— m EO OT CEL oe eLRy EI RU LLL aa Te lity RT OM me Sa MUR SCI Ta a ee USC NTA-UGC-NET Examination See SEC a SCC ER Ce Ey SU ees LS CUE he 1 Edition a eo REDMI NOTE 6 PRO TRIO Neer Ny Tals z.NST es® Recent g Landmark CASE Laws SOIT Io ser EN A collection of important Case Laws PAU CULUMeen ee EIT = Civil Judge, Higher Judicial Services & Prosecution Officer Examinations @ CLAT, AILET and other LL.M Entrance Examinations m NTA-UGC-NET Examination UPSC and State PCS Examinations Law Students, Lawyers and Law Professionals generally Samarth Agrawal es f LLM, NET/JRF §. eS ee Former Civil Judge (U.P. Judicial Service) QPF (2013 batch) ~ REDMI NOTE 6 PRO @ O MI DUAL CAMERAgins and rercssl abuse of don

Human Body # os Asian = HINDU LAW © Genes Pi 122, RECENT AND LANDMARK CASE LAWS Coniugal Rig THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA oFoneran « rampesef Comision Dremble® Usion Troy # citzanshipe Doctrine of = MUSLIM sips Serb Judicial Review © Concept of Sate @ Fundamental Rights; Gene ¢ —— rights Eqaiye Righto Freedoms © Various acs of Right Lifeand Libeny © Right ieee Asan Exploitation # Right to Fredom of Religion @ Calta and Educational Rishi @ \ * = LAWOF Right ConsttatonlRemaisand Public Inert Ligation @ Diet Principles # Fxeatve © Legiature © Judiiny # Legislative Relations @ Freedom of Trade and Commerce @ # Genet Emergency ® Amendment ® Miscellancous Sus © Lib = CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BAD = THE? «© General Principles ® Power of Courts Arrest @ Maintenance ® Preventive Action @ = THE! Investigation @ Jurisdiction @ Cognizance ® Complaints to Magistrate ® Issue of Process © Charge @ Trial Inquires & Trial: General Principles @ Bail® Appeal ® Miscellaneous a = CODE OF civH = Te IL PROCEDURE 50-65 © General Principles © Definitions © = uM Principles @ Definitions @ Jurisdiction & Suits of Civil Nature @ Transfer of Suits (Res Juice de Res Jadicata@ Foreign ! ‘ Judicata @ Foreign Judgments @ Parties to Suit @ Order 2 Rule 2.@ Pleadings . (Appearance & Non-Appearance of Parties @ Execut Lis artes tion @ Special Suits @ Tem (© Appeals # Miscellaneous praise Tera iepains at Pariksha ManthanINDIAN EVIDENCE ACT + Ger Minpae 1: Seritnrae tartans aman tags au Annis niin el Ora Evidence @ Pies i Tri Deira Presumption & Burden of roof Pivlged Com “ nine Wine INDIAN CONTRACT ACT Acceptance® Co Privy of Contac ® Capa onsideration ® Privityof Contact ® Capacy (© General Principles © Of to Contract © Free FreeConsent @ Void & Voidable Contract ® Quasi Contra ® Ds INDIAN PENAL CODE HINDU LAWS , ingle Contkomot Maing VO Voter Reon Conjugal Rights, Judicial Separation & Divores® Maintenance® Adoption # Guanlinship © Joint Family Property & Coparcenany MUSLIM LAWS ‘TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT @ Preliminary @ Transfer of Property by Act of Parties LAW OF TORTS © General Principles # General Defences se Remoteness of Damage ® Vicarious Liability © Nuisance Defamation # Malicious Prosecution ‘Absolute Liability @ Negligence @ ‘© False Imprisonment 8 Trespass A10-112 STRUMENTS ACT Strict © Liability of State ‘THE NEGOTIABLE INS AAS-114 ‘THE SALES OF GOODS ACT INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT ‘THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT owe GANT seed B21 Period of LIMITATION aAcT ation @ Computation of reliminary @ Limitation of quisition of Ownership bY Possession Limitation @ Act ‘THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT “ ‘Pariksha Manthan @ Pr suits, Appeals & Applicsor vgs snd Fre ay insurance ona iit ens ase of MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS ON CASE LAWS ‘nie COASTTUTION OF INDY URE, 1973 o BororcaiaaL ROE Foca cv ROCEDURE 1% 2 oun BuDENCE ACT, 1972 youn CONTRACTACT. 72 FF pian FENAL-CODE 1860 se Fa\aDY LAWS > sRi AIR! Ar rRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 pal fe JURISPRUDENCE AR 1 pc ivrERNATIONAL LAB oe = LAWOF TORTS = a fe NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 181 = 1az0URLAW —_ a fb ADNONISTRATIVE LAW 4 s+ ENVIRONMENTAL LAW — > = SALES OF GOODS ACT ' INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT | a 1 HUMAN RIGHTSLAW > > = COMPANY LAW . ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 | CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT =Recent ant andar Cae Ls THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION ‘The Supreme Gourmet our Connon ae Adoie the stem of uramenary pcre ak Ena. ac ins thn he a he Coni otal Head ofthe xen whieh sal uses ps _are vested in the Council of Ministers _ 123 165 68 70 2 Ram jaya Kapoor. Sate of Pan AIR 1955 SC 549 oma 74 4 : 3. SK Bommaiy. Union ofindi AIR 1994 SC 1918 " - “Arana Roy v. Union of tn, AIR 2002 SC.3176 > Excel Wear. Union oftndia, AIR 1979 8C.25 DS. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 $C 130 2) L Chandra Kumarv. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC.1125 2 SRBommai v. Union of India, Seculasinm is the basic structure ofthe Conattaton. Supreme Gourt held thatthe secularism hat postive ‘meaning and it means to develop understanding ind respect ward diferent lgion _ ‘Courts would give mote weightage tothe natonalaaton and stat ownership bu the principles of socialism should rot be interpreted and implemented to the extent totally ignores the interes of private ownership, Further, Supreme Court hel chat the basic purpote of socialism sto provide decent standard of ie and vcialsecuis to people. ‘Supreme Courthas hal that xcsionofurisdcion of ours is unconstitutional Judicial review ithe basic structure of the Constitution and ican never beexclided. ‘Supreme Court has expresed in majority opinion that AIR 1994 SC 1918 Indian Constitution is federal, 2) Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, “The federal principle or doctrine of separation of powers AIR 1955 SC 549 not incorporated in the Constitation in the strit and rigid form. 2 State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 > Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, ‘AIR 2006 SC 3127 Tadian Constitution is net truly federal and Sates are not sovereign, Political sovereignry is distributed between Union and States with greater weightage in favour of the Union. Indian Union i federal bt the extent of federaism is argely watered down by the neds of progres and development of ‘country which hast be nationally, politically and economi- cally coordinated and socal, intellectually ane spiritually uplifted “Though the federal principles dominant in our ‘Constitution and that principle sone ofits asic features, but, itis also equally true that federalism leans in favour of 2 In Re Berubari Union case, asstrongcentre or unitary POE [ PREAMBLE A “The Supreme Court hed thatthe Preamblejs not the pat of the Constitution. AIR 1960 SC 845 Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 “The Supreme Court eld that the Preambleis the part ofthe leof the stitutic “The court held that the Preamble of comet ionis of extreme importance and the Constuton Constitution is ofrss E connumer Figs ond sarge atta cr Cm s pees rand intepeted i the it ofthe Prey, should be rod an ee reamblecan be se nied party evs, abuse of — Aocli Seer eeneam om Sapte Constitution. Sa oft | ov held in Ravana oasis roe Ce eadeere 2 hist am ———S«* Sac ss 2 porsci8 Consietien 1e Constitution should be wt an eens ‘Supreme Court held that the Ce rps x cof Tun! Neck aerpretd in such manner so 38 soca, Tm soviet © Anan SCS ‘Gourt sid that promise o provide social, cone or ace eae ar ach |S Rn ction i © acon scz [Se i ES ann Beaune ecient tbe ene Comstuton. Salta a oro see spain tial 2 AIR 1965 SC 845 RY UNION & TERRITO. char any sven polo Thsgree urinal aN 2 Amar Singh fv. State of Rajasthan, time the territory of lai isthe area which is specified in © AIR 955SC50¢ First Schedule under Article 1 ~ ini ewe FSi Ge The power of Paaneat oc 2) RBar sees aa Pee sien o€todan tito too foreign State The TER Dean agreement could only be implemented by an amendment to 3 the Constitution under Article 368. tate Legislature to which the Bill has been referred, 2 a semen, dos not pen ion min the prod so pected aaa extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament even though the views ofthe State have not been obtained by the President. Ifthe State Legislature expresses its views within the time so specified or ertended the Parliament is not bound to acceptor act upon the views of the State Legislature. 2 Megane: Union of nd, AIR. 1969783. | An agreement to refer the dispute tothe tribunal does nor amount to cessation of territory and hence amendment of Constitution is not necessary 2 RC Poudyal Union of india, ven though the admissio AIR 1993 SC 1804 act CITIZENSHIP Supre tt ile of Indie fut hs held that Article 5 recognizes domig leof an + Itdocs not recognize the concept of Stee domicile Pade AIR 191 50 4 Sond Copa Sond gj AIR2013 C2676 , serie domi of choice Supreme Court has held that indomicile of choice mere acqui, bot suficiens THe SE AQuiston of other domicileis re must be clea domicile, foign be clear intention to abandon thePre Se iy is = > aemepaness tannin oe Ubsta " often = AIR oe sean Unton oft, ‘Supreme Court recognized that those who had oluntash a beet tiencar oni iripieeree : wick Reranatuetccmagees - > acme — | Rena hhave been conferred upon its citizens. = ae concerned with the natural persons. 4 : = =e fewer ie ae canes eeenee, Si siecantcnsentenneye acticin ininciy Teceepese oer a tone rage has ihe 2 Rc cxpery ton nd Soprene Cour il hae Satan ae _ (Bank Nasonalziion ce) Tightsof shareholder and well at hatofcompanytheshare = ammscsen telat rentictesgonesemsnie neces hoe : shooter orale! stedtegmarts impo ieome ° 2 Godin Hlarialy God. Sate of Gaar,_| The Supreme Cour held hop ompny waea amivnsses? see vararauaetnrakttormtese though seeocongen : 1 DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW ] 2. Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128 “Supreme Court abserved that preConstitutional laws exists forall ast acts, .. prior to commencement of Constitution, ‘D- Bhikhaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC781 ‘> Saghir Ahmed v. State of Utar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728 ‘State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 $C 1300 Formulated the doctrine of elise. The court held that under this doctrine the law is overshadowed by fundamental right and remains dormant. "The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to preConsttutionallawsand not to port Constitutional lavs. In Deep Chand v. State of ULP.1959) and Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of U.P.(1963) sew was endorsed by the cout. Supreme Court modified its view expreel in Dexp Chand ‘ase Mahendralalfin soe and SagirAbmed scat Thecout. hheld that postconstitutional laws, which are inconsistent ‘with fundamental rights, axe not void abinitiofor all ‘purposes Doctrine of eclipses aplicable 0 post constitutional laws aswel. - the doctrine o i “The Supreme Court elaborately discuss es wae severity and held that when after removing theinaid Mae portion what remains isa comple code then thesis no necessity to declare the whole Act void. ul Pariksha Manthanyr rights and redress] arty insur 1s, abuse of armed, ents, — est Toa 2 fie ss0sc 24 sce and esis ant antrth Ce bea es ee, cower restrictions ition and it is not possible, “supreme Court Spr ccm, “4 a itn com oe een SCS ae complae in hance eet So wiot mind oon dnide 3 Restawraad AiR 1973501461 “oa fog 193 SCAT Locale whe oy Teave bodies have worked within the boundaries _ ce Bar. Sa agitate lists in making the required laws, but, eee Oot eintced that dn pow oP TSISY ee tundra SFOS] Fae Ra Dion Fi a and elias 3 LE Ghancta ‘AiR 199786 1125 under Article 368 | under Acie 368 Td CONCEPT OF STATE —j] 2 University ofMadiras v. Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67 1D alec Board, Rajasthan v. Moban Lal, AIR 1967 8C 1857 2 Sublidev Singh v. Bhagacram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 2 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The Intemational Aiport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 hs High Cour ed ‘ther autor colony me ped singh principle of dem eer Theor Heol only me autores casing rcmenaloarea fenions Saprene Cour rece theinterprestion in Sania Ba crane ch expe ther eehere ede ‘Suro ines thors cated by the Cana stiiulscumiom th owns naunfadbslee necessary thatthe authority must be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function. Supreme Court held thet ifthe functions of the Corpo. tations are of public importance and closely related to government functions then it should be treated as a STCY oF instrumentality of government ie. ‘State’ within the Meaning of Part IIT. ‘Supreme Court followed the! ‘broader test laid down in Sukhdev Singh scase The cour laid down following test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State. (1) Financial resources ‘of the State is the chief funding source of the body. ® Existence of deep and pervasive State control, (9) Functional character of the body is governmertal in essence. (Department of governments transferred tothe corporation, (S) Whether the Corporation enj joys monopoly status which =e oe is State conferred or State Protected, Supreme Court held thata Society regi Soci ; rath 10h Schedule minus pa > Nemhys