the executive head and its judiciary is the Nyaya
(R) POLITY BY RAVINDRAN SIR
 CONSTITUTION
1. legal document
2. has special legal sanctity
3. has ideals and aspirations of people
4. ideals means by which way they achieve
constitution
5. aspirations means with what goals constitution
formed like justice Liberty fraternity
6. It is the supreme law of the land
 LAWS OF LAND(TOTAL 8 IN GENERAL)
1. Constitution
2. Statutory laws- enacted by the Parliament under
state legislation for example IPC, CRPC,
3. Ordinances- announced by the president,
governor, executive whenever there is a need for
an immediate need of law and Parliament is not
in progression
 they are temporary in nature
4. Judicial decisions by the supreme court and
high court not by subordinate courts
5. Applicable provisions of the international law
for example charter law if matter is a bilateral
then they are applied a nation can reject it
6. By(e) laws- made by inferior legislature like
Panchayat and municipalities
7. Rules, regulations:- notifications orders
directions issued by the executive government
for example new IT rules 2021. They are issued by
the cabinet only not by the parliament or state
legislature
8. Personal laws like last made by the religious
community for marriage divorce adoption of
children by the sikhs Muslims Hindus for example
Muslim personal law
 NOTE:-
 So number 1 is supreme law of the land that is
the constitution
 2to 8 are inferiors laws of land
 WHAT IS CONSTITUTION
 It is an organic law that creates and
administrative structure in original manner in the
form of centre like executive judiciary legislature
as well as in the form of state like executive
judiciary legislature and in the form of local self
administration like Panchayat where elected
Panchayat is the legislature and its president is
panchayat that means village courts
 Constitution has special legal sanctity means
authority only whereas other laws enjoy merely
some sanctity
 Constitution drives it's power directly from the
people and all other laws drive their power from
the constitution
 Legal relationship -constitution makes people
and the government a legal relationship it means
citizenship
 No constitution-no administration-no peace-no
state only Chaos so constitution is must to be a
political unit
 Personal laws are challengeable in the court that
is why right to property was put out of the
fundamental rights
 CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
WRITTEN AS WELL AS UNWRITTEN
 CONSTITUTION THAT IS WRITTEN
1. Whose provisions have been codified into single
legal-Example Indian constitution
2. Enacted constitution means constitution brought
into existence via single authority for example in
India it was constituent assembly
3. It has a definite beginning in terms of time for
example 26th November 1949 Indian constitution
and 20th March 1789 USA constitution- 395
articles on 26th November 1949
4. First constitution then executive legislature
judiciary all are created by the constitution
means first constitution emerged than it created
the parliament
5. Constitution is supreme
6. Wider powers of the judiciary as it can declare a
law by executive and legislative as void and
unconstitutional
7. Doctrine of judicial review is well established in
written constitution for example in Indian
constitution
8. Rigid flexible or both :- For example USA
constitution is rigid constitution because there
the Congress passes the amendment Bill if
needed with two third of the majority that is
special majority then ratified by not less than 3/4
of the 50 states majority it should be must. They
have to give approval also on constitutional
 amendment Bill so two authorities play role in
USA for amendment in the constitution that is
why it is really a rigid constitution
 Where as Indian constitution is very bulk in
nature but can be amended by two third of the
special majority of the parliament so bit flexible
but in some cases there is like related to state
matters the majority of the parliament that is 2/3
is a required with the majority of the one third of
the legislative assembly also which makes it rigid
9. Federal and unitary in nature
10. Marked distinction between constitution and
other laws, For example constitutional laws
statutory Laws
11. Constitution is governed less by conventions and
more by provisions
 UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION
1. Provisions are not been codified in a single legal
document
2. Provisions are scattered over many sources not in
one
3. Evolved out of multiple sources made by not a
single authority but it was the constitution of
many
4. Magna Carta means 1215 AD charter as the main
source of UK constitution 265 of Indian
constitution also has provisions of Magna Carta
 Parliament was another source because it was
thousand years in UK that they have parliament
5. Parliament evolved first then the constitution so
constitution is largely the creation of the
parliament in UK
6. Parliament is supreme not the constitution in UK
7. Judiciary cannot declare law or action of
legislative as void but can declare in case of
executive so judiciary enjoy restricted powers
8. It cannot enjoy power of judicial review against
parliament but the judicial review doctrine is a
partially established
9. flexible
10. Unitary
11. No marked distinction between the laws
12. Constitution is governed More by conventions
less by provisions it is run
 HUMANRIGHTS
 Which are considered to be essential for a man to
lead a dignified human existence
 They are moral rights unless they are guarantee
under law then they become legal rights for
example right to statehood means citizenship.
 What is man
 Man is biological entity
 Lived in nature or wild having no rules
 Enjoy is right to licence means do anything
without responsibility like anyone can kill or get
killed
 Who are humans
 Man begin to live in society so now man become
a sociological entity
 So there is no right to license means for security
and dignity the rights are protected of everyone
so they have to follow the rules
 CIVIL RIGHTS
 Because without these rights a civilized existence
not possible in the society so they are considered
to be essential for individual to realise his full
potential
 Enjoyed by person in his individual capacity not
as the member of group
 For example right to life liberty free speech
religion equality write a against discrimination etc
 These are included under part 3 of the
constitution of India
 Fundamental rights are largely civil rights
 POLITICAL RIGHTS
 Enjoyed by a person not in his individual capacity
but as a member of a group called citizency
 Unable a person to participate in administration
of country
 Given under article 325,326 of Indian constitution
 For example rights to vote, contest election ,for
public office such as president vice president
ministers
 SOCIAL RIGHTS
 Rights which are essential to establish social
equality among people
 Found both under part 3 and 4 of the constitution
 Right against slavery consists of right against
untouchability ,provision of state to confer titles
write against exploitation
 ECONOMIC RIGHTS PART
CONSTITUTION
 They are given to establish welfare state in a
country
 Right to employment
 Equitable distribution of material resources
 Prevention of a concentration of wealth in a few
hands
 Right to minimum wage
 Participation of workers in management of
industries
 CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL RIGHTS
THE RIGHTS WHICH ARE
ENFORCEABLE IN LAWS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MEANS
B. NON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
 A- CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MEANS(two types)
1. Fundamentals rights
2. Other constitutional rights
 the rights which are inside the constitution they
are divided into two parts one fundamental
rights part 3 and second other constitutional
rights out of part 3 of the constitution
2- Other constitutional rights out of part 3
 Right not to be taxed without authority of law
article 265
 Right to property 300A
 Right to freedom of interstate trade and
commerce article 301
 Right to universal suffrage article 325
 Right to adult suffrage article 326
 B-NON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
 or extra constitutional rights
 or outside the constitution given
 or ordinary legal rights
 or largely state rights
 CONSUMER RIGHTS
 Labour rights means right to strike or right to
minimum wages
 Right to legal aid-Given under the legal services
authority act 1987
 Right to enforce a contract under Indian contract
Act 1872
 Right to employment like MGNREGA scheme
means minimum 150 days of the work below BPL
 Right to marry
IV  Right to inheritance
 Right to drop a child
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS
 Under the constitution if fundamental rights are
violated then the aggrieved means suffered
individual can approach supreme court directly
by filling a writ petition under article 32 of the
constitution
 Where as on the other hand if other legal rights
are violated then the suffered individual cannot
approach the supreme court directly for
enforcement but he can either approach the high
court by filing a writ petition under article 226 or
the subordinate court by filing ordinary legal suit
 WHAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER
PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION
 There are two reasons why are under part 3
1. These are those rights which are essential for an
individual to attain his fulllest physical intellectual
and spiritual stature
2. They also necessary for functioning of democracy
 for example in South Africa there is official racism
done in the time period of apartheid law during
1922-1992 under this law 81% of the black
people were not given the voting rights and they
were called nationals only while 19% of the white
people are considered citizens and they had
more rights like voting then Nelson Mandela
comes and fought for the rights of black people
for that he got Nobel prize he fought for the right
to vote of the black people also
 In India the right to vote is not included as a
fundamental right because at that time the
constituent assembly specially the doctor
Ambedkar thought if it becomes fundamental
right then the supreme court will face multiple
number of cases if anyone's right to vote gets
breeched in future
 MEANING OF THE TERM STATE
1. Article 12 of the constitution tells about the
context of the meaning of state otherwise it will
have multiple meanings
2. In legal sense- sovereign and independent
country so India is a state
3. Federal sense that means state is a unit of
federation of federal state like India in India
Odisha is a state
4. Administration sense-any authority that exercise
government or administrative or executive
functions or any authority that functions under
the control of government it includes Central as
well as a state as well as a local governments
means parliament state legislature panchayat
municipalities public sector undertakings
nationalised banks and insurance companies
judiciary when a performing administrative
functions the example is given below
 Like judiciary has been playing to functions first
judicial functions like providing justice in cases
and second non judicial functions like
administrative functions when the chief justice of
India remove any employee in the supreme court
so there he is performing administrative
functions where the removed employee can file
writ petition removal in the same supreme court
as its fundamental rights is concerned like any
stenographer working in the supreme court
greater moved by the CjI of India because
supreme court has rules and regulations to
recruit the people in the administrative purposes
so
 Therefore when any authority performing this
functions considered as administrative functions
so it is working like a state so any example the
supreme court is working like a state so state has
different meanings
 NATURE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOR
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THEM
 Given to individuals Both the citizens and non
citizens to enjoy
 They are enforceable against the state however
under rights to un-touchability exploitation right
to freedom of movement right to privacy right to
reputation are enforceable against state as well
as individuals
 Fundamental rights are duties of the states and
shall we respected by the state therefore
fundamental rights creates legal obligation on
path of the state
 Sometimes they create negative obligation of the
state because they are in nature of the
restraining the state from performing certain
functions that may violate the fundamental rights
of individuals
 Most of the fundamental rights are in negative
language
 Fundamental rights act as limitation upon powers
of the state therefore these prevent state to
become authoritarian (doctrine of limited
government is supported by fundamental rights)
 However the fundamental rights are enjoyed by
the individuals are not absolute rights accepted
the right against untouchability which is given in
absolute term
 Therefore rights are also restricted rights they are
