2. Review the ‘Anti-defection Law’.
3. “Federal Polity as envisaged in Indian Constitution is based on co-operation and mutual trust
between States and Union. “ Do you agree with this view ? Evaluate those constitution
provisions and situations which impinge upon the federal polity of India.
Or
4. Whether the constitution of India is applicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir or not ? On
what basis, the ruling in J & K goes on ? Which of the provisions of the Indian Constitution are
applicable to J & K ? Discuss. Do you know, why in J & K, the dual governing system exists ?
What is the solution of this dual problem ? Give your logical view.
5. Dharma is the foundation of legal ordering in Indian thought and therefore we cannot imagine
the justice without following the principles of dharma. Elucidate.
Or
6. Write an essay on the policy of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Refer to important Commissions on Reservation.
7. In our Constitution, there is ample provision regarding ‘Legal Aid’ as preamble of the
Constitution ensures social, economic and political justice to people of the country. Elucidate.
Or
8. “Law is an instrument of social change.” In the light of this statement, assess the impact of
various welfare legislaations passed in the field of woman empowerment.
9. Discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in P.L.Dhingra Vs Unioon of India AIR 1958 SC
36.
Or
10. Review matters relating to transfer and appointment of Judges with the help of decided cases.
LC-118
1. Discuss the contribution of the Constituent Assembly in the making of the Indian Constitution.
Or
2. Describe the various powers of President of India. Can the President of India be impeached ?
3. Discuss the provisions of the Constitution relating to Co-operative Federalism.

Or
4. What do you mean by Amendment in Constitution. Describe the procedure of Amendments in
the Constitution of India.
5. Do you agree with the view that the Constitution of India is Secular ? Examine the
Constitutional limits in which religious freedom is available to an individual in India.
Or
6. What do you understand by ‘Equality before law’ and ‘Equal protection of law’ ? Describe the
exceptions of the rule of Equality.
7. Discuss the Constitutional safeguards available to a person detained under the preventive
Detention Law.
Or
8. What are the various Fundamental Duties ? What is the importance of these Fundamental
Duties ?
9. How does Article 311 of the Constitution protect Public Servants against the orders of
Administrative Officers ? Explain.
Or
10. Describe the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Bishan Das and Others Vs State
of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570.
Write short notes on Panchayati Raj.

A three-tier structure of the Indian administration for rural development is called Panchayati Raj. The
aim of the Panchayati Raj is to develop local self-governments in districts, zones and villages.
Panchayati Raj institutes village local government that plays a significant role in the development of
villages especially in areas like primary education, health, agricultural developments, women and
child development and women participation in local government, etc. Balwant Rai Mehta was a
parliamentarian who is credited for pioneering the concept of the Panchayati Raj in India and was
also known as the ‘Father of Panchayati Raj’. Rajasthan has the distinction of being a pioneer in
accepting the scheme of democratic decentralization envisaging a three-tier system of
representative bodies at the village, block, and district levels. Th e system later came to be known as
Panchayati Raj, which was inaugurated by the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 2
October 1959 at Nagour in Rajasthan.
Introduction to Panchayati Raj
Rural development is one of the main objectives of Panchayati Raj and this has been established in
all states of India except Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram, in all Union Territories except Delhi.
and certain other areas. These areas include:
 The scheduled areas and the tribal areas in the states
 The hill area of Manipur for which a district council exists and
 Darjeeling district of West Bengal for which Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council exists
Salient Features of the Act
1. Gram Sabha: Gram Sabha is the primary body of the Panchayati Raj system. It is a village
assembly consisting of all the registered voters within the area of the panchayat. It will
exercise powers and perform such functions as determined by the state legislature.
2. Three-tier system: The Act provides for the establishment of the three-tier system of
Panchayati Raj in the states (village, intermediate and district level). States with a population
of less than 20 lakhs may not constitute the intermediate level.
3. Election of members and chairperson: The members to all the levels of the Panchayati Raj
are elected directly and the chairpersons to the intermediate and the district level are elected
indirectly from the elected members and at the village level the Chairperson is elected as
determined by the state government.
4. Reservation of seats:
 For SC and ST: Reservation to be provided at all the three tiers in accordance with
their population percentage.
 For women: Not less than one-third of the total number of seats to be reserved for
women, further not less than one-third of the total number of offices for chairperson
at all levels of the panchayat to be reserved for women.
 The state legislatures are also given the provision to decide on the reservation of
seats in any level of panchayat or office of chairperson in favour of backward
classes.
Duration of Panchayat: The Act provides for a five-year term of office to all the levels of
the panchayat. However, the panchayat can be dissolved before the completion of its term.
But fresh elections to constitute the new panchayat shall be completed –
 before the expiry of its five-year duration.
 in case of dissolution, before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of its
dissolution.
Disqualification: A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a member of
panchayat if he is so disqualified –
 Under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of elections to the
legislature of the state concerned.
 Under any law made by the state legislature. However, no person shall be
disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age if he has attained the
age of 21 years.
 Further, all questions relating to disqualification shall be referred to an authority
determined by the state legislatures.
State election commission:
 The commission is responsible for superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of electoral rolls and conducting elections for the panchayat.
 The state legislature may make provisions with respect to all matters relating to
elections to the panchayats.
8. Powers and Functions: The state legislature may endow the Panchayats with such powers
and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-
government. Such a scheme may contain provisions related to Gram Panchayat work with
respect to:
 the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice.
 the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may
be entrusted to them, including those in relation to the 29 matters listed in the
Eleventh Schedule.
Finances: The state legislature may –
 Authorize a panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees.
 Assign to a panchayat taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the state
government.
 Provide for making grants-in-aid to the panchayats from the consolidated fund of the
state.
 Provide for the constitution of funds for crediting all money of the panchayats.
10. Finance Commission: The state finance commission reviews the financial position of the
panchayats and provides recommendations for the necessary steps to be taken to
supplement resources to the panchayat.
11. Audit of Accounts: State legislature may make provisions for the maintenance and audit of
panchayat accounts.
12. Application to Union Territories: The President may direct the provisions of the Act to be
applied on any union territory subject to exceptions and modifications he specifies.
13. Exempted states and areas: The Act does not apply to the states of Nagaland, Meghalaya
and Mizoram and certain other areas. These areas include,
 The scheduled areas and the tribal areas in the states
 The hill area of Manipur for which a district council exists
 Darjeeling district of West Bengal for which Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council exists.
However, Parliament can extend this part to these areas subject to the exception and
modification it specifies. Thus, the PESA Act was enacted.
Continuance of existing law: All the state laws relating to panchayats shall continue to be in
force until the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act. In other words, the
states have to adopt the new Panchayati raj system based on this Act within the maximum
period of one year from 24 April 1993, which was the date of the commencement of this Act.
However, all the Panchayats existing immediately before the commencement of the Act shall
continue till the expiry of their term, unless dissolved by the state legislature sooner.
Bar to interference by courts: The Act bars the courts from interfering in the electoral matters
of panchayats. It declares that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be questioned in any
court. It further lays down that no election to any panchayat is to be questioned except by an
election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by the state
legislature.
Write short notes on Nagar Nigam.

The urban local government which works for the development of any Metropolitan City with a
population of more than one million is known as the Municipal Corporation in India. The members of
the Municipal Corporation are directly elected by the people and are called Councillors.
About Municipal Corporation in India
Municipal Corporations are local level governments in India. It’s also called as Mahanagar Palika,
Nagar Palika, Nagar Nigam, City Corporation, etc. A city is administered by a Municipal Corporation
if the population of that city exceeds one million. Municipal Corporations are largely dependent on
the property tax collected for their revenue. The other sources of revenue include water tax,
professional tax, drainage tax, etc and some fixed aid from the state government.
Composition of the Municipal Corporation
Based on the population of that particular city, the city or Municipal Area is divided into certain
wards. A representative is chosen for each ward by the people in that ward. A chosen representative
of a particular ward is called as councilor or corporator. Corporators are elected for a period of five
years.
Administration
Any party winning more than half the total seats of Municipal Corporation wins the election. The
winning party gets to have its mayor in the Municipal Corporation. A mayor is the ceremonial head
while the administrative head is the Municipal Commissioner. Municipal Commissioner is
appointed by the state government who is an IAS officer. The job of the Municipal commissioner
is to implement the policies of the Municipal corporation and preparation of the budget. Whereas, the
mayor assumed a political role.
Functions of the Municipal Corporation
 Urban planning including town planning.
 Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings.
 Planning for economic and social development
 Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes.
 Public health, sanitation conservancy, and solid waste management.
 Fire services.
 Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects.
 Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and
mentally retarded.
 Slum improvement and upgradation.
 Urban poverty alleviation.
Who are the members of a Municipal Corporation
The Municipal Corporation consists of a committee which includes a Mayor with Councillors. The
Corporations provide necessary community services to the Metropolitan Cities and are formed under
the Corporation Act of 1835 of Panchayati Raj system. The Mayor heads the Municipal Corporation.
The corporation remains under the charge of Municipal Commissioner. The Executive Officers along
with the Mayor and Councillors monitor and implement the programs related to planning the
development of the corporation. The number of Councillors also depends upon the area and
population of the city. In India, the four metropolitan cities; Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai,
have the largest corporations.
Who conducts Municipal Corporation Elections
The elections to the Municipal Corporations are conducted under the guidance, direction,
superintendence and control of the State Election Commission. The corporations fall under the State
government jurisdiction, therefore there are no uniform provisions for the election of the municipal
bodies. In some States, the elections are organised by the state governments, while in some states,
the Executive Officers arrange the same.
How are Municipal Corporation Elections conducted?
The members of the Municipal Corporation are elected by the people through direct elections. The
elections are held for a particular ward in the city. The electoral roll of a particular ward elects the
representative or Councillor for their ward. The electoral roll for each ward is divided in to one or
several parts depending upon the area within the ward where the voters of each part reside. This
means that the voters included in each part belong to a street or a road or a named area within that
ward. The voters from all the parts together form the electoral roll of a particular ward.
Qualification for contesting Municipal Corporation elections
A person can contest elections for Municipal Corporation if he/she fulfills the following criteria:
 She/he must be a citizen of India
 She/he must have attained the age of 21 years
 His/her name is registered in the Electoral Roll of a ward
 She/he is not earlier disqualified for contesting Municipal Corporation elections.
 She/he must not be an employee of any Municipal Corporation in India
There are few seats which are reserved for scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, backward classes
and women. Every candidate's nomination form should have a declaration stating the class, caste, or
tribe that she/he belongs to. There should be a declaration that the candidate is a woman, in case
the seat is reserved for a women candidate.
The Term of a Municipal Corporation
The office of Municipal Corporation runs for a period of five years since the beginning of its first
meeting. It is subject to dissolution under various circumstances:
 If the State finds the Corporation lagging in its duties
 If the State finds the corporation exceeding or abusing its power
 Declaration of the Municipal elections in the State as void, or withdrawal of the entire area of
the ward from the municipal operations.
Hussainara Khatoon Vs Home Secretary State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. is a landmark case, decided on 9th March 1979, which provided a wider
interpretation for Article 21 and held that speedy trial is the fundamental right of every citizen. It is
the most famous case which discusses the human rights of prisoners in India. The honourable
Supreme Court pointed out that the State must ensure free legal aid and a speedy trial for the
administration of justice.
An article was published in the newspaper Indian Express in 1979 regarding the detention of under-
trial prisoners in the Bihar jail. Few of these under trial prisoners were serving in prison for a very
long time, in fact, a period longer than their actual span of imprisonment awarded by the courts.
Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani was one amongst the readers of the article and filed a case as
Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India. This was the first reported case of PIL in
India and Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani is regarded as the ‘Mother of Public Interest Litigation
in India’.
Facts:
A writ petition of habeas corpus was filed under Article 32 before the Court for the release of 17
under-trial prisoners whose names were mentioned in the newspaper article in the state of Bihar.
The state of Bihar was directed to file a revised chart showing the year-wise break-up of the under-
trial prisoners after dividing them into two broad categories viz. charged with minor offences and the
other with major offences.
Issue:
If the right to speedy trial be considered a part of Article 21?
Can the provision of free legal aid be enforced by the law?
Arguments:
It was asserted in the counter-affidavit produced at the Court that many under-trial prisoners,
confined in the Patna Central Jail, the Muzaffarpur Central Jail and the Ranchi Central Jail before
their release have been regularly produced before the Magistrates numerous times and have been
remanded to judicial custody as needed. However, the Court found these claims unsatisfactory as
they do not comply with the order to produce the dates on which these under-trial prisoners were
remanded. Moreover, to justify the pendency of cases, it has been contended that in almost 10% of
the cases, the investigation is held up due to delay in receipt of opinions from experts.
Judgment:
The Court directed that these under-trial detainees whose names and were given in the list recorded
by Mrs Hingorani ought to be released as further detainment of those human beings was considered
illegal and disregarding their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution since they have
been in prison for a span surpassing the greatest term that they ought to have been indicted for.
The court observed, “What faith can these lost souls have in the judicial system which denies them a
bare trial for so many years and keeps them behind bars, not because they are guilty, but because
they are too poor to afford bail and the courts have no time to try them”.
The Court likewise coordinated that on the following remand dates, when the undertrial detainees,
accused of bailable offences, are delivered before the Magistrates, the State Government ought to
designate a lawyer at its own expense for making a bail application, restricting remand and with a
point that fast trial can commence.
The State Government and High Court were required to produce particulars of the location of the
courts of magistrates and courts of sessions in the State of Bihar along with the total cases pending
in each court as of 31st December 1978.
They were additionally needed to disclose why the disposal of those cases that have been pending
for more than six months not possible.
Analysis:
Speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed right in the United States.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights also provides that a person arrested or
detained shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable period. Therefore, the court believed that
“Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself
constitutes a denial of justice.”
Hence the right to a speedy trial was regarded as a fundamental right of the prisoner under Article
21 of the constitution. The chance of some of them being acquitted of the offences charged against
them yet having gone through quite a long while in prison for offences which they are eventually
found not to have committed is a gross violation of their freedom.
The court was also of the opinion that the then bail system that existed in India was biased towards
the poor who cannot often arrange for a lawyer to plead for them and advised for a drastic change. A
system that deprives the poor to be legally represented cannot be considered as just and fair.
The State cannot deny the constitutional right to a speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial
or administrative inability and it was high time the system of bails on personal bonds like the ones in
western countries were introduced.
Conclusion:
The importance of this case can be seen in the fact that almost 40,000 under trial prisoners
were released after this judgement. The case motivated various socially committed citizens
and lawyers to raise their voice for the underprivileged and utilise the wide scope of Public
Interest Litigation to get justice.
Case Summary – Maneka Gandhi (Petitioners) V Union of India (Respondents)

The landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, which stands as a bulwark of the Right
of Personal Liberty granted by Article 21 of the Constitution, started when the passport of the
petitioner in this case, was impounded by the authorities under the provisions of the Passport Act.
This arbitrary act of impounding the passport eventually led to the pronouncement of a unanimous
decision by a seven-judge bench of the apex court comprising M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud,
V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam.
Brief Facts
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi’s passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport Act of
1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her
passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of the
External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that
the State’s act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as
guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh
Sawhney v. Ramarathnam held that right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of Article 21,
although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.
Issues Before the Court
Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 connected with each other or are they mutually
exclusive?
Should the procedure established by law be tested for reasonability which in this case was the
procedure laid down by the Passport Act of 1967?
If the right to travel outside the country is a part of Article 21 or not?
Is a legislative law that snatches away the right to life reasonable?
Arguments of the petitioners:
Through the administrative order that seized the passport on 4th July 1977, the State has infringed
upon the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights of freedom of speech & expression, right to life &
personal liberty, right to travel abroad and the right to freedom of movement.
The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be read together and aren’t mutually exclusive.
Only a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation will lead to the observance of principles of
natural justice and the true spirit of constitutionalism.
India might not have adopted the American concept of the “due process of law”, nevertheless, the
procedure established by law should be fair and just, reasonable, and not be arbitrary.
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the right to life &
personal liberty guaranteed by this Article.
Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is invariably acknowledged as a vital
component of the principles of natural justice. Even if these principles of natural justice are not
expressly mentioned in any of the provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of
Fundamental Rights embodies the very crux of these principles.
Get a list of Polity Questions for UPSC Mains in the linked article.
Contentions of the respondents:
The respondent stated before the court that the passport was confiscated since the petitioner had to
appear before a government committee for a hearing.
The respondent asserted that the word ‘law’ under Article 21 can’t be understood as reflected in the
fundamental rules of natural justice, emphasising the principle laid down in the A K Gopalan case.
Article 21 contains the phrase “procedure established by law” & such procedure does not have to
pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in consonance with the Articles 14 & 19.
The framers of our Constitution had long debates on the American “due process of law” versus the
British “procedure established by law”. The marked absence of the due process of law from the
provisions of the Indian Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers’ intentions.
Maneka Gandhi Case Judgement
This immensely important judgment was delivered on 25th January 1978 and it altered the
landscape of the Indian Constitution. This judgment widened Article 21’s scope immensely and it
realized the goal of making India a welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The unanimous
judgement was given by a 7-judge bench.
Conclusion
The judgment’s most important feature was the interlinking it laid down between the provisions of
Articles 19, 14 and 21. Through this link, the supreme court made these provisions inseparable and
into a single entity. Now, any procedure has to meet all the requirements mentioned under these
three articles to be held valid. As a result, this judgement enlarged the scope of personal liberty
significantly and preserved the fundamental & constitutional right to life.
This judgement, apart from protecting citizens from the unchallenged actions of the Executive, also
preserved the sanctity of parliamentary law, when it refused to strike down the 1967 Act’s Sections
10(3)(c) and 10(5).
The judgement paved the way for the Apex Court to bring into the ambit of Article 21 other important
rights like Right to Clean Water, Right to clean Air, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Standard
Education, Speedy Trial, Fair Trial, Right to Livelihood, Legal Aid, Right to Food, Right to Clean
Environment, Right to Medical Care, etc.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in
which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Thus a law “depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ has not only to stand the test” of
Article 21 but it must stand the test of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The decision had a significant influence on Indian constitutional law and has been described
as the moment when the Supreme Court of India rejected “three decades of formalist
interpretation, and inaugurated a new path where Courts would expand the rights of
individuals against the State, instead of limiting or contracting them.
Case Summary – Kesavananda Bharati & Others (Petitioners) V State of Kerala

(Respondents)
 Kesavananda Bharati & others Versus State of Kerala is certainly one of the leading cases in
the constitutional history of India if not the most important judgement of post-independent
India and is popularly known as the Fundamental Rights case.
 The majority judgement in the case was pronounced by S.M.Sikri C. J., Hegde J, Mukherjea
J, Shehlat J, Grover J, Jaganmohan Reddy J, Khanna J, and was dissented by Ray J,
Palekar J, Mathew J, Beg J, Dwivedi J and Chandrachud J.
 It is rightly said that the judgement in the instant case brought an end to the conflict between
the executive and the judiciary and proved to be a saviour of the democratic system and set
up in the country. The resultant judgement in the case was a hard-fought legal battle
between the two constitutional stalwarts and legal luminaries namely N.A. Palkhivala (who
represented Petitioners) and H.M. Seervai (who represented the State of Kerala). The
hearing in the case took place for sixty-eight long days and finally, a voluminous 703-page
judgement was pronounced on 24th April 1973.
Brief Facts
Kesavananda Bharati was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious institution
located in Kasaragod district, Kerala. Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned. The Kerala
state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the
government could acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt. In March 1970, Bharati
moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were
guaranteed to him under:
 Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
 Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
 Article 14: Right to equality
 Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
 Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
The Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,
1971 even as the petition was under the court’s consideration.
The contentions made by the petitioners brought to the fore the validity of various amendments that
were brought in by the Parliament to nullify the effects of Golaknath v State of Punjab. The
petitioners challenged, in particular, three constitutional amendments – 24th Amendment,
25th Amendment and 29th Amendment and their validity.
Issues before the Court
 Whether the following are constitutionally valid?
o 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
o 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972
 The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.
 The question underlying the case also included: Was the power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of
the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
Contentions of the Petitioners
 Petitioners contended that the Parliament can’t amend the Constitution in a manner they
want as their power to do this is limited. The Parliament cannot make an amendment to the
Constitution to change its basic structure as was set forth by Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan
Singh v State of Rajasthan case.
 They argued that the 24th & 25th Constitutional Amendments were violative of
the Fundamental Right provided in Article 19(1)(f).
Contentions of the Respondents
 The State said that the Parliament’s supremacy is the Indian legal system’s basic structure
and hence, it has boundless power to amend the Constitution. The respondents stressed
that in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations the unlimited power of the Parliament to
amend the Constitution must be upheld.
Kesavananda Bharati Case – Judgement
 The landmark judgement was delivered on 24th April 1973 by a razor-thin majority
of 7:6 wherein the majority held that any provision of the Indian Constitution can be
amended by the Parliament in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were
guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment did not
change the Constitution’s basic structure. The minority, however, in their dissenting opinion,
were wary of giving the Parliament unlimited amending power.
 The court held that the 24th Constitutional Amendment was entirely valid. But it found the
first part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment to be intra vires and the second part of the
same ultra vires.
Doctrine of Basic Structure
The basic structure doctrine states that the Parliament has limitless power to amend the
Constitution subject to the condition that such amendments should not change the
Constitution’s basic structure. The bench did not mention the basic structure of the Constitution
and it was left to the interpretation of the courts. This was subsequently laid down in several other
judgements by the SC.
The court contended that the term ‘amend’ mentioned in Article 368 doesn’t imply amendments that
can alter the Constitution’s basic structure. If the Parliament intends to make an amendment with
respect to a constitutional provision, such an amendment would necessarily have to undergo the
‘basic structure’ test.
Conclusion
The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala as mentioned supra had been heard for 68
days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973. The hard
work and scholarship that had gone into the preparation of this case were breathtaking. Literally
hundreds of cases had been cited and the then Attorney-General had made a comparative chart
analysing the provisions of the constitutions of 71 different countries.
The majority of the bench wished to safeguard the Constitution by preserving its basic features. The
judgment was based on sound reasoning and it was given after a careful analysis of multifarious
aspects. The bench opined that if the Parliament were to get unfettered power to amend, there were
chances of that power to be misused, and that governments would change it as per their own
preferences and whims. Such limitless powers vested in the hands of the government would mean
that the basic features and also the very essence and spirit of the Indian Constitution could be
changed. There was a need for a doctrine which could protect the rights of both the Indian
Parliament and Indian citizens; the bench met this need halfway and came up with the basic
structure doctrine, that protects the rights of both camps. It is to be noted that while in the US, only
27 amendments have been made, India has seen over one hundred amendments since
independence. Despite this big number, the spirit of the Constitution and also the ideas of the
Constitution-makers have not been tampered with. It is because of the bench’s decision that the
identity and spirit of the Constitution have not been lost. This landmark case has given our
Constitution stability. Even though the petitioner lost this case partially, the SC ruling in the
Kesavananda Bharati case turned out to be a saviour for Indian democracy, and also prevented the
Constitution from losing its spirit.
==========================================
Case Summary – I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu - Citation: (2007) 2 SCC 1: AIR 2007
SC 861
The I.R Coelho case played a vital role in determining the power of judiciary when it comes to
judicial review. This case drew a distinction and limited the arbitrary actions of the legislature under
the guise of Article 368. The court in this case laid down that any law or acts infringing upon
fundamental rights or violating the basic structure of our constitution would not be exempted
from judicial review. Also known as the Ninth Schedule Case, this unanimous judgement
delivered by a 9-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sabharwal upheld the validity of
the Doctrine of Basic Structure propounded in the Kesavananda Bharti case. Moreover, the
Court also upheld the power of the Judiciary to review any such law which in its opinion
would in any way destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus in effect, this case put
an end to any controversy that was left behind regarding the validity and implementation of
the basic structure doctrine.
Political Background:
9th schedule and Article 31-B: The 9th schedule was added in the constitution by the
1st amendment of 1951. It was created by Article 31-B which along Article 31-A aimed at protecting
laws related to agrarian reform and to abolish the zamindari system. The parliament by provision of
Article 368 enacted various laws and acts which were arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
These laws were placed under the umbrella of 9th schedule which backed by Article 31-B allowed
them to escape the judicial purview. Initially, the purpose behind Art.31-B was to remove the
difficulties in the constitution. But this power was misused to enact laws under 9th Schedule which
could not be challenged in courts. For instance, the Tamil Nadu government by way of
[76th amendment] Act,45 of 1994 amended 9th schedule and inserted 257-A. It calls for 69%
reservation in government.
The case arose because of the reference made by a 5-judge Constitution Bench in 1999 after the
Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 was struck down by
the Supreme Court in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu.
 The Constitution Bench, in its referral, noted that according to the Waman Rao Case,
insertion of amendments in the Constitution after the Kesavananda Bharti case by inserting
new laws into the Ninth Schedule, can be challenged on the ground that they are violative of
the fundamental rights provided in Articles 14, 19 and 31.
 Therefore, the referral asked the 9-judge bench to relook into the Waman Rao judgement
and determine whether it needs to be overruled or not.
Issue before the Court
 The basic issue before the Court was whether it was permissible for the Parliament to insert
laws into the Ninth Schedule post-Kesavananda Bharati case in order to make them immune
from judicial review on the basis of the basic structure doctrine.
 It is pertinent to mention here that since the Ninth Schedule was inserted, various pieces of
agrarian reform legislation were placed in it but with the advent of time, various other pieces
of legislation were arbitrarily and indiscriminately placed in the Ninth Schedule to make them
immune from judicial review despite the fact that most of them had nothing to do with the
agrarian or socio-economic reforms.
 It was amply clear that the legislature in the guise of the Ninth Schedule was trying to escape
not only the limitations imposed by the basic structure doctrine but also bypass the judicial
review of legislation that were manifestly ultra vires to the Constitution.
Ruling
The Court unanimously held that it was not permissible for the legislature to escape the scrutiny of
the Basic Structure doctrine by finding manifestly cunning ways to get around it.
 The basic structure doctrine is the very essence of the Constitution and any acts, rules and
regulations that violate its essence cannot be allowed to continue in this brazen manner.
 If any laws in the Ninth Schedule were inconsistent with Part III, they are liable to be struck
down by the Court.
 The Ninth Schedule was a part of the Constitution and as such any alterations made to these
parts which bypass the restrictions that are in place cannot be allowed to continue to the
detriment of well-established principles.
 These insertions into the Ninth Schedule are an attempt to invade into the sphere
of fundamental rights and as such these invasions have to be dealt with in order to
preserve inherent rights.
The Court also delved upon the importance of the Power of Judicial Review – the importance of
which was made abundantly clear by the Court in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain.
 Any new amendment or alteration in the Constitution is to be tested on its own merits in
order to determine whether such a change is violative of the basic features of the
Constitution.
 The fundamental rights chapter was added in the Constitution in order to keep a check on
the powers of the State and make sure that the State does not fiddle with the individual rights
in a manner that is contrary to the basic setup of the fundamental rights.
 The power of judicial review bestowed upon the Courts is a check on the aforesaid attempts
of the State to chip away at the fundamental rights in the Constitution.
Coelho Case Judgement Criticism
This judgement was criticised for further solidifying the concept of basic structure which has no
textual basis in the Constitution.
 Critics argue that such judgements are chipping away at the power of the legislature to enact
laws in order to further their legitimate policies.
 Every now and then the Court keeps on adding new principles as a part of the basic
structure, thus hampering not only the legislature but also paving the way for new litigation
which only adds to the vagueness and confusion that has always surrounded the basic
structure doctrine.
 Till date, the judiciary has neither given any exhaustive definition of the basic structure nor
has it given an exhaustive list which constitutes the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
 Justice Mathew, in the Indira Gandhi case, had perceptively stated that ‘the concept of basic
structure as a brooding omnipresence in the sky apart from specific provisions of the
Constitution is too vague and indefinite to provide a yardstick for the validity of an ordinary
law.’
Conclusion
The I R Coelho case has further strengthened the hold of the basic structure doctrine in the
constitutional setup of the country by emphasising that all amendments, depending on its impact and
consequences if violative of the doctrine of the basic structure, need to be struck down. Judicial
review is the most effective way to deal with laws that infringe upon the fundamental rights of the
citizens. The legislatures cannot act with impunity by using concepts of federalism and welfare state
to bring in legislation to fulfil their ulterior motives of invading upon fundamental rights. The
Parliament and the executive need to be kept in check lest we see occurrences similar to those that
took place in the emergency period.
In Coelho case, popularly known as 9th schedule case, the nine judges’ bench, headed by the then
Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, delivered a unanimous verdict on January 11, 2007, upholding
the authority of the judiciary to review any law, which destroy or damage the basic structure as
indicated in fundamental rights, even if they have been put in 9th schedule.
The Ninth Schedule contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in courts. It
was created by the new Article 31B, which along with 31A was brought in by the government to
protect laws related to agrarian reform and for abolishing the Zamindari system.
==========================================
Judicial Review
Judicial review is defined as the doctrine under which executive and legislative actions are reviewed
by the judiciary. Even though we have in India the principle of separation of powers of the three arms
of the State, namely, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, the judiciary is vested with the
power of review over actions of the other two arms.
 Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution (Indira Gandhi vs Raj
Narain Case).
 Judicial review is the power of the courts to consider the constitutionality of acts of organs of
Government and declare it unconstitutional if it violates or is inconsistent with the basic
principles of the Constitution.
 This means that the power of the legislature to make laws is not absolute and that the validity
and constitutionality of such laws are subject to review by the courts.
 Judicial review is also called the interpretational and observer roles of the Indian judiciary.
 The Indian Constitution adopted the Judicial Review on lines of the American Constitution.
 Suo Moto cases and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), with the discontinuation of the
principle of Locus Standi, have allowed the judiciary to intervene in many public issues, even
when there is no complaint from the aggrieved party.
Judicial Review and Constitution
According to Article 13(2), the Union or the States shall not make any law that takes away or
abridges any of the fundamental rights, and any law made in contravention of the aforementioned
mandate shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
 Judicial review is called upon to ensure and protect Fundamental Rights which are
guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
 The power of the Supreme Court of India to enforce these Rights is derived from Article
32 of the Constitution. This provides citizens the right to directly approach the SC to seek
remedies against the violation of Fundamental Rights.
Judicial Review Classification
We can classify judicial review into three categories. They are:
 Reviews of Legislative Actions: This review implies the power to ensure that laws passed by
the legislature are in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.
 Review of Administrative Actions: This is a tool for enforcing constitutional discipline over
administrative agencies while exercising their powers.
 Review of Judicial Decisions: This is seen in the Golaknath case, bank nationalisation case,
Minerva Mills case, privy purse abolition case, etc.
Importance of Judicial Review
 It is essential for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
 It prevents the tyranny of executives.
 It maintains the federal balance.
 It is essential for checking the possible misuse of power by the legislature and executive.
 It is essential for securing the independence of the judiciary.
 It protects the rights of the people.
Examples of Judicial Review
IT Act Section 66(A)
In 2015, the SC struck down Section 66(A) of the amended Information Technology Act, 2000. This
provided the punishment for sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other
communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction could fetch a maximum of three
years in jail and a fine. This was repealed by the SC on the grounds that this section fell outside
Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which relates to freedom of speech.
==========================================
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of I. C. Golaknath &
Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs.(With ... on 27 February, 1967. Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR
1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762.
The Case: A certain family in Punjab – Henry and William Golaknath owned 500 acres of farmland.
However, in 1953, the Punjab government came up with the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act. As per the
Act, a person can own only 30 Standard acres (or 60 ordinary acres) of land. Hence the Golaknath family was
ordered to forgo the excess land and was allowed to keep only 30 acres of the said land (a few acres apart from
the 30 acres of land would go to the tenants).
The Golaknath family went to court, challenging the validity of the 1953 Act. The family’s main argument
was-
 The 1953 law obstructed their right to own property as enshrined in Article 19(1)(f).
 The law further prevented them from going ahead with a profession of their choice.
 The law threatened their right to get equal protection, as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
On top of that, the family also urged the court to declare the 17th Amendment( through which the 1953 law
came into being) as unlawful.
The Judgement:
Justice Subba Rao came to the conclusion that the 17th Amendment violated the fundamental rights of
acquiring any land and indulging in any lawful profession granted to the Indian citizens by the Constitution.
However, since he used the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not affect the
validity of the 17th Amendment and hence the 1953 law. However, Justice Subba Rao added that from then on,
the Parliament would have no power to make any amendment to Part III of the Constitution that deals with the
fundamental rights of the citizens.
The questions, in this case, were whether the amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights
can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the
Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new
Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend
the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
This case is also sometimes cited as an example of Judicial Activism.
Limitations of Judicial Review
There are some limitations on the judiciary on exercising its power of judicial review. In fact, when
the judiciary crosses its threshold and interferes in the executive’s mandate, it can be called judicial
activism, which when furthered can lead to judicial overreach. Some of the limitations of judicial
review are mentioned below.
 Judicial Review limits the functioning of the government. It is only permissible to the extent of
finding if the procedure in reaching the decision has been correctly followed but not the
decision itself.
 The judicial opinions of the judges once taken for any case become the standard for ruling
other cases.
 It is designated only to the higher courts like the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
 Repeated interventions of courts can diminish the faith of the people in the integrity, quality,
and efficiency of the government.
 The judiciary cannot interfere in political questions and policy matters unless absolutely
necessary.
 The judgments can be influenced by personal or selfish motives, hence, Judicial review can
harm the public at large.
 It violates the limit of power set to be exercised by the constitution when it overrides any
existing law.
o In India, a separation of functions is followed rather than the separation of powers.
o The concept of separation of powers is not adhered to strictly in the judicial review.
However, a system of checks and balances has been put in place in such a manner
that the judiciary has the power to strike down any unconstitutional laws passed by
the legislature.
Article 368 Vs. Article 13