cons AIR 1967 SC have ben ateinacodees atte the rena TERME aie Conmiaionsnd they sone a® | Sa ther provitons of he Gonstistion i Pos Ge > Man asm > M al12 Rij Prased Sharma v. Sate of Assam, @ars)9sccast FUNDAMENTAL Reser and Landmark Ca Lam isteach raceme tie satomattasigstsataas Seprane Gnd neces emp eicie ce “opined that such judicial orders i he ecbe ido viola the Saprene Courter fl th cour wle sng adc side reo Sa under Artie of he onstitation When the cout at in purely aiminitaie {apc then they may atthe wit friction sn i sudministrative ations. Thus, afer this decision of the Poston is amply lear that courtrwhile acting om jaca ide are not‘State ut they may strat the trappings oF State sven they atin adeinistrativ copay RIGHTS: GENERAL 2) Mancka Gandhi v. Union of India, (978) 1scc248 2M. Nagarajv. Union of India, ‘AIR 2007 SC71 2 Siddharam Satingappa Mbete v. State of ‘Maharashura, (2011) 1 SCC694 2 Behram v. State of Bombay, | ‘The Supreme Gourt observed hat fundamental ight represent the basic vies cherished bythe people of India And they pres the dignity ofan individual and cree conditions in which very human bangean develop hit personality tothe fullest extent The Supreme Court hashed thatthe Gonsituion bas confirmed the existence of fundamental rights and given them protection. Individuals poses certain basic human sights independent of ny Consttion by reson ofthe fact that they are humans. Supreme Court held that fundamental ight tepreset basic value ensiched by the people of nia his to presere ane protect certain basic human ight again the ineeence ofthe State. The objects to ensure inviolablty of certain essential rights against politcal vesitudes, ‘Supreme Court clarified that person cannot waive is Funds mental Rights. This option isnot availabe to him. These AIR 1955 SC 123 ‘Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Comamissiones, | rightshave not only been enshrined in the Constitution AIR 1959 SC 149 for persona interest but also for benefits of entre society 2 Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India ‘Writ under Article 32 not maintainable for enforcement of (2019) 3S0C 589 personal contractual rights RIGHT TO EQUALITY > State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkat, AIR 1952SC 75 Supreme Court held that the expesion ‘Equal Protetion of ity before law and Laws’ isa corollary to the expression ‘equality itis ifficlt to imaginea situation in which the violation of the equal protection of law will notbe violation of equality 3 Pariksha Manthan * before law.and redresal sumer rights and nee and claims party insur se sn Cand YMA reo ? i co 2 sn a, rot west Bengal A ain 19528075 5 chain al est scal cements, abuse of Ds Peakarev. Union of ni, AiR 198390 130 DEP Royapen v. Sate of Tamil Nach, AIR 1974 90555 2 Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashira, AIR 1952 C123 ‘2 Sarcof Madras v. Champakam Dorarairajan, AIR 1981 S206 2 Balaji state of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 > TMA. Pai Foundation v, State of Karnataka, ‘AIR 2003 SC.355, PA. Inamdat v. State of Maharashtra, AIR2005 SC 3226 Union of India, AIR 2014502114 ahem, sine Coil see Conn Seon camden cee Sem So as Supreme Co Mei the objet of the ACCA O40 iffy, the dase an to have nesus between the Bais Sh law may be constitutional even Spier Om Je individual on account of wpe ies oa 1 delve tome 5 Tint ey alee Gey Kee Fe Ee person wo challenges the constituionaly tte a the thew tha aw is arbeary and unreasonable rhe that doin of sifction ws ra fe onto Sten ode bly Waker 2 Sate of ity AIRIOASC 2 Baa 5 Su tovestin 3g sections of society spells the radiuonal concept of quality which y Ace ae aicaion pres Cau id aan coneeptof equality which is different from eotcaleonuptofressonabl dancin. Aric 4 wale state action and ensures fairness and_ atthe arbiearines in quality of weatment. Principle of reasonableness pervades Aricle 1 ‘Supreme Court held that when alaw comes within the prohibition of Article 15 it cannot be validated by recourse to ‘Aaticie 14 by applying the principe of reasonable clasificaton, ‘Supreme Court declared void the G.O. by Madras government ‘which reserved seats in State Medical and Engineering Colleges for different communities on the basis of religion, race and caste. Supreme Court nullified it because it classified students on th bass of caste and religion, Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) provision only confers discretion to make special provisions for backward classes of citizens. Supreme Court held that State could not make reservations of seats in admissions in privately run educational institutions and higher educational institutions, 22° Constitutional Amendment was challenged, The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionalty. The court homeve, held thatthe benefits of reservations cannot he siven to creamy layer candidates, Supreme Court in held that classif fy2 Seatcof Bihar, Chances Ammaoua sess frm 3 Halal v State of Mysore, a AIR 969 SC 649 f 4 > Indica Sawhney Union fad, . AIR 1993 S477 2 Union of India v. Vispal Sing, AIR 1996 SC448 acetal Lach Cee Le strates pc Sct itethn nana bro ad siete Cone “ byrne Cour Msntyennonehbecaun is 1S ein ie) ane eid ont andotenironeoneicbot reson ante ten remo onboard he oS nan 3. ‘ree ven aneepon she 0) tnt free Remrnton en te Tne ari i) Cx roan dsaon ala Wau ofnporemhic teh Ae Teoinan ction oie) 4. bd darn sarily tedster bin re 0) Kehoe ‘nec nln dt anes eran rer myn gui ee 1) hy my lier Acc) Cool Baas ine Sects pin noice tat hed aes fetes unde Arie 16@) anes cal ‘tectonic dies, 5. Creamy ie mu bed fom baka ses Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes in bc and more bach dss 1. Rowrmtnstalnotexed 0 pec Incr Snot may te edn four ong farflangand vero aet ofthe county & — Courtoverruled Devadasan v. Union of India(1964) tnd hat ary ovat esr provide should not result in breach of 50% rule. 9, Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be made in promotions. Supreme Court held that caste criterion for promotion is violative of Article 164) ofthe Constitution. Seniority Decween reserved category candidates and general candidates ‘would continue to be governed by their panel position selection. Acoderate promotion does prepared at the time of not give accelerated or ‘consequential senionty. The court held that Article 16(4) and 16(4A) does not mandate seniority over general category as amatter of ight. 55 sha Mantbansr rights and rearessal > .