not absolute restricted by the state on the
grounds given in the constitution
 GROUNDS ARE
1. Sovereignty or territorial integrity of India
2. Security of India
3. For maintenance of friendly relation with
foreign States
4. For maintenance of public order morality
decency
5. In cases of a contempt of court defamation
incitement to an offence
6. In interest of SC,ST
7. For promotion of well being of backward
classes of citizens
8. For promotion of well being of women
children and other weekend section of the
society
 CLASSIFICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
1. ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABILITY
 Each and every fundamental right is available to
citizen
 Aliens enjoy all fundamental rights except given
under article 15,16 ,19 ,29, 30. There are two
types of aliens friendly and enemy alien the
enemy alien means citizens of that country with
India is at war so they have no fundamental
rights with the duration of war but friendly aliens
have rights except the upper mentioned articles
2. ON THE BASIS OF ENFORCEABILITY
 There are two types of fundamental rights
a) Self executory fundamental rights
b) Non self executory fundamental rights
a) THE SELF EXECUTORY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
 Fundamental rights capital of implementation by
itself
 Does not need a subsequent legislation to be
made by State for its implementation
 Complex fundamental rights in itself
 All fundamental rights except 17-18 21a 23 24
b) NON SELF EXECUTORY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
 They are in capable of implementation by itself
 They need subsequent legislation to be passed by
the state for its implementation
 They are incomplete fundamental rights
 They are under article 17 18 21a 23 24
 Article 35 allows parliament to enact a law for
prescribing means to give a punishment for the
violation of article 17 that is article 17 needs a
law therefore under la made by parliament
known as
 civil rights protection Act 1955 under which the
punishment for practicing the untouchability
means violation of article 17 is given so before
1955 if anyone violated article 17 he or she
would not have been punished
 Article 18 (2) no citizen can receive title from a
foreign state however no law was made by the
parliament yet so it is a declaratory provision
 Article 21A by 86th constitutional amendment
Act 2002 article 21a introduced into constitution
that is right to primary education to children
below the age of 14 (6-14)
 So this law is regulated by the
 Right to education act 2009 by which child within
his residence of 3-5 km can get free education
from the school but it was implemented on the
date of 1 April 2010
 Article 23 right against exploitation which
prohibits traffic in human beings means begar
that is forced labour so there are two acts that
have provisions to give punishment to protect
this article
1) Immoral traffic probation Act 1956
2) Bonded labour abolition and rehabilitation
act 1976
 Article 24 prohibits the employment of children
below the age of 14 years in hazardous industries
so employment is allowed but in non hazardous
industries according to the constitution
 Child labour prohibition and regulation Act 1986
 14 industries considered as like chemical
firecracker matchstick mining etc
 Again it is amended in 2011 so now except family
run business like family farming audio visual
industries means film industries the employment
of children is allowed but in all other industries it
is strictly prohibited
3. ON THE BASIS OF SUBJECT MATTER+6 GROUPS
 Right to equality article 14 to 18
 Right to freedom article 19 to 22
 Right against exploitation article 23 and 24
 Right to freedom of a religion article 25 to 28
 Cultural and educational rights also called
minority rights article 29 and 30
 Rights to constitutional remedies article 32
 DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
 Doctrine of severability
 Ultravives- violates
 Intravives- conform
 Doctrine of the judicial review is largely implicit in
constitution not a stated clearly
 Doctrine of judicial review is implicit in the writ
jurisdiction of SC under article 32 and HC under
article 226. Writ can only be filled against
government not private entities
 Under article 13 (2)- doctrine of judicial review
stated- cannot make law- explicit
 It is only for the fundamental rights not for the
whole constitution
 JUDICIAL REVIEW PRINCIPLES
 Two-
 intravives yes
 ultravives no
 As the doctrine of presumption is taken by the
judiciary so it rejects ultravives
 Ordinarily enforceability - if laws not legally
applicable then a judiciary cannot use judicial
review
 Review cannot be used on a law that not been
legally enforced
 Ordinarily judiciary shall not apply judicial review
SUOMOTO ( on its own)
 BENEFITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
 It has to maintain rule of law
 It has to maintain constitutional supremacy
 It has to the production of federalism
 It is the integral part of doctrine of limited
government
 Judicial review is not for subordinate courts it is
only for High court and supreme court
 Judicial review is the power of higher judiciary to
declare a law made by the state as
unconstitutional if the law is inconsistent with
one or more provisions of the constitution to the
extent of such inconsistency while declaring such
a law as Unconstitutional the judiciary does not
suggest alternatives or remedies. It is for the
state to decide what is to be done of the law that
has been declared as unconstitutional. The power
of judicial review is applicable to supreme court
and high court only
 Doctrine of judicial review originated under
United States constitution from there it has been
incorporated under the Indian constitution
however when it comes to the protection of
fundamental rights this is judicial review is given
explicitly under article 13 (2) of the constitution
this article provides that state shall not enact any
law that takes away one and more of the
fundamental rights. If any such law made then it
will be declared unconstitutional
 JUDICIAL REVIEW IS APPLIED BY THE
COURTS BY FOLLOWING THREE
PRINCIPLES
 If a law capable of two interpretations where the
first interpretation makes the law intravives the
constitution and the second interpretation makes
the law ultravives the constitution then the
judiciary will reject the second interpretation and
give effect to the first interpretation and declare
the constitutional validity of the law.
 Based on doctrine of Presumption .
 However if law is capable of only one
interpretation which makes the law ultravives the
constitution then the supreme court Shall apply
judicial review and declare the law as
unconstitutional and void
 Ordinarily, the judiciary shall not apply judicial
review on the laws that have been brought into
legal in enforceability
 Ordinarily, the judiciary shall not apply judicial
review SUOMOTO
 Judicial review has helped in maintaining the
supremacy of the constitution rule of law
federalism separation of powers independent of
judiciary judicial review itself and protection of
fundamental rights of the individuals. It is also
helpful in maintaining the doctrine of limited
government because of its importance the
supreme court Keshav Ananda Bharati case vs
state of Kerala 1973 case held that the doctrine
of judicial review is the part of the basic structure
of the constitution which cannot be taken away
even by means of an amendment to the
constitution
 Amenability of fundamental rights and doctrine
of basic structure of the constitution
 THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE AMENABLE
UNDER ARTICLE 368
 Constitutional amendment Act can be issued in
either House with the special majority the
constitution can be amended till now there are
105 amendments
 Art13(2)-state shall not make any law dad take
away fundamental rights, then the law made will
be unconstitutional and void
 Immediately after the constitution come into
force the land reforms were introduced by many
states (land reforms abolition of zamindari
system)
 This action challenged in supreme court in the
case named as kameshwar Prasad vs State of
Bihar 1951. The land reform Act violates article
14 ,19,21 that is right to equality and right to
property of zamidars
 Therefore this law was held on constitutional and
void
 RESERVATION POLICY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTION
 Madras was also first state to give OBC this type
of reservation but challenged in court of the
name case as state of Madras vs Dorairajan
1951. The Madras was violating article 14 and 15
hence it was stated on constitutional and void.
Criticism was faced on this decision for favoring
interest of the per cast
 After this the first constitutional amendment
Act 1951 came which amended article 15 and
allowed special provisions for state to provide
policies or reservations to the backward classes.
Article 19 and 31 were also amended in which
excess property was taken
 Shankar Prasad vs union of India 1951
challenging first amendment Act
 Supreme court held parliament enjoying two
types of powers
 Constitutional legislative power article 368-it is
exercised with special majority
 Ordinary legislative power outside article 368-
exercise with simple majority
 ARTICLE 11 INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL ACT 1955
 Article 265
 Any enactment made by the parliament in
exercising its power under article 368 of the
constitution using its constitutional legislative
powers is called a constitutional amendment
Act. Such an enactment does not come with in
the expression "law" As given in article 13(2)
 Statutory Laws
 Personal laws
 Ordinances
 Rules , regulations
 By laws ( come under category of ordinary power
 There is no contradiction between article 368 and
article 13 (2)
 4th constitutional amendment Act 1955, 16th
constitutional amendment Act 1964- 19,31
related to right to property
 Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1965 challenge
it was decided by the bench of 9 judges-they
agreed to same interpretation made under
Shankar Prasad case and held these amendments
constitutional
 17th constitutional amendment Act 1965-
aet19,31
 Golaknath vs State of Punjab 1967
 Decided by the bench of 11 judges
 Court over ruled the Sajjan Singh and Shankar
Prasad cases decisions
 Held 17th constitutional amendment Act un
constitutional
 Declined to acknowledge that parliament enjoyed
constitutional legislative powers under article
368 and held only one power that is ordinary
legislative power
 It also said that constitution has given
transcendental (overriding) procedure to the
fundamental rights therefore they cannot be
amended by the parliament
 24th constitutional amendment Act 1971 in a
response to the Golaknath case decision
 Amended title of article 368 that is power of the
parliament to amend the constitution and the
procedure there for
 Nothing in article 13 shall include a constitutional
amendment made under article 368
 Now challenge under Keshav Ananda party vs
State of Kerala 1973 decided by about 13 judges
it is the only case decided by 13 judges that
 Overruled golaknath case decision
 Up held 24th constitutional amendment Act is
constitutionally valid
 Acknowledged parliament enjoys constituent
legislative power under article 368 with which it
can amend any part of the constitution including
fundamental rights
 However such and amending power of
parliament is not unlimited but limited to the
extent of not destroying the basic structure of
the constitution
 DOCTRINE OF BASICS STRUCTURE is not
mentioned in the constitution. It is a judicial
invention made by supreme court in Keshav
Nanda party case. It was invented to put a
limitation on the amending power of the
parliament
 Basic structure is understood as those provisions
of the constitution without which the
constitution would lose its basic character
 For example if a parliament amends and remove
the democracy it would look like a North Korea et
cetera
 BASIC STRUCTURE - PILLARS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
 The supreme court starting from Keshvananda
Bharati case in a number of cases included the
following provisions as a part of basic structure of
the constitution
1. Supremacy of constitution
2. Sovereignty of India
3. Mandate to build welfare state
4. Secularism
5. Democracy.
6. Republic form of government
7. Parliamentary form of Government.
8. Free and fair elections
9. Independence of the judiciary
10. Rule of law
11. Federalism
12. Separation of powers.
13. Under CA- 14 ,15, 19,21
14. Only for fundamental rights are the basic
structure of the constitution
15. Balance between fundamental rights and
directive principles
16. Balance managing 3 pillars judiciary executive
legislature
17. Judicial review
 NOTE
 the preamble is not a basic structure of the
constitution
 42th CAA 1976- added clauses 3 and 4 to Art.369
 368(4)- constitutional amendment Act can not be
challenged before a court of law means no
judicial review
 368(5)-their shall be no limitation what so ever
on the amending power of the parliament
 Challenge before supreme court Minerva Mills vs
union of India 1980.