Article 368 and Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is deeply tied with the Golaknath Case. Article 368 gives
the Parliament the constituent power to amend any part of the Constitution by means of adding new provisions
or repealing or modifying existing provisions.
On the other hand, Article 13 states that any law that violates the fundamental rights of the citizens shall be
declared void. However, Article 368 states that no provision mentioned in Article 13 would affect the
provisions mentioned in Article 368. In short, as far as the Constitution is concerned, Article 368 is more
powerful than Article 13.
The Golaknath Case in Detail
Until this case, amendments via the power granted to the Parliament by Article 368 were considered final and
outside the ambit of Article 13. However, in the Golaknath case, the Supreme court observed that an
amendment to the Constitution was an ‘ordinary law’ and not a constituent law. Hence, amendments, being
ordinary laws, needed to pass the test of Article 13. The court, thus, stated that any amendments that violated
the provisions of Article 13 would be void. In short, the Supreme Court of India, in the Golaknath case, gave
the judgment that constitutional amendments would not have the power to curtail the fundamental rights of
Indian citizens.
The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
Although the Supreme Court declared constitutional amendments that violated the rules laid down by Article
13 as void, in this particular case, the old rule was followed. The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act
remained valid.
The doctrine of prospective overruling states that the court is duty-bound to announce a “new and better” rule
in place of an old, unscientific or condemned rule. However, the doctrine also states that the new rule would
not affect any past court judgments. This is exactly the reason why despite the judgment, the 1953 Act
remained valid.
It is to be noted that the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling and the overall judgment were accepted with a thin
majority of 6:5. Many dissenting judges were against this doctrine.
What Happened after the Golaknath Case?
After the case, the Parliament came up with the 24th Amendment (1971) that explicitly stated that Article 368
could curtail even the fundamental rights. From then on, Article 13 lost the power to nullify anything written
under Article 368.
Later in Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala, the Supreme court ruled that the Parliament could not
change the basic structure of the Constitution. In most cases, curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens
would change the basic structure of the Constitution. So, in a round-about way, this judgement protected the
citizens fundamental rights.
==========================================
What was the cabinet mission plan describe its characteristics?

Cabinet Mission was a high-powered mission sent in February 1946 to India by the Atlee
Government (British Prime Minister.) The mission had three British cabinet members – Pethick
Lawrence, Stafford Cripps, & and A.V. Alexander. The Cabinet Mission’s aim was to discuss the
transfer of power from British to Indian leadership.
Objectives of Cabinet Mission
 To obtain an agreement with the Indian leaders as to the framing of a constitution for India.
 To formulate a constitution-making body (the Constituent Assembly of India).
 To establish an Executive Council with the support of the major Indian parties.
Why did the Cabinet Mission fail?
The main reasons for the failure of the Cabinet Mission are given below:
 The Congress Party wanted a strong centre with minimum powers for the provinces.
 The Muslim League wanted strong political safeguards for the Muslims like parity in the
legislatures.
 Since both parties had many ideological differences and could not find common ground, the
mission came up with its own set of proposals in May 1946.
 The Dominion of India would be granted independence, without any partition.
 The provinces would be divided into three groups/sections:
 Group A: Madras, Central Provinces, UP, Bihar, Bombay and Orissa
 Group B: Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Baluchistan
 Group C: Bengal and Assam
 The Muslim-majority provinces were grouped into two groups and the remaining
Hindu-majority in one of the groups.
 The central government at Delhi would have powers over the defence, foreign affairs,
communications and currency. The rest of the powers would be vested with the
provinces.
 A constituent assembly would be set up for writing a new constitution for the country.
An interim government would be established until a new government was formed on
the basis of the constitution written by the constituent assembly.
 The Congress was not keen on the idea of the groupings of provinces on the basis of Hindu-
Muslim majority and vying for control at the centre. It was also against the idea of a weak
centre. The Muslim League did not want any changes to the proposals.
 Since the plan was not accepted, a new plan was proposed by the mission in June 1946.
This plan proposed the division of India into a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority
India later to be renamed Pakistan. A list of princely states was also made that could either
join the union or remain independent.
 The Congress Party under Jawaharlal Nehru did not accept the second plan. Instead, it
agreed to be part of the constituent assembly.
 The Viceroy invited 14 men to form the interim government. There were 5 from the
Congress, 5 from the League, 1 member each representing the Sikh, Parsee, Indian
Christian and scheduled caste communities.
 Both the League and the Congress were given the right to nominate 5 members to the
Viceroy’s interim council. The Congress nominated Zakir Hussain as one of the members to
which the League objected saying only it represented Indian Muslims and no other party.
The Muslim League did not take part in it.
 The Congress leaders entered the viceroy’s interim council and thus Nehru headed the
interim government. The new government began the task of framing a constitution for the
country.
 Congress-led governments were formed in most provinces including the NWFP. In Bengal
and Sind, the League formed the governments.
 Jinnah and the League objected to the new central government. He geared to agitate for
Pakistan and urged Muslims to demand Pakistan by any means. He called for ‘Direct Action
Day’ on 16 August 1946.
 This call led to widespread communal rioting in the country with 5000 people being killed on
the first day in Calcutta. Communal riots spread to many other areas notably Noakhali and
Bihar.
 There was a call for the partitioning of the country on account of the riots. Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel was one of the first Congress leaders to acknowledge the inevitability of the partition as
a means to stop the brutal violence.
Describe some facts of Constituent assembly.

Background of the Constituent Assembly of India
 In 1934, M N Roy first proposed the idea of a constituent assembly.
 The demand was taken up by the Congress Party in 1935 as an official demand
 The British accepted this in the August Offer of 1940
 Under the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946, elections were held for the formation of the constituent
assembly
 The members of this assembly were elected indirectly, i.e., by the members of the provincial
assemblies by the method of a single transferable vote of proportional representation
 The constituent assembly was formed for the purpose of writing a constitution for independent India
Composition of Constituent Assembly
 Initially, the number of members was 389. After partition, some of the members went to
Pakistan and the number came down to 299. Out of this, 229 were from the British provinces
and 70 were nominated from the princely states.
 Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha was the first temporary chairman of the Constituent Assembly.
Later, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the President and its Vice President was
Harendra Coomar Mookerjee. BN Rau was the constitutional advisor.
Constituent Assembly of India – Key Facts
When did the constituent The assembly first met on 9 December 1946
assembly first meet?
Was there any role of the No, there was no role played by the Muslim League in the constituent
Muslim League in the assembly as it had boycotted this meeting citing their demand for partition
formation of the
Constitution of India
What is ‘Objective Objective Resolution enshrined the aspirations and values of the constitution-
Resolution’ concerned with makers. Under this, the people of India were guaranteed social, economic
the constituent assembly and political justice, equality and fundamental freedoms. This resolution was
of India? unanimously adopted on 22 January 1947 and the Preamble to the
Constitution is based on it.
When was Objective On 13 December 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru moved the ‘Objective Resolution’.
Resolution moved and by
who?
When was National Flag of The National Flag of the Union was adopted on 22 July 1947
Union adopted?
For how many days, the The time is taken by the assembly to frame the constitution: 2 years, 11
constituent assembly months and 17 days. Money spent in framing the constitution: Rs.64 lakhs
assembled to frame the
constitution?
When was Jana Gana Mana On 24 January 1950, ‘Jana Gana Mana’ was adopted as the national anthem
adopted as our national
anthem?
How many articles our final The final document had 22 parts, 395 articles and 8 schedules.
constitution has?
What was the total number The assembly had met for 11 sessions
of sessions constituent
assembly had?
When was the draft of the The draft was published in January 1948 and the country’s people were
Indian Constitution asked for their feedback and inputs within 8 months
published?
What is the date of the last The last session was held during 14 – 26 November 1949.
session? The constitution was passed and adopted by the assembly on 26 November
1949
When did the constitution The constitution came into force on 26 January 1950 (which is celebrated as
of India come into force? Republic Day)
The second meeting of the Constituent Assembly, in January 1947, discussed on the Topics of the
Constitution.
The fourth meeting of the Constituent Assembly, discussed on the National Flag.
The fifth meeting decided on the formation of the drafting committee.
There were 7 members in the drafting committee – formed in the fifth meeting of the Constituent
Assembly.
 Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer
 N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
 BL Mitter
 Debi Prasad Khaitan
 KM Munshi
 Sir Syed Muhammad Sadullah
 Bhimrao Ambedkar
Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, CIE, was an Indian civil servant, jurist, diplomat and statesman known for
his key role in drafting the Constitution of India. He was the Constitutional Advisor to Constituent
Assembly.
Criticism of the Constituent Assembly

 It was not a representative body since the members were not directly elected by adult
franchise. However, the leaders did enjoy popular support from the people. Direct elections
by the universal adult franchise at that time when the country was on the brink of partition
and amidst communal riots would have been impractical.
 It is said that the makers took a long time in framing the constitution. However, keeping in
mind the complexity and the peculiarities of the diverse and large Indian nation, this can be
understood.
 The constituent assembly was not a sovereign body since it was created by the British.
However, it worked as a fully independent and sovereign body.
 The language of the constitution was criticised for being literary and complicated.
 The assembly was dominated by the Congress Party. But the party dominated the provincial
assemblies and this was natural. Moreover, it was a heterogeneous party with members from
almost all sections of Indian society.
 It was alleged that the assembly had Hindu dominance. This was again because of
proportional representation from communities.
Describe the financial relations between Centre and State.
Generally, in a typical federation along with the distribution of legislative and administrative powers,
the financial resources of the country are also so distributed to ensure the financial independence of
the units. However, the Indian Constitution does not make a clear cut distribution of the financial
resources and leaves much to be decided by the Central Government from time to time. The
financial resources which have been placed at the disposal of the state are so meager that they
have to look up to the Union Government for subsidies and contributions.
Article 268 to 293 under Part XII deals with the provisions of financial relations between
Centre and States.
Taxes Exclusively Assigned to the Union
Income from certain subjects like customs and export duties, income tax, excise duty on tobacco,
jute,’ cotton, etc., corporation tax, taxes on the capital value of assets of individuals and companies;
Estate duty and succession duty in respect of the property and other than agricultural land; and
income from the earning departments like the railways and postal departments have been
exclusively assigned to the Union Government by the Constitution.
Taxes Exclusively Assigned to States
Income from land revenue, stamp duty except on documents included in the Union List; succession
duty and Estate duty in respect of agricultural land; income tax on agricultural lands; taxes on goods
and passengers carried by road or inland water; taxes on vehicles used on roads, animals, boats,
taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity, tolls, taxes on lands and buildings; taxes on
professions, traders, calling and employment; duties on alcoholic liquors for human consumption,
opium, Indian hemp, and other narcotic drugs, taxes on the entry of goods into local areas, taxes on
luxuries, entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling, etc. has been assigned to the States.
Taxes Levied by Union but Collected and Appropriated by the State
The taxes on the following items are levied by the Union Government but the actual revenue from
them is collected and appropriated by the States; (i) stamp duties on bills of exchange, cheques,
promissory notes, bills of landing, letters of credit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, etc.; (ii)
Excise duties on medicinal toilet preparation containing alcohol or opium or Indian hemp or other
narcotic drugs.
Taxes Levied and Collected by the Union but assigned to States
The taxes in this category are levied and collected by the Union Government although they are
subsequently handed over to the states wherefrom they have been collected. Such taxes included
duties in respect of succession to property other than agricultural land; state duty in respect of
property other than agricultural land terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railways, sea
or air, taxes on railway freights and fares; taxes other than stamp duties on transactions in stock
exchanges and futures markets; taxes on the sale or purchase of newspapers and advertisements
published therein; taxes on purchase or sale of goods other than newspapers where such sale or
purchases take place in the course of interstate trade or commerce.
Taxes Levied and Collected by the Union but Shared
Taxes on income other than agricultural income and excise duties other than those on medicinal and
toilet preparations are levied and collected by the Union Government but shared with the states on
an equitable basis. The basis of distribution is determined by the Parliament through a law.
Describe the legislative and administrative relations between Centre and State.
India is a union of states. The constitution of India has divided the legislative, executive and financial
powers between the centre and the states, which gives the constitution a federal character whereas
judiciary is integrated in a hierarchical structure.
The centre-state relations are divided into three parts, which are mentioned below:
(A) Legislative Relations (Article 245-255)
(B) Administrative Relations (Article 256-263)
(C) Financial Relations (Article 268-293)
Legislative Relations
Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI deals with different aspects of legislative relations between centre and
states. These include:
(1) Territorial jurisdiction of laws made by the Parliament and by the Legislatures of States.
a. The Parliament can make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. Territory of India
includes the states, UTs and any other area for the time being included in the territory of India.
Whereas, the state legislature can make laws for the whole or any part of the State. b. The
Parliament can alone make ‘extra territorial legislation’ thus the laws of the Parliament are applicable
to the Indian citizens and their property in any part of the world.
(2) Distribution of legislative subjects
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides for the distribution of legislative powers
between the centre and the states. The legislative subjects are divided into List I (the Union
List), List II (the Concurrent List) and List III (the State List).
 At present, there are 100 subjects in the Union list which includes subjects such as foreign
affairs, defence, railway, postal services, banking, atomic energy, communication, currency etc.
 At present, there are 61 subjects in the State list. The list includes subjects such as police, public
order, roadways, health, agriculture, local government, drinking water facilities, sanitation etc.
 At present, there are 52 subjects in the concurrent list. The list includes subjects such as
education, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, electricity, labour welfare, criminal law and
procedure, civil procedure, population control and family planning, drugs etc.
 Residuary powers of legislation: The constitution also vests the residuary powers (subjects not
enumerated in any of the three Lists) with the Union Parliament. It is quite interesting to note
that the residuary powers are vested in the union, while in the United States of America and
Australia, these powers are given to the states. Article 248 says that, Parliament has
exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in any one of the
three lists. This reflects the leanings of the Constitution-makers towards a strong centre.
Another notable thing 52 regarding to residuary powers is that “the final determination as to
whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power or not is that of the courts.
(3) Power of parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List
Although the Central Government does not have the power in the common circumstances to
legislate on matters mentioned in that State, the Parliament of the Union may only make laws on
such matters under some special conditions. These special conditions are:
a) In the National Interest (Art.249)
b) Under Proclamation of National Emergency (Art. 250)
c) By Agreement between States (Art. 252)
d) To Implement Treaties (Art. 253)
e) Under Proclamation of President’s Rule (Art. 356)
The Constitution authorizes the centre in the following ways to have control over the state
legislature:
 The Governor can withhold for President’s consideration those forms of bills approved by the State
legislature. The President has an absolute veto on them.
 In the State legislature, even with the prior approval of the President as imposing limitations on free
trade and commerce can bill are made on such matters enumerated in the State list.
 It is necessary for the President for the States to withhold the bills of funds and other budgetary
measures approved during national crises by the State legislature.
Describe the legislative and administrative relations between Centre and State.
Administrative Relations (Article 256-263)
The administrative jurisdiction of the union and the state Governments extends to the subjects in the
union list and state list respectively, which clearly establishes the superiority of the Union
Government in the administrative sphere as well. In addition, the Constitution contains a number of
provisions which accord a position of superiority to the Union Government. Article 256 lays down
that the executive power of every state shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws
made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the
Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a state as may appear to the Government of
India to be necessary for that purpose. Similarly, Article 257 of the Constitution provides that the
executive power of every state shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of
the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to giving of
such directions to a state as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that
purpose. In short, the Union Government can issue directions to the state Government even with
regard to the subjects enumerated in the state list. The Union Government can also give directions
to the state with regard to construction and maintenance of the means of communication declared to
be of national or military importance. It can also ask the state Governments to construct and
maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military and air force
works. It can also issue them necessary directions regarding the measures to be taken for the
protection of the railways within the jurisdiction of the state. It may be noted that the expenses
incurred by the state Governments for the discharge of these functions have to be reimbursed by the
Union Government. It may be noted that the state Governments cannot ignore the directions of the
Union Government, otherwise the president can take the plea that the Government of the state
cannot be carried on the accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and impose President’s
rule on the state. In such an eventuality the President shall assume to himself all or any of the
functions of the state Government. The President of India can also entrust to the officers of the State
certain functions of the Union Government. However, before doing so the President has to take the
consent of the state Government. Further, the extra cost incurred by the states in the discharge of
these obligations has to be reimbursed by the Union Government. The Presence of the All India
Services like the Indian Administrative Services, and the Indian police Services etc. further accords a
predominant position to the Union Government. The members of these services are recruited and
appointment held by the Union Public Service Commission. The members of these services are
posted on key posts in the states, but remain loyal to the Union Government. The right to create new
All India Services also rests with the Union Parliament. The Union Parliament can create a new All
India Service only if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by two-thirds majority of the members
present and voting that it is necessary in the national interest to do so. The Parliament has been
vested with power to adjudicate any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or
control of the waters of, or in any inter-state river of river-valley. In this regard, the Parliament also
reserves the right to exclude such disputes from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or other
Courts. Under the Constitution it is the responsibility of the Union Government to protect the states
from external aggression and internal disturbances. This leaves much scope for Centre’s
interference in the spheres of the state. The President can declare national emergency in case of
war or possible threat of war as well as armed rebellion. During this emergency the Centre can give
directions to the states as to the manner in which their executive power is to be exercised. The
President can authorize the Parliament to make laws with respect to any matter including power to
make laws conferring powers and imposing duties or authorizing the conferring of power and the
imposition of duties upon the Union officers and authorities of the Union as respects that matter
unmindful of the fact, that the matter does not belong to the Union list. Similarly, it is the duty of the
President to ensure that the government of the state is carried on in accordance with provisions of
the Constitution. If the President is satisfied that the government of the state cannot run along
constitutional lines, he can declare constitutional emergency in the state and assume to himself all or
any of the functions of the Government of the state and all powers of the State other than those
exercised by the legislature and High Court of the State. The President can also declare that the
powers of the state legislature shall be exercised under the authority of the Parliament and make
such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or desirable for
giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation. The Central Government exercises effective
administrative control over states through the Governors of State who are appointed by the
President and hold office during his pleasure. The Governors can reserve certain bills passed by the
State legislatures for the consideration of the President. President can also issue directions and
orders to the Governor which are binding on him. Thus, the Centre can exercise effective control
over the States through the Government to topple State Governments which are irksome to the
Central Government. As the Constitution of India provides for a single judicial system both the Union
and the State Governments are duty bound to give full faith and credit to public acts, records,
proceedings and judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The manner in which
these acts, records and proceedings have to be preserved is determined by Parliament by law and
the states do not have any say in this regard. In the matter of appointment of the Chief Justice and
the Judges of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, the states have no say. They are
appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and such other judges of
the supreme courts and the High Court as he deems fit to consult. The initiative for the removal of
these judges also rests with the Parliament which can pass necessary resolution for their
impeachment and recommend to the President to take necessary action. The States are in no way
connected with the appointment or removal of the judges of the Supreme Court or High Court. The
State Governor can entrust conditionally or unconditionally certain functions with respect to the
executive powers of the state to the officers of the Union with the consent of the Union Government.
(Article 258A). It may be observed that the original Constitution did not contain this provision. This
provision was added through seventh amendment in 1956 in view of the objections by the
Comptroller and Auditor-General over construction of Hirakud Dam by the Central Government on
behalf of the Orissa Government and debiting, of cost to the state accounts.
A new turn was given to the Centre-State Relations in the administrative sphere by the Forty-
Second amendment, which empowered the Central Government to deploy armed forces for
dealing with any grave situation of law and order in the States. The contingents so employed
were to act in accordance with the instructions of the Central Government and not to work under the
direction, superintendence and control of the state government concerned, unless specifically
directed by the Central Government. This change naturally greatly restricted the autonomy of the
states and was resented by the states. Ultimately this provision was nullified by the 44th
Amendment. It is thus evident that in the administrative sphere the states cannot act in complete
isolation and have to work under the directions and in cooperation with others of the federation.
Describe the 7th Schedule of Indian Constitution- Article 246.
The 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution deals with the division of powers between the Union
government and State governments. It is a part of 12 Schedules of Indian Constitution. The
division of powers between Union and State is notified through three kinds of the list mentioned in
the seventh schedule:
Union List – List I
State List – List II
Concurrent List – List III
The key features of Union List, State List & Concurrent List are mentioned in the tables below:
7th Schedule of Indian Constitution – Union List
It originally had 97 subjects. Now, it has 100 subjects
Centre has exclusive powers to makes laws on the subjects mentioned under the Union List of Indian
Constitution
The Union List signifies the strong centre as it has more subjects than state list
It contains more important subjects than included in any of the other two lists
All the issues/matters that are important for the nation and those requiring uniformity of legislation nationwide
are included in the Union List
The dominance of Union List over State List is secured by the Constitution of India as in any conflict between
the two or overlapping, the Union List prevails
Law made by the Parliament on a subject of the Union List can confer powers and impose duties on a state,
or authorise the conferring of powers and imposition of duties by the Centre upon a state
There are 15 subjects in the Union List on which Parliament has an exclusive power to levy taxes
88th Amendment added a new subject in the Union List called ‘taxes on services.’
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and powers with respect to matters in the Union list can be enlarged by the
Parliament
7th Schedule of Indian Constitution – State List
It has 61 subjects. Earlier, it had 66 items.
42nd amendment Act 1976 shifted below mentioned five subjects from State list to Concurrent List:
Education
Forests
Protection of wild animals and birds
Weights and measures and
Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the High
Courts
The laws can be made on the subjects enumerated under the State List of the Indian Constitution exclusively
by the State legislatures. However, all these can be done only under ‘Normal Circumstances.’
Article 249 gives Parliament the power to legislate concerning a subject enumerated in the State List in the
national interest
Parliament can legislate on subjects that are enumerated under the State List on three conditions:
When Rajya Sabha passes resolution
During a national emergency (Article 250)
When two or more states pass a resolution requesting Parliament to legislate on subjects under State List
Note:
On states’ resolution, the law made is only applicable to such states that passed a resolution. However,
other states can too adopt it by, passing the same resolution.
The law made by the Parliament on States’ resolution can be amended or repealed by the Parliament only
and not the states:
For the implementation of International Agreements
During President’s Rule
The matters of regional and local importance and the matters which permits diversity of interest are specified
in the State List
There are 20 subjects in the State List on which states’ legislatures have an exclusive power to levy taxes
The 69th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1991 made special provision in relation to National Capital. Laws
cannot be made by Delhi government on three subjects under State List named as – Public Order, Police &
Land
7th Schedule of Indian Constitution – Concurrent List
It has 52 subjects enumerated under it
42nd amendment Act 1976 shifted below mentioned five subjects from State list to Concurrent List:
Education
Forests
Protection of wild animals and birds
Weights and measures and
Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the High
Courts
The concept of ‘Concurrent List’ in the Indian Constitution has been borrowed from the Constitution of
Australia
Central Government and State Government both can make laws on the subjects mentioned under the
Concurrent List
While both Central and State Government can legislate on subjects mentioned under Concurrent List,
however, in case of any conflict, the law made by the Central Government prevails
The matters on which uniformity of legislation throughout the country is desirable but not essential are
enumerated in the concurrent list
There are 03 subjects in the Concurrent List on which both Central and state governments have the power to
levy taxes
Subjects under Union List, State List and Concurrent List
The subjects that are enumerated under the Union List are mentioned below. Aspirants should know
the Union List subjects, State List subjects and Concurrent Lists for the prelims and mains exam.
Union List Subjects:
Some of the important subjects are:
1. Defence
2. Army
3. International Relations
4. Ports
5. Railways
6. Highways
7. Communication
State List Subjects:
1. Public order
2. Police
3. Public health and sanitation
4. Hospitals and dispensaries
5. Betting and gambling
Concurrent List Subjects:
1. Education
2. Forest
3. Trade unions
4. Marriage
5. Adoption
6. Succession
How Is India's President Elected?
The Indian President is the head of the state and he is also called the first citizen of India. He is a
part of Union Executive, provisions of which are dealt with Article 52-78 including articles related to
President (Article 52-62). Under these articles, information on how a President is elected, his powers
and functions, and also his impeachment process is given. He is a part of Union Executive along
with the Vice-President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, and Attorney-General of India.
As per Article 55(3) of the Constitution of India, the election of the President shall be held in
accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote and
the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot. There is no direct election for the Indian
President. An electoral college elects him. The electoral college responsible for President’s elections
comprises elected members of:
 Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
 Legislative Assemblies of the states (Legislative Councils have no role)
 Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry
Who does not take part in the President’s elections?
The following group of people is not involved in electing the President of India:
 Nominated Members of Lok Sabha (2) and Rajya Sabha (12)
 Nominated Members of State Legislative Assemblies
 Members of Legislative Councils (Both elected and nominated) in bicameral legislatures
 Nominated Members of union territories of Delhi and Puducherry
What is the term of the President’s office?
Once President is elected, he holds office for five years. He sits in the office even after the
completion of five years given no new election has taken place or no new President has been
elected till then. He can also be re-elected and there is no cap on his re-election.
What are the qualifications of the President?
A candidate has to meet some qualifications to be elected as the president. Those qualifications of
the President are:
 He should be an Indian Citizen
 His age should be a minimum of 35 years
 He should qualify the conditions to be elected as a member of the Lok Sabha
 He should not hold any office of profit under the central government, state government, or
any public authority
What are the conditions of the President’s office?
There are a few conditions for the candidate running for the President’s elections:
 He cannot be a member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. If he has been a member of either
of the house, he should vacate the seat on his first day as President in the office
 He should not hold any office of profit
 For his residence, Rashtrapati Bhavan is provided to him without the payment of rent
 Parliament decides his emoluments, allowances and privileges
 Parliament cannot diminish his emoluments and allowances during his term of office
 He is given immunity from any criminal proceedings, even in respect of his personal acts
 Arrest or imprisonment of the President cannot take place. Only civil proceedings can be
initiated for his personal acts that too after giving two months’ of prior notice.
Questions related to President’s elections:
What is the principle Proportional Representation with means of a single transferable vote.
of election used in Proportional Representation is a type of voting system used for elections in
the President’s which parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them.
election?
How does voting It is a secret ballot system of voting

take place in the
election of Indian
President?
What is a quota of
votes in President’s
elections?
How is the Supreme Any dispute related to his election is taken up by SC. SC’s decision is final.
Court (SC) involved Note: After the election of President is declared null and void, the acts done
in the President’s by the President in his office remain valid even after his removal.
election?
What is the procedure for impeachment of a President?