- ~ liens sents tase (48 f Artie 1 cag, sry mre anh et alt ho reo “Te Suprme Ce and do notalter the Basic ugg cots, abuse of # toninn of to. ‘ow from Artic a Rak RHP nd 16D) Oyo ard and inadequacy oy omer Corse (anda Ei) ted sd ene a fae data showing Dacwadne capaci ew her collecting a3 ‘Concepr of creamy Lye" Saka Paps AIR 1982 SC p19) 16S 9 ential ent. 2K kajagopa an rn tn oti Hn el at Roe 0 Sop yee Seeman | cane aelaaiiesinniage ™ eid AT 1982C 1473 uid alo 5 suateorM Fe a AR 19250 lll Sep aaa a Supreme Court] ricle 18. The court also held tha, 3 pa haven ¥ Union arn onal Awards shall not be used a UTX OF prety Damay ARS held thatthe Members of Transgender community Ft inion | He was held that les) should be treated as Third "Nana Legal Services Auorty ether males nor females) 3 2 ta Aik z010SC 86S Gone Tey rented sual igh ike ay eben Find Discrimination onthe bass ofserual orientation ore entices ny dation exon, restriction or preference, which has the effect of nullifying o- transposing equality by the aw or the equal protection of s law guaranteed under our Constitution. = [ RIGHT TO FREEDOMS | 4 : "R Mobanraj. Tamil Nach Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens (198 Legistcve Assembly, AIR 2016 SC 867 aly (2) Bennent Coleman and Co. v. Union of india, ‘The Supreme Court held that the rights of sharcholders with AIR973 $C 106 seqard to Article 140)@) were protected and manifestedby 9B the newspapers owned and controlled by the shareholders through medium of corporation. = 2 DCRGM Union ofa, The Supreme Court held that writ petition filed by the ee AIR 198350937 company for violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 is maintainable. Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, ampnsccn ‘State of Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and of press lay 2 at the foundation of all democratic organizations, Without fe Political dscusion no public education for te proper _ inctioning of the wa 2 Indian Expr Process of government is possible 2 1985) 1 SCC. "Pen. Union oFtndia, | Supreme Court hy ld that‘ = (1985) SCC 641 ld that ‘freedom of press’ means2 2 Ben wet Coleman and Co, v. Union of India {AIR 1973 SC 106 3 Bxpres Newspaper ton of AIR 1958 SC578 = 1D) Sokal Papers Lid. ¥. Union of India, Recent ac Ladue Lan Seperate ange mai ater sich snempuercan pat clon Geom pent and expen freeware Spence gun er abe cra sod Teed thar the pres vot immune from the jon and indusrial application “The order imposing minimum price and warmer of pages AIR1962 S305 srasheld tobe violative of A ras held tobe violative of ticle 1910). 3 Rengcpal x, Sat of Ta Ma ‘Supreme Court held that th top sue hat the government has no aon 994) 6SCC6) to impose a pioerestraint upon publication of 3 Devids Ramchandes Tubjapurkarv. ‘Saute of Maharashtra, (2015)6SCC1 3” Damayantiv. Union of India, AIR 971 SC966 3) Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal ‘Committee, AIR 1989 SC1988 3 Khoday Distilleres Led. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1800574 Om Prakash v. State OF U.P, AIR 2004 SC.1896 defamatory material against its officals ‘Use of obscene language against historically respected personalities cannot be allowed i the name of artistic Freedom, critical thinking or creativity under Article 90%) ‘Supreme Court held thatthe right to form association ‘necessarily implies that the person forming the aswociation have aio the right 0 continve wo be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit inthe sociation. Any law by which members ae introduced in the voluntary ‘sociation without any option being given tothe members tokeep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will bea law violating the right 0 form the asoiation. Supreme Court held that hawkers have fundamental ightto ‘carry on trade on pavement of roads. However, thei Fights subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 1%6) “Supreme Court held that a citizen has no right to carry on trade or business in liquors as beverage. The State has a powet to prohibit the manufactur, als possesion and dstibution cxcept in cases for medicinal purposes. me Court held that lottery cannot be construed as trade SBA Eaerprise v, State of U.P, AIR 1999 SC 1867) Supr rbusiness within the meaning of Article 19(1X) Kecontains fan element of chance and therefore, it isa gambling. Supreme Court hed that ban on sale of exes whi he Rishikesh said as it contains reasonable ‘municipal limits of] vestition. The reasonably must be construe from point vf view of cultural and religious background of the Sv. Pariksha Manthan > Godawat Pan Masala Products Private lid. v. Supreme Court held thatban on pan maaan gua Union of India, ‘AIR 2004 SC 4057 containing tobacco to” under age persons’ snot violative of Article 19(1)- 2 "Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of | Riek to protest is recognized as afundanctl right under sit ‘alin democracy a, (2018) 17 SOC324 the Constitution. This right is cruc ; aie rests on the participation ofan informed inensy'® governance. = of cows a ujarat Supreme Court beld that ban on slaughter of ° se amat AR 20650212 and other nt hand draught catzss not ica Of ASE v1 ———— sits, rence and lane EE hin pa in cma ae Je ereriction as cows and er Pacman ag, pO ,e of Indian agricul Fon fs le . Sino . ie pa ene A export fale - — nr Pn " Je 20(3) has following Wy oe | caer eT 2s r Chan 0 | eal AIR 1978 SC_ J aoe AR IST pei ebeaccused of an offence; aan (1) Person agreements, abuse of * nll jon iva protection aginst Compulsion yy, @) This provis : a freronsapainscompubion O¥vevidencegy:., oflnda an @) Frovetio himself ed ifthe formal accusation iggy | be aecus 2 ‘Pala. Delhi Aci mer ofan offence has ben leveled which me pstice Ee na rai me 1 sult in prosecut . : AIR 1962 SC 1821 result ic aan smenionlin IR any = Start ai n under Article 20. Sesh ancl, claim the protection 2 fic a interpretation ofthe phrase oi ee Supreme Court held tha wes Sharma seaseis too broad. Tobewi > Navieji ieee temas icin Eetestmecenaiee || aE iving finger impressions or blood samples etc, ‘Nandini Satpathy v. PL. Dari ld that protection of Article 20@3)is availble 5 Ghar AIR 19778C 1025 | Supreme Court hel : ee from the stage of police interrogation. should be administered only with the Soul 2010SC1974 | Liedetector ests should be administered on oe 9 Sebi ase Of Reena: consent ofthe accused. Incase the consent of the accused isnot obtained then such tests are violative of Artcle203). Paz AIR ° unas Coney ion Tamtaryof ett, Supreme Could that right olives not limited ome AIR 198150746 animal existence. Its something more than just physical survival, > Ra ~ u ° nap ielandRexaisntAssocition | Siprene aunhelitiarow cannot be total prohibition @ CAA. Sate of atures, of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the Dk (2019) 3S0C429 fener Conditions imposed by the Government for geting A license for dance bars. The complete prohibition serving Alcobolin the dance bars was quashed as die wm rtionate ® li xi iaaacsy po ce aera Govtor' West Bengal and others 2019) ttnekes wurtheld that ree speech cannot be gagged by fear VRC eyo jag, olen, The Court ordered Rs 20 lakhe compen- Sation to the makers of the Bengali film “Bhobhishyotercena Lair Coe Le VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY 2 Al K. Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 19809627 3 Mancka Gandhi v. Onion of AIR 978 SC597 ee Terona liber in Article] mene bry ttn coc enblaet yest eee fue: Law mane sete made law and toes tot ean having ment of mata janie Tersonal bert in Arile21 sof wide Teoma [c21 sof wiles amplitude nk orate of righteThe procedure erable by Low ‘foul’ ju rand resonable Law means having ‘sven prints of maar jee be 3 Tag mary daca» in| i prac Supreme Court held that ight to privacy sf ‘of ind el rs, Fra fundamental ight and iis protected under Article 2h (Court overated MP, Sharm case and KharakSinghs case ’ to the extent they held that Fight to privacyis not - = =k sa fandamental eight. Fastice KS. Pattaswamy (Rid) and Ane. ¥. eld to be constullon ‘ jamie ES hae” Asda ldo Tr Supreme Goureuphed ae incor on alidity of Radiat afer reading down and 4 : king down certain provisions. ; B > fee sine tea of india ‘Offence of Adultery i unconstijuiional Supreme Court ‘019380039 Sea fown Section 497 of Indian Penal Code s unconst- 3 haves Singh Johar v. Union of tnd, ois) sscc345 sc ee chat stilated womens ght 04g and hence it infringed Article 21. ——— Fora acre consional Supreme OO Be of dian Peal Coe unconmttonl Sa ee nals homoweual acs beeen cmSENNG adults 3 "5 Union for Democratic Rights ¥- Taioa | Non pavman omimimam sag Supreme Court eld hat ‘of india, AIR 1982 SC 1473 a payment of minimum wages is vilation of Anicie 2. > “Tellisv. Bombay Municipal Corporation, | Right. livelihood: pret ‘Court held that right to ie ‘AIR 1986 SC 180 include right to livelinood also. D Chameli Singh v. State OF UP. (1996)2SOC 549 Right to hele: Supreme Court held shat ightto shelter fsa fundamental right under Arile 21 3 Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigath ‘Adminsitration, AIR 2010 SC235 Reproducsive choices: Supreme Court eld hat ite se apie oductve choles (decision to produce child or 29) isincluded in Article 21. ‘Katara v. Union of India, Tight 1o ealth Supreme Court held that all does sent) are obliged to extend medical > Gian Kaurv. “State of Punjals (1996) 2SOC48 [AIR 1989 SC2039 (grivateor govern (ore ped mmediatly witout sting ol formalities, "Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretaty, Right to sleep: Supreme Court held that right to sleep ba Union of India, Pana Bena ight at isbiolgiel and essent ‘ement of 2012) 5SCC1 basic necessities of life Goonge Varghese v. Sate Bank of Cochin, “ret ofudgment debe Supreme Court eld hat ° A isan S470 Asst of aeon of honest nent deion in oe get py despeslient meats AINE of Article 21. “Neerja Chaudhary “prem Court held that bonded labour Chaudhary v. State of M. jonded labour: Suprem ‘AIR 1984 SC 1099 od be identified and rehabilitated - ‘io die: Supreme Court held that ght to life does rnotinclude righttod ‘Court held that in certain ira Shanbaugh v. Union ‘Aruna Ramohane “of India, AIR 2011 SC.1290 Passive euthanasia: Supreme us ‘aes passive euthanasia is aloe ywsumer righes and reeressal _ eye asurance and clalims ce Lane hi py ina Co — nbc, eer Lt wion of gender: Supr a ot contain aproeme tion | Sermiation orn . (ot : authronsty wranteed under hheld that sexual, phy carpal sree ene Coit irs Renatngeae ese a Slat ern donde) Rtn 2 ina Al Tian of ts | eotional abuse ot too Andon Amide 2h Supreme Court held that gh Vellore Gch ee Rightio ise eel ad To etolioann et 2 en eer azo —potn Sate oF haa TT ket 2 Miiomsciss aso rs Pt aaon = cisis [AIR I8805C 3 Rate Singh Sat of Resta India 1956 2 Mohini air (a2) 80% 2 Unni Krist Tis part and ibe fice legs aid Court held that righ rial Supreme si "iho spesd tial: ‘irafindimental ghtandiiepictig ny spesdy _ 2 reagan, Supreme Court held that Birtagy Fetes air investigatin, Kevin nde wits Supreme Cour hip cris with conv ‘Keeping ts Sciiteamieiomnat cae culling Supreme Court held that ye Nhat ns nono nd aca cise en re resent danger of cape. ‘methods: Supreme Court held thay Use of third degree methods: of third degree’ method by polices violative oF Arig ae ee inn] me este n sonanoten. Supreme Court held that execution of 2 Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SOC 645 Eee ie! ging by Ind ° Anpasceg mee mmRes Darin ction of death wennceavioatvegrAmte > 21 2 Nilabati Bebra v. State of Orisa, (1993)2s00746 ‘Castodial torture/death: Supreme Court awarded compensation tothe family of deceased who died in police custody due to beating. 2 DK. Basu v. State oF W.B, AIR 1997 C610 Supreme Court laid down guidelines tobe followed by _avestigatng agencies in cases of arrest and detention, > Jopinder Kumar y. Sate oF UP, Supreme Court laid down. guidelines regarding arrest of (1394) 400.260 persons during investigation, > idl Sal. Sate of Btas (RASCAL Ta usation for violation off ‘held that courts have Power to award compensation in oa er appropriate cases of violation of Article 21, AIR1957 C3011 it delim tua harass Buidelines to Prevent sexual har; ‘of : peepee arassment of working women ort etn and inttenent Re ¥. State] ‘UP.U985)2 50043; ‘ Rithto dean environmen Supreme Court held that right toclean em P onmentisa fundamental right Protected underMG. Metin» Union oti Fond | Avie. Feriaiaerene) 944) 380C 6 ieecpsingupigtorimees toma ham) sate eng reanimation cn or indin i999 88cC318 Vellore Crizen’s Were Ror ¥. Union of India (1996) SOLO ‘Mohit Jain v. State of Kamat, | Siprcne Cour had hat ight cveaton sal leas ala i apres Coun hel that ight wo acai tal lerdsivs ‘Unni Kettinan ¥ Sac oF APA) SOS | Spree Cut hel that ight chon wa ndash fier owing om Arce bt ight ew eecaton SMatulot the cient compete of dears Ate th the ligation of ate poe eduston eornsscc737 ered ar quit doc ene can Supreme Court lal down following iden relaingto treat under preventive detention lm {1} After detention the fnily member of detnue should beinformed about detention and plac of detention: (2) Detena mus be detained in place where he baby tails unlesin cen eceptonal cueummances, desetion athe plc ease (6) Betenve must be nied to books, wing mats, town food and vite from family a fends (4) Hermust be kept separate from those who ate convicted; {5} Trentment of punitive character should nor be mere out o him S Maadoor Kian Shale Sangathan ¥. Union of — | there