 Supreme court held them unconstitutional and
void on the ground of basic structure. Taking
power of judicial review, violating balance
between legislative judiciary executive so the
new to clauses 3 and 4 were void and
unconstitutional
 ART 14 - core article,
 wider scope and availability
 Both citizen and non citizen
 However art 15-18 only for citizen
 Scope means ambit-importance
 Art 14 is available in all circumstances so called
general clause of equality
 Art15-18 particular clause of equality because
they are available to citizens only under certain
and particular circumstances so narrow scope
 Aartii14 is called triumvirate/ Trinity/three-
some(14,19,21) collectively called triumvirate of
FR because they're most important FRs
 Keshav Nanda bharti + Indra Sawhney 1992 v/s
UOI - SC said art 14 is a part of basic structure of
the constitution
 ART 14 CONFERS TWO TYPES OF EQUALITY
1. Right to equality before law (EBL)
2. rights to equal protection of laws EPL within
territory of India
A. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW:-
 Originated under English constitution, regarded
as the negative concept because it's essentially
means absence of the privileges enjoyed by any
section of population in the eye of law
 MEANING OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
 All persons are equal in eye of law irrespective of
the ones position or rank in the society
 All people are equally subject to the law of land -
no one is above or below , everyone is under the
law
 All persons without any distinction based on rank
or position are equally amenable to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary court of country
 However special courts are for the special cases
not for the individual e.g martial courts, CBI
courts etc
 Guarantees only juridical equality means legal
equality in the eye of law no any other equality
like economic equality etc
 A V Dicey wrote about rule of law
 Rule of law is implicit under the equality of law -
not found anywhere in the written constitution
 WHAT IS RULE OF LAW
 Lex Supremes means the law is supreme
 Law is the highest authority in country
 Be your ever so high - means law is above you
either who you are don't care
 Absolute supremacy of regular law
 Predominance of legal spirit in administration of
the country means administration or government
is subordinate to the law
 According to A V Dicey what are the principles
that govern the rule of law
 No man shall be punished or made to suffer in
body or goods except for the violation of the law
-(goods- like no confiscation of the property etc
etc)
 Such violation of law shall be established in an
ordinary court of the country in an ordinary legal
manner
 All persons whether high or low shall be
subjected to ordinary law of the land and shall be
equally amenable to the jurisdiction of the
ordinary court of the country- means- you can
sue or be sued
 Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of
the land but this principle of Dicey doesn't apply
to India as this principle's stand modified in India
where it retreats as the constitution is the
supreme Law of the land and all other laws in
order to be legally valid shall conform to the
constitution
 IMPACT OF RULE OF LAW
 Before rule of law government was run on the
principles of Rex Lex means king was the law that
is king is the highest authority not the law
 After rule of law become constitutional now the
base is LexRex means law is the king
 Law is the essential aspect of democracy and
supreme therefore either judiciary, executive,
legislative all are under the rule of law no one can
violate it
 Constitution places duty on SC and High court
means in higher courts to protect the rule of law
against actions of the legislature and executive
 Constitution confers the writ jurisdiction under
article 32 SC and under article 226HC
 EXCEPTIONS OF THE RULE OF THE LAW - WHERE
IT IS NOT APPLICABLE
1. Under article 361
 President or Governor of the state is not
answerable to court of law with regard to the
execution of his executive function ( as factually
these all decisions are the decision of the council
of ministers)
 No criminal procedure what so ever can be
initiated or continued against them during the
tenure or term of office
 In civil cases if civil proceedings relief is claimed
civil proceedings against president or Governor
can be initiated after expiry of 2 month notice
issued on him
2. Under article 105 & 194
 MP or MLA is not answerable to court of law for
whatever he has spoken, revealed or voted in
house or in committee thereof ( total immune so
their freedom of speech and expression is wider
than normal public)
3. Under International Law
 Visiting heads of states (president) , head of
government (PM) , ministers , diplomats posted
in other countries are not under the jurisdiction
of the local court where they are visiting or
posted
 WHAT IS RULE BY LAW
 Law of land is fair, just , reasonable not only
enjoys legal but also moral authority
 In country where rule of the law prevails it is pre-
supposed that the law that is used in the
administration of country is droit Justam i.e just
law
 Such law enjoys the legal and moral authority and
is fair , reasonable, just
 It's purpose is to render justice to all without any
discrimination
 On the other hand rule by law is a system -
practiced in a system of administration where the
law that is used may enjoy legal authority but
doesn't enjoy the moral authority
 The law here is used as an instrument of
oppression on a section of a population and may
confer certain privileges on the other sections of
population
 It's purpose is not to render the justice to all but
to selected few
 Such law is called droit-in-Justim
 Examples:- apartheid law of South Africa, British
colonial administration in India ,Taliban rule
B. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS (EPL)
 as a legal concept equal protection of laws
originated in the US Constitution. Regarded as a
positive Concept.
 Does not mean it applies under all circumstances
 Does not mean laws must be of universal
application therefore EPL does not mean that a
law must be applied equally among all persons
under all circumstances
 It only means equality of treatment in equal
circumstances. Among equals the law should be
equal and equally administered
 The like must be treated alike and alikes should
not be treated likes
 It only means all persons who are similarly placed
treated similarly
 It guarantees neither equality of treatment
among unequal not inequality of treatment
among equals.
 It only guarantees a law uniformly
 The state should ensure that people are placed in
similar circumstances. However, if people can't
be placed under similar circumstances the state is
allowed to classify people into different
categories on a reasonable basis and than apply
the law differently among different categories as
they are placed in dissimilar circumstances
 The reservation policy of the government in favor
of the backward classes of the citizens for
recruitment into public employment and
admission into the educational institutions is
constitutionally protected under EPl
 Similarly the identification and removal of
Creamy later among OBCs from the benefits of
reservation is a constitutional requirements
under EPLs
 EPLs recognizes the fact that people are not
placed in similar circumstances in terms of talent
but they shall be provided with equal opportunity
to develop that talent
 WHAT IS CLASS LEGISLATION
 Article 14 allows classification of people on a
reasonable basis but it prohibits the state from
an acting class legislation means making
improper discrimination and confers certain
privileges on a class of people arbitrarily
 For example on the basis of religion race cast sex
place of birth decent residence etc
 For example apartheid laws of South Africa of
class legislation
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND PRINCIPLES
OF NATURAL JUSTICE
 justice Tata cellular limited vs union of India case
1994:- supreme court stated that right to equality
mandates that that all decisions taken by
government shall be fair,just,reasonable
,transparent and unbiased, in public interest and
rational decision
 Principles of natural justice also stand for non
arbitrariness
 Complementary to right two equality
 Ingredients of right to equality If you violate
principles of natural justice you are also violating
the right to equality
 PRINCIPALS ARE AS GIVEN BELOW
 No man shall be punished without being heard
(Marxism says - Audi Alteram partem)
 it should be a proper and fair hearing (not Sham)
leading to fair trial means hearing should be
followed by spoken order that is a decision
supported by the quoting relevance provisions of
law
 No men shall be judge of his own case that
means no men(judge) can be in a dispute as well
as in the same authority to decide it means a
judge recuse himself in simple words if judge is
involved in a case then he cannot be the judge of
his own case as authority of it decision making
 An authority shall act bonafide means in good
faith without any bias
 AIM OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
 To avoid arbitration is in decision making and
include of measures of fairness in the season
making
 To insist every decision shall be supported by a
reason
 To see to humanize the decision making process
 SOURCES OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE
 They emerged out of the human ability to think
and rationalize
 They born out of the human conscience because
of this they are called universal principles
 Therefore they are the one of the basic rights of
individuals
 They are applicable against all individuals
government authority everybody
 They are not incorporated means not borrowed
but are inherent principles
 Cases:- Manka Gandhi VS Government of India
1978:-Supreme court said right to life under
article 21 inherently include the principles of
natural justice
 Central inland water transport corporation vs
brojo nath Ganguly 1986 - supreme court said
principles of natural justice are inherently found
under article 14 of the constitution
 Therefore principles of natural justice are so basic
pervasive and they encompass the whole
constitution means they are spread throughout
the constitution
 EXCEPTIONS WHERE PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE DO NOT APPLY
 Don't applied to offices of pleasure Tenure for
example governor ministers attorney general et
cetera. They are not given right to be heard and
they are subjected to be dismissed because of
effective administration is necessity
 In case of contempt of court Act 1971:-
parliamentary committee on laws and justice
recommended in such cases the judge concerned
should recuse (step down) and allow other judges
to hear the case because of fair justice
 but these recommendations still not
implemented
 WHAT KIND OF REFORMS NEEDED
 Master of roster means a single head has or be
the exclusive authority on to issues
1. distribution of various cases filed before the
court to benches of the court called as bench
hunting
2. to decide about the composition of the
 In supreme court of UK and European courts of
human rights is equal to collegiums of three
judges are master of roster
 but these reforms are still not implemented
 RIGHT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
(ARTICLE- 15)
1. Art 15(1):-
 the state shall not discriminate against the
citizens on grounds only of religion, Race,
Caste, Sex, Place of birth or any of them.