The only condition for the initiation of impeachment of the Indian president is the ‘violation of the
constitution.’
Note: Indian Constitution contains no definition of ‘violation of the constitution.’
The impeachment process of President is given below. (We have taken Lok Sabha as the first house
to initiate the impeachment charges, however, Rajya Sabha too can initiate the impeachment
charges against President and in that case, it will pass the resolution and send the charges to Lok
Sabha which will investigate and pass it if it finds those charges valid.)
Article 61 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Procedure for impeachment of the President
(1) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be
preferred by either House of Parliament
(2) No such charge shall be preferred unless
(a) the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at
least fourteen days notice in writing signed by not less than one fourth of the total number of
members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
(b) such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total membership
of the House
(3) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall
investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right
to appear and to be represented as such investigation
(4) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of
the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or cause to be
investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such
resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which
the resolution is so passed
Key points:
Process of Impeachment of the President of India:
The only condition for the initiation of the impeachment of the Indian president is the
violation of the constitution.
The Lok Sabha initiate the impeachment charges against the President.
The impeachment charges are signed by one-fourth of the members of the Lok Sabha.
A 14-day notice is given to the President of India.
The process of impeachment is quasi-judicial, which means that there must be a special
majority of two-thirds members present. Lok Sabha passes the impeachment charges with the
two-thirds majority and sends it to Rajya Sabha.
Then, Rajya Sabha investigates the charges.
While Rajya Sabha is investigating the charges, the President has the right to sit in the proceedings.
Rajya Sabha agrees to the charges and passes it with a two-thirds majority and the President is
removed.
Compare and contrast the process of impeachment of the Presidents of India and the United States
of America.
Aspect India USA

Grounds for impeachment. Violation of Constitution. Treason, Bribery,
Misdemeanour(petty crimes
falling short of felony)..
Under what Section ? Article 61 Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
Initiation of the process. Either of the two Houses of the Only from ‘The House of
Parliament. Representatives’ or the Lower
House of the US Congress.
Investigation of charges. The Other House. By ‘The House of
Representatives’ or the Lower
House.
Presiding Officer. Speaker of the House. Chief Justice, Supreme Court.
Some of the Frequently Asked Questions:

Q.1 Who elects the President of India?
The President is elected by an Electoral College, which consists of the elected members of both
Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of all the States and
also of NCT of Delhi and the Union Territory of Puducherry. [Article 54 of the Constitution of India]
Q.2 What is the term of the office of the President?
The President shall hold office for a term of 5 years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
He shall, however, continue to hold office notwithstanding the expiry of his term, until his successor
enters upon his office. [Article 56 of the Constitution of India]
Q.3 When is the election of the Office of President of India held?
Under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Elections Act, 1952, the notification calling the election to the office of the President can be issued
by the Election Commission on any day within the period of sixty days before the expiry of the term
of office of the outgoing President. The election schedule shall be so fixed, that the President-elect is
able to enter upon his office on the day following the expiry of the term of the outgoing President.
Q.4 Who conducts the election to the Office of President of India?
Under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, the authority to conduct elections to the Office of
President is vested in the Election Commission of India.
Q.5 What electoral system/process is followed for the election to the office of the President?
As per Article 55(3) of the Constitution of India, the election of the President shall be held in
accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote and
the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot.
Q.6 What are the Qualifications required by a candidate to contest the election to the Office of the
President of India?
Answer: Under Article 58, a candidate should fulfill the following eligibility conditions to contest the
election to the Office of President: -
1. Must be a citizen of India,
2. Must have completed 35 years of age,
3. Must be eligible to be a member of the Lok Sabha,
4. Should not be holding any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of
any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.
However, the candidate may be holding the office of President or Vice-President or Governor of any
State or Ministers of the Union or any State and shall be eligible to contest election.
Q.7 Apart from the above what are the conditions to be fulfilled by a candidate for his nomination
to be valid?
A nomination paper of a candidate for the election has to be made in the prescribed form (Form 2
appended to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974) and it has to be
subscribed by at least fifty electors as proposers and at least fifty electors as seconders. The
nomination paper duly completed in all respects has to be presented to the Returning Officer,
between 11AM and 3PM on any day other than on a public holiday appointed for the purpose by the
Election Commission, either by the candidate himself or by any of his proposers or seconders. Here
ǲElectorsǳ mean elected MPs and elected MLAs who are electors for Presidential Election.
The Security Deposit for the election, of Rs.15000/- should also be deposited either in cash with the
Returning Officer or a receipt showing that the amount has been deposited by the candidate or on
his behalf in the Reserve Bank of India or in a Government Treasury should be furnished along with
the nomination paper.
The candidate is also required to furnish a certified copy of the entry showing his name in the current
electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency in which the candidate is registered as an elector.
[see Sections 5B and 5C of the President and Vice-President Elections Act, 1952]
Q.8 Who is appointed the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer for the election to the Office
of President of India? Who makes such appointment?
By convention, the Secretary General, Lok Sabha or the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha is
appointed as the Returning Officer, by rotation. Two other senior officers of the Lok Sabha/ Rajya
Sabha Secretariat and the Secretaries and one more senior officer of Legislative Assemblies of all
States including NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry, are also appointed as the Assistant
Returning Officers. The Election Commission of India makes such appointments.
[For the Presidential Election, 2017 the Secretary General Lok Sabha is the Returning Officer]
Q.9 Can a Candidate submit more than one nomination paper? What would be the security deposit
to be made by such candidate?
Yes. A candidate can file a maximum of four nomination papers. However, he is required to make
only one security deposit in this regard. [see Section 5B (6) and 5C of the President and Vice-
President Elections Act, 1952]
Q.10 Can an elector propose or second the nomination of more than one candidate at a
Presidential election?
No. An elector can propose or second the name of only one candidate at a Presidential election. If
he subscribes as proposer or seconder, the nomination papers of more than one candidate, his
signature shall be deemed operative only on the nomination paper first delivered to the Returning
Officer. [see Section 5B(5) of the President and Vice-President Elections Act, 1952]
Q.11 Who scrutinizes the nomination papers filed by the candidates and who can be present at the
time of such scrutiny?
All nomination papers received by the Returning Officer during the period specified for the purpose
by the Election Commission are scrutinized by the Returning Officer himself on the date fixed by the
Election Commission under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Elections Act, 1952. At the time of such scrutiny, the candidates, one proposer or one seconder of
each candidate and one other person duly authorized, in writing, by each candidate shall be entitled
to be present, and they shall be given all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of
the candidates and raise objections in regard to those nomination papers.
Q.12 What are the grounds for rejection of the nomination of a candidate in the Presidential
election?
A nomination paper may be rejected by the Returning Officer on the following grounds under Section
5E of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952: -
1. On the date of scrutiny of nominations, the candidate is not eligible for election as President
under the Constitution; or
2. if any of the proposers or seconders is not qualified to subscribe a nomination paper, i.e., he is
not an elector at the election; or
3. if it is not subscribed by the required number of proposers and/or seconders; or
4. if the signature of the candidate or any of the proposers or seconders is not genuine or has
been obtained by fraud; or
5. if the nomination paper is not presented in person by the candidate or any of his proposers or
seconders or if it is not delivered to the Returning Officer, within the hours and dates prescribed for
the purpose or at the place appointed for the purpose, or the candidate has failed to make the
required security deposit in the prescribed manner
However, a candidateǯs nomination shall not be rejected, if he has submitted another set of
nomination papers, which are without any irregularity or defect. A candidateǯs nomination shall not
be rejected on the ground of any defect that is not of substantial character.
Q.13 Where is the poll for election to the Office of President held?
A Room in the Parliament House in New Delhi and a room in the Secretariat building of State
Legislative Assemblies in each state, including NCT of Delhi and UT of Puducherry are generally
fixed as places of poll, by the Election Commission. [see Rule 7 of the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Elections Rules, 1974]
Q.14 Can the electors choose their place of voting?
Yes. While normally Members of Parliament vote in New Delhi and the members of the State
Legislative Assemblies, including the members of the Legislative Assemblies of NCT of Delhi and
UT of Puducherry vote at the place fixed in each State/UT capital, facilities are provided by the
Election Commission for any MP to vote in the capital of State and similarly an MLA may vote at the
polling booth set up in the Parliament House, if he is in Delhi on the date of poll. However, the MP or
MLA who opts to vote in a place other than the place where the member is designated to vote is
required to intimate the same to the Commission well in advance (ten days) for making necessary
arrangements. In exceptional circumstances, MPs and MLAs may be permitted by the Commission
to vote at other State Capitals also.
Q.15 What is the colour and form of ballot papers used in the election to the office of the
President?
The Election Commission has directed that the ballot papers should be printed in 2 (two) colours- in
green for use by Members of Parliament and in pink for use by the Members of the State
Legislative Assemblies. The ballot papers are printed with two columns-first column containing the
names of the candidates and the second column for marking preferences by the elector for each
such candidate. The ballot papers are printed in Hindi and English for use by MPs and in the official
language(s) of the State and in English for use by the MLAs of the State concerned. [see Rule 10 of
the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974]
Q.16 Is the value of vote of each elector the same?
No. The value of votes of MLAs would differ from State to State. However, the value of votes of all
MPs is the same.
Q.17 How is the value of votes of members of the Electoral College calculated?
The value of votes of electors is basically determined on the basis of population of the States in
accordance with the manner laid down in Article 55(2)
of the Constitution. The Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 provides that until the
population figures for the first census to be taken after the year 2026 have been published, the
population of the States for the purposes of calculation of value of the votes for the Presidential
Election shall mean the population as ascertained at the 1971 census. The value of the vote of each
member of a State Legislative Assembly included in the Electoral College is calculated by dividing
the population of the State concerned (as per 1971 Census) by the total number of elected members
of the Assembly, and then further dividing the quotient by 1000. If the remainder, while so dividing is
500 or more, then the value is increased by 1. Total Value of votes of all members of each State
Assembly is worked out by multiplying the number of elective seats in the Assembly by the number
of votes for each member in the respective State. The total value of votes of all the States worked
out as above in respect of each State and added together is divided by the total number of elected
members of Parliament (Lok Sabha 543+Rajya Sabha 233) to get the value of votes of each
Member of Parliament.
Q.18 What is the manner/procedure for recording votes at an election to the office of President?
In accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote,
every elector can mark as many preferences, as there are candidates contesting the election. These
preferences for the candidates are to be marked by the elector, by placing the figures 1,2,3, 4, 5 and
so on, against the names of the candidates, in the order of preference, in the space provided in
column 2 of the ballot paper. The preferences can be indicated in international form of Indian
numerals or in the form used in any Indian language or in Roman form but the preferences cannot
be indicated in words like one, two, first preference second preference etc. [see Rule 17 of the
Presidential and Vice- Presidential Rules, 1974].
Q.19 Is it compulsory for an elector at a Presidential election to mark his preference for all
candidates?
No. Only the marking of first preference is compulsory for a ballot paper to be valid. Marking other
preferences is optional.
Q.20 Are the provisions of the Anti-Defection Law applicable in Presidential elections?
No. Members of the Electoral College can vote according to their wish and are not bound by any
party whips. The voting is by secret ballot. Therefore, Party whip does not apply in this election.
Q.21 Are Nominated Members of either Houses of Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly
eligible to vote at the election to the Office of President?
No. Only elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the State Legislative Assemblies are
members of the Electoral College for Presidential Election. Therefore, nominated members cannot
vote in this election. [see Article 54 of the Constitution.]
Q.22 Can an elector at a Presidential election exercise his vote by proxy?
No.
Q.23 Whether provisions of NOTA are applicable?
No.
Q.24 Can a disabled or illiterate elector in a Presidential election take the help of a companion to
record his vote?
No. Unlike in Parliamentary and Assembly election, an elector cannot take the help of a companion.
He can take only the assistance of the Presiding Officer to record his vote, if he is unable to read the
ballot paper or to record his vote by reason of his illiteracy or blindness or any physical or other
disabilities. The Presiding Officer is obliged under the rule to record the vote according to the
wishes of the elector and keep such vote secret. [see Rule 19 of the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Rules, 1974].
Q.25 How can an elector who is under preventive detention during the period of Presidential
election cast his vote?
An elector under preventive detention can cast his vote through postal ballot, which will be sent to
him by the Election Commission on the place of his detention. [see Rule 26 of the Presidential and
Vice-Presidential Rules, 1974].
Q.26 Is the winner in a Presidential election elected on the basis of obtaining simple majority? Or
by securing a specified quota of votes?
As the Presidential election is held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by
means of the single transferable vote, every elector has as many preferences as candidates
contesting the elections. The winning candidate has to secure the required quota of votes to be
declared elected, i.e., 50% of valid votes polled +1. [see the schedule of the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Rules, 1974].
Q.27 What are the grounds for rejection of the ballot papers?
The Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper as invalid on which:
1. The figure 1 is not marked; or
2. The figure 1 is marked against the name of more than one candidate or is marked in a manner
which renders it doubtful as to which candidate it is intended to apply; or
3. The figure 1 and some other figure is marked against the name of the same candidate; or
4. Any mark is made by which the elector may be identified.
A ballot paper will also be invalidated if the preference is marked in words like one, two, three or first
preference, second preference, third preference, etc., instead of in figures 1, 2, 3 etc. A postal ballot
may be rejected if the signature of
the elector on the declaration and the attestation form received with the ballot
paper is not duly attested by the authority specified in such form (who is normally the officer-in-
charge of the jail or the place of detention). [see rule 31 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Rules, 1974].
Q.28 What is the procedure of counting in a Presidential election? How is the quota of votes to be
secured by the winning candidate determined?
After the valid ballot papers are segregated from the invalid ones, the valid ballot papers are
distributed among the contesting candidates on the basis of first preference marked on each of them
for those candidates. The value of votes which each contesting candidate gets in this process is
ascertained by multiplying the number of ballot papers on which the first preference is marked for
him, by the value of vote which each ballot paper of a member (MP or MLA) represents as indicated
on the ballot paper itself. The total votes secured by each contesting candidate are then ascertained
by adding together the value of votes secured by him from the Members of Parliament and the
Members of the State Legislative Assemblies. This is the first round of counting.
For ascertaining the quota sufficient to secure the return of a candidate, the value of votes credited
to each contesting candidate in the first round of counting is added up to determine the total value of
valid votes polled at the election. Such total value of valid votes is then divided by two, and one is
added to the quotient so obtained, ignoring the remainder, if any. The number so determined, is the
quota, which a candidate should secure to be declared elected.
If the total value of the votes credited to any candidate at the first count, is equal to, or greater than,
the quota sufficient to secure the return of a candidate, that candidate is declared elected by the
Returning Officer. If, however, after the first round of counting, no candidate secures the requisite
quota, then the counting proceeds on the basis of a process of elimination and exclusion, whereby
the candidate credited with the lowest number of votes is excluded and all his ballot papers are
distributed among the remaining (continuing) candidates on the basis of the second preferences
marked, if any, thereon. The value of such
transferred ballot papers will be the same as the value at which the excluded candidate received
them. The ballot papers on which second preference is not marked is treated as exhausted ballot
papers and shall not be further counted, even if the third or subsequent preferences are marked
thereon. If no candidate secures the requisite quota even at this stage after distribution of votes of
the excluded candidate then the process of counting will continue on the same basis of elimination
and exclusion of the candidate with lowest vote till a candidate secures the required quota of votes.
In case, even after the exclusion of the candidates receiving the lowest number of votes, no
candidate secures the requisite quota and ultimately one candidate remains as the lone continuing
candidate, he is declared elected even if he has failed to secure the quota sufficient to secure the
return of a candidate. [see the schedule to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Rules, 1974].
Q.29 Where is the counting of votes in a Presidential election held?
The counting of votes is done in the office of the Returning officer at New Delhi.
Q.30 When is the security deposit of a candidate in a Presidential Election forfeited?
The Security deposit shall be forfeited if the candidate is not elected and the number of valid votes
polled by him does not exceed one-sixth of the number of votes necessary to secure return of a
candidate at such election. In other cases, the deposit will be returned to the candidate. The security
deposit is returned by ECI. [see Section 20A of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act, 1952].
Q.31 Can the result of the election to the Office of President be challenged? If so, what is the
proper procedure for doing so?
Yes. An election to the Office of the President can be called in question by means of an election
petition presented to the Supreme Court after the election is over. Such election petition should be
presented by a candidate or twenty or more electors joined together as petitioners, and may be
presented at any time after the date of publication of the declaration containing the name of the
returned candidate at the election under Section 12 (of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Elections Act, 1952), but not later than 30 days from the date of such publication. Subject to these
provisions, the Supreme Court, under Article 145 of the Constitution, may regulate the form, manner
and the procedures connected with such election petitions. [see Sections 13 to 20 of the Presidential
and Vice-Presidential Act, 1952].
What are the powers and functions of the President of India? Describe the various powers of
President of India. Can the President of India be impeached ?
Executive Powers of President(Article 53)
 For every executive action that the Indian government takes, is to be taken in his name
 He may/may not make rules to simplify the transaction of business of the central government
 He appoints the attorney general of India and determines his remuneration
 He appoints the following people:
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) (Article 148)
2. Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners
3. Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission
4. Appointment of State Governors (Article 155)
5. Finance Commission of India chairman and members
 He seeks administrative information from the Union government
 He requires PM to submit, for consideration of the council of ministers, any matter on which a
decision has been taken by a minister but, which has not been considered by the council
 He appoints National Commissions of:
1. Scheduled Castes
2. Scheduled Tribes
3. Other Backward Classes
 He appoints inter-state council
 He appoints administrators of union territories
 He can declare any area as a scheduled area and has powers with respect to the
administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas
Legislative Powers of President
 He summons or prorogues Parliament and dissolve the Lok Sabha
 He summons a joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in case of deadlock
 He addresses the Indian Parliament at the commencement of the first session after every
general election
 He appoints speaker, deputy speaker of Lok Sabha, and chairman/deputy chairman of Rajya
Sabha when the seats fall vacant (to know the difference between Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha check the linked article.)
 He nominates 12 members of the Rajya Sabha
 He can nominate two members to the Lok Sabha from the Anglo-Indian Community
 He consults the Election Commission of India on questions of disqualifications of MPs.
 He recommends/ permits the introduction of certain types of bills (to read on how a bill is
passed in the Indian Parliament, check the linked article.)
 He promulgates ordinances ***
 He lays the following reports before the Parliament:
1. Comptroller and Auditor General
2. Union Public Service Commission
3. Finance Commission, etc.
***Supreme Court’s Judgement on Ordinances
DC Wadhwa Case 1987: The issue of frequent promulgation of ordinances was again brought up
in the Supreme Court through a writ petition.
The petition was regarding the promulgation of 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981 in Bihar.
This included 11 ordinances that were kept alive for more than 10 years and famously dubbed as
ordinance raj.
The Supreme court held that the legislative power of the executive to promulgate ordinances is
to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law-making power of the
legislature. The executive must show self-restraint and should use ordinance making power only
in unforeseen or urgent matters and not to evade legislative scrutiny and debates.
Financial Powers of President

 To introduce the money bill, his prior recommendation is a must
 He causes Union Budget to be laid before the Parliament
 To make a demand for grants, his recommendation is a pre-requisite
 Contingency Fund of India is under his control
 He constitutes the Finance Commission every five years
Judicial Powers of President
 Appointment of Chief Justice and Supreme Court/High Court Judges are on him
 He takes advice from the Supreme Court, however, the advice is not binding on him
 He has pardoning power: Under article 72, he has been conferred with power to grant
pardon against punishment for an offence against union law, punishment by a martial court,
or death sentence.
Note: Pardoning powers of the president includes the following types:
 Pardon with the grant of pardon convicts both conviction and sentence completely absolved
 Commutation with this nature of the punishment of the convict can be changed
 Remission reduces the term of the imprisonment
 Respite awards lesser punishment than original punishment by looking at the special
condition of a convict
 Reprieve stays/suspends the carrying out of the awarded sentence for a temporary period
Mercy petitions rejected under the article 72 of the Indian Constitution by the President
of India in the following famous cases:
Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1988, also known as the Indira Gandhi
murder case. Mrs. Gandhi was gunned down Oct. 31, 1984, apparently in revenge for an
army raid she ordered on the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh shrine. Satwant Singh was one of
the two policemen who opened fire on Mrs. Gandhi in the garden of her official residence. The
other, Beant Singh, was shot to death minutes later by Gandhi’s bodyguards.
Kehar Singh, Beant Singh’s uncle, was convicted of helping plot the assassination.
Satwant Singh, Mrs. Gandhi’s bodyguard, and Kehar Singh were pronounced dead less than a
half-hour after they were taken from their tiny cells on death row and marched to the rain-
soaked gallows at New Delhi’s Tihar Jail, a police official said.
Kuljit Singh Alias Ranga v/s Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, 1982: The Geeta and Sanjay
Chopra kidnapping case (also known as the Ranga-Billa case) was a kidnapping
and murder crime in New Delhi on 26-28th August, 1978. It involved the
kidnapping and the subsequent murder of siblings Geeta and Sanjay by Kuljeet
Singh (alias Ranga Khus) and Jasbir Singh (alias Billa).The apex court held, "the
death of the Chopra children was caused by the petitioner and his companion Billa after a
savage planning which bears a professional stamp", that the "survival of an orderly society
demands the extinction of the life of persons like Ranga and Billa who are a menace to social
order and security", and that "they are professional murderers and deserve no sympathy even in
terms of the evolving standards of decency of a mature society".
Jumman Khan vs State Of U.P on 30 November, 1990: The petitioner/accused was
charged under Sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) of the IPC. The trial court
found him guilty under both the charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment under
Section 376 of the IPC and awarded death sentence under Section 302 of the IPC. On
appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences passed by the trial
Court. The High Court held. “Considering the nature and most gruesome and beastly
act perpetrated by the appellant, the appellant deserves no leniency. He had committed
premeditated rape on a helpless child aged about six years and he had gone to the
extent of strangulating her to death.”
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the accused filed SLP
(Criminal) No. 558/86. The Supreme Court by its Order dated 20th March, 1986 dismissed the
SLP.
Dhananjoy Chaterjee vs State Of W.B on 11 January, 1994
Dhananjoy Chatterjee (14 August 1965 – 15 August 2004) was the first person who was
judicially executed in India in the 21st century for murder. The execution by hanging took place
in Alipore Jail, Kolkata, on 14 August 2004. He was charged in 1990 for the crimes
of rape and murder of Hetal Parekh, a 15-year-old school-girl. Hetal Parekh was a student
of Welland Gouldsmith School at Bowbazar, Kolkata. She used to live with her parents and
elder brother in a third floor flat of Anand Apartments in Bhawanipore. The Parekhs moved into
this flat in 1987. Dhananjoy was a security guard of this agency. He had worked in that building
for about three years.
The Supreme Court convicted Dhananjoy and regarded the crime as a heinous combination of
offenses, aggravated by the fact that as a security guard Dhananjoy had been in charge of the
victim's safety—enough to make it belong to the rarest of rare category of crimes-warranting a
death sentence. He was executed on 15 August 2004, the day after his 39th birthday.
State vs Mohd. Afzal And Ors. [Along With ... on 29 October, 2003
Mohammad Afzal Guru (June 1969 – 9 February 2013) was a Kashmiri separatist, who was
convicted for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. He received a death sentence
for his involvement, which was upheld by the Indian Supreme Court. Following the rejection of a
mercy petition by the President of India, he was executed on 9 February 2013. His body was
buried within the precincts of Delhi's Tihar Jail.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra Th:Cbi ... on 21 March, 2013
Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After its demolition, violence broke out
throughout the country. In order to take revenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and
Dawood Ibrahim, a resident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in the
city of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibrahim agreed to send arms and
ammunitions from abroad. Tiger Memon, in association with his men, particularly, the accused
persons, received those arms and ammunitions through sea-coasts of Bombay. In continuation
of the said conspiracy, Tiger Memon sent some of the accused persons to Dubai and from there
to Pakistan for training and handling in arms and ammunitions.
On 12.03.1993, the commercial hub of the country, the city of Bombay, witnessed an
unprecedented terrorist act sending shock waves throughout the world. In a span of about two
hours i.e., between 13:33 to 15:40 hours, a series of 12 bomb explosions took place one after
the other at the following twelve places in Bombay, namely, Bombay Stock Exchange, Katha
Bazaar, Sena Bhavan, Century Bazaar, Mahim Causeway, Air India Building, Zaveri Bazaar,
Hotel Sea Rock, Plaza Theatre, Juhu Centaur Hotel, Air Port Bay-54 and Air Port Centaur Hotel.
In the abovesaid incident of serial bombings, 257 human lives were lost, 713 persons were
seriously injured and properties worth about Rs. 27 crores were destroyed. This was the first
ever terrorist attack in the world where RDX (Research Department Explosive) was used on a
large scale basis after the World War II.
Yakub Abdul Razzaq Memon (30 July 1962 – 30 July 2015) was a chartered accountant by
profession and later convicted terrorist over his financial involvement in the 1993
Bombay bombings, and the brother of one of the prime suspects in the bombings, Tiger
Memon. After his appeals and petitions for clemency were all rejected, he was executed
at Nagpur Central Jail on 30 July 2015.
Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012

Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab (13 July 1987 – 21 November 2012) was a Pakistani terrorist
and a member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist terrorist organization, through which he took part
in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in Maharashtra, India. Kasab, alongside fellow Lashkar-
e-Taiba recruit Ismail Khan, killed 72 people during the attacks, most of them at
the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. Kasab was the only attacker captured alive by police.
Kasab was born in Faridkot, Pakistan and left his home in 2005, engaging in petty crime and
armed robbery with a friend. In late 2007, he and his friend encountered members of Jama'at-
ud-Da'wah, the political wing of Lashkar-e-Taiba, distributing pamphlets, and were persuaded to
join.
On 3 May 2010, Kasab was found guilty of 80 offences, including murder, waging war against
India, possessing explosives, and other charges. On 6 May 2010, he was sentenced to death
on four counts and to life imprisonment on five counts. Kasab's death sentence was upheld by
the Bombay High Court on 21 February 2011. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court of
India. On 29 August 2012. Kasab was executed on 21 November 2012 at 7:30 a.m. local
time, and subsequently buried within the precincts of Yerwada Central Jail in Pune.
The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because
it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment
that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. The victims, a 22-year-old woman, Jyoti Singh and
her male friend Mr Avindra Pratap Pandey, were returning home on the night of 16 December 2012
after watching the film Life of Pi in Saket, South Delhi. They boarded the bus at Munirka for Dwarka at
about 9:30 pm. As the bus drove through the city, she was raped and brutally assaulted by six persons,
including a minor, before being thrown out on the road along with her male friend who was also physically
attacked. The male victim Awindra Pratap Pandey was a software engineer from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh,
who lives in Ber Sarai, New Delhi; he suffered broken limbs but survived.
Mukesh Singh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31) -
convicted for the gang rape and murder of the 23-year-old physiotherapy intern Jyoti
Singh in 2012 - were hanged at 5.30 am on Friday, the 20/03/2020.
Diplomatic Powers of President

 International Treaties and agreements that are approved by the Parliament are
negotiated and concluded in his name.
 He is the representative of India in international forums and affairs.
 The President approves the appointments of Ambassadors/High Commissioners based
on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister and the
appointment is also subject to the agreement of the receiving State.
Military Powers of President
He is the commander of the defence forces of India. He appoints:
 Chief of the Army
 Chief of the Navy
 Chief of the Air Force
Emergency Powers of President
He deals with three types of emergencies given in the Indian Constitution:
 National Emergency (Article 352)
 President’s Rule (Article 356 & 365)
 Financial Emergency (Article 360)
What is the Ordinance Making Power of the President?
Article 123 deals with the ordinance making power of the President. The President has many
legislative powers and this power is one of them. He promulgates an ordinance on the
recommendation of the union cabinet.
Ordinances are like a law but not enacted by the Parliament but rather promulgated by
President of India when Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha or either of those is not in session.
Union Cabinet’s recommendation is a must for an ordinance to be promulgated. Using ordinances,
immediate legislative actions can be taken.
Note: For an ordinance to exist, it should be approved by the Parliament within six weeks of it being
introduced. Parliament is required to sit within 6 weeks from when Ordinance was introduced.
Article 123 deals with the ordinance making power of the President. President has many legislative
powers and this power is one of them.
Details about President’s ordinance making power is given in the table below:
President’s Ordinance Making Power
He can only promulgate the ordinance under these circumstances:

When both the houses or either of the house is not in session
Circumstances occur where the President thinks it necessary to act without waiting for houses to assemble
An ordinance can be retrospective in nature
An ordinance rolled out when both the houses are in session is void in nature
The Parliament has to approve the ordinance within six weeks from its reassembly
Acts, done and completed under the ordinance before it lapses, remains fully active
Unlike the Indian Constitution, most of the democratic constitution of the world don’t give such ordinance
making power to their President
It has no connection with the President’s power to proclaim a national emergency
The power of ordinance making is not to be taken as a substitute for the legislative power. Only under special
circumstances, ordinances can be rolled out
President’s power to roll out ordinance is justiciable on the ground of malafide as per the 44 th amendment to
the Indian Constitution.
What are the limitations of an ordinance making power of President?
There are the following limitations:
 President can promulgate an ordinance only when both the houses are not in session or only
one house is in session.
 For an ordinance to be promulgated, such circumstances should be there which deem it
necessary for President to legislate through the ordinance
 Ordinances can be introduced only on those subjects on which the Indian Parliament can
make laws.
 Ordinances can not take away any rights of citizens that are guaranteed by
the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution.
 Ordinance ceases to exist if parliament takes no action within six weeks from its reassembly
 Ordinance also stands void if both the houses pass a resolution disapproving the ordinance
Note: The maximum life of an ordinance can be six months and six weeks.
What is the Veto Power of the President?
When a bill is introduced in the Parliament, Parliament can pass the bill and before the bill becomes
an act, it has to be presented to the Indian President for his approval. The choice of the President
over the bill is called his veto power. The Veto Power of the President of India is guided by Article
111 of the Indian Constitution.
In India, the President has three veto powers, i.e. absolute, suspension and pocket. Absolute
Veto of the President
The facts about the absolute veto power of the Indian President are given below:
 When the President exercises his absolute veto, a bill never sees the day of the light.
The bill ends even after passed by the Indian Parliament and does not become an act.
 President uses his absolute veto in the following two cases:
 When the bill passed by the Parliament is a Private Member Bill
 When the cabinet resigns before President could give his assent to the bill. The
new cabinet may advise the President to not give his assent to the bill passed by
the old cabinet.
Note: In India, the President has exercised his absolute veto before. In 1954, it was exercised by
Dr. Rajendra Prasad as a President and later in 1991, it was used by the then President R
Venkataraman.
Suspensive Veto of the President
The facts about the suspensive veto power of the Indian President are given below:
 The President uses his suspensive veto when he returns the bill to the Indian Parliament
for its reconsideration.
o Note: If the Parliament resends the bill with or without amendment to the Indian
President, he has to approve the bill without using any of his veto powers.
 His suspensive veto can be over-ridden by the repassage of the bill by the Indian
Parliament
o Note: With respect to state bills, state legislature has no power to override the
suspensive veto of President. The Governor can withhold the bill for the
President’s consideration and even if state legislature resends the bill to governor
and governor to President, he still can withhold his assent.
 When the Parliament resends the bill to the President, it has to follow only the ordinary
majority in the houses and not the higher majority.)
 The President cannot exercise his suspensive veto in relation to Money Bill.
Pocket Veto of the President
The facts about the suspensive veto power of the Indian President are given below:
 The bill is kept pending by the President for an indefinite period when he exercises his
pocket veto.
 He neither rejects the bill nor returns the bill for reconsideration.
 Constitution does not give any time-limit to President within which he has to act upon the
bill. Therefore, the President uses his pocket veto where he doesn’t have to act upon the
bill.
 Unlike the American President who has to resend the bill within 10 days, the Indian
President has no such time-rule.
Note:
 The Indian President has exercised this veto power before. In 1986, President Zail Singh
exercised this pocket veto.
 The President has no veto power when it comes to the constitutional amendment bills.
The table below gives the summary of President’s veto powers:
Types of Bills President’s Actions
With regard to Ordinary Bills President can:

 Ratify
 Return
 Reject
With regard to Money Bills President can:

 Ratify
 Reject
President cannot:
 Return
With regard to the Constitutional Amendment Bills President can:

 Ratify
President cannot:
 Reject
 Return
Write short notes on the Sessions Of Parliament, Summoning, Prorogation, Adjournment and
Dissolution.
Sessions of Parliament
The period during which the House meets to conduct its business is called a session.
The Constitution of India empowers the President to summon each House at such intervals that
there should not be more than a six-month gap between the two sessions.
 There are typically three sessions in one year.
 A session will have many meetings.
 In general, the sessions are as follows:
o Budget session (February to May)
o Monsoon session (July to September)
o Winter session (November to December)
Summoning of Parliament
 Summoning is the process of calling all members of the Parliament to meet.
 The President summons each House of the Parliament from time to time.
 The gap between two sessions of the Parliament cannot exceed 6 months, which means
the Parliament meets at least two times in one year.
Adjournment
An adjournment terminates a sitting of the House.
 The House then meets again at the appointed time for the next sitting.
 The adjournment can be for a few hours, days or weeks, depending on the specified
time.
 If the adjournment is done (sitting terminated) without any time scale, it is known
as adjournment sine die.
 The power of adjournment sine die is only with the presiding officer of the House.
Prorogation
Prorogation means the end of a session.
 Prorogation implies the end of the sitting as well as the session and not the dissolution of
the House.
 Point to note: The Rajya Sabha is not dissolved as it is a permanent House, only the Lok
Sabha is dissolved.
 The President can prorogue the House while in session also.
 Generally, the President issues a notice for the session’s prorogation a few days after
the House is adjourned sine die by the presiding officer of the House.
 All pending notices lapse on the prorogation of the House.
 However, there is no impact on bills upon prorogation.
 The time between prorogation and reassembly is called Recess.
Dissolution
The Lok Sabha is dissolved at the end of its five-year term (automatic dissolution) or by Presidential
order. Dissolution terminates the life of the house.
 The Rajya Sabha is not dissolved. Its members have a fixed term of 6 years, with a third
of its members up for elections every two years.
 When does the President give the order for Lok Sabha’s dissolution?
o If authorised by the Council of Ministers, he can give the order even before the
end of the five-year term.
o He can also dissolve if the Council of Ministers loses confidence and no party is
able to prove majority.
 When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all business including bills, motions, resolutions,
notices, petitions, etc. pending before it or its committees lapse.
 The last session before the Lok Sabha is dissolved is called a Lame Duck session.
 Only the President can dissolve the House.
Points to Note:
Prorogation: Done by the President
Dissolution: Done by the President
Adjournment: Done by Presiding Officer of the House (Speaker/Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha;
Chairman/Deputy Chairman in the Rajya Sabha)
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs
Union Of India on 1 November, 1957, Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 36, 1958 SCR 828
In the Parshotam Dhingra case, the interpretation of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution is
discussed. The case revolved under the Service law section, where the civil servant or permanent
servant serving under Union or the State holds the post with given protection and tenure under
Article 310 and 311 of the constitution. The underlying principle embodied in Article 310 is
based on Doctrine of pleasure adopted from English Common law system.
ACT:
Union Service-Employee's Protection under the Constitution- Availability-"Dismissed
or removed or reduced in rank," Meaning of-Railway Servant reverted to substantive post in
lower class, if reduced in rank-Constitution of India, Articles 311, 31O.
Background
The Parshotam Lal Dhingra case is related to Service law Jurisprudence of India. The case covers
the interpretation of Articles 310 and 311 of the Indian Constitution related to persons serving under
the Union or State. In the instant case, the Appellant ranking was reduced from Class II post to
Class III due to the adverse remarks contained in his CR were revealed. Later, the question evolved
was whether Article 311(2) provides safeguards to employees in case of reduction in ranking or not.
Facts
 In 1924 the appellant joined the railway services as a Signaller. As a result of selection, he
was promoted as Section Controller in 1942 and then as Deputy Chief Controller in 1950, all
the three post belongs to III Class Railway Services. Later, appellant Mr. Parshotam Lal as
Officiating Chief controller was appointed for II Class Railway service category and took
charge of the post from Shri Ram.
 Later, Sri Gauri Shankar, S.S.T.E.I. Head Quarters, made an adverse remark in Sri Dingra’s
secret character book which was endorsed by one high Officer on the basis of which General
Manager (Railway) Sri. Karnail Singh had reduced the appellant rank to its previous post
which was under Class III category and said his reduction would not affect his further
promotion.
 Further, Appellant made an appeal to the General Manager for reconsideration of his order
but his appeal was dismissed.
 In the meantime, the appellant filed a writ petition under article 226 in the Punjab High Court.
Where court held that, reduction in rank of applicant is a kind of punishment and he was not
given proper opportunity of being heard, hence his appeal was admitted and his reduction in
rank was declared illegal. Against the judgment of High Court, respondent made an appeal
before the bench Divisional who dissented with the decree and said such reduction is
permissible. Later, the appeal in for SLP was presented before Supreme Court for
reconsideration of the decision made by the Punjab High Court.
Issue Involved
1. Whether the reduction in rank of Parshotam Lal Dhingra was according to the provisions of
Article 310 and 311 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the appellant was competent person for the post?
Related Provisions
Article 310 of the Indian Constitution- Tenure of office of a person serving the Union or the State
Article 311 of the Indian Constitution- Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed
in civil capacities under the Union or the State
Article 311(1)- No civil servant is to be dismissed or removed by an authority by which he was
appointed.[i]
Article 311(2)- Provides, that no civil servant can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except
after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and must be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
Judgment
 In accordance with the opinion of the majority, court held that although Parshotam Dhingra
was working as an officiating Assistant Controller Railway Telegraph, hence he is not entitled
to get the protection of Article 311 because the provisions are for the civil servants who are
permanently employed in certain posts. Thus, protection is not for officiating post who just
perform the prescribe duty. Moreover, the appellant had no right to continue in that post, as
the term of such appointment was based on terminable notice given by the government;
therefore, his reduction did not operate as there is no forfeiture of any right and could be
prescribed a reduction in rank by way of punishment. Also, his reduction does not amount to
dismissal as the chance of promotion was asserted by the General Manager. Thus, it is
concluded that appellant was not reduced in rank by way of punishment and therefore, the
protection of Article 311(2) does not apply in the case.
 In the minority opinion stated that the protection given under Article 311 should not be limited
within some rules and regulation but it should be seen that such reduction in rank is due to
some punishment and should come under the protection clause.
 As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
 The appointment of a Government servant to a permanent post may be substantive or on
officiating basis and must be entitled to hold a lien on the post conferred.
 Article 310 covers only those persons who are permanent members of the specified services
or who do not hold permanent post therein, do not hold their respective offices during the
pleasure of the President and the Governor, as the case may be. Article 310(1), has adopted
the English Common law rule called Doctrine of Pleasure.
 Further, Article 311 is limited to persons who are permanent members of the service or who
hold permanent civil post, then the constitutional protection given by clause (1) and (2) will
not extend to persons who officiate in a permanent post or in a temporary post and
consequently such person will be liable to be dismissed or removed by an authority
subordinate to which they were appointed. Further, people who are merely officiating in the
posts cannot be said to ‘hold’ the post, as they only perform the duties of those posts. Also,
Article 311 is a restriction on doctrine of pleasure.
Concepts Highlighted
 The English ‘doctrine of pleasure’ adopted from common law principle is limited by provisions
of Article 311 of the Constitution
 Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution apply to permanent service holder of the post and
for an officiating post.
 To seek the protection of Article 311 it is an essential condition that the person must be
competent person of the post and must hold the post as specified.
=========================================
Write short notes on “The doctrine of pleasure.”
The doctrine of pleasure owes its origin to common law. The rule in England was that a civil
servant can hold his office during the pleasure of the crown and the service will be terminated
any time the crown wishes. Such rule had its origin in the Latin phrase “ durante bene placito”
(“during good pleasure”), or “durante bene placito regis” (“during good pleasure of the King”).
The same rule is applied in India. This power to dismiss a Government servant at pleasure is
subject to only those exceptions which are specified in the Constitution itself. It must be ensured
that civil servants can’t make mockery of law if they are guilty and it is precisely for that reason,
that the continued use of Doctrine of Pleasure is required in India. It is thus not surprising that
the doctrine was imported into the legal system of pre-partition Indian subcontinent, by virtue of
the Government of India Act, 1935.
Public servants have got a special relationship with their employer, viz. the Government which is
in some aspects different from the relationship under the ordinary law, between the master and
servant. It will, therefore, be appropriate to describe briefly the basic provisions of the
Constitution pertaining to services. The Chief Vigilance Officers and officers handling vigilance
cases will need to bear them in mind while processing disciplinary cases against Government
servants. The member of Defence services or civil services of the union or All-India services
hold their office during the pleasure of president. Similarly member of state services holds the
office during the pleasure of governor.
Civil Servants are considered as the back bone of the administration. In order to ensure the
progress of the country it is essential to strengthen the administration by protecting civil servants
from political and personal influence. So provisions have been included in the Constitution of
India to protect the interest of civil servants along with the protection of national security and
public interest. The provisions related to services under Union and State is contained under part
XIV of the Indian Constitution.
Rule In India
In India, Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services under The Union and The
State.
Article 310 of the Indian Constitution incorporates the Common law doctrine of pleasure. It
expressly provides that all persons who are members of the Defence Services or the Civil
Services of the Union or of All-India Services hold office during the pleasure of the President.
Similarly, members of the State Services hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
Article 310 itself places restrictions and limitations on the exercise of the pleasure under Article
310 are limited by Article 311(2). The services of permanent Government servant cannot be
terminated except in accordance with rules made under Article 309, subject to the procedure in
Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the fundamental rights.
Doctrine of pleasure as developed in England has not been accepted in full in India. It is subject
to the provisions of Article 311 which lays down procedural safeguards for civil servants. Thus
Article 311 becomes a proviso to Article 310. Therefore, services of any civil servants cannot be
terminated at pleasure unless the mandatory provisions of Article 311 have been observed.
Doctrine of pleasure is further restricted by the general law of the land which empowers any civil
servant to file suit in a court of law for enforcing any condition of his service and for claiming
arrears of pay. Power to dismiss at pleasure any civil servant is not a personal right of the
President or the Governor as the case may be. It is an executive power which is to be exercised
at the advice of council of ministers. The Doctrine of pleasure as contained in Article 310, being
a constitutional provision, cannot be abrogated by any legislative or executive law; therefore
Article 309 is to be read subject to Article 310.
Article 309 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Recruitment and conditions of service of
persons serving the Union or a State.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate
the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for
the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in
the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules
regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services
and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature
under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such
Act
Article 310 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Tenure of office of persons serving the
Union or a State
(1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a
defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all India service or holds any post
connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the
President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post
under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State
(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office
during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State, any
contract under which a person, not being a member of a defence service or of an all India
service or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold
such a post may, if the President or the Governor as the case may be, deems it necessary in
order to secure the services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to
him of compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed period, that post is abolished or he is,
for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post
Article 311 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of
persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil
service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed
by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after
an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed after
such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis
of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person
any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this
clause shall not apply
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which
has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins
satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of
the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry
(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause ( 2 ), the decision thereon of the
authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final
=========================================
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Anr Vs.
M/S. Devans Modern Brewaries & Anr [2003] Insc 581 (20 November 2003)
Supreme Court of India
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And ... on 20 November, 2003
Bench: V.N.Khare Cji, R.C.Lahoti, B.N.Agrawal, S.B.Sinha, Ar. Lakshmanan
SC upholds Punjab’s decision on liquor fee
PETITIONER: State of Punjab and Anr.;
RESPONDENT: M/s. Devans Modern Brewaries and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2003
In an important ruling, having a bearing on liquor trade in the country, a five-judge Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court, in a split decision, has said liquor trade was not a fundamental
right but a privilege granted by the state, while upholding the Punjab Government’s order of
levying fee on its import.
“The permissive privilege to deal in liquor is not a right at all. The levy charged for parting with
that privilege is neither a tax nor a fee. It is simply a levy for the act of granting permission or for
the exercise of power to part with the privilege by the state,” the Bench headed by Chief Justice
V.N. Khare, in a three-to-two majority decision, said.
Setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order, quashing the state government’s
notification of March 27, 1996, for imposing import fee on liquor, which was challenged by
Ludhiana-based Devans Modern Breweries Ltd and some other manufacturers, the three
judges, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice R C Lahoti and Mr Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, said “the
High Court had decided the case on a total wrong assumption that the import fee levied is in the
nature of duty, which cannot be imposed under the Excise Act.”
In fact, the import fee, levied by the Punjab Government, was the price for parting with the
privilege given to the licence holder to import beer or liquor into the state, the court ruled that the
state government was fully competent to impose such a fee under the law.
However, the other two judges, Mr Justice B.N. Agrawal and Mr Justice S.B. Sinha, disagreed
with the majority’s view and held that the trade in liquor, like any other trade was a fundamental
right within the meaning of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, subject to prohibition by an Act
passed by the legislature. Both judges were of the view that the High Court was right in
quashing the notification of the Punjab Government.
A similar issue was also raised against the Kerala Government’s 1992 order, imposing Rs 2 to
Rs 5 per proof litre as import fee on Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Both matters were decided by
the apex court in a common judgement.
In the majority judgement, the court further said the licensee given permission to trade in liquor,
apart from paying the duty, “Is to comply with such conditions as the state government may
impose while formulating the excise duty for a particular year.”
The court said it was more relevant in the case of Punjab as the excise policy was formulated in
the state every year.
“The state is competent and entitled to impose excise duty or countervailing duty. Besides, there
is no bar on it to charge any other fees on the account of consideration for the privilege provided
to the licensee to trade in liquor, which the licensee did not otherwise have (on his own, like for
any other trade),” the court said.
Since special permission under licence was required to trade in liquor, “the licensee is liable to
comply with any other conditions imposed by the state government on him from time to time,”
the court ruled.
=========================================
Discuss the role, composition, powers and functions of the Union Public Service Commission?
Role of the Public Service Commission
The Union Public Service Commission of India was constituted by the British Government
during the British rule. The Lee Commission, in 1924 had suggested in its report for the
creation of an unprejudiced and independent Public Service Commission. On the basis of
such suggestions, the Union Public Service Commission was constituted on 1 st October,
1926.
Afterwards, by the Government of India Act of 1935, the Public Service Commission were
created independently for both the state government and central services.
Union Public Service Commission
According to Article 315 of the Indian constitution, there shall be a permanent UPSC (Union
Public Service Commission). This body will conduct exam to appoint candidates to different
posts of Indian Civil Services under the government of India. Article 315 to 323 of the Indian
Constitution deals with the appointment of UPSC members, functions and powers of UPSC.
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is not an exam but it is a constitutional body which is
authorized to conduct various exams in the country one among which is Civil Services Exam,
while Indian Administrative Services (IAS) which is commonly known as IAS Exam is also not
an exam and is one of the civil services post among the others like IPS, IFS and etc. to which
candidates can get into through the Civil Services Exam.
The UPSC is a constitutional body. It is a central agency which is authorized to conduct
various examinations in India and the list of exams is given below.
 Civil Services Examination
 Indian Forest Service Examination
 Engineering Services Examination
 Combined Defence Services Examination
 National Defence Academy Examination
 Naval Academy Examination
 Combined Medical Services Examination
 Special Class Railway Apprentice
 Indian Economic Service/Indian Statistical Service Examination
 Combined Geoscientist and Geologist Examination
 Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination
The commission’s approval is granted by the Constitution of India as mentioned in the articles
315 to 323 of Part XIV of the constitution titled as Services under the Union and the States for
public service commission for the union and for each state.
Composition of Union Public Service Commission
Strength of the UPSC has been left to the discretion of the President and is not mentioned in
the Constitution. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) consists of a chairman and ten
members. The terms and conditions of service of the chairman and members of the
Commission are governed by the Union Public Service Commission (Members) Regulations,
1969.
On 7th August 2020, Pradeep Kumar Joshi has been appointed as the chairman of UPSC. He
was earlier a member of the UPSC. He will remain in the UPSC office as the chairman till April
4, 2022.
Note: Arvind Saxena was the UPSC Chairman before Pradeep Kumar Joshi. His tenure ended
on 7th August 2020.
Eligibility and Tenure of Chairman & Members
The President of India appoints the Chairman and other members of the Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC). Generally, the members of the commission are the civil servants with at
least 10 years of experience either in Central or State service.
The Commission is examined by a Secretariat led by a Secretary with two Additional
Secretaries, a number of Joint Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and other assistant staff.
Each member holds office for a term of 6 years or until he attains the age of 65 years.
Criteria for Removal of Members (Union Public Service Commission)
The members can submit their resignation to the President of India at any time. Any member of
the commission would be removed from the office by the President of India on the ground of
misbehaviour (if and only if an inquiry of such misbehaviour is made and defended by
the Supreme Court of India) or if any member is charged with bankrupt or engaged in any paid
employment outside the duties of his office or if the President opines the member is unfit to
continue in office by reason of illness of mind or body.
The member can be removed from the office by the President of India on the grounds as well as
procedure is given in Article 317 in the Constitution of India.
The Union Public Services Commission is among one of the few institutions which execute both
autonomy and freedom along with the country’s higher judiciary and Election Commission.
Recruitment rules for Union Public Service Commission
According to the provision mentioned in Article 320 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of
Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations 1958,
Recruitment Rules of all Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ posts in various Ministries/Departments of
Government of India are necessary to be framed in consultation with the Commission. The
Consultation with the Commission is also mandatory for structuring or revising Recruitment
Rules for certain categories of posts under the Delhi Municipal Corporation, The New Delhi
Municipal Coil, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, and the Employees Provide. Every
year on all-India basis various examinations are conducted by the Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) and this includes Civil Services, Engineering, Medical and Forest Service,
etc.
Functions of Union Public Service Commission
The major functions of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under Article Section 320
of the Constitution of India are:
 To conduct various examinations for the appointment to the services of the Union
 Direct Recruitment by selection through interviews
 Appointing Department officers on promotion, deputation and through absorption
 Constituting and amending the Recruitment Rules for various services and posts under
the Government.
 Disciplinary cases relating to different Civil Services
 About any matter related to the UPSC, they can directly recommend the Government by
the President of Indian
Every year, the Union Public Service Commission conducts various exams and Civil Services
Examination is one among them. The Civil Services Examination is conducted in three stages
viz.
 Preliminary
 Main and
 Personality Test/Interview
Reports
Every year, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) submits a report of its work to the
President of India. The President presents the report of the commission before the parliament
along with a memo with regard to the cases where the advice of the commission was not
accepted and the reasons for non-acceptance.
=========================================
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of S.s. Dhanoa V. Union Of
India & Ors [1991] Insc 162; Air 1991 Sc 1745;
Act
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 324. Election Commission-President's Notification-
Determination of number and appointment of Election Commissioners-Rules providing tenure of
5 years or upto superannuation age of 65 years-Subsequent notification by President -Abolition
of the post of Election Commissioners- Whether mala fide, whether affects independence of
Election Commission-Material loss to incumbents-Whether exigency of employment-Flashing of
photo graphs of Election Commissioners while announcing their removal on T V deprecated.
Election Commission-Salient features and composition of-Appointment of Chief Election
Commissioner is obligatory-Appointment of other Election Commissioners is not obligatory-
Commission's work should warrant appointment of other Election Commissioners-Distinction in
service conditions and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election
Commissioners-What is-Chief Election Commissioner whether primus inter partes-Need for
laying down the procedure for transacting the business of Election Commission emphasised.
Headnote
Article 324(2) of the Constitution empowers the President to fix and appoint such number of
Election Commissioners as he may from time to time determine. By a notification dated
7.10.1989 the President fixed the number of Election Commissioners at two. By another
notification dated 16.10.89, the President appointed the petitioner and another person as
Election Commissioners. Simultaneously, the President also promulgated the rules regulating
the conditions of service and tenure of the Election Commissioners under which an Election
Commissioner was to hold office for a term of five years or until he attained the age of 65 years
whichever was earlier.
However, on 1st January, 1990, the President issued two notifications rescinding the earlier two
notifications dated 7.10.89 and 16.10.89. Consequently, the two posts of Election
Commissioners were abolished and the appointment of the petitioner and the other Election
Commissioner came to an end.
159 160 The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legality of the
notifications dated 1st January, 1990 contending that: (a) the Election Commission being an
independent body, the abolition of the posts of Election Commissioners and their consequent
removal tampered with the independence of the Election Commission directly or indirectly; (b) in
view of the service rules made by the President the Election Commissioners were entitled to
continue in office for full tenure of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years whichever
was earlier; (c) the notification abolishing the two posts and removing the petitioner and the
other Election Commissioner were issued mala fide under the advice of the Chief Election
Commissioner; (d) Petitioner's removal affected him materially; and (e) the flashing of the
photographs of the petitioner and other Election Commissioner while announcing their removal
on the television during a news bulletin subjected them to severe loss of dignity and reputation.'
Dismissing the petition, this Court,
A Look at the S.S. Dhanoa vs Union of India Judgement:
1. The Supreme Court in its 1991 judgment in S.S. Dhanoa vs Union of India and others said the CEC
deserves a higher degree of protection because he is “a permanent incumbent” of the Election
Commission, whereas the number of E.C.s can be varied depending on the workload.
2. The government has the prerogative to create or abolish the E.C.s’ posts. For many years, India had a
single-member Election Commission, but this changed in 1989-90. And since 1993, it has been a
three-member body.
There are two important judgements: a) SS Dhanoa (Passed in 1991) b) TN Seshan Judgement (Passed in
1993)
 Both these judgements are fantastic, and lay down clearly as to what exactly is the role of Article 324
of the Indian Constitution. The one thing that comes out very clearly when one reads the provisions as
well as the judgements is the fact that the reason that this institution was given an insular status, was
to make it insulated from any kind of political pressure. This assumes importance especially
considering that one of the things that this organization must be relatively free from is baseless
aspersions on its integrity.
 When we level baseless allegations against institutions that are meant to preserve certain basic
constitutional identities of the country, there is a problem that society is staring at and there should be
a deterrent to this.
TN Seshan was appointed as the 10th Chief Election Commissioner and served from 12 December 1990 to 11
December 1996. He became best known for his electoral reforms. He redefined the status and visibility of
the Election Commission of India.
When the EC was sought to be made as a three-member body for the second time in the early 1990s, the then
chief election commissioner, T.N. Seshan, in his inimitable style asked: “Can there be three sub-inspectors in a
police station?” Seshan was of the view that three members with equal powers and responsibilities would make
them superfluous, especially when the EC, according to him, did not have enough work, which could be shared
among them.
“I suffered from gross inadequacy of work when there were no elections to be conducted,” Seshan said
in an interview. “If three members are better than one, it can be argued that five are better than three,
and where does it stop,” Seshan had asked then.
Seshan’s view is that administrative decisions – in contrast to quasi-judicial decisions of the EC – can better be
taken by one person, rather than three. The Supreme Court rejected his contention in T.N. Seshan, the CEC v
Union of India, delivered on July 14, 1995.
Seshan’s concern is perhaps justified if one insists that the EC ought to take its administrative decisions by
consensus, and where there is none, a stalemate could make the body non-functional. Giving effect to majority
decisions, and making public both majority and dissenting views, bring transparency to the functioning of any
multi-member body. A single-member body too can be transparent in its functioning by giving reasoned
decisions, but a multi-member body, which is entrusted with quasi-judicial functions, cannot distinguish its
administrative functions, and argue that the principle of transparency is not applicable to the latter.
Much water has flown since the Seshan era. Today, it is unthinkable for any government at the Centre to
reduce the composition of the commission from three members to just one, that is the CEC, although the
Centre has that power to do so. It is not the volume of work in the EC, but the manner of its decision-making
that necessitates its plural composition, in order to imbue it with democratic character.
Even in terms of volume of work, it is difficult to imagine that an institution like the EC could suffer from
inadequacy of work, as it is expected to be in election preparedness all the time – whether it is holding
assembly elections in one or more states, or Lok Sabha elections in the entire country, let alone holding by-
elections whenever required.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of T.N.Seshan Chief Election ...
vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 July, 1995.
 During the 2019 General assembly elections, the ECI had received many complaints over PM Modi and
Amit Shah's speeches.
 The Election Commissioners had given clean chits to PM Modi and Amit Shah
 It was reported that EC Ashok Lavasa had expressed dissent over the ECI clean chits given.
MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES
including aspects such as General Conduct, Meetings, Procession, Polling day, Polling Booth, Observers, Party
in power, Guidelines on election manifestos,
During the time when Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force, the Election commission had received
many complaints over some of the speeches made by Prime Minister Modi and Union Home Minister Amit
Shah.
The commission consisting of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sunil Arora, and Election
Commissioners Sushil Chandra and Ashok Lavasa had given clean chits to PM Modi and Amit Shah.
However, it was reported that Ashok Lavasa had expressed dissent over the ECI clean chits to four
speeches of PM Modi and one of Amit Shah. Lavasa had later gone on to ask the ECI to make his dissent
public.
The ECI had refused to make the dissent public but said that it would be part of the record and thus could be
obtained under Right to Information (RTI).
Ashok Lavasa’s dissent in the ECI’s “clean chits” to one of the political parties gives us an occasion to turn
back the pages of legal history and understand how the Election Commission came to be a multi-member body
in the first place.
To understand this, it becomes important for us to revisit T.N. Seshan v. UOI. Since independence there
was only one head of the Election Commission i.e. Chief Election Commissioner. However, in 1993 the then
government amended the law and brought an Ordinance with President’s assent under Article 324(2) of the
Indian Constitution fixing the number of ECs at two and appointed Mr. M.S. Gill and Mr. G.V.G.
Krishnamurthy as the two ECs. The then CEC, T.N. Seshan accused the govt. of taking such an action to
prevent him from taking any action against alleged violation of code of conduct by the ruling party and also
curb his powers. Thus, he (along with few other petitioners) moved the Supreme Court by way of a writ
petition.
The two issues that were to be decided by the court were:- 1.)Whether the appointment of the other
election commissioners was intra-vires the constitution of India and 2.) Constitutional validity of the
Ordinance and therefore the Act, and the orders thereto.
The petitioners contented that Centre’s intention behind issuance of the notifications and appointments was
malafide and the Ordinance was only issued with the purpose to side-line CEC and erode his authority. They
also argued that Section 9 and 10 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election
Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 are ultra vires the constitution and inconsistent with
Article 324 of the Indian Constitution as the said Article did not give any power to Parliament to frame rules
for transaction of business of the EC and also does not lay down any procedures/rules for the functioning of a
multi-member Commission. Section 9 of the said act deals with the transaction of business of EC and Section
10 deals with the disposal of business by EC. Section 10 was also challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary,
unworkable and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The final argument made by the
petitioners was that the role of the additional Commissioners is only to tender advice to the CEC.
The respondents denied the allegations of there being any connections between the discomfiture of the then
ruling party at Centre and conversion of Election Commission into a multi-member body. It argued that the
concerned Ordinance was framed in accordance with the observations in S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of
India as per which vast discretionary powers, with virtually no checks and balances, should not be left in
the hands of a single individual. It was contended that the plain language of Article 324 envisages a
multi-member Commission and any act undertaken to achieve this object cannot be termed as ultra
vires or mala fide. It was also contended that the said provision is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14
as in case of a difference of opinion, the majority view shall prevail which exhibits democratic principles. It
was also contended that Section 9 and Section 10 are intra vires the Constitution and no mala fides can be
attributed to the exercise of President’s legislative power under Article 123 of the Indian constitution.
The whole issue came to end when the apex court handed down its decision, upholding the appointment
of the additional Commissioners and rejecting the petitioner’s argument in whole.
The Court, referring to Dhanoa case, held that there is no doubt that that two heads are better than one
particularly when an institution like the EC is entrusted with vital functions.
Pertaining to the putting ECs and RCs on the same level as that of CEC, the court overruled its earlier decision
in Dhanoa case on this score and emphatically declared that the Act treating CEC at par with ECs is not
unconstitutional and said that Article 324(1) entrusts the task of conducting all elections in the country to a
commission and not to an individual. It further stated that nobody can be above the institution which he is
supposed to serve and is merely the creature of this Institution. Answering to petitioners’ contention that Art.
324 does not lay down any procedures/rules for the functioning of a multi-member Commission, court,
referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England which contained the principle of considering the majority view in the
decision made by a multi-member body, and considered this principle to fill the procedural gaps created by
Article 324. A.M. Ahmadi, the then CJI, said that that idea of considering the additional Commissioners as
advisors to the CEC runs against the grain of Article 324 and would render them mere “ornamental”
functionaries. It was also held by the Honourable Court that the President or the Council of Ministers cannot be
held liable for mala fide intentions as the talks for expanding the size of the Commission was in due
considerations since a long time.
To deal with the question of legislative competence of the Parliament or President to intervene by way of
Legislation/Ordinances, the Court adopted a very clever tactic to side-step this argument by stating that even if
Petitioner’s argument were to be accepted, the procedure evolved by the Commission itself would, in any case,
have to be the same as that which had been evolved through the Ordinance.
The observations made by the apex court comes in handy and the net result is, now, the CEC is the primus
inter parties, i.e., first among the equals in the multimember body. The appointment of ECs ensures a system
where there are checks and balances on the CEC to ensure that it does not have uncontrolled powers. Putting
the ECs at the same pedestal as that of CEC is important for ECs to function independently otherwise they
would be reduced to the status of non-functional and mere advisors and the purpose of their appointment
would not be fulfilled. An analogy can be drawn between the relationship shared by CEC and ECs and the one
shared by Chief Justice and judges. Just like CJ, the CEC is not in a position to influence ECs in course of
discharging their functions. The rule of majority has been adopted in the process of decision making as in a
multi-member body it is very difficult to come to a unanimous conclusion at all times. The removal process
under Article 324(5) somewhat seems to put CEC at a higher pedestal as the CEC can only be removed on the
grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity whereas, the EC’s can be removed on the recommendation of
the CEC. However, court’s interpretation regarding the recommendations passed by CEC satisfying the test of
finding a nexus between intelligible and compelling considerations and functioning of the Commission seems
to be a silver lining in the cloud.
Thus, T.N. Seshan v. Union of India reflects the idea that any constitutional institution is greater than an
individual and it is the duty of the office bearers of these institutions to uphold the spirit of the
Constitution by fulfilling their duties cautiously and harmoniously.
Even ballot boxes have now been replaced by EVM’s. In the past, there were incidents of rigging and violence
as well- however, these days, such incidents have gone down drastically. We have also had the introduction of
VVPAT’s as well. All these developments go to suggest that there have been significant improvements in the
electoral system.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain case (1975):
Introduction
This is a case regarding Election Disputes involving the Prime Minister and Purpose of 39th
Amendment of the Constitution.
Facts Of The Case | Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case (1975)
 In this case, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the decision of the Allahabad High Court
invalidating Smt. Indira Gandhi’s election on the ground of corrupt practices. In the meantime, the
Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced and added a new Article
392A to the Constitution of India.
 The Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted on 10 August 1975, placed
the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok
Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the Indian courts. It was passed during the Emergency of 1975–
1977. It was stated by this Article 392A that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker
cannot be challenged in any court n the country. It can be rather challenged before a committee
formed by the Parliament itself.
 Although the Supreme Court validated the election of Indira Gandhi but declared the
39th Amendment to be unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the constitution.
 The 39th Amendment was made to validate with retrospective effect the election of the then Prime
Minister which was set aside by the Allahabad High Court.
Issue Of The Case | Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case (1975)
 The main question involved in the case was of the validity of clause (4) of the Constitution
39th Amendment Act, 1975. The contention was that this clause in question not only wiped out the
High Court judgement but also the election and the law relating thereto.
Judgement Of The Case | Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case (1975)
 The clause was struck down by the Court on the ground that it violated free and fair elections which
was an essential feature that formed the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. The exclusion of
judicial review in election disputes in this manner resulted in damaging the Basic Structure.
 The Supreme Court held clause (4) of the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975 as
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the Right to Equality
enshrined in Article 14, It was held by the Court that these provisions were arbitrary and were
calculated to damage and destroy the Rule of Law.
 Justice H.R. Khanna held, that the democracy is the Basic Structure of the Constitution and it
includes free and fair election which cannot be violated.
 The Supreme Court In this case, added the following feature as ‘Basic Features” to the list of basic
features laid down in Kesavananda Case. These are –
o Rule of Law
o Democracy, that implies free and fair elections
o Judicial Review
To simply understand the meaning of rule of law, it means that no man is above law and also that every
person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank. ... In other
words, as per Article 13 of the Indian Constitution rule of law means law of land. Rule of law is a principle
under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: Publicly promulgated.
Equally enforced. Independently adjudicated. And consistent with international human rights principles. The
rule of law exists when a state's constitution functions as the supreme law of the land, when the statutes
enacted and enforced by the government invariably conform to the constitution.
Judicial review is a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary.
... Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the power of the judiciary to
supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. Judicial review is the
idea, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and
possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review is the power of an independent judiciary, or courts of
law, to determine whether the acts of other components of the government are in accordance with the
constitution. Any action that conflicts with the constitution is declared unconstitutional and therefore nullified..
Compare various aspects between the President and the Vice-President of India.
Sl. # President of India Vice President of India
1 Elected by an Electoral College consisting of elected members of both Elected by an Electoral College consisting
the Houses of the Parliament-the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and of the members of both the Houses of the
of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Parliament i.e.. . the Rajya Sabha and the
Lok Sabha (elected & nominated both) .
2 The election is held in accordance with the system of proportional The election is held in accordance with the
representation by means of a single transferable vote. system of proportional representation by
means of a single transferable vote
3 No person shall be eligible for election as the President unless he is a No person shall be eligible for election as
citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years. the Vice- President unless he is a citizen of
India and has completed the age of thirty-
five years.
4 To become the President, a person should also be qualified to become To become the Vice-President, a person
a member of the House of the People, the Lok Sabha. should be qualified to become a member of
the Council of States, the Rajya Sabha.
5 A person shall not be eligible for the election as the President if he A person shall not be eligible for election
holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the as the Vice-President if he holds any office
Government of any State of profit under the Government of India or
the Government of any State
6 The terms of the office is for five years from the date of entering upon The terms of the office is for five years
the office. from the date of entering upon the office.
7 The President may resign his office by writing his resignation to the The Vice-President may resign his office
Vice-President. by writing his resignation to the President.
8 The President may be removed from his office by a resolution of The Vice-President may be removed from
impeachment passed by a majority of not jess than two-thirds of the his office by a resolution passed by the
total members in both the Houses of the Parliament, separately. Council of States by a two-thirds majority
and agreed to by the House of the People
with 50% majority.
9 The President exercises the executive powers of the Union on the The Vice-President is the ex-officio
advice of the Council of Ministers Chairman of the Council of States and acts
as the President in his absence.
10 The President is entitled to get a monthly salary of ₹ 5,00,000 The Vice-President is entitled to get a
monthly salary of ₹ 4,00,000 and when he
acts as the President he gets a monthly
salary of ₹ 5,00,000 per month.
What is the distinction between the Indian president and the American President ???
Sl. The Indian President The American President
#
1 The Indian president is only the head of the State. The US President is both the Head of the State
and Head of the Government. President of the
US is the real executive.
2 Indian President has comparatively lesser veto power than the The President of US can veto a bill passed by
President of US. the Congress. He needs to sign the bill if it is
The Indian President on the other hand can send the bill for once again passed by two-thirds majority of
reconsideration only once. If the bill is passed again even by a both the houses.
simple majority in the Parliament he is obliged to sign the bill.
3 Indian President can keep the bill for indefinite period as there is US President can exercise his pocket veto power
no constitutionally prescribed time limit to give his assent. The by not signing the bill for 10 days if he knows
President can use his pocket veto if the fall of the government the session of the congress will end within 10
appears imminent. However, he has to act as per the advice of the days. In such cases the bill dies.
new government and cannot take his own decision if the current
government falls. Pocket veto was first exercised by the President
Giani Zail Singh with respect to the Indian Postal Bill which was
passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government. Subsequently, the new
government withdrew the bill in 1989.
4 In India, the Parliament includes the President and the two houses- The US president is not part of any legislature
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. and is not responsible to the legislatures.
#
5 The Indian President needs to act as per the advice of the Council In the US, the members of the cabinet are not
of Ministers (CoM) while discharging his duties. The CoM takes members of the Congress and are not
all the decisions pertaining to the affairs of the country and responsible to it. The cabinet members are
executes them under the President’s name. appointed by the President and they are liable to
be dismissed by the President. The American
President has the power to determine the policy
of his government independently without any
external interference.
6 The Indian President can dissolve the Parliament. The US President does not have such powers.
and cannot dissolve Legislature.
7 The Indian president holds the office for 5 years and is eligible for American President holds the office for 4
re-election any number of times. years and he can seek re-election only once.
8 In India either house can initiate impeachment proceedings against The Constitution gives the House of
the president and with the concurrence of the other house can Representatives the sole power to impeach an
impeach the President. official, and it makes the Senate the sole court
for impeachment trials.
9 The Indian President addresses his resignation to the Vice- The US President addresses his resignation to
President. the Secretary of State.
#
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney vs Union Of
India And Ors on 13 December, 1999.
Case Summary – Indra Sawhney v Union of India & Ors
Affirmative action, which is commonly referred to in India as reservation, was an earnest attempt by the
framers of the Constitution to bring in socio-economic equality in Indian society, particularly, the reservation
in matters of Public Employment as provided in Article 16 of the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution were aware and conscious of the lack of homogeneity of the Indian Society,
and apart from the differences in religion, culture, language, etc. there existed people who were in comparison
weaker than others – economically, socially and culturally. To ameliorate the conditions of weaker and
backward classes, and to make them at par with the other sections of society, the Constitution gave us a
mechanism to safeguard the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes.
As such, provision for reservation was adopted in the Constitution. Reservation to the socially and
economically deprived people as such is not a new concept enshrined in the Indian Constitution, but, has been
in existence in the pre-constitutional era as well. It is important to mention here the reservation granted by the
former princely state of Mysore on the recommendations of the committee set up in the year 1918. The
demand for some kind of affirmative action had also been taken up before by people like Jyotibha Phule and
others, and the British did give reservation to some of these classes but their motives were always suspect.
Over the years reservation has become more of a political tool than an earnest attempt to establish an
egalitarian society.
A landmark in the issue of reservation was the judgement pronounced in Indra Sawhney v Union Of India &
Ors by the Supreme Court. What follows is an attempt to summarise this important judgment.
In the year 1979, the then Prime Minister Shri Morarji Desai appointed the second Backward Classes
Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution.
 The Commission was headed by B.P. Mandal and its mandate was to investigate the status of socially
and educationally backward classes in India.
 When the Commission finally submitted its report in 1980, it recommended a reservation of 27
percent in government jobs for these castes.
 The collapse of the Janata Party government complicated matters and the recommendations of the
report could not be implemented.
 There wasn’t much progress in this respect for several years until Janata Dal regained power in 1989
and decided to implement the recommendations of the report and reserved 27 percent of the seats for
socially backward classes.
 This was followed by reservation and anti-reservation protests in large parts of the country some of
which led to riots.
 When the government action was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition, the
then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao brought in another order which increased the reservation
limit to 37 percent while including economically, socially and educationally backward classes as well.
The five-judge bench referred the matter to a nine-judge bench.
Issues Before the Court
The court further framed issues, the adjudication of which was essential to deal with the situation at hand,
some of these issues were:
 Whether caste on its own constitutes a different class and whether economic criteria could by itself be
the determinant of a class.
 Whether Article 16(4) was an exception to Article 16(1) and is exhaustive in itself of the rights of
reservation.
 Does Article 16(4) allow classification of ‘Backward Classes’ into Backward Classes and Most
Backward Classes or permit classification among them based on economic or other considerations.
Contentions of the petitioners:
The advocates for the petitioners led by Nani Palkhiwala argued that reservation further provoked the evil of
the caste system and this evil will hamper India’s march towards being a welfare state. They further argued
that if the reservation was continued it will replace standard with sub-standard and meritocracy with
mediocrity. Petitioners also alleged that the Mandal report was in essence trying to rewrite the Constitution.
Contentions of the respondents:
The respondent State said that the report merely gives the backward classes a means to fulfil their just claims.
They argued that the report was a continuation of the first minorities commission which also recommended
affirmative action to right the wrongs that backward classes have faced for centuries together.
The court in its judgement laid down the following rules
 Backward classes under Article 16(4) cannot be identified on the basis of economic criteria but the
caste system also needs to be considered.
 Article 16(4) is not an exception to clause 1 but an instance of classification as envisaged by clause 1.
 Backward classes in article 16(4) were different from the socially and educationally backward
mentioned in Article 15(4).
 The concept of a creamy layer was laid down and it was directed that such a creamy layer be excluded
while identifying backward classes.
 Article 16(4) does allow the classification of backward classes into backward and more backward.
 Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent, moreover, reservation in promotions shall not be allowed.
 Any new disputes regarding criteria were to be raised in the Supreme Court only.
After Indra Sawhney case
A number of developments in the reservation have taken place after the Indra Sawhney case. The Parliament
responded by enacting the 77th Amendment to the Constitution by adding clause [4A] to Article 16 in 1995,
by virtue of which powers are conferred to the State to reserve seats in favour of SC & ST in promotions in
Public Services if communities are not adequately represented in public employment. The Supreme Court
upheld the validity of Article 16(4A) in M. Nagaraj Vs Union of India 2006, and it has laid three requirements:
 SC & ST should be socially and educationally backward.
 No adequate representation for SC and ST in public employment.
 It shall not affect the over efficiency in the administration.
A number of state governments enacted the law in consequence of the 77th Amendment of the Constitution
e.g., Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of
Reservation (to the posts in Civil Services of the State), 2018 was enacted by the State of Karnataka, and
Supreme Court upheld its validity in 2019.
Earlier in BK Pavitra Case, Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on
the Basis of the Reservation Act, 2002 was held to be unconstitutional on the ground that the State had not
undertaken to determine ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and the impact on overall efficiency
before passing the law.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the apex court has also said that, there is no fundamental right which
inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions, in the recent judgment of Mukesh Kumar V State
of Uttarakhand which was pronounced in February 2020.
Conclusion
The court in the Indra Sawhney case tried to come up with a solution that is reasonable and strikes a fine
balance between the society and rights of the backward classes. Removing economic criteria as the sole
determinant of classification was also a step in the right direction as was the exclusion of the creamy layer who
had already benefited enough from affirmative action. The Court ruling may have been considerate but
subsequent amendments by successive governments to fiddle with the reservation criteria further established
the fact that reservation above all had now well and truly become about vote-bank politics more than anything
else.
In the almost three decades after this landmark ruling, the anti-reservation voices have started gathering
momentum but the lawmakers should remind themselves of the duties the framers have given them through the
means of the Constitution. The reservation phenomenon has certainly helped in uplifting the backward classes
but there is a long way to go before all historical wrongs are set right.
Frequently Asked Questions about Indra Sawhney Judgement
What is the Indra Sawhney Judgement?
On 16 November 1992, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, upheld the government order, being of the
opinion that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness. Thus, the recommendation of
reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992.
What was the outcome of the judgement?
This judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit
Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India verdicts, which said that reservations could be made in
promotions as well as appointments. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be
applied in promotions.
Frequently Asked Questions about Mandal Commissions
What was the role of Mandal Commission?
Mandal Commission was set up in 1979 January by Morarji Desai government to identify the socially or
educationally backward classes to consider the question of seat reservations and quotas for people to redress
caste discrimination, and used eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness.
What were the recommendation of Mandal Commission?
The Commission recommended that members of OBCs be given 27 per cent reservations for jobs under
the Central government and public sector undertakings. This would take the total number of
reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to 49 per cent.
=========================================
Indra Sawhney became a household name in 1992 after her challenge to Narasimha Rao’s forward
quota move led the Supreme Court to impose a 50% cap on caste-based reservations. History may now
repeat itself with the senior advocate mulling a challenge to the Narendra Modi government’s pre-poll
move to grant 10% reservation to ‘economically weaker’ sections in the general category. A
Constitution Amendment Bill to the effect was passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, and has been tabled in
the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. Sawhney said the move will only result in “deserving candidates in general
category losing out on opportunities.” Recalling her landmark challenge to the Narasimha Rao government’s
1992 decision on reservation in government jobs for ‘poor’ sections in upper castes, Sawhney said her decision
was prompted by a protest rally she witnessed in Delhi’s Jhandewala Extension.
Indra Sawhney argued that the bill would reduce the share of deserving candidates to just 40%.
“A rally was going on. I saw young children, school and college students on the road. I filed the case within
two days. But I never thought it would go on for so long,” she said, adding that the case went through a
number of bench compositions before it was decided by the Justice Venkatachaliah-led bench.
“The media was vigorously reporting all the proceedings in the court and the arguments went on for a long
time. The hearing began with a two-judge bench, then went through a three-judge bench, five-judge bench,
seven-judge bench and then a nine-judge bench,” Sawhney told.
It was the nine-judge bench that decided the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, wherein it upheld that the
Mandal Commission’s 27 percent quota for Backward classes, as well as the quota for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes should not exceed the 50% mark.
The bench had also struck down the Narasimha Rao government’s notification reserving 10% government jobs
for ‘economically backward classes’ among the Upper Castes.
One of the most important parts of the 1992 verdict was that ‘backward classes’ mentioned in Article 16(4) of
the Constitution can be identified only on the basis of caste and not economic conditions. According to
Sawhney, the Modi government’s move to amend Article 15 and 16 would be challenged as it was in 1992.
“The economic criterion laid down would cover majority of the population of India, thereby depriving
substantial minority of their right to equality and recognition of the right to be selected on merits in open
competition. Therefore, it will be against the basic structure of the Constitution,” she said.
The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India verdict was also referred to by opposition parties when the 124th
Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.
Sawhney agreed that the bill would reduce the share of deserving candidates to just 40%.
“This reservation for EWS in Upper Caste is not correct. Now, candidates who should qualify on merit, will
have more difficulty in securing an opportunity because only 40% seats would remain after 10% quota is given
to EWS. At present, it’s 50% seats for merit and 50% reservation,” the veteran lawyer said.
In Parliament, Union Minister of Social Justice Thawar Chand Gehlot has attempted to allay such concerns,
saying previous attempts to grant similar quotas had failed as there was no constitutional provision to back it.
The Union Minister also said that he was “fully confident” that the bill would not attract the ire of the Supreme
Court because a constitutional amendment was being brought in before bringing a bill on the reservation itself.
However, Sawhney said the 1992 verdict would still play a big role in shaping the future course. She added
that she has never received any backlash for challenging the reservation.
==========================================
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs
Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980.
Minerva Mills case (1980) (Basic Structure which includes Parliament's power to amend and the power of
Judicial Review)
In this case, the validity of the 42nd amendment act was challenged on the ground that they are violative of the
‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 and
it was ruled by the court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. The court
held that the amendment made to Article 31C is invalid on the ground that they violate two basic features of
the Constitution that are the limited nature of the parliament of the power to amend and the power of judicial
review.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is the Supreme, not the
Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution to
which it owes its existence and also derives its power from.
Introduction
 Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India is one of the most important judgments which guarded the ‘basic
structure’ of the Constitution form being amended by parliament.
 The constitutionality of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1986 gave the parliament
‘unlimited powers’ to amend the constitution and hence were struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Issue
 Constitutional Validity of 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976
Background | Minerva Mills case (1980)
 The Parliament in order to serve general public interest came up with a noble solution by
reconstructing bad assets of companies having importance to the general public. Therefore, in
accordance with the achievement of the said solution the Parliament enacted The sick textile
undertakings (taking over of management) Act, 1974 [Act no. 57 of 1974] on December 24, 1974.
 Minerva Mills was a textile industry in the State of Karnataka engaged in the mass production of silk
clothes and provided market to the general public. The Central Govt. was suspicious that company
fulfilled the criteria to be classified as a sick industry. Therefore, the Central Govt. in 1970 appointed
a committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for making a full
detailed report analyzing the affairs of Minerva Mills. Relying on the Committee’s report, on October
19, 1971 the Central govt. empowered National Textile Corporation Limited (a body under the 1951
act) to take over the management of Minerva Mills u/s 18A of the 1951 act.
 Earlier through 39th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1975 the Parliament inserted Nationalization
Act, 1974 into Ninth Schedule which means that any challenge on the said act was outside the
purview of judicial review. Now, the petitioner was not able to challenge this aspect of 39th
amendment since this remedy was barred by 42nd Amendment. The Parliament after suffering
massive defeat in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain in order to make its power and authority
supreme passed 42nd amendment to bar any challenge on constitutional amendments in courts of law.
Hence, this undertaking was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the
provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the
Nationalization Act).
 Thereafter, the petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, however,
dismissed their petition.
 The petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under article 32 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
 They challenged the constitutionality and validity of the following;
o Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with 2nd schedule), 25 and 27, of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1974
o Order of the Central Government dated October 19, 1971
o Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976; and
o The primacy given to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental Rights.
Judgement | Minerva Mills case (1980)
 This landmark Judgment came on July 31, 1980.
 By this judgement, the court declared two changes made in the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment
Act 1976 to be null and void.
First change | Minerva Mills case (1980)
 By the section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, changes were made in Article 368 of the Constitution
(which provides for power and procedure for amendment of the Constitution). Clause 4 and 5 were
added to this Article 368, which were as follows :
o (4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or
purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement of
section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in
question in any court on any ground.
o (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever
on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the
provisions of this Constitution under this article.
 The court ruled both these clauses unconstitutional as –
o the 13 judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati case had put limitations on the power of
Parliament to amend the Constitution, through the Doctrine of Basic Structure
o these changes restricted the court’s power of ‘Judicial Review‘, which was adjudged to be a
part of Basic Structure, and hence, was inviolable.
Second change | Minerva Mills case (1980)
 By the 25th Amendment Act 1971, Article 31C was inserted in the Constitution which provided for
precedence of Article 39(b) and 39(c), i.e. two of the directive principles, over Article 14, 19 and 31
(fundamental rights).
 This was upheld by the court in Kesavananda Bharati case.
 But by the 42nd amendment, Article 31C was amended to give precedence to all the directive
principles over Article 14, 19 and 31.
 The court declared this change as unconstitutional.
Decision of the Court | Minerva Mills case (1980)
 The court in the judgment dated July 31, 1980 by majority of 4:1 held the sections 4 and 55 of the
42nd (Amendment) Act 1986 as null and void.
 Further, the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21 (read with
2nd schedule), 25 and 27, of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, was
dismissed.
==========================================
What is the Berubari case (1960)?