isa confi of two rights qua individuals under India, 2018) 17 SCC 324 ‘Avle 21 then in such situation the tesof Tanger public interes i ree, 31S. Punaswamy v. Union oF india * Prvagyensucs hata humanbéng can end feof Seity ‘Gadliaar Case),(2019)1SCC1 by securing the inner recetes ofthe human personality ffom unveante intrusions All matters perainingtoan individual do not qualify as being inherent part of Fight to privacy. Only those matters over which there would be a resonable expectation of privacy are protect by Ace a Rightto privacy aa fundamental ight snot imited to “Article 21 It resonates through the entirety of Part IIL of ‘the Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural rright which inheres in’ ‘individual and is thus, inalienable, Privacy is both negative and positive concept. As 2 negative concept strains the tate from commitingan intrusion upon life of personal liberty of citizens. As & portve obligation it imposes an obligation onthe State take al necessary measures to protect the privay ofa individual. ‘Good and just social orders one which respects dignity. Digaity isto be treated as ‘empowerment or Fight Pariksha Manthan a DAK Roy v. Union offadia, NR 19@2SC710sme i : snce and claims union ——— ° aria, AIR 82S 194 ” = TATION aa jn ° “ —e sgainst secular philopshy of the Constitution. Secularism Sees pst mening te dolopingundrvane nde mad dient eons apene Court ofr of payor wonkipiy an ten 3 lama Paruguiv. Uaion of nc, seligious practice but offering at every location where such CeERSe prayers ca be offered would not be an estental religious practice RIGE 2 Church of God (Pull Gasped of india v. Supreme Court held that no person can be allowed to > Ro EKRMC. Wellae Association, create noise pollution or disturb the peace of others while Al ‘AIR2000 C2773 exercising religious feedom. Religious prayers through —_— Joudspeakers are not an essential element of any religion oP ° SP atl. Union of tnd AR19635C1 | Supreme Court held that ligious denominations mast ‘ satisfy te following requirements: (0) emus be acollection of individuals who have a system ‘oftbeliefs which they regard as conducive to their = Spiritual wellbeing, 2 2) Ttmust have a common organization, 3 hitomi = {8)_Temus be designated by a distinctive name often, Cait tone Right to freedom of religion is not absolute d ° d harmonized with other eee 2019)11S0C1Recent wel Lack Cue Loe ‘CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS 2 Prank Anthony Public School Employees 1y Public School E “Association v, Union of Tad, AIR 1987 SC 311 2 Frank anthony Public School Hmployees ‘Association v. Union of India, NR IS87 SCI 3 TAMA Pal Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8scca81 Supeme Court hel thas ide of ging spec its © Trot eno ety a in Trashed tht reglowry menses aimed ot making etc natruments or paring ‘Mhaton, without maling management’ si re emis Supreme Count down thetlosingy (Oy Sutictote repre ans nto de Poe oe Trattanes which ecevesd fom the State cook be subject oporernanent clea rexaation Titec of unaided insttuions only euigion wich ® ° “plamic Academy of Echucation v. State of 2 ‘Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697 erere omen may puts ean hegaifcxons ee cn conten of cy oftachersand ince. Condit Bout o- Univesity Arad ination has 0 ‘of non-minority students. Minority inssution may have ts own procedure and tnethod of admission but the procedure must be fait and transparent. Fupreme Court hel that educational insittions can have nr own fee structure bus there must bene professing and capitation feecannot be charged of recognition and affiliation by or 102 sto be complied with sdmit a eazonable number o © © [TEREST LITIGATION \ RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDTES ‘AND PUBLIC IN’ > Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, Supeeme Court spot and guarantor fundamen) ‘AIR 1950 SC 124 vi andecannoeefeseto encerainapeiaions king protection guna infringement of such ight. > prem Ghand Garg v. Excise Commissioncs, sees Fundamental Right to move to Supreme Court an BE UP, AIR 1963 SC996 tppropriaely described ascorentone cf nedemer aed bythe Consituion. Ln disharing the Gus ssrignedt it the cours play the role of sentinel om theqni ae and it must always regard it s solemn dU to protect the Fandamental right zealously and vigilant Dayan v State oF UP, AIR961 C457 “When the matter as been heard and decided by the High Cartunder Article 226 the writ ner Artie 3 isbarred by the principle of resjudicata, > Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurray Tnorder to correct the gross riscarviage of ustice which ‘AIR 2002 SC 1771 cannot be challenged again, the court will allow curative petition to seck second reves ‘of the final order. i it ecessary to change the socal enlizer Corporation Kamgar Union ¥- Inappropriate cases it becomes BE arytod ° a aapenessof eal Fights and socal bligtions and take locus standi to initiate Union of india, AIR 1981 SC344 ‘broader view of question oFsoi, he party insurance a 3 Chanda Rumery. Union of tdi, ‘AIR1997 501125 DIRECTIVE, l 2. Ranbir Singh v. Union of fai, AIR 1982 $C 879 2 Sate of Macias v. Champakam Doraisjan, AIR 1951 228, 2 ReKerala Education Bill AIR 1957 50936 3 Reshvanand Bhanv SaieofReaky AIRIISCM6 2 Minerva Mills. Union oft AIR 1980 SC 1789 we directive princi ensure that the PIL involves pean, id ust be given priority ver other, Aik ‘cours shou piers ald ensure ht there no person in, Paco oe mtv ehid fing ls Fatal enue tht petition le bby deat and uleroe mip foretaeous cs vee mus be dncouraged by imposing exemplary ert by adopting methods to curb such evolous petitions, 3 petitions Tradition of High Court under Aticle 226 and Supreme Constitution, PRINCIPLES Supreme Court held that directive principle of equal par forequalwork is nota fundamental right but since itis a consitutional goal it ean be enforced through Artile 32 Supreme Cour held that incase of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directives Principles, the Funda- mental Rights would prevail Supreme Court held that though directive principles cannot overide fandamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the cope and ambit of fundamental rights the ‘court may take into account directive principles and adopt a principle of harmonious contruction. Supreme Court held that fundamental rights and directive Principles aim atthe same goal of bringing about a social fevolution an establishment ofa welfare State and they can be interpreted and applied together. Supreme Court held that > ] siving absolute primacy wo the iples disturb the harmony of the ‘Constitution. 