 {only available to citizens not to non-citizens
and is only enforceable against state not
individual}
 The word only in Art15(1) means that the five
grounds given above cannot be the sole
grounds for discrimination
 In other words, these five grounds alone
cannot be the grounds for discrimination.
Therefore, they can be one of the grounds
but not the only grounds for discrimination
 Thus if there is a 6th ground on which valid
discrimination is allowed then religion,
 Race, Caste, Sex, Place of birth can be
additional grounds for discrimination
 Other words these 5 grounds cannot be the
primary or main grounds for discrimination
but can be additional grounds for
discrimination
 Understand “only” by following example
 Let us say you have 5 close friends
A,B,C,D.E and you want to celebrate your
birthday and you asked your father for
money and your father agreed to give you
money provided to not invite these five
friends but can invite other than five . you
requested and fathers said you shall not
invite “only” A,B,C,D,E. {X,Y,Z any other if
invited then you can invite A,B,C,D,E ,
otherwise they cannot alone attend your
birthday party}
 Kerala state Electricity Board v/s Siniya
Mol 2008
 SC held that taking into consideration the
peculiar nature of duties to be performed by
the workers in the “erection and
maintenance department of electricity
board” , if the females citizens are excluded
for recruitment for such jobs , it does not
amount to the violation of Art 15(1)
2. Art 15(2):-
 No citizen shall be discriminated against on
grounds only of religion, Race, Caste, Sex,
Place of birth or any of them in having access
to public places Such as hotels, restaurants ,
shopping malls ,public roads ,tanks, wells,
bathing ghats etc
 Enforceable both against state and the
individual
 Helps in fight against untouchability with Art-
17
 State can impose reasonable restrictions on
enjoyment of rights under Art 15(2) on the
grounds of maintenance of Public health,
decency and public order
3. Art 15(3):-
 Nothing in this article prevents the state from
making special provisions in favor of women and
children
 In other words Art 15(3) confers the power on
the state to make special benefit for women and
children
 Art 15(3) Sex is the sole ground state can
confer special favors on women
 Art 15(3) Therefore it is an exception to Art
15(1)
 Art 15(3) was added as Constitutional makers
thought due to patriarchal society women
suffer from social and economical
discrimination
 73rd and 74th CAA 1992 gave constitutional
status to Panchayats and Municipalities also
gave reservation for women in number of
seats . the constitutionality of these is
challenged in SC but SC held that these are
constitutionally valid
 108th CA Bill 2013 :- Rajya Sabha passed:-
1/3rd seat for women in legislative assembly
and Lok Sabha but bill could not be passed.
But if gets passed would have been
constitutional under Art 15(3)
 Sec 437 of CrPC:- allows the state to grant
bail on softer terms to women and children
which can be denied to male citizens.
Recently SC granted bail to Teesta Setalvad
 Socio-economic benefits or schemes like
ICDS (integrated Child Development Scheme)
or maternity benefits for women , special
schemes like Matru Vandana Schemes :-
exclusively for women protected under Art
15(3)
4. Art 15(4):-
 Added into constitution by 1st CAA-1951 because
in case known as State of Madras V/S C
Dorairajan 1951
 SC held that reservation of seats made in favour
of backward classes of citizens in higher
educational institutions was unconstitutional and
void on the grounds that ‘there was no provision
under the constitution conferring such powers on
the states’.
 Therefore , 1st CAA 1951 introduced Art 15(4)
 Art 15(4):- state can make special provision in
favor of backward classes of citizens including SC
and STs who are socially and educationally
backward
 Scope of Art 15(4) is wider because now
state can make special favors in whatever
area it wants to {like in educational
institutions , housing schemes etc}
 Under this reservation for SC and ST has
given {only in public institutions and is not for
OBCs exception is Govt of Tamil Nadu which
gave it also for OBCs}
5. Art 15(5):-
 Art 15(5):- introduced by 93rd CAA 2005
 Art 15(5):- confers the power on the state to
reserve seats in favor of backward classes of
citizens including SC and STs who are socially and
educationally backward in educational
 institutions including Private Educational equality before law EWS
institutions whether aided or un-aided by the (available to everybody) 2-impose no duty on
state (financially) but excluding minority state to make special
educational institutional provisions in favor of
 How different from Art 15(4) certain categories of
 Scope of Art 15(5) is narrow and restricted citizens. They are
State can make special favor in only one enabling the classes. they
sector in reservation of seats in educational are not mandatory but
institutions (including private institutions) discretionary in nature
 Under Art 15(5) Parliament enacted the “Central (state decides to use or
Educational institutions (reservation of seats ) not)
Act 2006” 3-speak the language of
 First time , Not more than 27% of seats were equal protection of the
reserved for the OBCs in central educational laws
institutions such as IITs , NITs, IIMs , AIIMS
etc  RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN
 but not in research oriented institutions such MATTERS OF “PUBLIC” EMPLOYMENT
as IISc, BARC (No reservation note it) (ARTICLE 16)
 this reservation challenged before SC  Only for public employment not for private
 Ashok Kumar Thakur V/S UOI 2006 employment
 SC held Art 15(5) is constitutionally valid and  Art 16(1)
OBCs reservation in central educational  There shall be equality of opportunity available to
institutions is constitutionally valid provided all citizens in matters of public employment
the concept of creamy layer applied in such
cases
 Art 16 (2)
 It implies “Central Educational institutions  State shall not discriminate against the citizens
(reservation of seats ) Act 2006” did not on grounds only of “religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence , or any of
provide for cream layer concept
them” in matters of public employment
 So GOI reintroduced the Reservation for
 Note:- 8th ground + additional these 7 grounds
OBCs with creamy layer concept
(on these 7 grounds alone no reservation can be
6. Art 15(6):- made in public employment)
 Introduced by 103rd CAA 2019  Note:- Ground of domicile:- alone reservation of
 Passed for providing seats for EWS in educational seats (in public employment matters) can be
institutions made as domicile does not come under 7 grounds
 Art 15(6) Confers the power on the state to make so domicile alone is enough
reservation of seats upto not more than 10% in  Haryana State Employment Of Local Candidates
favor of Economically weaker sections of the Act 2020
citizen other than backward classes of citizens in  75% under private employment shall be
educational institutions including private reserved for locals in Haryana {salary not
educational institutions whether aided or un- more than 30,000 Rs per month}
aided by the state but excluding the minority  Jan 2022 came into force and challenged in
educational institutions Punjab And Haryana HC as unconstitutional
 103rd CAA 2019 also introduced Art 16(6){note it} claimed violation of
 Update in SC case is not allotted to bench read 1) Art 19(1)(g) {Fundamental right (FR) to
newspaper Avocation means to choose any
Art 15 (1) &(2) Art 15 (3) (4) (5) & (6) profession, occupation or trade
1-Confer fundamental 1- Confer no throughout the country}
right against fundamental right but 2) Art 21 FR to livelihood
discrimination on the confer power on state to  Art 16(3)
citizens make special provisions  Confers power on the parliament to provide by
2- impose duty on state in favor of certain law , prescribing residence as the ground for
to respect fundamental categories of citizens qualification in certain categories of employment
rights of citizens such as Children , women under the state
3-speak the language of , Backward classes and  In other words residence alone can be the ground
 Art 16(3) is an exemption of Art 16(2)
 Laws made under Art 16(3) are temporary in
nature but the power is vested to parliament to
withhold or not
 Mulk rules
 As like Nizam of Hyderabad formulated
“Mulk Rule” before Independence in former
state of Hyderabad, under it all class III and
IV posts are reserved for local residents.
 However after Indian constitution “Mulk
rule” automatically became unconstitutional
and void as it violated Art 16(2)
 But parliament enacted a law under Art 16(3)
which extended the validity of Mulk rules for
10 more years subsequently the parliament
enacted Public Employment (Requirement as
to Residence )Act 1957
 Public Employment (Requirement as to
Residence) Act 1957:- under which all the
Class III and class IV govt post of Andhra
Pradesh (AP), Himachal Pradesh (HP),
Manipur were reserved only for local
residents
 This Act was withdrawn 1974 by its very nature
any law that is made under Art 16(3) is
considered to be temporary and will apply in a
path of the country so long as the special
conditions exit there
 Art 16(4)
 Reservations of seats in matters of Public
employment Art 16 (4)
 Confers the power on the state to reserve seats
in favor of backward classes of citizens in matters
of public employment provided the backward
classes of citizens or not adequately represented
in Public employment in the opinion of the state
 Does not talk about promotional representation
of backward classes of citizens it only talk about
those who or not adequately represented in
Public employment in the opinion of the state
 Backward classes means
a) SC
b) ST
c) OBC
 Indra Sawhney v/s UOI 1992 case
A. SC held that the policy of reservation in favor
of backward classes of citizens including the
OBC reservation policy in Public employment
and in Educational institutions is
constitutionally valid provided the following 5
constitutional requirements or satisfied
1) BC of Citizens or socially and
educationally backward
2) backward classes of citizens or not
adequately represented in Public
employment
3) rule of vertical reservation shall apply
under which not more than 50% of seats
shall be reserved in favor of backward
classes of citizens
4) a concept of creamy layer shall apply in
case of the OBC reservation policy
5) the backward class reservation policy
shall not disturb the overall efficiency in
the administration
B. SC clarified that Article 16(4) lays down all
that can be done by the state in the form of
reservation of seats in favor of backward
classes in Public employment {there is no
other Article regarding reservation of
backward class }
 SC clarified Art 16(4) is enabling clause , it
neither confers a FR to reservation on the
backward classes of citizens nor it
imposes a duty on the state to make
reservation of seats in favor of backward
classes of citizens
 SC clarified Art 16(4) is not mandatory
but discretionary in nature
 SC clarified Art 16(4) is not an exception
to Art 16(1) unlike Art 16(3). They
operate in same field and
 SC clarified Art 16(4) is an instant of
classification (EPL), it means citizens are
classified into SC, ST, OBC, GC
C. Backwardness that is contemplated under Art
16(4) is mainly socially backwardness, it need
not be both social and educational
D. SC clarified Art 16(4) confers power on the
state to make reservation only on the
grounds of socio-educational backwardness,
economic backwardness of citizens is no valid
Ground to reserve seats. Therefore the SC
held the 10% seats reserved in favor of EWS
by P.V Narasimha Rao Govt in 1991 as
unconstitutional and void {Modi Govt EWS is
Under Art 16(6) & 15(6)}
E. SC clarified Art 16(4) confers enough power
to states to make reservation of seats in favor
of Backward classes only at the initial stage of
recruitment but not subsequently in the form
of reservations in Promotions , thus the court
held such a policy in favor of SC and ST as
constitutional and void
F. There are certain posts and employment in
which merit alone counts and no reservation
of seats can be made in such cases . for
examples:- Airline pilots , Nuclear scientists,
 super specialty courses in Medicine, Super
specialty employment in field of medicine ,
research oriented jobs etc
G. The reservation policy shall be applied on
year-to-year basis , it cannot be related to
the total number of seats failing vacant for a
period of 2 or more year
 2020 let us say 99 seats are vacant
 2021=101 occurring seats
 So 99 and 101 are treated separately
for reservation for BC of citizens (50%)
 2020 = 50% of 99= 49
 2021 = 50% of 101 = 50
 Total = 99
 But if combined 99+101= 50% of 200=
100 which would create problem, so
reservation applied should be
differently and separately for each
year
H. Art 16(4) allowed the states to sub-divide the
OBC communities into different groups and
redistribute the 27% of reserved seats for
OBCs among the various sub-groups.