The Berubari dispute was a dispute between India and Pakistan.
The Supreme Court can act as an advisor for the President in some instances. When the Indian
subcontinent was partitioned, boundaries were drawn to delineate territories. There was an area called
‘Berubari’ in the Cooch Behar district of West Bengal. It was treated as part of India. There was some
dispute about this territory, and it was finally agreed that half of Berubari needed to be transferred to
East Pakistan. In this case, the President consulted the Supreme Court. And the court directed that the
Constitution should be amended such that this territory could be transferred.
At the time of partition of India and Pakistan, the task of demarcation of boundaries was assigned to Sir
Radcliffe.(it was decided that task of demarcation shall be assigned to a person who doesn’t know about
geography of India and never visited it. This was to ensure no bias while demarcation)
He distributed Thanas between India and Pakistan and the boundaries of such Thanas would going to be the
ultimate boundary between India and Pakistan.
There was this Thana ‘Berubari’ in Jalpaigudi district of West Bengal. Radcliffe awarded it to India but
unfortunately it was not mentioned in the written text of the award.
This gave opportunity to Pakistan to claim on Berubari, citing a reason that Berubari falls in the map of
Pakistan.
Dispute continued till Nehru-Noon agreement was signed in 1958 between India and Pakistan. (Feroz shah
Noon was the then PM of Pakistan)
In the agreement, the territory of Berubari Union was divided and distributed equally between India and
Pakistan. (Against the wishes of West Bengal govt)
After criticism, Union govt decided to refer matter to the supreme Court. (That’s why case is named In Re
Berubari Union )
Supreme Court said article 3 (c) give parliament a power to diminish state territory but doesn’t give power to
cede. Mere exercising power under article 3 is not sufficient, Parliament has to bring an amendment to the
Constitution using power and procedure mentioned in article 368. (It should be noted that amendment using
article 3 can be done by an ordinary majority in the parliament, but under Article 368, special majority is
required)
So 9th Constitutional Amendment Act 1960 was enacted to give effect to the agreement.
Now you will also understand that why 100th Constitutional Amendment Act, which allows to exchange
enclaves between India and Bangladesh, was enacted in 2015.
Note- Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that, settlement of boundary dispute between India and any other country
doesn’t require constitutional amendment, it can be done by an executive action (govt action), if it doesn’t
involve cession of a territory.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of The Berubari Union Case.
Facts:
In the case of Re Berubari Case, the States of Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned. A commission was
appointed as Sir Cyril Redcliffe as its chairman for apportionment of the state of Bihar. A boundary was fixed
between India and Pakistan are known as the Redcliffe line. After this, there arose certain tiffs between India
and Pakistan on the exact location of the apportionment. Sir Radcliffe apportioned the district of Jalpaiguri
between the two countries by giving some thanas to India while remaining thanas to Pakistan. During the
process, he omitted one than, ie; Berubari Union No. 12, and was later awarded to India on 12Th of August,
1947. The omission made by the commission and erroneous depiction on the map gave Pakistan the liberty to
claim the territory as its own.
During all these processes was underway, the Indian Constitution came into force on 26th of January, 1950,
and Article 1 of our constitution provided India shall be a Union of States and shall be mentioned in Part A, B,
and C of the First Schedule of the constitution. West Bengal was included in Part A of the Indian Constitution
and Berubari Union No. 12 was also included in it as it was awarded by the boundary Commission to India.
The Pakistani Government contended its claim over the Berubari Union for the first time in 1952. The areas
under the Berubari union remained under the territory of India till such time was a part of West Bengal. The
dispute was resolved in 1958 by an agreement wherein half of the Berubari Union was awarded to India while
the other half was retained by India.
Issues:
The issues raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were:
1. Whether there is a need for legislative action to carry out an agreement relating to the Berubari union?
2. Whether the case where there is such a need for action, does a law of parliament concerning Article 3 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 sufficient, or is an amendment of the constitution following article 368 of constitution
necessary, besides, or in the alternative?
1. Whether the with Article 3 of the Constitution of India parliament empowered to implement the agreement
relating to Berubari’s Union or is there a need for amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution for such
action?
Judgment:
After hearing arguments advanced by both the parties and considering the facts of the case the Supreme court
of India stated that the parliament has to first amend article 3 of the constitution under article 368 of the
constitution only if the Parliament chooses first to pass a law amending Art. 3 of the Constitution as indicated
above; in that case, parliament may have to pass a law on those lines under Article 368 of the constitution of
India and then follow it up with a law relatable to the amended Art. 3 to implement the agreement as law
relatable to Article 3 of the Indian constitution would be incompetent in this context the bench opined.
The court further ruled that even though the preamble forms as a key to the mind of the makers of the
constitution, and strictly talks about India being a sovereign yet it cannot restrain the legislation from its
functions, nor can it be used for deciding ambiguous part of our constitution. It is not a source of the several
powers conferred to the parliament under the provisions of the Constitution; Such powers embrace those
expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those granted; What is true
about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations; The Preamble of our constitution did
not indicate the assumptions that the first part of the Preamble postulates a very serious limitation on one of the
very important attributes of sovereignty.
Conclusion:
There are certain instances when the legislature seeks advice on the Constitutionality and legality of a number
of its own actions. The Supreme Court must attempt to interpret the laws in such a way that it doesn't lower
down the quality of the Indian Constitution our forefathers have given to us and it also doesn't crumple within
the eyes of other countries tarnishing the image of the lengthiest Constitution of the globe.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of M.C. Mehta And Anr vs
Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986(Shriram Industries Case)
This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs
Fletcher to be followed; issue of compensation. SC held that its power under Article 32 is not
restricted to preventive measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also
held that in the case of industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities,
Absolute Liability was to be followed. Finally, it also said that the amount of compensation
must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry so that it will be a deterrent.
1st case (Facts)

A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he sought closure for Shriram Industries as it
was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti
Nagar.While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6 December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one of
its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The incident took
place on December 4, 1985.
Just after one year from the Bhopal gas disaster a large number of persons – both amongst the workmen and
public were affected. This incident also reminded of the Bhopal gas holocaust.
M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution and sought closure and relocation of the
Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant which was located in a thickly populated area of Delhi.
Factories were closed down immediately as Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued
separate orders dated December 8 and 24, 1985 . This incident took place only a few months before
Environment (Protection) Act came into force, thus became a guiding force for having an effective law like
this.
There are six reported orders in the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry case of the Supreme Court of India,
out of these six, four orders were pronounced before Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed and the
date from which it came into force. Thus the reported orders are relevant and important as they shed new light
on how highly toxic and hazardous substances industry should be dealt with and contained and controlled to
minimize hazards to the workers and general public.
Issues -:
 Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas
 If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be evolved.
 Liability and amount of compensation how to be determined.
Decision -:
Chief Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the safety of the people of the Delhi from the leakage of
hazardous substances like the one here – oleum gas. He was of the opinion that we cannot adopt the policy to
do away with chemical or hazardous industries as they also help to improve the quality of life, a sin this case
this factory, was supplying chlorine to Delhi Water Supply Undertaking which is used to maintain the
wholesomeness of drinking water. Thus industries even if hazardous have to be set up since they are essential
for economic development and advancement of well being of the people.
"We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for
locating such industries in a matter which would pose least risk of danger to the community and maximizing
safety requirements in such industries "
Thus the Supreme Court was of the opinion that total ban on the above industry of public utility will impede
the developmental activities.
It was also observed that permanent closure of the factory would result in the unemployment of 4000 workers,
caustic soda factory and add to social problem of poverty. Therefore the court made an order to open the
factory temporarily subject to eleven conditions and appointed an expert committee to monitor the working of
the industry.
The court also suggested that a national policy will have to be evolved by the Government for the location of
toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard of relocation of such industries with
a view to eliminate risk to the community.
Some of the conditions formulated by the government were -:
 The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to inspect and see that pollution standards
set under the Water Act and Air Act to be followed.
 To constitute Worker's Safety Committee
 Industry to publicise the effects of chlorine and its appropriate treatment
 Instruct and train its workers in plant safety through audio visual programme, install loudspeaker to
alert neighbors in the event of leakage of gas
 Workers to use safety devices like masks and belts
 And that the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Limited, that in case
of escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen or people living in vicinity they will be
"personally responsible " for payment of compensation of such death or injury .
The Court also directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs 20 lakhs and to furnish a bank guarantee for
Rs. 15 lakhs for payment of compensation claims of the victims of oleum gas if there was any escape of
chlorine gas within three years from the date of order resulting in death or injury to any workmen or living
public in the vicinity . The quantum of compensation was determinable by the District Judge , Delhi .It also
shows that the court made the industry "absolutely liable " and compensation to be paid as when the injury was
proved without requiring the industry to be present in the case .
The above mentioned conditions were formulated to ensure continuous compliance with the safety standards
and procedures laid by the committees (Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee ) so
that the possibility of hazard or risk to workmen could be reduced to nil .
This all indicates that Supreme Court in its judgement emphasized that certain standard qualities to be laid
down by the government and further it should also make law on the management and handling of hazardous
substances including the procedure to set up and to run industry with minimal risk to humans , animals etc.
Further the industries cannot absolve itself of the responsibility by showing either that that they were not
negligent in dealing with the hazardous substance or they took all the necessary and reasonable precautions
while dealing with it. Thus the court applied the principle of no – fault liability in this case .
2nd case:
It modified some of the conditions which were laid down by Supreme Court ordered to be closed .
3rd case:
Issues:
In this case three important issues were raised -:
 What is the scope of Article 32 of Constitution ?
 The rule of last Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher rule to be followed .
 Issue of compensation to be awarded
Decision-
Scope of Article 32
The court observed that apart from issuing directions, it can under Article 32 forge new remedies and fashion
new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights . The power under Article 32 is not confined to
preventive measures when fundamental rights are threatened to be violated but it also extends to remedial
measures when the rights are already violated (vide Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India ) . The court
however held that it has power to grant remedial relief in appropriate cases where violation of
fundamental rights is gross and patent and affects persons on a large scale or where affected persons are
poor and backward.
Which rule to be followed Absolute Liability or Rylands v. Fletcher case?
Regarding the measure of liability of an industry engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in case
of an accident the court examined whether the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher would be applicable in such cases.
This rule laid down if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keep there anything likely to do
harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another he is liable to compensate for the damage caused.
The liability is thus strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without the person's wilful act, default or
neglect.
The exceptions to this rule are that it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due
to an act of god, act of stranger or the default of the person injured or where there is statutory authority .
The court held that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will all of its exceptions is not applicable for the
industries engaged in hazardous activities.
Supreme Court expounded that,
"This rule evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology has not
taken place. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the
new problems which arise in highly industrialized economy "
The court introduced new "no fault " liability standard (absolute liability). An industry engaged in
hazardous activities which poses a potential danger to health and safety of the persons working and
residing near owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results
to anyone. Such industry must conduct its activities with highest standards of safety and if any harm
results, the industry must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. It should be no answer to
industry to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that harm occurred without negligence on its
part. Since the persons harm would not be in position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous
preparation of the substance that caused the harm, the industry must be held absolutely liable for causing such
harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous activities. This principle is also sustainable on the
ground that the industry alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide
warning against potential hazards.
Issue of Compensation-
It was held that the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry
so that the compensation will have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous by the industry, the
greater will be the amount of compensation payable by it.
The court did not order payment of compensation to victims since it left open the question due to lack of
time to adjudicate whether Shriram, a private corporation was a state or authority which could be
subjected to the discipline of Article 21.
What is Ninth schedule of Constitution of India and discuss on its misuse.

The Ninth Schedule contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in courts. Currently,
284 such laws are shielded from judicial review.
“The Ninth Schedule was brought in the Indian Constitution on 18 June 1951 to abolish Zamindari system.
The Ninth Schedule contains a list of laws that cannot be challenged in courts. Out of 284 such laws which are
shielded from judicial review, 90 per cent of laws are about agriculture and landholding.
The Schedule became a part of the Constitution in 1951, when the document was amended for the first time. It
was created by the new Article 31B, which along with 31A was brought in by the government to protect laws
related to agrarian reform and for abolishing the Zamindari system. While Article 31A extends protection to
‘classes’ of laws, Article 31B shields specific laws or enactments.
During a speech in Parliament, Jawaharlal Nehru had said, “If there is agrarian trouble and insecurity of land
tenure nobody knows what is to happen. Therefore, these long arguments and these repeated appeals in courts
are dangerous to the State, from the security point of view, from the food production point of view, and from
the individual point of view, whether it is that of the zamindar or the tenant or any intermediary.”
Article 31B reads: “Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31A, none of the
Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be
void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or
takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any
judgment, decree or order of any court or Tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall,
subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.”
The First Amendment added 13 laws to the Schedule. Subsequent amendments in 1955, 1964, 1971, 1974,
1975, 1976, 1984, 1990, 1994, and 1999 have taken the number of protected laws to 284.
Article 31B also has retrospective operation: meaning if laws are inserted in the Ninth Schedule after they are
declared unconstitutional, they are considered to have been in the Schedule since their commencement, and
thus valid.
Although Article 31B excludes judicial review, the apex court has said in the past that even laws under the
Ninth Schedule would be open to scrutiny if they violated fundamental rights or the basic structure of the
Constitution.
While most of the laws protected under the Schedule concern agriculture/land issues, the list includes other
subjects, such as reservation. A Tamil Nadu law that provides 69 per cent reservation in the state is part of the
Schedule. Thereby this Schedule confers unlimited power to the Parliament to make judiciary silent to
question the constitutional validity of laws listed in the Ninth Schedule[4] by excluding the judicial review.
Initially, land reforms laws were placed in the Schedule with the sole object of abolishing the Zamindari
system, though they were violative of the right to property which was earlier considered as fundamental right.
But thereafter, especially in Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Constitutional Amendments during Indira Gandhi’s
period, Schedule was misused like anything by putting unrelated laws into the Ninth Schedule and it has
become Constitutional Dustbin in the hands of legislatures.
Acquisition of Indian Citizenship (IC)

Indian citizenship can be acquired by birth, descent, registration and naturalization. The conditions and
procedure for acquisition of Indian citizenship as per the provision of the Citizenship Act, 1955 are given
below:
(1) By Birth (Section 3)
A person born in India on or after 26th January 1950 but before 1st July, 1987 is citizen of India by birth
irrespective of the nationality of his parents.
A person born in India on or after 1st July,1987 but before 3rd December, 2004 is
considered citizen of India by birth if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth.
A person born in India on or after 3rd December, 2004 is considered citizen of India by birth if both the
parents are citizens of India or one of the parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at
the time of his birth.
An “illegal migrant”as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the Act is a foreigner who entered India.
(i) without a valid passport or other prescribed travel documents : or
(ii) with a valid passport or other prescribed travel documents but remains in India beyond the permitted period
of time.
(2) By Descent (Section 4)
A person born outside India on or after 26th January 1950 but before 10th December 1992
is a citizen of India by descent, if his father was a citizen of India by birth at the time of his birth. In case the
father was a citizen of India by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of India, unless his birth is
registered at an Indian Consulate within one year from the date of birth or with the permission of the Central
Government, after the expiry of the said period.
A person born outside India on or after 10th December 1992 but before 3rd December, 2004, is considered as a
citizen of India if either of his parents was a citizen of India by birth at the time of his birth. In case either of
the parents was a citizen of India by descent, that person shall not be a citizen of India, unless his birth is
registered at an Indian Consulate within one year from the date of birth or with the permission of the Central
Government, after the expiry of the said period.
A person born outside India on or after 3rd Decmber, 2004 shall not be a citizen of India, unless the parents
declare that the minor does not hold passport of another country and his birth is registered at an Indian
consulate within one year of the date of birth or with the permission of the Central Government, after the
expiry of the said period.
Procedure
Application for registration of the birth of a minor child to an Indian consulate under Section 4(1) shall be
made in Form-I and shall be accompanied by an undertaking in writing from the parents of such minor child
that he does not hold the passport of another country.
(3) By Registration (Section 5(1))
Indian Citizenship by registration can be acquired (not illegal migrant) by: -
Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India for SEVEN YEARS before making application
under section 5(1)(a) (throughout the period of twelve months immediately before making application and for
SIX YEARS in the aggregate in the EIGHT YEARS preceding the twelve months). Application shall be made
in Form I.
Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any country or place outside
undivided India under section 5(1)(b).
© Persons who are married to a citizen of India and who are ordinarily resident in India for SEVEN YEARS
(as mentioned at (a) above) before making application under section 5(1)(c). Application shall be made
in Form-II.
Minor children whose both parents are Indian citizens under section 5(1)(d). Application shall be made by his
parents in Form-III.
Persons of full age whose both parents are registered as citizens of India under section 5(1)(a) or section 6(1)
can acquire Indian citizenship under section 5(1)(e). Application shall be made in Form III-A.
Persons of full age who or either of the parents were earlier citizen of Independent India and residing in India
for ONE YEAR immediately before making application under section 5(1)(f). Application shall be made
in Form III- B.
Persons of full age and capacity who has been registered as an OVERSEAS CITIZEN OF INDIA (OCI) for
five years and residing in India for ONE YEAR before making application under section 5(1)(g). Application
shall be made in Form III-C.
Clarification: A person shall be deemed to be a Person of Indian origin if he, or either of his parents, was born
in undivided India or in such other territory which became part of India after the 15th day of August, 1947.
(4) By Registration (Section 5(4))
Any minor child can be registered as a citizen of India under Section 5(4), if the Central Government is
satisfied that there are ?special circumstances? justifying such registration. Each case would be considered on
merits. Application shall be made in Form-IV.
Procedure
Application in relevant Form for grant of Indian citizenship by registration under section 5 has to be submitted
to the Collector/District Magistrate of the area where the applicant is resident. The application has to be
accompanied by all the documents and fees payments as mentioned in the relevant Forms. It is very important
that applications are complete in all respects otherwise valuable time of the applicant would be lost in making
good the deficiencies after they were detected. The application along with a report on the eligibility and
suitability of the applicant is to be sent by the Collector/District Magistrate to the concerned State
Government/UT Administration within 60 days. Thereafter, the State Govt./UT Administration shall forward
the application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India within 30 days.
Each application is examined in MHA in terms of the eligibility criteria under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and
the Citizenship Rules, 1956. If the applicant is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, communication to this
extent would be sent through the State Govts./UT Administration. Any deficiency in the application would be
brought to the notice of the applicant through the State Govt./ UT Administration. The applicant, thereafter,
has to make good the deficiency through the State Govts./UT Administration. No correspondence would be
made directly with the applicant. However, a copy of the correspondence through the State Govts./UT
Administration would be marked to the applicant. Each applicant whose case is found to be eligible after
scrutiny of application is informed about the acceptance of his application through the State Government. The
applicant should not renounce his foreign citizenship till the citizenship application is accepted and informed
of the decision. The applicant is then required to furnish through the State Government, a certificate of the
renunciation of his foreign citizenship issued by the mission of the concerned country, proof of fee payment as
per SCHEDULE IV of the Act, and personal particulars in Form-V. Thereafter, a certificate of Indian
citizenship is issued to the applicant through the State Government.
(5) By Naturalisation (Section 6)
A person can register to be a citizen by making an application for grant of naturalization, with the Central
Government if they are not an illegal immigrant and fall within the requirements of the third schedule of the
Citizenship Act. Any person that receives approval, and takes the oath of allegiance will be considered a
naturalized citizen of India from that date on.
Qualification requirements for naturalization:
The person is not a citizen of a country that prevents Indians from becoming citizens by naturalization in that
State.
The person will renounce their citizenship in the event their Indian citizenship application is accepted.
The person has been a resident in India or been in government service for 12 months immediately before the
application; and been a resident of India or in government service for the years preceding the 12 months.
The person is of good character.
The person has adequate knowledge of any language specified in the Indian Constitution.
The person intends to reside in India once the naturalization is complete.
Can you be a Dual Citizen: Overseas Citizens of India
Dual citizenship is not allowed under the Indian Constitution. A person is not allowed to hold an Indian
citizenship and the citizenship of a foreign country, at the same time. However, India does allow the
registration of persons of Indian origin as an Overseas Citizen of Indiaâ (known as OCI cardholder). OCI
cardholders are not considered Indian citizens but are granted similar rights through this special status.
An overseas citizenship is also helpful in times of investment into India, as overseas citizens are provided
relaxations in foreign direction investment regulations. Receiving registration under this category will allow a
person to retain rights in India while being a citizen of a foreign country. New rules have also been introduced
in March 2021 to provide certain more rights to OCI cardholders.
Persons of Indian origin that qualify under the below rules, should make an application with the central
government to register as an â€˜overseas citizen of Indiaâ€™.
The qualification criterion is as follows:
For persons that have reached the full age of majority (18 years), they must:
Be a citizen of another country but was a citizen of India either before or after the Indian Constitution came
into force.
Is a citizen of another country, but is eligible to become a citizen of India when the Indian Constitution came
into force.
Is a citizen of a territory that became a part of India after August 1947 or is a child or grandchild of such
citizens.
Any minor children of persons that qualify as above.
Hence, to register as an overseas citizen, the person must be an adult that qualifies along the above rules or the
minor child of an adult that also qualifies along the above rules.
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019:

An amendment was brought into the Citizenship Act in 2019 to provide greater protection for migrants from
certain persecuted regions or countries. According to the amendment, the persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into
India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and was provided an exemption from the central
government , will not be considered an illegal immigrant.
This protection will be granted only to those persons that had entered India before the 31st of December 2014
as that is the new cut-off date. While the amendment was introduced to provide protection to persecuted
communities, it has also been criticized for creating a classification based on religion and for not being
inclusive of all religions.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of S.R. Bommai vs Union Of
India on 11 March, 1994. Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
The SR Bommai case gave one of the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court regarding the basic structure
doctrine, as well as, regarding the blatant misuse of Article 356.
SR Bommai Case – Background
SR Bommai was the Karnataka Chief Minister between August 1988 and April 1989. He led a Janata Dal
government, which was dismissed on 21st April 1989 when President’s Rule (Article 356) was imposed in
Karnataka.
 Until that time, imposing Article 356 on states ruled by the opposition parties (to the one at the centre)
was a common practice.
 In this particular case, the Bommai-led government was dismissed on the grounds that he had lost his
majority because of several defections (that were politically motivated and master-minded).
 Even though Bommai presented the then Governor P Venkatasubbaiah with a copy of the resolution
passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party, he was denied an opportunity to prove his majority in the
house.
 Bommai first went to the Karnataka High Court against the Governor’s decision. However, his writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court.
 Then, Bommai moved the Supreme Court of India.
 This case took almost five years to see judgement.
 In March 1994, a nine-judge constitutional bench of the SC gave the landmark judgement, which
would go on to become one of the most widely cited one with respect to Article 356 and its arbitrary
usage by the Central government.
Disputes raised due to SR Bommai case
The SR Bommai case raised questions on the proclamation of President’s rule in a state. The Supreme Court
had to discuss the grounds and the extent of the imposition of President’s rule in a State. Questions were also
raised whether the imposition of President’s rule is challengable.
Bommai Case Judgement
This landmark verdict put restrictions on the centre for imposing the President’s Rule on states.
 It said that the power of the President to dismiss a government of a state is not absolute.
 It said that the President should use this power only after his proclamation (of imposing President’s
Rule) has been approved by both Houses of the Parliament.
 Until then, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly.
 In case the proclamation does not get the approval of both the Houses, it lapses at the end of a period
of two months, and the dismissed government is revived.
 The suspended Legislative Assembly also gets reactivated.
 The SC also stated that the proclamation of the imposition of Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
SR Bommai Case Significance
This case ended the practice of arbitrarily dismissing the state government by the central government. Earlier,
political parties used this mechanism given in the Constitution to get political mileage and settle scores with
opposition parties. The Bommai verdict restricted this practice to a large extent.
 The verdict also stated in no uncertain terms that the test of majority of the government should be
done in the floor of the Assembly and is not subject to the Governor’s opinion.
 In this case, there was no question of a constitutional amendment but even so, the concept of basic
doctrine was applied.
 The Supreme Court held that policies of a state government directed against an element of the basic
structure of the Constitution would be a valid ground for the exercise of the central power under
Article 356.
When was the verdict’s impact was first seen?
In one of the first instances of the impact of the case, the A.B. Vajpayee government in 1999 was forced to
reinstate a government it dismissed. The Rabri Devi government, which was sacked on February 12, 1999 was
reinstated on March 8, 1999 when it became clear that the Central government would suffer a defeat in the
Rajya Sabha over the issue.
And later whenever the case of a hung Assembly, and the subsequent exercise of government formation, came
up, the Bommai case would be cited, making it one of the most quoted verdicts in the country’s political
history.
Who was SR Bommai?
Somappa Rayappa Bommai was the 11th Chief Minister of Karnataka. He was also the union Human Resource
Development minister from 1996 to 1998.
What is the significance of the SR Bommai versus the Union of India case?
The Bommai verdict spelt out clearly that the imposition of Article 356 by the President on a state
government should not be arbitrary and there should be a solid ground for it. This judgement largely
helped put an end to the arbitrary impositions seen until then.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of H. H. Maharajadhiraja
Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970; Equivalent citations: 1971
AIR 530, 1971 SCR (3) 9; 1971 SCC (1) 85
PETITIONER: H. H. MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIWAJI RAO SCINDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1970
Facts of the case:
On the promulgation of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Princely States adjoining the Dominion
of India merged with the Dominion of India. The instruments of merger provided for_the integration
of the States and guaranteed to
the Rulers the Privy Purse, succession according to law and custom to the gaddi of the
State and personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles. These instruments were concurred in and
guaranteed by the Dominion of India. Later, the States integrated with the Union of India under the
Constitution of India, 1950, the Rulers abandoning all authority in regard to their territories.
Special provisions were enacted in the Constitution regarding Privy
Purses and the rights and privileges of the erstwhile Rulers. By article 291, the sum-,
guaranteed by the Dominion of India to any Ruler as Privy Purse under any covenant or
agreement was to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India and the. sums so paid were to
be exempt from all taxes on income. By article 362 the Parliament, the State Legislatures and the executive
of the Union and the States were enjoined to have due regard to the
guarantees and assurances under the covenants and agreements between the Governments of the
Dominion of India and the heads of the former Indian States. Also, provisions were made
in various statutes conferring on the "Rulers" certain privileges and benefits. By Art. 366(22) a
"Ruler" was defined to mean the prince, chief or other person by whom
covenant and agreements. were entered into and who "for the time being" was recognised by the
President as the Ruler and included any person who "for the time being" was recognised by the
President as the successor of such Ruler. Article 363 excluded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and
all other courts "in respect of any dispute
arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant etc." or in any dispute "in respect of
any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of the Constitution
relating to any
such treaty, agreement, covenant" etc. On September 2, 1970, a Bill intituled the Constitution
(Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill 1970, and providing that "Articles 291 and 362 of the
Constitution and clause (22) of article 366 shall be omitted" was introduced in
the Lok Sabha. The Bill was declared passed. On September 5, 1970, the motion for consideration of the
Bill did not obtain in the Rajya Sabha the requisite majority of not less than two-thirds of the members
present and voting as required by Art. 368 of the Constitution. The motion for introduction of the
Bill was declared lost. A few hours thereafter the President of India, purporting to exercise power
under cl. (22) of Art. 366 of the Constitution signed an instrument withdrawing recognition of all the Rulers.
A communication to the effect was sent to all Rulers in India
who had been previously recognised under art. 366(22) of the Constitution. The petitioners moved
this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the order of the President
"derecognising" them as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. They contended that the President
had no power to withdraw recognition of Ruler once recognised; that assuming
the President had such power, exercise of the power was coupled with duty to recognise his
successor; that the order of the President "derecognsing" all the Rulers en masse amounted to arbitrary
exercise of power for a collateral
purpose; that the Order violated the constitutional mandates in articles 291 and 362; that article 291
created an obligation in the Union of India to pay the Privy Purse and Privy Purse was property;
and that the Order being one without authority of law infringed the guarantee of
the
fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(f), 21 and 31 of the Constitution. The Union of India contended,
inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable, because, the source of the right to receive the
Privy Purse and to be accorded the privileges claimed was a political agreement and the privy
purse was in the nature of a political pension; that in recognising or derecognising a ruler the
President exercised a political power which was a sovereign power and that the rights and obligations
were liable to by varied or repudiated in accordance with "State policy"; that the
jurisdiction of the Courts to enforce rights and obligations arising out of the covenant was
excluded, because, the rights and obligations arose out of act of state; that the
concept of paramountly of the British Crown was inherited by the Union of India and therefore recognition of
Rulership was a "gift of the President"; and further that the petitioners stood excluded by
article 363, for, they were seeking either to enforce the covenants and agreements or were seeking
to enforce the provisions of the Constitution "relating to" such covenants.
HELD: Per Hidayatullah, C.J. Shah, Vaidialingam, Hedge, Grover and Dua, JJ. (Mitter and Ray, JJ.
dissenting).
The Order of the President "derecognising" the Rulers is ultra vires and illegal.
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
a) The presidential order is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right of the petitioner.
b) The order affected the various rights of the petitioner which are given to them in various act.
c) The article 291, article 362 and article 362(22) had a reference to the Covenant but were not related to
the Covenant
d) The development and integration of Indian states based on Instrument of accession and the Covenants
and Merger were constitutional development and provided constitutional obligation.
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS
a) The first contention raised by the government was that the writ petition is not maintainable.
b) Secondly it contended that this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the court as per the Article 363.
c) It was contended that the article 291 does not create any obligation on the union or government.
d) The article 291, 361, 362 should be considered as a one group of articles which together relates to
agreements and covenants.
LEGAL ASPECTS IN THE CASE
 Constitution of India, 1950-Article 366(22)- Extent of-Acknowledgment of Rulers by
President-Order by President "derecognising" all Rulers.
 Constitution of India 1950-Article 291-Article if making a commitment to pay Privy Purse-
Denial of commitment if the demonstration of State- - "Charged on The Consolidated Fund of
India", which means of-Article if an arrangement relating to" the contract inside the
importance of Article 363.
 Constitution of India, 1950-Article 363-Prohibition of the jurisdiction of Courts-Extent of
exclusionary statements Deciding the importance of articles 366(22), 291, 362, and 363, if the
inside bar of Article 363-"Dispute emerging out of the arrangement of the Constitution
identifying with covenant", which means Article if "recreation" of centrality.
 Constitution of India, 1950-Article 362-If an arrangement "relating to" Covenant and so on
inside the significance of Article 363.
 Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 19(1) (f) and 31, and Article 32-Order of President under
Article 366(22) - Order of President under Article 366(22) "derecognising" Rulers-Disavowal
of risk to pay Privy Purse and refusal of rights and benefits If an infringement of fundamental
rights-Practicality of appeal Privy Purse-If property.
JUDGMENT IN A GLANCE
The Hon’ble supreme court held that:
a) The Order of the President “derecognising” the Rulers is ultra vires and illegal and violates the
constitutional provisions.
b) The petitioner is entitled for privy purse and they can demand for the same.
c) The petitioner is entitled of all the pre-existing rights and privileges.
d) The court also rewarded them to recover the cost of petition.
To get over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC Cooper case
(1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government headed by Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th).
THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution
(Twenty-sixth Amendment) Bill, 1971 which was enacted as
THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges
unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is
incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have,
therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the
Rulers of former Indian States. It is necessary for this purpose,
apart from amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution, to
insert a new article therein so as to terminate expressly the
recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses
and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of
privy purses. Hence this Bill.
NEW DELHI; INDIRA GANDHI.
The 31st July, 1971.
THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971
[28th December, 1971.]
An Act further to amend the Constitution of India.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic
of India as follows:---
1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Constitution (Twenty-sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971.
2. Omission of articles 291 and 362.-Articles 291 and 362 of the
Constitution shall be omitted.
3. Insertion of new article 363A.-After article 363 of the
Constitution, the following article shall be inserted, namely:---
"363A. Recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States to cease and
privy purses to be abolished.- Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution or in any law for the time being in force-
(a) The Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the
commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971,
was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any
person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by
the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such
commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of
such Ruler;
(b) on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights,
liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished
and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of
such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be
paid any sum as privy purse.".
4. Amendment of article 366.-In article 366 of the Constitution, for
clause (22), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
`(22) "Ruler" means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time
before the commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment)
Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian
State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was
recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler;'.
The Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not invalid. It is
not totally dead but overshadowed by the fundamental right. The inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by
constitutional amendment.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The Judiciary is the guardian of the rights provided for in the Constitution of India. It is the job of the judiciary
to restrain the actions of the Legislature and the Executive where they are infringing upon these rights. When
the Constitution was adopted on January 26, 1950, with it came, the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to
the citizens.
There were several existing laws at the time when the Constitution was adopted, some of which were in direct
conflict with fundamental rights, so in order to determine the validity of these laws the Supreme Court came up
with certain principles/doctrines, one of which was the Doctrine of Eclipse.
 This doctrine emanates directly from Article 13(1) of the Constitution that is a part of the fundamental
rights, which states, “all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, i.e. Part III, shall,
to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
 The doctrine of eclipse envisages fundamental rights as prospective in nature.
 It states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the fundamental rights is not a nullity or
void ab initio but only remains unenforceable, i.e., remains in a dormant state.
 They exist for all past transactions, i.e., for rights and liabilities that were acquired before the
Constitution came into being.
 These laws also remain applicable to individuals who have not been given fundamental rights, for
example, non-citizens.
 Therefore, the impugned law remains hidden behind the fundamental rights and can become operative
again if and when the fundamental right it is inconsistent with is amended.
Court Rulings related to Doctrine of Eclipse