4 which is the ba feature Pariksha Manthan ~ sent i . anaes ei st itn ot pean a ansu angry wnel ee ree fey mena aisupemscounrtigeeng—§ C——————— ‘iqwoke the writ ie inst violation of legal or constitu = | meee gmmsnn tek an Fans hn er chy napproach thecour , Supreme cout i bl nts liiations ee al lr nc NN em = ae , 1 age filed for extraneous Consideration, ; ~~ I ee every thecedenale 2 Teco rene a al Scttining PL: Tam away Ra hamster Si ‘AIR 1978SC UN. Rov SP.Anan 996) 68 > BPS 2 Rame 5 o be3 ase Singh Se of kb ‘ene th ; a Canton rr best oe aim 97452192 Whee om gen re Sercouncl onic ind ase 3 GIN. Rao v, Indira Gandhi, AIR1971 SC 3002, cannot exercise executive power wtho 3_SP.Anand v, HD. Deve Gowd3, > BP. Singhal v. Union of India, 2 2 > Kebar Singh v. 2 Ere RE im Gand, ARAVA 1002 | Sopreme Cour hash 3 Ram Jawaya Kapur State of Pants AIRISSS SC 589 ‘secutive pers ate vested i the Counc of Miners 1D Tiargovind v, Raghikul, ARIST SC 109 Suprerne Court hel tha the ofie of Governor ofS tater an employment unde the Cental government. 193, 3) Ram Jewaya Kapurv. Sate of Pani, AIR 1955 sess Recta ash Ca ans ah Arce 74) manny ere Cat ae mereencomsee goes weathers of ie “ater the dissolution of Lak Sat sm ‘owe Lt ahah Come Miner does nat cease to hold the office, “ Supreme Court held that he Present hasbeen male fennel oreonstiatonal ead of he eee Tidependent consituional offee ais not nde the ‘contol f subordinate to the Central government ‘Ordinarily the excuive power connetesthe red of foveal uncon hat remain fer lesiv and teal functions ae taken as. Execve powers NOt aie the administrasion of ews already enacted botit Teeludes the derrmination of governement policies, fraintenaneeof law and odes foreign poiey cf siete Governor generals. snd therefore, the President (1996) 6SCC734 war Prasad v. Union of india, Governor could exercise is disc AIR 2006, “Epuru Sudhakar Pradesh, SC 980 “AIR 2006 SC 3385 Taian of India, AIR 1989 SC 653 of ight President cannot be asked 106 v7, Government of Andhra ‘tile 741) is mandatory wt the aid and advice of Se Gone of Ministers is essential to have acouseitof ‘Mfsiwers under Article 74(1)even at time when the House ‘ifthe People hasbeen dissolved or term expe. “Aric 75(5) persis the President to appoint. person bo spa member of ether House of Patiament a Minis shading Prime Minister subject the posits of aac aenaing the support ofthe Maioity of member Of the Lok Sabha. aT eSCEN | Governorscannotbedismincd scbitrsiy onthe round cect government had fost conience ia im an = not agree with ts poticies and ideslogis “The expression require’ in Arle 160) sii bat the retionary powers only whe there isa compelling necsity wo dose. The Govesnet could notin exercise of his discretion do anything which Was prohibited to bedone. The cour hes the power to examine ree valdiyof his action when ts mal ie 1 padonisanactofgaceand cannot be demanded asamatter re reasons for his order. Spent util review on limite “The pardon power is: i grounds like nonapplicaton cofmind, mala fide, avbitrariness, 8certain agreements, abuse of domme" Cosas gece ta Pardoning power canoe mare nee pe Goel | Prien cE Smaps Tots) vahan v. Union of nds, piderstions ee ierelevantcons te <2 ‘Supreme se eratinive he evideNCE ON TeCotd an, Fo a oing so he Pen conein acento occ crd se ner fox mercy bas norght.an orl essing by ing pontine: fox mest President — Som held tt pandoning powers of Bsdzay Sire pele 72 and of Governorunder Ancl 6Lase ss of easte and political reasons ipod on of mercy ptkion of cath oy sa suficient base e 2 PY. Nast to life imprisonment, >t ‘elf to commute death sentence to life impr = mai LEGISLATURE. DDG Wadliwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378 >. SP Anand v. FLD. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC272 2 Lily Thomas v. Union of nda Q013) 7SCC6S3 2 RK. Garg v. Union of India, (1981)4S0C 675 promulgation of ered at cee aor ceethout any atempt to gt the Bill pated bythe eee ald mount ores on Constitution and runes opromlae is abl to bestruck down I eld thatthe exceprional power of law making through Gnenecannoroe wed sa substi forthe legit ofthe State Leiire 256 ur and al Jee Ordinance ere promulsted ints of Biar andallot 1m were kept alive by re-promulgation without being a ree democratic process’ and ‘colourable exercise of power’ and held it amounted to fraud on Constitution, ‘Supreme Court held that a person who is nota member of ether House of the Parliament can be appointed by the Prime Minister for six months. Convicted Members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assemblies will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three ‘months’ time for appeal. 2 Un ar 25 o ‘The power to promulgate ordinances is @ power exercisable only when both Houses of the Parliament are not in session ‘and ithas been conferred ex necessitate rein order to enable the executive to meet an emergent situation. This power to Promulgate an ordinance is co-extensive withthe power of Paaent to make laws and the President cannot issue an cdinance which Parliament cannot enact 2 BR Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nada, Aminist ig A thas nut bea member of the Legislative Assembly 2001(6) SCALE 309 ::—FFeonhe and thus representative ‘ofan accountable to the People of the State. A non-member who doe © S Not possess the qualifications Prescribed by Article 173, or has been disqualified ader Article 191 cannot be appointed a8 Chief Minister. Votiksha ManthanReena Landmask Cs Narsloa Rao v, State, IR 198SC2120— |S Si Toniomentinqute wide nd 9 not conned only 05. ead erininal proceeding or ahi Dinning 3 Ia Re Keshav Singh, NR 1965 S678 3 Gaya Bachchan v. Union of ti, ‘AIR 2006 8C.2119 " cope of protection of immunity avilable tothe M jadi proceding bute aeaable other gant al the provisions pert pou “will have to be made sive the co 194 and. 105 are subject to fundamental Fights ‘eure ‘undler Articles 21 and 22. Swear profitor a pecuniary Considered asa matt mere use ofthe word JUDICIARY payment out of the pusviw of prot ma > Union of India v. Sankachand Seth, Tred hat‘consultaton? means ull and "The Supreme Court snot mean concurrence snd the fective consultation, Kedors ‘AIR1977 8.2328 sara Presidente nt bound by sch consultation. CP Gupta v. Union of tnd, AIR 1982SC149 (Ab knew as F Judges cps taser ce Siprene Couragrent win topionin Seatbansd $% Bs vr ha necatvehad sunsemacrinavosinimsstsl indes 3 8G.Advos on esther (Asolo a2 Faces cas Supreme Cour over ibe ‘Union of India,(1993)4SOC441 cercionin SP. Gop sca, The court atin 8 cof apointmentofjudess ofSupseme Cm x and High Cours he Chief Justice of india should have pra 31 Presidential reference MR 199 SC} (An