 Like OBCs can be sub-divided into
 Most BC
 OBC Muslims
 Rest of OBCs
 So 27% can be redistributed among
them all
 Rohini commission is appointed for this
Sub-categorization only
 RULE OF VERTICAL RESERVATION
 SC stated under normal conditions , the
maximum reservation for Backward
classes can be no more than 50%
 In extreme conditions it can exceed 50%
provided Govt should produce a
quantifiable data
 Maratha reservation Policy
 52% reservation = SC+ST+OBC= 2013
 2013 :- Maratha community was included
under state list of OBC and extended 16% of
seat in Public employment and 14% of seats
Educational institutions exclusively for
Maratha
 So 52% + 16% = 68% in PE
 66% for Educational institutions
 Jaishri Patil V/S State o Maharashtra
2021
 SC held Maratha reservation policy as
unconstitutional and void on the
following grounds
a) Maratha community neither socially
nor educationally backward
b) It is the part of national mainstream
c) It is politically , socially, educationally,
culturally a dominant community
d) It does not qualify to receive
backward class reservation facilities
 State has failed to produce quantifiable
data in support of its claim of the
existence of an extraordinary situation
justifying the breach of rule of vertical
reservation
 The Maratha reservation policy violated
“Goldilock solution’ (50% of states under
reservation for social justice) lay down by
SC in this regard
………………5th class ended, 6th started………………
 THE POLICY OF RESERVATIONS IN
PROMOTIONS:-
1. Started in 1956 , for mainly SC, ST (as they were
not adequately represented at policy making
positions , so they may got somehow deprived )
2. SC IN INDRA SAWHNEY CASE 19992
 SC held that reservation policy for the promotion
is unconstitutional on the ground that Article 16
(4), it confers enough powers on state (govt) to
provide reservation at the time of recruitment
into services but not subsequently in the form of
reservation at the promotion.
 So ,This promotional reservation for SC, ST was
Stopped in 1992
3. Therefore parliament come with 77th CAA 1995
which introduced Art 16(4A), now it confers
enough powers on state (govt) to make
reservation at the time of recruitment into
services but subsequently in the form of
reservation at the promotion for SC, ST provided
the communities are not adequately represented
in public employment
4. But, due to SC ruling, 1992 to 1995 till CAA77th ,
the promotions got stopped of ST, SC, therefore,
seniority of them may not be counted therefore
to provide them this seniority , Parliament passed
86th CAA 2001, which amended Art 16(4) and
introduced consequential seniority in it
(consequential seniority taken into account for
promotion of the officers of SC, ST)
5. CHALLENGED BEFORE SC IN CASE OF:-
1) M Nagaraj v/s UOI 2006
 SC held Art 16(4A), constitutionally valid
provided three constitutionally requirements
to be satisfied
a) SC, ST community must be socially and
educationally valid
 b) SC, ST provided the communities are not
adequately represented in public
employment
c) Such a reservation policy does not
disturb the overall efficiency in the
administration
 Further the SC held that the state should
produce “quantifiable data” in support of the
above constitutional requirements
 SC also laid down that the concept of
“Creamy layer” shall apply in case of
reservations in promotions (note at
recruitment time)
2) Jarnail sing v/s Lachchmi Narain Gupta
2018
 The SC reinforced its decision in M Nagaraj
case and explained that the “creamy layer”
concept is based on the principle of equality
give under Art 16(1) & the quota benefits
must go to the weakest of the week
 THE STATE TAMIL NADU’S GOVT
RESERVATION POLICY:-
1) Relates to rule of vertical reservation laid down
by SC
2) First govt to provide reservation to OBC also
3) Late 1970s it introduced a policy of reservation
under which
a) SC= 18%
b) ST= 1%
c) OBC = 50%
 Overall = 69% reservation was given and
never challenged because there is no rule of
vertical reservation
 SC IN INDRA SAWHNEY CASE 19992
 The rule of vertical reservation was brought
into existence by SC in Indra Sawhney case ,
this 69% reservation was made
unconstitutional and void
 1992 and 1993 TN govt was forced to reduce
reservation to 50% in total
4) Subsequently TN govt passed a law known as “
TN BC of Citizens (Reservation of seats) Act
1994”, which reintroduced 69% reservation both
In public employment and educational
institutions
5) Parliament placed this act under the IX schedule
of the constitution (note it, any enactment under
this cannot be challenged before a court of law)
 IR COELHO V/S State of TN 2007
a) Constitutionality of schedule IX is challenged on
the basis that it is violating doctrine of basic
structure as it takes away the power of judicial
review of courts
b) SC held that doctrine of basic structure emerged
for first time 24th april 1973 when the SC
delivered its judgment in Kesavanda Bharati case
c) So SC held before it there was no basic structure
doctrine , so it cannot be said to be violative
d) Total enactments were 284 placed under IX
schedule till 2007 and 66 were placed under IX
schedule before 24th april 1973 , so they will
continue to enjoy immunity from judicial review
and cannot be challenged, however remaining
218 enactments that were placed under IX
schedule on or after 24th april 1973 are subjected
to doctrine of basic structure, and can be
challenged before a court of law
 Note:-
a) Therefore TN policy also now open to judicial
law & but, TN Govt said it has almost 80% of
its population belongs to backward classes ,
therefore there is extra-ordinary condition in
TN justifying the exceeded limit of 50%
reservation (but it has to provide the
“quantifiable data” for this claim)
b) Case still pending before case
 BACKGROUND TO IX SCHEDULE
 They had discussed in “KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND
OTHERS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR
1951”, that land reforms Act must be held
unconstitutional and void by SC
 Because of this parliament introduced 1st CAA
1951, added Art 15(4) and also added Art 31(A),
31(B) and IX schedule. To protect not to be
challenged in Court of law these were introduced
 Art 31(A):- any land reform bill passed by state
legislature should be reserved for the
consideration of President and beyond assent it
must be protected from judicial review
 Any enactment placed under IX schedule ,
cannot be challenged before court of law and this
schedule made “immune from judicial law”
 1st CAA was challenged in SC under
 Shankari Prasad v/s UOI 1951
 SC held 1st CAA as constitutionally valid
 Privy purses (abolition) Act 1971 :- it was the
annual pension that was paid by GOI to farmer
princes
 CURRENT AFFAIRS ABOUT KARNATAKA
 Upto 8 oct 2022
a) SC= 15%
b) ST=3%
c) OBC= 34%
 Total= 50%
 On Saturday 8 oct 2022 Karnataka govt taken a
decision , added
a) SC= 17%
 b) ST= 7%
c) OBC= 32%
 Total = 56%
 And it requested the center to place it under IX
schedule
 (but now they are under judicial review as SC
judgment under IR Coelho case . so if it is taken
or not under IX Schedule has no value :- (so just a
vote bank politics – analyse it)
 CARRY FORWARD POLICY:-
 Analyse first example:-
 Let say 100 vacancy in govt department
a) SC=15
b) ST=7
c) OBC=27
 Sometimes the candidates are less in number
to fill vacancy like
a) SC= 10 filled, 5 remained unfilled
b) ST= 5 filled , 2 remained unfilled
 Therefore if these unfilled are filled by OBC or
general they the principle of social justice does
not apply. So center has introduced “Carry
forward policy”
 Under which these unfilled vacancies carry
forward for any number of years till they are
filled up by SC, ST (only) in public employment
not in case of education , OBC , general etc
1) In a given year the number of vacancies that are
reserved in favor of SC, ST, may not be filled up
due to the non-availability of suitable candidates
from these communities . in such cases the carry
forward policy allows the state to carry over the
such “unfilled vacancies” to the following years ,
where these unfilled vacancies shall be filled up
only from the SC, ST communities
2) This policy is applied in favor of SC, ST but not in
favor of OBC community
3) This policy is followed in case of recruitment only
into public employment, but not in case of
admissions into educational institutions
4) SC in Indra Sawhney case held it constitutionally
valid under Art 16(4), however, it must not
violate the “rule of vertical reservation”.