The Doctrine of Eclipse has evolved through various Supreme Court rulings after the adoption of the
Constitution.
 In the Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay case, the petitioner was prosecuted under the
provisions of the 1931 act, the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, for publishing a pamphlet with
no permission. The case was still pending when the Constitution came into force and thus raised
questions regarding the prospective and retrospective nature of Article 13(1) and the word “void”. The
question before the Court was whether the impugned Act was violative of Article 19(1) (a) and if so
whether it should be declared void. The Court answered the first part in affirmative adding that the
Act is void only to the extent of the violation and that the word “void” used in Article 13 does not
mean that statutes or provisions shall be repealed altogether.
 In the case of FN Balsara, the Court declared Section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 as
void because it violated Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. The Court again held that only the part of
the statute that is violative of Part III is inoperative and not the whole Statute.
 It is generally agreed, however, that the actual genesis of this doctrine occurred in Bhikaji Narain
Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment
Act of 1947 was challenged for being violative of Article 19(1) (g). This amendment act was a pre-
constitutional law. Thus, the Doctrine of Eclipse was applied and the Act’s provisions were made
inoperative.
However, in the year 1951, by virtue of the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, Article 19(1) (g) was amended
and the eclipse was removed, rendering this law enforceable against citizens and non-citizens. According to the
Court, “the effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from all
blemish or infirmity”.
The Doctrine of Eclipse – Salient features
 The doctrine only applies to pre-constitutional laws that were valid at their inception.
 The doctrine is not applicable to post-constitutional laws since they are invalid from the very inception
because of being inconsistent with Part III; the same was held by the Supreme Court in Deep Chand
v. State of Uttar Pradesh. However, non-citizens can’t take any advantage of the rule as the violation
doesn’t impact them.
 The impugned law must be violative of the fundamental rights, and then only can it be hidden or
eclipsed.
 The law that turns out to be violative of Part III does not become a nullity but just remains
unenforceable & defective.
 If the fundamental right that is violated by the impugned law is amended in the future, the law
automatically becomes operative.
The judgments of Bhikaji and Deep Chand were upheld in the cases of Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, Sagir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh and P. L. Mehra v. D. R.
Khanna.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras And
Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And ... on 29 September, 1955. Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR
781, 1955 SCR (2) 589.
Bhikaji v State of MP AIR 1955:
The MP Government passed an Act in the year 1950 for nationalizing the motor transport and the Act was
passed before the commencement of the constitution. The statue was challenged by the petitioner under Article
19(1)(g) of the constitution. The Central Government amended the Act that enabling the state to nationalize the
motor transport. The apex court held that the statue of Madhya Pradesh State of nationalizing the motor
transport was cured by the 4th Amendment Act 1955 and therefore the Doctrine of Eclipse has been applied
and such Act is valid.
The Doctrine of Eclipse
It is based on the principle that a law which violates fundamental rights, will not be declared null or void ab
initio but it becomes, only unenforceable i.e. remains in a moribund condition.
The term Eclipse in the doctrine means "It is over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant,
but it is riot dead." Such laws which infringes part 3 are not entirely wiped out from the statute book. It is only
against the citizens that the law remains in a moribund condition it is because part III of the constitution is
provided only for the citizens but they remain in operation as against non-citizens as they are not entitled to
fundamental rights provided by Indian constitution.
The Apex Court for solving such problems, formulated the doctrine of eclipse in the landmark case of Bhikhaji
v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 S.C. 781.
Fact: In this case the provisions of. C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1948 authorized the
State Government to take up the entire motor transport business in the Province to the exclusion of motor
transport operators. This provision though valid when enacted, but became void on the commencement of the
Constitution in 1950 as they violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, in 1951 Clause (6) of
Article 19 was amended by the Constitution (1st Amendment Act) so as to authorize.
The Government to monopolise any business. The Supreme Court held that the effect of the amendment was to
remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from blemish or infirmity. It became enforceable
against citizens as well as non-citizens after the constitutional impediment was removed. This law was eclipsed
for the time being by the fundamental rights. As soon as the eclipse is removed, the law begins to operate from
the date of such removal.
Elements of Doctrine of Eclipse
 It should be Pre-constitutional law
 Must be in conflict with fundamental right
 the law doesn�t become a dead letter but only inoperative
 if there is an amendment to the Fundamental Right in future it will automatically make the impugned
law operative.
Post constitutional law:
Article 13(3) prohibits State to make any law which takes away or abridges rights conferred by part III i.e.,
fundamental right of the constitution. If state makes such a law which in inconsistent or infringes Part 3 of the
constitution then it will be declared ultra vires and void to the extent of its contravention with fundamental
rights.
It is still-born law and cannot be revived by removal of the constitutional prohibition by subsequent
amendment of the constitution. Though post-constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void
from their very inception. A declaration by the court of their invalidity will be necessary.
Does the Doctrine of Eclipse apply to Post Constitutional Law?
The doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws.
In Deep Chand v. state of U.P., the supreme court held that post-constitutional law made under Article 13(2)
which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity from its inception and a still-born law. It is void ab intio.
What is the need for constitutional amendments ?

A Constitution is not merely a statement of value and philosophy. It is mainly about embodying these values
into institutional arrangements. Much of the document called Constitution of India is about these
arrangements. It is a very long and detailed document. Therefore, it needs to be amended quite regularly to
keep it updated.
The Constitution makers felt that it has to be in accordance with people's aspirations and changes in society.
They did not see it as a sacred, static and unalterable law. So, they made provisions to incorporate changes
from time to time. These changes are called constitutional amendments.
Constitutions need to be amended over time to adjust provisions that are inadequate, to respond to new needs,
including supplementing rights, etc. Otherwise, the text of a constitution cannot reflect social realities and
political needs over time.
As of October 2021, there have been 105 amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first
enacted in 1950. There are three types of amendments to the Constitution of India of which second and third
type of amendments are governed by Article 368.
The first type of amendments includes that can be passed by " simple majority" in each house of
the Parliament of India. This refers to the majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting.
This is also known as functional majority or working majority. The simple majority is the most frequently
used form of majority in Parliamentary business. When the constitution or the laws do not specify the type of
majority needed, the simple majority is considered for voting. To understand simple majority, let us consider a
situation in Lok Sabha. On a particular day, out of the total strength of 545, 45 were absent and 100 abstained
from voting on an issue. So only 400 members were present and voting. Then the simple majority is 50% of
400 plus 1, ie. 201. Ordinary bills need to be passed with a simple majority in both Houses of the Parliament
before it is sent to Indian President for his assent. Cases where the simple majority is used:
 To pass Ordinary/Money/Financial bills.

 To pass Non-Confidence Motion/Adjournment Motion/Censure Motion/Confidence Motion.
 For the removal of Vice President majority required in Lok Sabha is the simple majority – Article
67(b).
 To declare a financial emergency.
 To declare a state emergency (President’s rule).
 Election of Speaker/Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha and State legislatures.
 Constitution Amendment Bill under Article 368 which needs to be ratified by states, require only
simple majority at State Legislatures.
 The second type of amendments includes that can be effected by the parliament by a prescribed
"special majority" in each house;
 The third type of amendments includes those that require, in addition to such "special majority" in
each house of the parliament, ratification by at least one half of the State Legislatures.
Although constitutional amendments require the support of a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament
(with some amendments requiring ratification by a majority of state legislatures), the Indian Constitution is the
most amended national constitution in the world.
Special Majority
All types of majorities other than the absolute, effective or simple majority is known as the special majority. A
special majority are of 4 types, with different clauses.
 Type 1 – Special Majority as Per Article 249.
 Type 2 – Special Majority as per Article 368.
 Type 3 – Special Majority as per Article 368 + 50 percent state ratification by a simple majority.
 Type 4 – Special Majority as per A61.
Special Majority as Per Article 249
Special majority as per article 249 requires a majority of 2/3rd members present and voting. For example, if
out of the 245 members in Rajya Sabha, if only 150 are present and voting, then the special majority required
as per article 249 would be 101.
Cases where special majority as per article 249 is used: To pass the Rajya Sabha resolution to empower the
parliament to make laws in the state list. (valid up to 1 year, but can be extended any number of times).
Special majority as per article 368 requires a majority of 2/3rd members present and voting supported by more
than 50% of the total strength of the house. This type of majority is used for most of the Constitutional
amendment bills. To pass a constitution amendment bill in Rajya Sabha, in addition to getting the support of
123 members, the bill should be favoured by more than 2/3rd of the members present and voting.
Cases where special majority as per article 368 is used:
 To pass a constitutional amendment bill which does not affect federalism.
 Removal of judges of SC/HC.
 Removal of CEC/CAG.
 Approval of national emergency requires special majority as per Article 368 in both houses.
 Resolution by the state legislature for the creation/abolition of Legislative Council (Article 169).
Special Majority as Per Article 368 plus State ratification
This type of special majority is required when a constitutional amendment bill try to change the federal
structure. Special majority as per article 368 plus state ratification requires a majority of 2/3rd members
present and voting supported by more than 50% of the state legislatures by a simple majority. A good example
would be the bill which introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). It required the
support of at least 15 state legislatures out of the 29 states.
Cases where special majority as per article 368 plus state ratification is used: To pass a constitutional
amendment bill which affects federalism like the position of High Court Judges.
Special majority as per article 61 requires a majority of 2/3rd members of the total strength of the house. In
545 member Lok Sabha, the special majority as per article 61 is 364 while in 245 member Rajya Sabha, the
special majority as per article 61 is 164.
Cases where special majority as per article 61 is used: For the impeachment of the Indian President.
Absolute majority
It refers to a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of the house. For example, as the total
membership of Lok Sabha is 545, an absolute majority in Lok Sabha means – 50% of 545 plus 1, ie. 273.
Cases, where the absolute majority is used:
In the normal business of the Parliament or State Legislature absolute majority, is not generally used. But this
majority is used during the general election, for the formation of government at Center and States.
Write short notes on the article 356 – President’s rule.

Article 356
Article 356 of the Constitution of India is based on Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
According to Article 356, President’s Rule can be imposed on any state of India on the grounds of the failure
of the constitutional machinery. This is of two types:
1. If the President receives a report from the state’s Governor or otherwise is convinced or satisfied that
the state’s situation is such that the state government cannot carry on the governance according to the
provisions of the Constitution.
2. Article 365: As per this Article, President’s Rule can be imposed if any state fails to comply with all
directions given by the Union on matters it is empowered to.
In simple words, President’s Rule is when the state government is suspended and the central government
directly administers the state through the office of the governor (centrally appointed).
It is also called ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
President’s Rule
Parliamentary approval is necessary for the imposition of President’s Rule on any state. The proclamation of
President’s Rule should be approved in both Houses of the Parliament within two months of its issue. The
approval is through a simple majority.
The President’s Rule is initially for a period of six months. Later, it can be extended for a period of three
years with parliamentary approval, every six months.
The 44th Amendment to the Constitution (1978) brought in some constraints on the imposition of the
President’s Rule beyond a period of one year. It says that President’s Rule cannot be extended beyond one year
unless:
1. There is a national emergency in India.
2. The Election Commission of India certifies that it is necessary to continue the President’s Rule in the
state because of difficulties in conducting assembly elections to the state.
What happens after President’s Rule is imposed?
 The governor carries on with the administration of the state on behalf of the President. He or she takes
the help of the state’s Chief Secretary and other advisors/administrators whom he or she can appoint.
 The President has the power to declare that the state legislature’s powers would be exercised by the
Parliament.
 The state legislative assembly would be either suspended or dissolved by the President.
 When the Parliament is not in session, the President can promulgate ordinances with respect to the
state’s administration.
When is President’s Rule imposed?
It has been seen that the President’s Rule has been imposed when any one of the following circumstances have
occurred:
1. The state legislature is not able to elect a leader as the Chief Minister for a time prescribed by the
state’s governor.
2. Breakdown of a coalition in the state government, that leads to the CM having minority support in the
legislature, and the CM is unable to prove his majority within the time prescribed by the governor.
3. A no-confidence vote in the legislative assembly leading to a loss of majority.
4. Postponement of elections owing to unavoidable reasons such as a natural disaster, epidemic or war.
5. Article 365 (explained above)
Revocation of President’s Rule
President’s Rule can be revoked anytime after such a proclamation has been made by a subsequent
proclamation by the President. A proclamation of revocation does not require approval by the Parliament.
This occurs when the leader of a political party produces letters indicating majority support for him in the
assembly and stakes his claim to form the state government.
Misuse of Article 356
Article 356 gave the Central government wide powers to stamp its authority on the state governments.
Although it was meant only as a means to preserve the integrity and unity of the country, it had been used
blatantly to oust state governments who were ruled by political opponents of the centre.
 It was used for the first time in 1951 in Punjab. Between 1966 and 1977, Indira Gandhi’s government
used it about 39 times against various states.
 In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court of India put forth strict guidelines for the
imposition of Article 356.
 The proclamation (of President’s Rule) is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide
intention.
 The imposition of Article 356 should be justified by the centre.
 The court has the power to revive the suspended or dissolved state government if the grounds
for the imposition is found to be invalid and unconstitutional.
 The state assembly cannot be dissolved before parliamentary approval for the imposition of
Article 356 and the President can only suspend the assembly.
 Serious allegations of corruption against the state ministry and financial instability are not
grounds for the imposition of Article 356.
 Any action by the state government that leads to the security of secularism (which is a basic
feature of the Constitution) cannot be grounds for the use of Article 356.
 Article 356 cannot be used to sort out any intraparty issues in the ruling party.
 If the Ministry of the state resigns or is dismissed or loses the majority, then the governor
cannot advise the President to impose this article until enough steps are taken by the governor
for the formation of an alternative government.
 The power under Article 356 is to be used only in case of exigencies. It is an exceptional
power.
There have also been subsequent judgements of the SC that have limited the room for the misuse of
this Article.
The Sarkaria Commission Report (1983) recommended that Article 356 should be used “very
sparingly” and only as a last resort.
 The President’s proclamation of President’s Rule should include reasons as to why he thinks
the state cannot run normally.
 Whenever possible, the centre should give the state government a warning before imposing
Article 356.
 The Article should not be used for settling political scores.
 The commission recommended the amendment of the article in order for the President to be
authorised to dissolve the state legislature only after getting parliamentary approval.
The Punchhi Commission recommended that the centre should try to bring only a specific troubled
area under its jurisdiction and that too for a brief period, not more than three months.
 The commission recommended that suitable amendments should be made to incorporate the
guidelines established by SC in the Bommai case.
 The commission recommended the provision of a ‘Localized Emergency’ which implies that
the centre can tackle issues at town/district (local) level without dissolving the state
legislative assembly while at the same time, performing the duty of the Union to protect
States as per Article 355.
What are the three types of emergency?

National Emergency; Financial Emergency; State Emergency (President’s Rule in States).
Discuss Articles 352 and 356 of the Constitution?
What is the Article 356 ?

Article 356 of the Constitution empowers the central government to impose its direct rule over any state,
known as the President’s Rule. This is also called a ‘State Emergency’.
What is the Article 352 ?
Article 352 states that the President can proclaim Emergency if he/she believes that a “grave emergency exists
whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external
aggression or armed rebellion”. This is also called a ‘National Emergency’.
 India is the world’s largest democracy with a well-defined constitution that provides an iron-clad
protection of our basic rights. But, this very protection was challenged in an unprecedented manner.
43 years ago, in 1975, Indians woke up to hear that the elected government of the day, led by Indira
Gandhi proclaimed an eternal emergency. The announcement marked the immediate suspension
of fundamental rights, civil liberties were curbed, elections were suspended and voices of dissent were
silenced for a period that lasted 21 months. But what prompted the Indira Gandhi government to
proclaim emergency in India? What happened during this period and what was its legacy for the
coming generations?
 Critics and historians describe the 21 month long emergency period as the darkest chapter in the
history of Indian democracy. Imposed on the night of 25 th June, 1975, by the then Prime Minister,
Indira Gandhi, it suspended the fundamental rights of citizens, and triggered large-scale protests
against the dictatorial methods of the government.
Analysis by the Experts:
 Indira Gandhi said that the President has declared a state of emergency and that there is no need to
panic. The decision to proclaim Emergency was taken under Article 352 of the Constitution on the
grounds of “internal disturbance”. Soon after, the emergency led to the suspension of the Fundamental
Rights provided by the Constitution to the citizens of the country. The right to free speech and the
right to personal liberty was clamped down and only censored news was available. All rights, except
the Right to life (Article 21) was suspended.
 The then President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed issued the proclamation for the Emergency on the
recommendations of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.
 In one sweep, leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Behari Vajpayee, LK Advani,
Ashok Mehta, and all other opposition leaders of any significance were put behind bars. A number of
activists and journalists were also arrested under the Defence of India Rules and Maintenance of
Internal Security Act (MISA). The Emergency lasted from 25th June, 1975 until its withdrawal on the
21st of March, 1977.
 In retrospect, the Emergency is often termed as the darkest period of Post-Independent Indian history.
The almost two-year-long period was also perhaps the most momentous episode in the political
evolution of the Indian National Congress.
Why did Indira Gandhi recommend the proclamation of Emergency?
 Just days before a state of emergency was imposed in the country, the Allahabad High Court found
Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices. The 12 th June 1975 judgement of the Allahabad High
Court declared her election to be null and void. Indira Gandhi challenged this verdict in the Supreme
Court and on the 24th of June, the Apex court granted her a partial stay on the High Court
order. According to the Supreme Court, she could remain an MP till her appeal was decided but could
not take part in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha. She was, however, allowed to continue as the Prime
Minister. Indira Gandhi’s son, Sanjay Gandhi who did not hold any official position at that time,
allegedly interfered in the functioning of the government. It is said that he also played a vital role in
the imposition of the Emergency.
 Indira Gandhi had also consulted some special advisors, including the then Law Minister, H.R.
Gokhale, and West Bengal Chief Minister, Siddharth Shankar Ray, before proclaiming a state of
emergency in the country. In a space of 21 months, over 1 lakh people were put in jail, without trial
during Emergency. Thousands of media persons were jailed, and the judiciary was silenced.
 Veteran journalists say that it was a period where India ceased to be a democracy and was converted
into a virtual autocracy.
Background before Emergency
 In the years preceding the Emergency, the country was facing a social and economic crisis. Monsoons
had failed and the prices were skyrocketing. Economic growth was at a standstill.
 To make matters worse, students led protests in Gujarat and Bihar. They played a pivotal role in
galvanizing a nation-wide opinion against the Indian National Congress and the then Prime Minister,
Indira Gandhi. The government claimed that the strikes and protests paralysed the country and hurt the
economy. Indira Gandhi’s loyalists and advisors advised her to impose an internal emergency in order
to deal with the massive political opposition, desertion and disorder against her and the party.
 It is important to remember the lessons of the emergency as it holds lessons for all of us. The most
important being that if we are not vigilant, then our fundamental rights can be snatched away from us
by a dictatorial government. As the saying goes, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”.
Emergency came in one single swoop when Indira Gandhi had introduced it. But there can be small
emergencies all the time take place in the country by autocratic governments.
Taking a look at the 1971 Lok Sabha Elections
 In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi defeated the opposition candidate Raj Narain from the
Rae Bareli constituency. Subsequently, Raj Narain filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court,
accusing Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices, bribing voters and misusing government machinery.
Indira Gandhi was cross-examined in the Allahabad High Court, which also marked the first such
instance for an Indian Prime Minister.
 On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha found Indira Gandhi guilty of misusing government
machinery during her election campaign and declared her elections to be null and void. The High
Court also barred Indira Gandhi from contesting any elections for the next 6 years. The Court,
however, gave the Indian National Congress 20 days time to make arrangements to replace Indira
Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi then challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme
Court. On the 24th of June, 1975 the Supreme Court granted her a partial stay on the High Court
order. The Supreme Court order had said that Indira Gandhi could remain an MP till her appeal was
decided, but could not take part in the Lok Sabha proceedings.
 On the 25th of June, 1975, Jayaprakash Narayan addressed a mammoth rally at the Ramlila Ground in
Delhi. Quoting Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, Jayaprakash Narayan thundered,
“Sinhasan Khali Karo ki Janta Aati Hai”. The call to Indira Gandhi to vacate the thrown was joined by
thousands of people and opposition leaders.
 Jayaprakash Narayan also asked the armed forces to revolt against Indira Gandhi’s government. That
very night, a state of Emergency was declared in the country. She claimed that since the country was
in a state of chaos and that Jayaprakash Narayan was leading an agitation which was disrupting the
basic activities of the country.
 But the real reason was that there was a court case against her which she had lost in the
Allahabad High Court and because of that, for some time she could not be a parliamentarian
and her political position had become precarious and she was fearful that the other members of
her party would try and snatch away power from her.
 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended to the President to proclaim a state of Emergency in the
country. After midnight, power supply to all major newspaper offices were disconnected. Power was
restored only two to three days later after the censorship apparatus was setup. A large number of
opposition leaders, workers were arrested early morning on the 26 th of June. At 7:00 AM on the 26 th of
June, Indira Gandhi went on air on the All India Radio to declare to the people that a state of
emergency had been imposed in the country. The Emergency remained in effect from the 25 th of June,
1975 until 21st March, 1977. After the Emergency officially ended, fresh elections were called. The
Indian National Congress lost by a huge margin, and Janata Party’s Morarji Desai went on to become
the first non-Congress Prime Minister of India.
 The proclamation of Emergency meant that not only elections were banned, but that there was strict
censoring of the press as well. The period was termed as the darkest hour in Indian history.
How did the state of Emergency impact the country as well as the society?
 The impact of Emergency was seen all across the country. Most of then Prime Minister, Indira
Gandhi’s political opponents, were imprisoned. In the days that followed, civil liberties were
suspended; the media was censored and amendments were brought that threatened to alter the basic
character of the Constitution. Draconian laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA)
were strengthened.
 Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Behari Vajpayee, LK Advani, and George Fernandes were
arrested and sent to jail under MISA. Chandrashekhar, Indira Gandhi’s own party colleague and a
member of the Congress Working Committee was also arrested and put in jail for speaking his mind.
 The Government suspended the right to move to court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The arrested leaders were not allowed to meet anyone, including their family members. When the
emergency was in force, Indira Gandhi’s government assumed dictatorial powers and crushed all
dissent. The fundamental rights of people were crushed, tortured and inhuman treatment meted out
towards dissenting citizens became a common occurrence. Indira Gandhi even amended
the Representation of the People Act and two other laws in a retrospective manner to ensure that the
Supreme Court had no other option but to overturn the Allahabad High Court verdict on the trial of
Raj Narain. It was Raj Narain who had challenged the election of Indira Gandhi in the Allahabad High
Court.
 Apart from this, efforts were also made to amend the Constitution:
 The 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India was enacted during the period of the Emergency.
The Amendment attempted to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to
pronounce upon the constitutional validity of the laws. This amendment also laid down the
fundamental duties of Indian citizens.
 With the proclamation of the Emergency, Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution were
suspended.
 The 38th Amendment barred judicial review of proclamations of emergency
 The 39th Amendment stripped the judiciary’s power of electoral scrutiny of a person elected as a Prime
Minister
 Similarly, the 40th and the 41st Amendment brought about more changes to the Constitution. By the
time the 42nd Amendment was passed, people started calling it a “Constitution of Indira”. The
42nd Amendment was an amendment which gave importance to the policy guidelines over the
fundamental rights of a common man.
 But after the elections in 1977, when the Janata Party government was formed, the Supreme Court,
and the High Courts were given their rights back through the 43rd Constitutional Amendment. This
was followed by the 44th Amendment which brought the Constitution back to its original state. The
44th Amendment also brought about an important change to the Constitution, in helping prevent the
repeat of the Emergency like situation from reoccurring. In the provisions relating to the emergency,
the words, “Armed Rebellion”, replaced the term, “internal unrest”.
Impact on Media:
 In the period of the Emergency, even the media was one of the greatest sufferers.
 All possible bans were imposed on the media.
 Strict censoring rules were imposed on the press, and no unfavourable opinion against her
administration was allowed to be published. Simultaneously, a code of conduct was announced for the
press. Many newspaper editors were arrested for writing anti-government articles. Singer Kishore
Kumar was banned by All India Radio after he refused to support the youth Congress.
 As a consequence of the Emergency and the protests following the emergency, a lot of other parties
came to the fore. It was no longer a one-party rule. The Emergency also had a significant negative
impact on the country’s economic front. The strikes and protests had paralysed the government and
hurt the economy of the country greatly.
 During the emergency when civil liberties were suspended, Sanjay Gandhi, son of Indira
Gandhi, began what was then described as a gruesome campaign to sterilize poor men. An
atmosphere of fear prevailed in the country. However, the 21 months of Emergency had affected
Indira Gandhi and her government badly. In a major turn of events, for the first time since
Independence, the ruling Indian National Congress lost the general elections in 1977. The opposition
had called for a restoration of democracy.
Concluding Remarks:
 The period of Emergency tested the powers of Indian democracy. But the suffering triggered by the
undemocratic decision also led the country and the citizens to learn a few valuable lessons. It was only
after the Emergency that a non-Congress government came into power at the center. A lesson that the
Emergency taught us is that when a government becomes autocratic in a democracy, people find
solutions. The elections which were held before the emergency in 1971 gave a clear mandate to Indira
Gandhi.
 To her credit, she had defeated Pakistan which led to the formation of Bangladesh. On the domestic
front, her popularity was soaring with slogans like, “Garibi Hatao”. The anger of the public grew
during the days of the emergency because of the suppression faced by them and finally in 1977, Indira
Gandhi had to face defeat. Politically, this period (the period of emergency) also teaches that despite
the achievements and popularity, it is important for a Government to fulfil the expectations of the
people.
 In democracy, power lies with the people. The Emergency also tested journalism. The Emergency is a
lesson for today’s journalists. In one of his articles, Vice President, M. Venkaiah Naidu had
mentioned, “In those days of emergency, media which is the fourth pillar of democracy, also missed
the historic opportunity of cooperating with the common citizens of the country.” He went on to add
that “they bowed before the autocratic government”. However, there were a few honourable
exceptions like the fearless Ramnath Goenka. Ramnath Goenka’s, “The Indian Express” stood out.
Along with this a few others also deserve mention such as, “The Statesman”, and “Mainstream”.
 This attitude of the media was later famously described by LK Advani, who said that “the press
crawled when it was asked to bend.”
Compare India’s Parliament with that of USA and UK.
Compare Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Comparison between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
Difference Lok Sabha Rajya Sabha
What it is called? House of People Council of States
What is the House of People, where people who are Council of States, where the representatives
meaning of the qualified to vote can elect their are indirectly elected by the elected
name? representative by way of direct elections representative of the Assemblies of States
and Union Territories
What is the tenure It continues for 5 years It is a permanent body.