known as Judges cas Sen out EN vation proces to be adopted by the Chief Juice coflindia ‘equires consultation of pratvot uta 2 Tupreme Court advocates on Record epee Co dear othe ON jation v. Union of India, saendaent aswel asthe NIAC Act 2044 asunconstir (2015) AIR SCW 5457 apna and vid. Consequenty he coleB sytem Decame operative gain. > re Kerala Education ‘ill, AIR. 1958SC956 cme Gav bea esas oun? nner a reference made oitby TE President. Tajeshwar Singh ¥. Subeata ‘Roy Sahara, Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of Supreme COU ‘AIR 2014 SC 476 ‘under Article 1298 vndependen ofthe provrons of Contempt of Court Act 1972 3 Delhi Service Association y, State of Fer at stasis ie ‘Court has power to purish a PEON for the contempt of subordinate courts jtselfas well asits nations consumer ghis and oaresal ance and claims ty ir pay ns certain agreements abuse 2 amelie oe anes perce a ging Judicial s wel 227 Challeng Judicial Ogg saova) Wri Petion under Ai arile 226.The Supreme ae Raat SIT nina ee unde tile to, mac castane Court ier Courtcan dea fag el sae Supreme i ‘a Treaty se i meson all courts da court is ot BUN 2 CG. Narayana Supreme CON Therefor INR 1988 S78 B GV Industries: (omnasccss : a secking weit of certiorari againsy a Sonsini cous not aaa Le cigainncwmy Spears Saaarmmnrmgrmrmtas | aman Pee Ree eis | Triton of Supt oat ——— ‘AIK 2008S 30 Frais i nearing gpa 343 Supreme a ee rie ee ae ? imyasceas Fae pron nde uses Cow hn Pos KGa 2 ask Hee Ach canbe filed seeking rr tition under Article 137, * grams ao ims ot seen LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS Sie — cannot make extraterritorial avs excep, ahaa Or catart , Thea ep connection betwen the Satan fakin 2 e ‘when there is sufficient cor AIG TCTS subject matter of legislation. SarScam | Supreme Court hed tht extraterritorial legislation canbe 9: Seeenaniy RES Upheld only when there ia suicent nexus between the sBjc sought obe achieved and the State secking to achieve them, The connection must be real and not illusory raryana Supreme Court held thatthe Constitution gives autonomy oe to the Centre and the States within their respective fields, The States al legislation ofone State cannot be held tobe discriminatory against its citizens simply because Parliament or State Legislatures of other States have not chosen to enact similar > Aue IR 2 RD. Joshi y, Ajit MillsAIR 1977 SC2279 2 Prafla Kumar v. Bank of Commence, Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60 2 State of Bombay v. EN, Balsara AIR 1951 Sc3ig Supreme Court held that the entries in the list must be given wide meaning implying all ancillary and incidental powers The court held that punitive measures for enforcing social legislation i ancillary measures, ‘Thecourt held that a clear-cut distinction is not possible between the legislative powers of the Union and the State Legislatures because they are bound to overlap. In ascertaining the pith and substance of the Act the court must consid (@) the object of the Act, (b) the scope of the Act and (9)_ the effect as the whole, ‘The court held the Bombay Prohibition Act, as valid because the pith and substance ofthe Act fell in State List even though it it incidentally encroached upon the Union List.> C6. aecyana ap, Rectan Lard Cae Lm AIR 195380 375” SH OF Ort, Colourabie leislcare Legislation mean hat though apareny the iit of Patingthe ante purponad ose, the powers yet in substance it transgressed i power Thetamgenion coer arininng ‘Any law enacted by Patament with apc Ge territorial aspect or aserwhch have to paso tem with nd would baleen Constitution. —e 3 Javed v. State of arvana, FOO we Ans e057 PTO OSCAR Yan sana cmraa ho ox salen fom the vie of hove dacminniony Secs the Parle te ep te se ae not chosen to nats ‘2 KC. Gajapati Narayan Doo v. State of Orissa, a pee ofr | The vo dine lowing themaxim that you canot donde wha you canes do ity. The deeine has efrence wo th comets ce to the motives bond Fiero mala fides he lepatare l FREEDOM OF TRADE AND COMMERCE ] 2 Atiabari Tea Go. v. State of Assumn, Ait Ta Ga Sato “he objet behind the proviions fom Arde 301307 create and preter amtional economic ee bes doen theborderbeween the Sasa crests one sonomi ur Supreme Cour held that imposition of tor dyin cer cate would not amount per set aninfingement of Aric 30. Tse simpliteres opposed to dcmiatory taxation ino within the cope of Artil 30 Af he Stace Legislature wants to impose compensatory tax ‘then it has to take President's assent under Article 304(b). 2 State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C,AIR19575C 699 | twas held that protection offered under Article 301 is ansilable to lawful trading activity and doss notexend to activites wich ace res extra commercium, 2 Automobile Transport Lid. v. State of Rajasthan, | Supreme Court recognized the concept of regulatory and AIR 1962 SC 1406 ‘compensatory taxes and held that compensatony taxes are outside the purview of Article 301. Regulatory measures imposing compensatory taxes fr the us of trading faites c ‘2 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC458 2 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 2 Golaknathv, State of Panj AIR 1967 SC 1643 me, Feng bar to judicial review ofthe validity of Peleus ‘of emergency issued by the President unde, poe 382, The court’ power i limited only to examining ‘ hether the limitations conferred by the Constitution hae been observed or not. Where the satisfaction is absurd, perverse, mala fide or based on wholly irelevant ‘considerations, it would be no satisfaction atall and it woud be liable to be challenged before a court of law. AMENDMENT. =| The Supreme Court held that power to amend the Consti- tution including the fandamental rights is contained in Article 368 and the word law’ in Article 13(2) includes onlyan ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative power and does not include the constitutional amendment which is mae in exercise of constituent power. Constitutional amendment a be valid even fit abridges or takes away any fundamental rights. Subsequently in Supreme Court approved the majority judgment in Shankari Prasad’s case and held that ‘amendment of the Constitution’ means amendment of all atts of the Constitution, InSupreme Court prospectively overruled its earlier decisions Sea ‘Prasad scaseand Sajian Singh scase’The courtheld at Parliament had no power, rom the date of decision, to amend Part II] of abi Me ss Conti tion s0 as to take away or Periksha Manthan ) Bate for imposition of Presideny bss of satisfaction f demon Sn rebeld thatthe Governor while recom nen niet va Mills. ‘Goaltioe8 DKF Phan Uecidedo 2 Swiss ang) 2 Cen cw ls nek