5) Practically it will violate the rule of vertical
reservation ,
 look the same example
 next year let say again same 100 vacancies
are taken upto be filled
 now have to carry 7 pending
 total 100+7= 107 to be filled
1) SC=15 +5= 20
2) ST=7+2= 9
3) OBC=27
 Total= 20+ 9+ 27= 56
56/107= violates the rule of vertical reservation
6) In order to protect the above policy from the
application of rule of vertical reservation , the
parliament enacted 81st CAA 2000 , and added
Art 16(4B), which introduced Art 16(4B)
a) Art 16(4B) provides that the vacancies
following under carry forward policy shall
always remind separate from regular
vacancies following in a particular year.
b) These two categories of vacancies are not to
be clubbed together for finding out whether
the ceiling of 50% has been exceeded
c) "(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the
State from considering any unfilled vacancies
of a year which are reserved for being filled
up in that year in accordance with any
provision for reservation made under clause
(4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of
vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding
year or years and such class of vacancies shall
not be considered together with the
vacancies of the year in which they are being
filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty
per cent reservation on total number of
vacancies of that year".
7) A "carry forward" rule was introduced
whereby the unfilled reserved vacancies of a
particular year would be carried forward for on
year only. In 1955 the above rule was substituted
by another providing that the unfilled reserved
vacancies of a particular year would be carried
forward for two years.
 THE SUB-CATEGORIZATION OF OBC
COMMMUNITIES & JUSTICE ROHINI
COMMISSION:-
 Creamy layer applied in OBC community, rest of
creamy layer are not uniform within
 Certain caste groups among OBCs getting
benefited more than other caste groups so
certain states introduced sub-categorization of
OBC under Art 16(4) and can re-distribute the
quota of reservation, to ensure equitable
distribution of quota
 SC held these as constitutionally valid under Indra
Sawhney case
 For example TN reserved 50% for OBC and
divided OBC in three different sub groups
a) Most BC:- given 20% reservation
b) OBC muslim:- 3%
c) Rest of the OBCs:- 27%
 In Rajasthan and Bihar , it is called as special
backward classes (most BC)
 For in Andhra Pradesh
a) OBC muslims = 4%
 b) Rest of OBCs = 27%
c) AP this policy Challenged in SC on base of
religion (not backwardness) in case called “S
of AP v/s T. Muralidhar Rao 2010”
 SC stated it as valid to ensure equitable
distribution of quota
 SC also said 4% is given to those OBC who are
muslims not those muslims who are OBC (as
they already enjoy reservation as part of 27%
reservation)
 Like surnames Khan, Mirza, Syed are not
b) Prohibits the practice of untouchability in any
form
c) Punishable offence if done
 Art 35 confers power on parliament by law to
enact a law for punishment to practice
untouchability
 THE LAWS MADE AGAINST THE
UNTOUCHABILITY:-
1) UNTOUCHABILITY (OFFENCES )ACT 1955:-
 made untouchability as a non-cognizable and

socially and educationally backward , so they bailable offense

were taken out of 4% quota Cognizable Non-cognizable
1) Serious offenses, 1) Non- Serious
 ROHINI (JUSTICE) COMMISSION 2017 where the law offenses, where the
OCTOBER UNDER ART 340 prescribes a law prescribes a
 Article 340 deals with the appointment of a punishment of punishment of not
commission to investigate the conditions of more than three more than three
backward classes. years of years of
imprisonment imprisonment
 As Union Govt of India does not follow Sun- 2) Murder, 2) Mis behavior, public
categorization policy kidnapping etc abuses
 Center appointed justice Rohini commission in 3) Police can take 3) Police cannot arrest
order to explore the possibilities for sub-dividing suo moto action and file FIR without
by way of a warrant of arrest
the OBC communities under the central list , so as
arresting and issued by a court of
to promote equitable distribution of the quota of filing an FIR law
benefits among OBC against the 4) Bailable offenses
 Commission submitted its interim report in accused (both police and
march 2021 & is expected to submit its final 4) Non-bailable court can grant bail)
report by 31st January 2023 offenses (only
 On the basis of the last five year data the court can grant
commission has identified that there are 2633 bail
castes that have been included under the central  Two objections were raised against this act
list of the OBCs , of which a) The use of term “untouchability” in the law
a) 10 castes alone have 1/4th of the OBC quota itself is not aligned with the spirit of fight
benefits (1/4th of 27%) against untouchability
b) 37 (10 + 27) castes enjoy 2/3rd of 27% quota b) Law was considered to be milder not
c) 100 (37+ 63) castes enjoy 3/4th of 27% quota stringent
d) >1000 castes does not enjoy quota (0%) 2) CIVIL RIGHTS (PROTECTION) ACT 1955”
 Because of this commission has suggested (not  Therefore in 1976 this law was amended and
final recommendation) to divide OBC into 4 sub- renamed as “Civil Rights (Protection) Act 1955”
groups and distribute the reservation benefits and practice of untouchability was made
a) Sub-group 1 = 2% cognizable and non-bailable .law was made
b) Sub-group 2= 6% stringent
c) Sub-group 3= 9%  However, even after this new type of atrocities
d) Sub-group 4= 10% ,crimes were committed with SC, ST which do
 Total= 27% not come under this new Act also ,for example
 The four-member Commission headed by Justice a) Garlanding of slippers
(Retd.) G. Rohini, Chief Justice (Retd.), Delhi High b) Social and economic boycott
Court was to submit its report in twelve weeks c) Sexual exploitation of SC, ST
time from the date of assumption of charge by 3) SC & ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT
the Chairperson. 1989
 Therefore new Act was passed known as “SC &
 ARTICLE-17 THE RIGHT AGAINST ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 ,
UNTOUCHABILITY:- commonly called as POAA
a) Abolishes untouchability
 There are some core provisions of this 1989 Act
which become controversial
a) A person can be arrested and FIR can be filled
against him without a preliminary enquiry
done to verify the allegations made in a
complaint {fear of misuse }
b) Under section 18 of the act no anticipatory
bail can be granted under this act
c) A public servant can be arrested and FIR filled
against him without the approval of his
appointing authority
 Conviction rate is just 2 % under this Act ,
showing ineffectiveness of this Act and Misuse
also
 Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v/s The
State Of Maharashtra on 20 March, 2018
 Two judged bench
 SC held the law 1989 valid and gave 3 three
guidelines , binding o all authorities
a) Accused cannot be arrested and detained
and FIR filled against him without a
preliminary enquiry made by a police officer
of the rank of senior superintendent of
police or above to verify the allegations
made in a complaint
b) the act anticipatory bail can be granted under
this act, if no prima facie (on the face of it)
case of atrocity has been made against the
individual {Note it this guideline amounts to
judicial legislation}
c) a public servant cannot be arrested and FIR
filled against him without the prior approval
of his appointing authority
 However, these guidelines are also practically
cannot be completed as there are many more
cases than the SSP rank or above officers , and
once bail granted the cases last for longer
 Therefore, in 2018 , amendment was made
to the POAA 1989
a) All these three SC guidelines were reversed
b) And original provisions were restored as it
was made in 1989, so it is also challenged in
SC
c) Prithvi Raj Chauhan V/S UOI 2020
 Three judge Division bench of ASC held all
provisions and amendments are
constitutionally valid
 Larger bench overhauled the decision of
lower bench
NCRB was set-up in 1986 to function as a repository
of information on crime and criminals so as to assist
the investigators in linking crime to the perpetrators
based on the recommendations of the Tandon
Committee, National Police Commission (1977-
1981) and the MHA’s Task force (1985).
 NCRB REPORT 2021 ON POAA (1989)
 NCRB:- National Crime Records bureau in its 2021
report pointed out that in past 3 years , there is
near 20% increase in number of crimes
committed against SC, ST under POAA 1989
 40-45% crimes of total crimes under this Act
committed in Maharashtra and than Gujarat
 BASIC REASONS FOR JUMP IN NUMBER OF
CRIMES AGAINST SC, ST
a) Increased political mobilization of Dalits and
tribals
b) Increased literacy level of these two
communities has brought greater level of
awareness about the rights and legal means
available to protect these rights
c) Better reporting of the crimes by the
members of SC, ST communities and wider
coverage given by the sensitive media to such
crimes
d) Increased encroachment upon the tribal and
the dalits land by outsiders leading to land
based crimes being committed
e) The continued practice of untouchability
even in urban centers
f) Increased number of inter-caste marriages
involving dalits and non-dalits leading to
caste based crimes and honor killing
 STEPS TAKEN BY GOVT
a) Enactment of amendments in POAA 2018 by the
parliament
b) Appointments of special courts at district level to
trial exclusively the cases filled under the POAA
c) Appointments of special public prosecutors to
help these courts to expedite the disposal of
these cases
 SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS
a) Untouchabality is a social evil, cannot be
addressed through only legal means
b) Social education of masses is necessary through
the mass media to create social sensitivity among
the people
c) The SC, ST candidates were elected to the
Panchayats , should be allowed to function in an
autonomous manner
d) Promoting the sense of tolerance among the
people , especially from the school level onwards
 AWARD  TITLE
1) Award is conferred for 1) It is conferred for the
the meritorious service services rendered to
rendered to the nation the nation , society or
or to the society the government , that
2) Conferred on confers the title
individuals without any 2) Here such rule is not
distinction based on strictly followed
religion , race , caste , 3) allowed to use the
 sex , place , occupation award by prefixing or b) declaration of the rights
etc suffixing to its name c) it confers 6 fundamental rights on the
3) An awardee is not like lord etc citizens that are called “Democratic
allowed to use the 4) title does create rights”.