of the house? Note: It can be dissolved earlier by
passing no-confidence motion
Who heads the Speaker Vice President of India as the Chairman of

house? the house
What is the 25 years 30 years

minimum age to
become a
member?
What is the 552 members 250 members

strength of the
house?
What are the All bills originate in Lok Sabha mostly

functions of the and after passing through Rajya Sabha,
house? they are returned for Lok Sabha approval.
It plays a major role in legislation.
=======================================
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Sri Sankari Prasad Singh
Deo vs Union Of India And State Of ... on 5 October, 1951. Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 458, 1952
SCR 89.
The case of Shankari Prasad v Union of India contributes to the journey of “The Doctrine of Basic Structure” which
was a result of the ongoing struggle between the judiciary and the legislature for supremacy in independent India.
The question of whether the fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 was brought before the Supreme
Court of India in this case. In this case, the validity of the First Amendment of the Constitution 1951 was challenged
which curtailed the right to property. The Fundamental Right under Article 31 provides the ‘right to property’. The
basic argument which was brought forward in the above case was that Article 13 prohibits the enactment of law
abridging the Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of Article 13(2).
Background
After the Independence of India, the agrarian land reforms through legislation was enacted in the states of Bihar,
Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh which was known as the Zamindari Abolition Act. The zamindars were upset
because due to this they were deprived of their respective landholdings. The zamindars to get hold of there
properties filled a petition in the High Court of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh as this law is violative of
their Fundamental Rights. The Patna High Court invalidated the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, whereas High
Courts at Allahabad and Nagpur upheld the validity of the legislation in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
The Government brought forward a remedy in the form of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 to put an
end of the various litigation regarding the same issue. The zamindars reacted by bringing the petition under Article
32 of the Constitution and raised the question whether the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951 which was
passed by the Parliament and insert article 31A and article 31B in the Constitution of India is unconstitutional and
void.
Issues Raised
 Whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 passed by the Parliament is valid.
 Whether the word ‘law’ used under Article 13(2) also includes the ‘law of the amendment of the
Constitution of India.
Law Involved
 Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India.
 Article 31A and 31B of the Constitution of India.
 Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
Application of Law
 Article 13(2) mentions that no law can be enacted which abridges the Fundamental Right.
 Article 368 provides for the amending power of the Constitution.
Argument Advanced
Petitioner’s Argument
The Advocates from the Petitioner contented on the following points:
 The Parliament was incompetent in exercising its power mentioned under Article 379 as the power
mentioned under Article 368 of amending the Constitution is not conferred on Parliament but is as a
nominative body on the two Houses of Parliament.
 Under Article 368 the power conferred on them calls for collegial action from both the Houses of
Parliament and could be justly operated only by the Parliament to be duly be incorporated as under Chapter
II of Part V.
 That Article 368 is a complete code and it neglects for any amendments in the bill after it is being given in
the House for its passing. They further stated that the bill, in this case, which has been amended on several
occasions before it came in front of the House, the Amendment Act has not been passed in conformity as
per the prescribed procedures in Article 368.
 The 1st Amendment Act, 1951 which inserts Article 31A and 31B violate and abridges the Fundamental
Rights conferred through Part III of the Constitution with the restrictions of Article 13(2).
 The article 31A and 31B which is inserted through the First Amendment Act, 1951 also seeks to bring
changes in Chapter IV of Part V’s Article 132 and 136 and Chapter V of Part VI’s article 226, these
requirements for ratification under clause (b) of Article 368 has to be followed, and it has not been ratified
in here and so they are void and unconstitutional. It also ultra vires the matters in List II, for which the only
the State Legislature and not Parliament have any power to make laws.
Respondent’s Argument
 On the very first instance, it was submitted that according to the fundamental law of our independent India
the Constitution, it should not be held liable for changes as per the wishes of the party majorities, the
framers of the Constitution have placed special hardships in the path of amending the Constitution by
providing three different classes for amendment:
 First includes those which are affected by a bare majority for the passing of ordinary law.
 The second includes those which are affected by a special majority under Article 368.
 Third includes those which are in addition to the special majority as required in second class and
ratification required by not less than one-half of the States as mentioned in the First Schedule in its
Part A and Part B.
 The third class as mentioned in Article 368 seeks for changes in the provision. The Parliament which
includes the two Houses of Parliament and the President conferred as the first class of amendment.
 The Parliament is supposed to have been conferred with the power of amending the other two classes as no
clear indications have been given. As the difference between the class is merely procedural and no reasons
have been given to put their trust in a different body for it.
 They denied the contention that Article 368 is to be considered as a complete code for the procedure. In
regards to the procedures, it lags as there is inconsistency as to how and after the introduction of the notice
is to be handled. Consisting of the doubts and questions on the part of its introduction and passing of in
each House of Parliament and gaining the President’s assent. They also contended that the legislative
process will also include the amending of the Constitution.
 In the context of the word ‘law’ under Article 13 “must be taken to mean rules and regulations made in the
exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of
constituent power, with the result of which Article 13(2) does not affect amendment made under Article
368.”
 The Parliament holds exclusive power in regards to make the amendment in the Constitution and it falls
within the ambit of the legislature in relation to subject-matter.
Judgement/Holding with Reasoning
The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Judge M Patanjali Sastri.
The Court unanimously held that even if the amendment is considered to be superior to ordinary legislation, it will
not be able to strike its validity by Article 13(2). The word ‘law’ as given under Article 13(2) ordinarily will be
inclusive of Constitutional amendment but it must be in consideration of ordinary legislative power and therefore the
constitutional amendment done by the Parliament in its constitutional power is not subjected to Article 13(2) and
such powers include the power to amend the Fundamental Rights. The Court observed that “We are of the opinion
that in the context of Article 13 law must be taken to mean rules and regulations made in the exercise of ordinary
legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in the exercise of constituent power with the result
that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments made under Article 368.” The Court upheld the validity of the First
Amendment Act, 1951 by using the literal interpretation. It also held that Article 368 entitle the Parliament to amend
the Constitution with treating the Fundamental Rights with any exceptions unlike they are treated under Article 368.
The Court diverged with the view that the Fundamental Rights can be here inviolable. The Supreme Court narrowed
the view if Article 13(2) and adopted the progress of the independent nation through the acquisition of property.
Critical Analysis
The Supreme Court by dismissing the petition by the petitioners have narrowed down the scope of Article 13(2).
The unanimous decision of the bench also followed in the next case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan where the
court upheld the Shankari Prasad case.
=======================================
Further Development in the Journey of Basic Structure

The Indian Judiciary gave the complete amending power but later this position was changed with a completely
different outlook.
The question regarding the amenability of the Fundamental Rights conferred and given in the Constitution of India
could be revoked or limited by amendment of the question still remains the centre for the conversation.
The cases which marked and contributed in this judicial discussion which was started in the said case of Shankari
Prasad are Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, Golaknath v State of Punjab and later all have culminated
in Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala.
Overruling of Shankari Prasad v Union of India
The majority in the case of I.C Golaknath n State of Punjab overruled the said judgement and held that no distinction
can be found between the power of legislative and constituent power. Justice Hidayatullah held that the amending
power was not to be found as the residuary power of our legislation. The procedure as laid down in Article 368
when compiled resulted in the amending ability of the Constitution. It can be called the legislative power. The
majority held that the Fundamental Right has a transcendental approach and position in the constitution and so
Article 368 would be incompetent to amend the Fundamental Right.
This added the ongoing controversy and power struggle between the Judiciary and the Legislature.
I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab was overruled
The Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala overruled the Golaknath case. The court held that
the inherent limitation of the power of Parliament in regards to amendment and Article 368 does not confer any
power to destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
What are the important amendments of the Indian Constitution ? Discuss in brief each amendment.
There are 104 amendment acts as of December 2021 that are made in the Indian Constitution over time. All
these amendments have brought significant changes in the course of Indian Polity.
Important amendments brought in the Indian Constitution are mentioned below:
First Amendment Act, 1951
The state was empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and backward
classes
The Ninth Schedule was added

Note:
 Fourth Amendment Act, 1955 included some more Acts in the Ninth Schedule
 17th Amendment Act, 1964 included 44 more Acts in the Ninth Schedule
 29th Amendment Act, 1972 included two Kerala Acts on land reforms in the Ninth
Schedule
 34th Amendment Act, 1974 included twenty more land tenure and land reforms acts of
various states in the Ninth Schedule
Three more grounds of restrictions on Article 19 (1) [Freedom of speech and expression] were
added:
 Public order
 Friendly relations with foreign states
 Incitement to an offence
Note: Restrictions were made reasonable and justiciable.
Introduced the validity of the state’s move to nationalize any business or trade and the same to not
be invalid on the grounds of violation of the right to trade and business
Second Amendment Act, 1952
The scale of representation in the Lok Sabha was readjusted stating that 1 member can represent
even more than 7.5 lakh people.
Seventh Amendment Act, 1956
The provision of having a common High Court for two or more states was introduced
Abolition of Class A, B, C and D states – 14 States and 6 Union Territories were formed
Introduction of Union Territories
Ninth Amendment Act, 1960
Adjustments to Indian Territory as a result of an agreement with Pakistan (Indo-Pak Agreement

1958):
 Cession of Indian territory of Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan
Tenth Amendment Act, 1961
Dadra, Nagar, and Haveli incorporated in the Union of Indian as a Union Territory
12th Amendment Act, 1962
Goa, Daman and Diu incorporated in the Indian Union as a Union Territory
Nagaland was formed with special status under Article 371A
Pondicherry incorporated into the Indian Union
Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Puducherry
were provided the legislature and council of ministers

System of Election Tribunals was abolished and High Courts were given the power to hear the
election petitions
21st Amendment Act, 1967
Sindhi language was language into 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution
The President’s assent to Constitutional Amendment Bill was made compulsory
Fundamental Right to Property was curtailed
Privy Purse and privileges of former rulers of princely states were abolished
Lok Sabha seats were increased from 525 to 545
The status of Sikkim as protectorate state was terminated and Sikkim was given the status of
‘Associate State’ of India
Sikkim was made a full-fledged state of India
Parliament was empowered to specify from time to time the limits of the territorial waters, the
continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the maritime zones of India.
42nd Amendment The 42nd Amendment Act is the most comprehensive amendment of the
Act, 1976 Indian Constitution, called the ‘Mini-Constitution.’
44th It is also one of the important amendments in the Indian Constitution,

Amendment enacted by the Janata Government.
Act, 1978
52nd Amendment Act, 1985
A new tenth Schedule was added providing for the anti-defection laws.
The voting age was decreased from 21 to 18 for both Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies
elections
Multi-member National Commission for SC/ST was established and the office of a special officer
for SCs and STs was removed.
Union Territory of Delhi was given the special status of ‘National Capital Territory of Delhi.’
70-member legislative assembly and a 7-member council of ministers were established Delhi
Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali languages were included in the Eighth Schedule of the
Constitution.
Total number of official languages increased to 18
73rd Amendment Act, 1992
Panchayati Raj institutions were given constitutional status.
A new Part-IX and 11th Schedule were added in the Indian Constitution to recognize Panchayati
Raj Institutions and provisions related to them
Urban local bodies were granted constitutional status
A new Part IX-A and 12th Schedule were added to the Indian Constitution
Elementary Education was made a fundamental right – Free and compulsory education to children
between 6 and 14 years
A new Fundamental Duty under Article 51 A was added – “It shall be the duty of every citizen of
India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward
between the age of six and fourteen years”
Provision of Service Tax was made under Article 268-A – Service tax levied by Union and
collected and appropriated by the Union and the States

Bodo, Dogri (Dongri), Maithili and Santhali were added in the Eighth schedule
Total official languages were increased from 18 to 22
Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and special representation for the Anglo-
Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a further period of ten years i.e.,
up to 2020 (Article 334).
Co-operative Societies were granted constitutional status:

 Right to form cooperative societies made a fundamental right (Article 19)
 A new Directive Principle of State Policy ( Article 43-B) to promote cooperative societies
 A new part IX-B was added in the constitution for cooperative societies
To pursue land boundary agreement 1974 between India and Bangladesh, exchange of some
enclave territories with Bangladesh mentioned
Provisions relating to the territories of four states (Assam, West Bengal, Meghalaya) in the first
schedule of the Indian Constitution, amended.
Goods and Service Tax (GST) was introduced.
Constitutional Status was granted to National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)
103rd Amendment Act, 2019
A maximum of 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of citizens of classes other
than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 15, i.e. Classes other than socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Extended the deadline for the cessation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and states
assemblies from Seventy years to Eighty. Removed the reserved seats for the Anglo-Indian
community in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs
Union Of India on 10 February, 1970. Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 564, 1970 SCR (3) 530.
R.C.Cooper vs Union Of India or Bank Nationalisation case
Background:
The Preamble and various constitutional provisions of the Constitution of India obligate the state to build an
egalitarian society for the people of India. These obligations are in detail discussed in Part IV of the
Constitution under the heading Directive Principles of State Policy. The Part IV starts with Article 37 declaring
the part not enforceable in the courts of law is however fundamental in the governance of the country.
Therefore, while making laws the Parliament must apply these provisions. State control of industries was seen
as a great means to achieve the ends of Socialism. After Independence of the nation transport undertakings,
electricity, insurance sector, oil refineries etc., were nationalized in order to achieve the goals of Socialism.
Since Independence the distribution of credit in rural areas was at a great low. This was because of the
inaccessibility of banks and other financial institutions in the rural areas. Therefore, in order to target the rural
area, the government schemed a plan to target the needy sectors. This solution they devised was
Nationalization.
The Indira Gandhi government in 1969 at the instance of the then Acting PresidentM. Hidayatullah
promulgated the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Ordinance, 1969 nationalizing
the 14 banks. These 14 banks were chosen on the basis that they had deposits exceeding 50 crores. The
ordinance was promulgated just two days before the Session of Parliament. The ordinance w.e.f. 19 July 1969
brought more than 75% banking sector under state control along with its assets, liabilities, entire paid-up-
capital.
Rustom Cavasjee (R.C.Cooper) V. Union of India,1970, which is famously known as ‘The Bank
Nationalization Case’, is one of the most important landmark judgements of Indian Banking Law. It is
also based on many principles of the Indian Constitution. The case is so-called because the petitioner,
R.C.Cooper, who was the director of Central Bank of India (One of the 14 banks in the list) and had shares in
Bank of Baroda, filed a petition against the Union of India in the year 1969 when many of the banks were
being nationalized.
He challenged many important provisions of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, one of them being Schedule II which mentioned that when the
government will acquire any bank then, the compensation would be decided through an agreement. And if the
agreement fails then such matter shall be discussed in a tribunal.
Moreover, after the verdict of the tribunal, the company would get the compensation amount after ten years.
These ten years would be counted from the date on which the agreement would be declared failed. Senior
Counsel Nani Phalkhivala fought the case in favor of R C Cooper whereas, the Union was represented by the
then-Attorney General, Niren De, and Solicitor General, Jagdish Swarup. The case was decided by 11 bench
judges and the case went against the ordinance by 10:1.
Issues And Judgement : –
1. R.C. Cooper filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India against UOI and some major issues were
taken up. Some of the issues and the comments of the Supreme Court on the same were –
 Whether a shareholder can file a petition on behalf of the company?
In this issue, the agreement put forth by R. C. Cooper was that the company does not have any fundamental
rights so it cannot get violated but, due to the said ordinance, as a shareholder of the company, his rights were
getting violated and thus, he filed a petition for the same.
Whereas, the respondent argued that, according to the Indian Constitution, a company is a juristic body, and
hence, it cannot claim fundamental rights. Moreover, the same point is also mentioned in The Indian
Citizenship Act, 1955[5]. Thus, according to the respondent’s side, R. C. Cooper cannot claim his rights on
behalf of the company.
Ultimately, in the verdict, the Supreme Court pronounced that no director or shareholder can claim his or her
Fundamental Rights according to Article 32 or 226, on behalf of a company.
 Whether the ordinance which was passed was properly promulgated?
The Supreme Court on this issue mentions that the government has subjective power to issue ordinances. The
issue of time was obviously questioning but, the court cannot interfere with the government’s power to issue
ordinances.
 Whether Schedule II of the ordinance justified?
Schedule II of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance,
1969, provisioned that when the government will acquire any bank then the compensation would be decided
through an agreement. And if the agreement fails then such matter shall be discussed in a tribunal. Moreover,
after the verdict of the tribunal, the company would get the compensation amount after 10 years. These 10
years would be counted from the date on which the agreement would be declared failed.
This was the most controversial point of the ordinance ad hence, R. C. Cooper mentioned it in his petition as
well. The Honorable Supreme Court mentioned in this issue that the concept of compensation after 10 years is
completely illogical and baseless. And thus, the process of compensation as mentioned in Schedule II is
completely wrong.
 Whether the act was violating Articles 19(1), 13, and 31(2)?
First and foremost, the government said that they are not violating any fundamental right. The Supreme Court
also mentioned that a government can create a monopoly. It can be either absolute or partial but the main point
is that it has a right to create a monopoly. When a government creates a monopoly because of public welfare, it
is considered valid.
However, the Supreme Court in its verdict mentioned that Article 31(2) has been violated by the government
through Schedule II of the Act which mentions about the compensation part. Therefore, after this judgment,
the government introduced the 25th Amendment of this Act in 1971.
The Supreme Court also mentioned that Article 14 (Right to Equality) has been violated by the
government. This is due to the fact that only 14 banks were acquitted. Other all banks including foreign banks
were allowed to work privately.
The Major Principles Of The Verdict : –
Two major principles were laid down by Supreme Court in its verdict. Those principles were –
1. No shareholder or director can claim his or her fundamental rights on behalf of the company unless and
until his or her own rights are being affected by the same.
2. The concept of THE EFFECT TEST was taken into account. This concept was first laid down by A.K.
Gopalan. According to this, it would be considered that the ordinance which has been passed can only be
judged according to its effect and not over its motive or object.
Post Developments: –
 The government got the majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in the next election.
 Passed an act – Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970.
 To overcome this limitation imposed by judgment. The government of the day brought out an amendment
i.e. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 to overcome those restrictions as imposed by
the judgment.
1. The amendment curtailed the property right, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the
government for public use, on the payment of compensation.
2. Such compensation would be decided by the Parliament and not the courts.
3. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of
State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.
 Nani Palkhivala again fought one another landmark case i.e, “Kesavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala” to
ensure that the Judicial Review on violation of Fundamental Rights is retained.
 The case is also known for setting up the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution.
Explain and discuss the facts and principles of law laid down in the case of A.K. Gopalan vs The State
Of Madras.Union Of ... on 19 May, 1950. Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88.
The case of AK Gopalan v State of Madras gave chance to the Indian judiciary to interpret the Fundamental
Rights of the Constitution extensively. After this Judgement Courts in India started approaching the
Fundamental Rights of citizens and non-citizens in a wider and comprehensive manner, and not constructed
the Fundamental Rights in a restrictive manner as to accumulate all
rights of persons under Fundamental Rights. Such as the Right to Privacy, Right to Health, Right against the
custodial death etc.
Facts
The petitioner AK Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act 1950 in
Madras Jail. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Act on the ground that it is violating the freedom of
movement under Article 19 (1) (d) and personal liberty under Article 21 through writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution.
In the petition, he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December 1947. He
had been sentenced to imprisonment but the convictions were set aside. While he was under detention under
one of the other orders of the Madras State Government, he was served with an order made under Section 3 (1)
of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Issues
 Whether Preventive Detention Act 1950 is in violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution?
 Whether ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is same as ‘due
process of law’ under US Constitution?
 Whether is there any relation between Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution or they are independent in
nature?
Arguments
 It was argued that the word “personal liberty” includes freedom of movement under Article 19(1)
(d), therefore Preventive Detention must satisfy the reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) of the
Constitution.
 It was that Article 19 also confers personal liberty as a Fundamental Right and it is being violated of
the detainee by the impugned order.
 It was argued that Article 19 and Article 21 should be read together as implementing each other.
 It was argued that Article 19 gave substantive rights to citizens while Article 21 prescribed that no
person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law,
which is procedural law.
 It was argued that under Article 21 ‘procedure established by law’ means ‘due process of law’ of US
Constitution which includes the principle of natural justice and since the impugned law does not
satisfy the requirement of due process of law, therefore it is an invalid law.
Judgement
Majority judgement
Rejecting the contentions of AK Gopalan, the majority bench held that the ‘personal liberty’ which is
enumerated under Article 21 of the Constitution means nothing more than the liberty of the physical body, that
is freedom from arrest and detention without the authority of law.
According to Prof. Dicey, Personal liberty means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not
authorised by law.
The word ‘liberty’ is a very comprehensive word and if interpreted it is capable of including the rights
mentioned under Article 19. The court narrowed down the meaning of ‘personal liberty’ as it is given under
English law.
Article 21 is a guarantee against deprivation (total loss) of personal liberty while Article 19 afford protection
against unreasonable restriction (which is only partial control). Freedom guaranteed by Article 19 can be
enjoyed by a citizen only when he is a freeman and not if his personal liberty is deprived under a valid law.
Court went on to enumerate that ‘procedure established under law’ is not as same as ‘due process of law’ under
US Constitution. The word law interpreted by US Supreme Court does not allow the same interpretation of the
law under Article 21.
This is clear from the Drafting Committee of the Constitution in the respect of Article 21, that Constituent
Assembly formerly used the term ‘due process of law’ and later dropped it in the favour of ‘procedure
established by law’. The expression ‘procedure established by law’ must mean procedure prescribed by the law
of the State.
The interpretation put on the ‘due process of law’ by US Supreme Court has been characterized as utmost
vagueness. If the Constitution-makers wanted to preserve in India the same protection as given in US
Constitution, there was nothing to prevent the Constituent Assembly from adopting that phrase.
The Prevention of detention Act followed the valid procedure, as it is enacted by State legislation, therefore the
Act does not infringe Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, the said act was held valid and the court
dismissed the writ petition.
Minority Judgement
Justice Fazal Ali in his dissenting judgement held that the Act was liable to be challenged as violating Article
19. He gave wide and comprehensive meaning to the word ‘personal liberty’ as consisting of freedom of
movement and locomotion. Therefore, any law which deprives the person of his personal liberty must satisfy
the requirements of Article 19 and 21.
Conclusion
In the AK Gopalan case, the Court had interpreted Article 21 extremely literally and went on to affirm that
the expression procedure established by law meant any procedure which was laid down in the statute by the
competent legislature that could deprive a person of his life or personal liberty.

Constitutional Law of India - Old Question Papers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law of India - Old Question Papers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AD-1131

153 Governors of states

155 Appointment of Governor

156 Term of office of Governor

157 Qualifications for appointment as Governor

158 Conditions of Governor’s office

160 Discharge of the functions of the Governor in certain contingencies

161 Power of the Governor to grant pardons and others

176 Special address by the Governor

201 Bills reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President

213 Power of Governor to promulgate ordinances

233 Appointment of district judges by the Governor

Sl.No Name of the Bill Significance

Introduction In either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha Only in Lok Sabha

Introduced By Minister or a Private Member Only a Minister

President’s Not Needed Only after he recommends

Rajya Sabha’s Role Can be amended/rejected by Rajya Cannot be amended/rejected by Rajya

Can be rejected, approved, or Can be rejected or approved but cannot be

Joint Sitting of Both In case of deadlock, there is a No chance of disagreement, hence, no

Difference Ordinary Bill Money Bill

5. “Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation.” Explain.

Directive Principles of State Policy

Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A

Rigidity and flexibility

3. Uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India

9. Safeguard public property and to abjure violence

Importance of Fundamental Duties- Part IV-A

S.No Importance of Fundamental Duties

2. They warn citizens against anti-national and anti-social activities

3. Discuss the provisions of the Constitution relating to Co-operative Federalism.

Write short notes on Panchayati Raj.

Write short notes on Nagar Nigam.

Case Summary – Maneka Gandhi (Petitioners) V Union of India (Respondents)

Case Summary – Kesavananda Bharati & Others (Petitioners) V State of Kerala

Article 368 Vs. Article 13

What was the cabinet mission plan describe its characteristics?

Describe some facts of Constituent assembly.

 The British accepted this in the August Offer of 1940

Constituent Assembly of India – Key Facts

Criticism of the Constituent Assembly

It originally had 97 subjects. Now, it has 100 subjects

7th Schedule of Indian Constitution – State List

It has 61 subjects. Earlier, it had 66 items.

7th Schedule of Indian Constitution – Concurrent List

It has 52 subjects enumerated under it

How does voting It is a secret ballot system of voting

What is the procedure for impeachment of a President?

Aspect India USA

Some of the Frequently Asked Questions:

Financial Powers of President

Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012

Diplomatic Powers of President

He can only promulgate the ordinance under these circumstances:

An ordinance can be retrospective in nature

It has no connection with the President’s power to proclaim a national emergency

With regard to Ordinary Bills President can:

With regard to Money Bills President can:

With regard to the Constitutional Amendment Bills President can:

What is the Berubari case (1960)?

1st case (Facts)

What is Ninth schedule of Constitution of India and discuss on its misuse.

Acquisition of Indian Citizenship (IC)