award by prefixing or artificial social
d) These rights are enjoyed by only the
suffixing to its name distinctions in the
citizens
4) An award does not society
create artificial social e) These rights are enforceable against only
distinctions in the the state except the right to freedom of
society movement (which is enforceable to both
against state and Individuals)
 ABOLISITION OF TITLES (ART-18) 2) Part-II:-
 Art 18(1) of the constitution a) includes Art 19(2) to (6)
a) prohibits the state (only ) from conferring b) they contain the grounds on which the
any title on any individual both foreigners or state is empowered to impose
Indians reasonable restrictions on the 6
b) However, state is free to recognize military fundamental rights
and academic distinctions like PVC, Maha Vir c) therefore these rights are not absolute
Chakra (MVC), Vishist Sewa Medal (VSM), Ati rights , they are restricted rights
VSM, PhD, D.Sc, D. Litt. They are allowed  THE SIX FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE
because they are considered to be rewards 1) Art 19(1)(a):- right to freedom of speech and
not titles expression
 PADMA AWARDS 2) Art 19(1)(b):- Right to assemble
 Balaji Raghavam v/s UOI 1996 3) Art 19(1)(c):- Right to form association
 Constitutionality of Padma awards was challenged 4) Art 19(1)d):-right to freedom of movement
that it violates the Art 18(1) 5) Art 19(1)(e):-right to reside and settle down
 SC held it constitutionally valid on the ground that anywhere in country
they are similar to reorganization of academic and 6) Art 19(1)(f):- Right to property, but omitted
military distinction by 44th CAA 1978
 They are in nature of awards but not titles 7) Art 19(1)(g):- Right to Avocation
 Further what is prohibited under Art18(1) is
hereditary titles of nobility like Duke, Marquis etc 1. ART 19(1)(a):-
 The theory of equality under the constitution does
not mandate that merit should not be recognised
 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
 So recognition of merit is necessary to encourage EXPRESSION ALONG WITH ART 14 & 21
the public  Forms core of fundamental rights
 Art 18(2) prohibits  It is considered as Base minimum for existence of

a) The Indian citizens from receiving any title
from any state
b) However, they are free to receive awards
from any state like order of british empire,
legendary honor, honoris causa, Chevaliar de
L’ Order Arts et letters {Knight of the order of
Arts and letters}, Nishan-i-Pakistan (Dalip
kumar and Morarji desai got this)
 Art 18(2) prohibits
a) The foreigners , who is in the services of the
GOI from receiving any title from any state
without the prior permission of the president
of GOI
b) This is to ensure his loyalty to the govt
 RIGHT TO FREEDOM (ART 19-22)
 ARTICLE-19
 It has two parts
1) Part-I:-
a) includes Art 19(1)
democracy, necessary to form public opinion
 Maneka Gandhi v/s UOI 1978
a) SC said freedom of speech is not restricted
by political and geographic borders of India
b) It means citizens also enjoy this right even
while travelling abroad
a) Further SC said in same this case, that
freedom of speech and expression is
inalienable (in separable) adjunct (a part) to
right to life
b) SC said that freedom of speech and
expression is a composite right (combination
of many rights) and it gives rise to second
largest number of inferred rights {first is right
to life}
 Inferred right is one which is not explicitly given in
constitution but is derived implicitly by the
judiciary by giving a wider interpretation to the
existing right
 Example right to privacy is not given explicitly , SC
during wider interpretation of right to life,
 included this
 AK Gopalan case v/s state of Madras 1950
a) Further SC said that freedom of speech and
expression is not inalienable adjunct (a part) to
right to life
b) Further SC said that freedom of speech and
expression is a composite right
 freedom of speech and expression is subjected to
restriction on maximum number of grounds because it
is susceptible to misuse the most by the citizens
 VARIOUS MEANINGS OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:-
a) Freedom of a citizen to express his views and
opinions freely and openly, it means without any
undue-constrains imposed by the state
 It also means the right of a citizen to choose
any conceivable medium to express his views
and opinions (by words of mouth, writing,
printing, painting, hoarding, banners , science
, symbols, gestures, silence etc)
 It also includes to not express your views and
opinions
 Right to listen or not to listen of other views
 It also includes the right to silence (restricted
not absolute)
 Right of citizen to express others (citizens +
non-citizens) views and opinions as well
b) It is from this interpretation the right to freedom
of press emerged as fundamental right (it is
inferred) (press includes all type of media)
c) It also includes the right to have access to
information (media/internet) { it completes the
right to freedom of press)
 It gives rise to “Right to Information” (RTI as )
fundamental right
d) It also includes the right to informed choice
 UOI v/s association for democratic reforms
(ADR) 2002
 SC held that citizen enjoy the right to make
informed choice and directed that all
contesting candidates in the elections shall
disclose their assets and liabilities , their
educational qualifications , criminal
conviction if any and pending criminal cases if
any
 PUCL v/s UOI 2013
 SC held that actual act of casting one’s ballot
during elections amounts to expression of
one’s political opinion and is protected under
Art 19(1)(A)
 SC held Right to vote is constitutional right
not fundamental right , but physical act of
casting your ballot amounts to you
expressing your political expression and thus
it is a fundamental right
 Like if polling booth officer prevents you
from casting your vote, you can go to direct
SC
 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) is a
human rights body formed in India in 1976 by
Jayaprakash Narayan, as the People's Union
for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights
(PUCLDR)
e) It also includes right to dissent , means right to
oppose or have different view point against or
from the govts
 UOI v/s Naveen Jindal 2004
 SC held that hoisting the national flag at the
top of private building by citizens is a part of
expression of his sense of patriotism, which is
a fundamental right under Art 19(1)(A)
 Originally the Flag code 1950 allowed Indians
to hoist National flag only three days (26jan,
15aug, 2 oct)
 Similar, waiving the national flag is also a
freedom of speech and expression
………………6th class ended, 7th started………………
 FREE SPEECH & THE INTERNET
 As we have fundamental right to have access to
newspapers ,electronic media , so in similar way
we have access to Internet
 So, Is access to Internet a fundamental right or
not ?
 ANURADHA BHASIN V/S UOI 2020,
 In supreme court in ANURADHA BHASIN V/S UOI
2020, it was argued that access to internet & its
services itself is a fundamental right available to
citizens under Art19(1)(a).
 further the constitutionality of the suspension of
internet and its services for long period was
challenged before the court
 SC opinion
a) the SC in this case held that the suspension of
internet and its services for indefinite period
is inadmissible. internet and its services can
be suspended by the state only on the
grounds that are mentioned under Art-19(2)
b) the state can suspend the Internet and its
services only through issuing a public
notification which should clearly state the
purpose for which and the grounds on which
it is suspended, so that the citizens will be
able to challenge the constitutionality of such
an action of the state.
c) Further a state must be able to establish a
nexus b/w the purpose and the grounds of
suspension
d) Further more if there is a softer option of
achieving the same purpose available , the
 harder option of suspending the internet and
its services shall not be resorted to
e) Thus the SC has not dwelt on the question
whether the access to internet in itself is a
fundamental right available to citizens under
Art-19(1)(a). it continues to remain as
substantive question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution by the SC
f) However, the Kerala HC IN A CASE FAHEEMA
SHIRIN V/S S OF KERALA 2019, held that the
access to the internet is available as a
fundamental right under Art-21 of the
constitution
 FREE SPEECH & SEDITION LAW
 Sec 124A of IPC defines sedition as that “if a
person through written or spoken words or
through any action creates disaffection or
disloyalty among the people against the lawfully
established government then it amounts to
sedition and prescribes a punishment upto life
imprisonment
 The IPC Section 124 A of IPC says, “Whoever, by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representation, or otherwise, brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or
excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law in
India shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], to which fine may be added, or with impris-
onment which may extend to three years, to
which fine may be added, or with fine.
 On the question of constitutionality of Sec-124A
there are two schools of thoughts
A. ANTAGONISTS OF SEDITION LAW
a) Section 124A is unconstitutional and void
because it is a colonial provision made by the
british in order to suppress the emerging
nationalistic and democratic spirit among the
people of India and thus it is anti-democratic in
spirit , doesn’t deserve a place in a democratic
polity
b) It creates a sense of fear in minds of the people
about a possible arrest and detention even when
legitimate criticism against the govt are made by
the citizens. Thus it prevents the citizens from
expressing their views and opinions freely and
openly
c) Section 124A has been highly misused against
various sections of the citizens , as per the
recommendations of “International covenant on
civil & political rights 1967” sedition law should
be withdrawn as a legal process of court
appearances in itself amounts to punishment.
India is a part to the above covenant. India has
signed this covenant.
B. PROTAGONISTS OF SEDITION LAW
a) This school of thoughts argues that with the kind
of security threats that India is facing from
terrorists , insurgents and Maoists , we cannot
afford to de-criminalize section-124A
b) The SC in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar
(1962), already upheld the constitutionality of
section 124A
c) If sec124A has been misused by the state , the
remedy lies in creating regulatory measures to
prevent the state from misusing it but not
scrapping sec124A.
 REFORMS SUGGESTED:-
a) The SC in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar
(1962), held that the test to determine the use or
misuse of freedom of speech is by the application
of three factors namely discussion, advocacy,
and incitement to violence.
 SC further held that near discussion or advocacy
however strong or vociferous , it may be in
criticizing the govt , it doesn’t amounts to misuse
of free speech and citizens are exercising the
rights to dissent.
 Only when the free speech degenerates into
incitement to violence it amounts to sedition and
sec124A can be applied. Therefore according to
the SC the core of sedition is incitement to
violence ,
 so it has been suggested their Proviso
incorporating this essence of SC judgement to Sec
124A can be done to prevent its misuse.
b) The term of punishment can be reduced to a
maximum o 5 to 7 years of imprison
 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
 While hearing the petitions filed before the SC,
questioning the constitutionality of Sec124A, the
SC in May2022 observed that Sec124A was
meant to maintain the colonial control over the
people of India and it should not be applied by
the state till further orders of the SC.
 Thus the SC has kept sedition law under
Abeyance until it rules on the constitutionality of
Sec124A
 SEDITION MATERIAL FROM INTERNET
 Latest Context:
 A Supreme Court bench on 3rd February 2021
junked a petition seeking action against former
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister (CM) Farooq
Abdullah for his comments over scrapping of
Article 370 and bifurcating J&K into two union
territories. The apex court stated it is not
seditious to have views that are different from
the government’s.
 This brings ‘Sedition Law in India’ under
 highlight. IAS Exam aspirants must know the
relevant details about it for their preparation.
 HISTORY OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA
1. 1837 – Thomas Macaulay (Famous for his
Macaulay Minute on Indian Education 1835)
drafted the Penal Code in 1837.
 Sedition was placed in the Penal Code 1837 as
Section 113.
 Later, it was omitted, to only be readded in 1870
back in the Penal Code by an amendment
introduced by Sir James Stephen.
 British Raj in India had introduced this section on
sedition under the title “Exciting Disaffection”.
2. IPC Amendment Act of 1898 – It made
amendments to the changes brought through the
Penal Code in 1870.
 The current Section 124A is said to be similar to
the amendments made to it in 1898 with few
omissions made in 1937, 1948, 1950, and by Part
B States (Law) Act, 1951.
 SECTION 124A OF IPC – SEDITION
 The IPC Section 124 A says, “Whoever, by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts
to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
attempts to excite disaffection towards the
Government established by law in India shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life], to which
fine may be added, or with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, to which fine may be
added, or with fine.
 WHAT IS DISAFFECTION TOWARDS
GOVERNMENT?
 Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of
enmity.
 WHAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE
UNDER SEDITION?
a) When comments disapprove of government
measures but with a view to alter them lawfully
i.e. ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the
measures of the Government with a view to
obtaining their alteration by lawful means,
without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection.’
b) When comments disapprove of government’s
administrative actions without exciting all
feelings of enmity – Comments expressing
disapprobation of the administrative or other
action of the Government without exciting or
attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection.
 PUNISHMENT FOR THE SEDITION OFFENCE
a) It is a non-bailable offence.
b) Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to
which fine may be added.
c) The person found guilty of this offence is not
eligible for any government job.
 CASES RELATED TO THIS LAW
A. PRE-INDEPENDENCE
a) Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose
(1891)
 Jugendra Bose wrote an article criticizing the Age
of Consent Act, 1891.
 His criticism was taken as disobedience towards
the government.
 However, later the case was dropped after he
was released on bail.
b) Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1897)
 Bal Gangadhar Tilak has published the reports of
the celebration followed by an 1894 paper on the
Maratha king Shivaji by Professor R. P. Karkaria.
Karkaria presented his paper to Bombay’s Royal
Asiatic Society in 1894. This paper led to the
annual celebration of the Shivaji Coronation.
Later, Tilak published the celebrations’ reports.
 Tilak reported these celebrations as “Shivaji’s
Utterances” in his dailies – Kesari and Mahratta.
 The case was presided by Justice Arthur Strachey.
 This sedition trial is historically famous as in this
case, an attempt to excite feelings of enmity
against the government was also brought under
the scope of Section 124A terming it is seditious.
Hence, it widened the understanding of Section
124A.
 Tilak was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous
imprisonment.
c) Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1908)
 Tilak published two Kesari articles, titled “The
Country’s Misfortune” which he published on
12th May 1908 and “These Remedies Are Not
Lasting” which was published on 9th June 1908.
 Under the newly drafted Section 124A, he was
sentenced to six years of imprisonment in Burma
(Now, Myanmar).
d) Sedition Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922)
 Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years for
his articles in his newspaper, ‘Young India’.
 The charges imposed on him were – “Bringing or
attempting to excite disaffection towards His
Majesty’s Government established by law in
British India”
 Mahatma Gandhi termed Section 124A as “Prince
among the political sections of the Indian Penal
Code designed to suppress the liberty of the
citizen.”
B. POST-INDEPENDENCE – SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS
c) Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of
Delhi (1950) & Romesh Thappar vs the State
 of Madras (1950)
 The apex court held that a law that restricts
speech on the ground that it would disturb public
order was unconstitutional.
 The decision of the court prompted the ‘First
Constitution Amendment’, where Article 19 (2)
was rewritten to replace “undermining the
security of the State” with “in the interest of
public order”
d) Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)
 The constitutional validity of Section 124A was
put to a test in this case.
 A member of a Forward Bloc had given a speech
which was charged as sedition.
 The Supreme Court held:
 “Speech or writing to which “subverting the
government by violent means” is implicit—
including the notion of “revolution”—is

seditious.”
A failed attempt to incite too is counted as
sedition.
 It was seditious to create public disorder.
 No “unreasonable distinction” between criticism
of the government’s measures and criticism of
the government itself was drawn.
e) Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1962)
 Balwant Singh who was the Director of Public
Instructions (DPI) in Punjab, Chandigarh among
other two, was alleged to have shouted pro-
Khalistan slogans on the day of former PM Indira
Gandhi’s assassination.
 The apex court held that unless there is public
disorder merely sloganeering can’t attract
punishment under Section 124A.
 One can also learn about important Supreme
Court judgements that are important for UPSC
from the linked article.
 WHY CAN SEDITION LAW BE IMPORTANT?
a) The law keeps a check on anti-national,
secessionist and terrorist elements that can
hamper the public order and incite violence and
induce enmity.
b) It helps in the stability of the elected government
which could otherwise be attempted to be
thrown out using illegal and violent means.
c) It is an alignment with contempt of court. Elected
Government is an important part of the
executive. Hence, contempt of the government
can be checked.
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SEDITION LAW
a) As the seeds of sedition law were sown in
colonial times, it is often described as a draconian
law that can be used against what is otherwise is
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech
and expression
b) It has an ill effect on constructive criticism. As
noted by the Supreme Court, views that are
different from the government’s don’t mean
seditious. Therefore, sedition laws can
demotivate legal and lawful criticism.
c) Britain had repealed the Sedition Act in 2009,
hence India should too be long done with this.
d) To penalize the offender for disrupting public
order, IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
2019 have provisions that can take care of the
punishments.
e) India’s ratification of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979 should
be seen as a right step towards acknowledging
freedom of expression. Hence, with Sedition Law
in activity, could lead to the wrong use of the law
where people are charged with offence
arbitrability for expressing their opinions.
 FREE SPEECH & HATE SPEECH
 There is no specific provision in law that defines
hate speech. However, there are many provisions
in law that criminalize , penalizes speeches,
writing, actions etc that promote violence and
spread dis-harmony b/w communities and
groups.
 Such legal provisions are applied to cover
hate speeches, this include
a) Sec124A of IPC:- that penalizes sedition
b) Sec 153A of IPC:- that penalizes promotion of
enmity b/w different communities and
groups on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth, residence, language etc
c) Sec295A of IPC:-that penalizes deliberate
acts intended to outrage the religious
sentiments of the people
d) Sec 7of CRP Act:- penalizes incitement or
encouragement of Untouchabality through
spoken or written words.
 THE SC ON HATE SPEECH :-
A. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan V/s UOI 2014
 SC pointed out that hate speech apart from
causing distress to individual members can
endanger national security , disturb public order ,
communal harmony , promoting xenophobia,
genocide , ethnicity and caste based violence and
intolerance in the society.
B. Amish Devgan v/s UOI 2020
 SC emphasized the need for the state to
specifically criminalize the “Hate speech” a lay
down test to determine what amounts to Hate
speech
 LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA ON
HATE SPEECH
 It has suggested that separate offences be added
to the IPC to cover Hate speech in the form of
Sec153C and Sec505A.
a) Sec153C will penalize the hate speech when
directed towards groups with an
imprisonment of 2 years with or without a
fine of Rs.5000.
b) Sec505A will penalize hate speech when
directed towards Individual members with an
imprisonment of 1 year with and without a
fine of Rs5000.
 Note:- Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Home Affairs, has recommended for the
incorporation of separate and specific provisions
in information technology Act (ITA2000) 2000 to
cover online hate speech
 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:-
a) Currently SC is hearing a petition seeking
independent enquiry into the alleged hate
speeches delivered during the Dharam sansad
conference (religious parliament) held at
Haridwar in Dec2021.
b) In the light of the reports, the elected people’s
representatives have also delivered hate speech ,
the SC in Oct-2022 directed the three Govt of UP,
Uttrakhand and Delhi to Submit Action taken
reports (ATR) on the alleged hate speeches
delivered within their respective jurisdiction. It
has also directed the officials to take suo-moto
action against the hate speeches delivered within
their respective jurisdiction without waiting for a
complaint to be filed in this regard.
c) Any failure to act on the directions of the court
will be treated as contempt of court and
necessary actions will be initiated against the
officials
2. ART19(1)(b)
 it confers the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
ASSEMBLE BUT the purpose of Assembly should
be peaceful and without arms
 It also includes the Right to meeting (a
stationary assembly) and take out a
procession (a mobile assembly)
 Acc. To SC, Art 19(1)(b) is a corollary of
Freedom of speech and expression
 Corollary is something which is implicit under
freedom of speech and expression
 This right is not an absolute right it is subject
to maintain the public order in the interest of
morality and decency
 For example for the purpose of maintaining
public order under Sec144 of Cr.P.C , DM can
impose prohibitory orders and curfew
3. Art19(1)(c)
 It confers the fundamental rights to form
associations or unions or corporative societies.
 97th CAA 2011, which added the fundamental
rights to form or corporative societies under
Art19(1)(c)
 It also included:-
a) Right to join or not to join
b) rights to form or not to form
c) right to continue or not to continue with an
association
 SC also clarified it doesn’t include “to be
admitted into an association”
 Note:- associations can only be formed that are
legitimate and legal whether it is political
(formation of political parties), societal, business
related etc
 Union is one form of association associated with
workers in an organization. Right to form trade
unions by the workers comes under this.
 But SC also clarified the it doesn’t confers the
Right to strike (it is an ordinary legal right
outside the constitution but not a fundamental
right)
 Under legal right to strike includes right to
call for a bandh or Hartal
 CPM v/s Bharat Kumar 1998 SC
 Communist party (Marxist) argued that right
to call for a bandh is a double fundamental
right available under Art19(1)(c) and also
under Art 19(1).
 SC held all forms of Bandh Are illegal and SC
made a distinction b/w strike and general
strike
 General strike means which affects the entire
society and disturbs the normal life in the
society .
 Ordinary , normal strike confines to a
particular are and does not affect the entire
society. It is localized
 So according to SC, Bandh(बंद) is a general
strike that threatens to Shut down the entire
society and it carries an element of coercion
means it violates three fundamental rights
a) Freedom of movement
b) Freedom of livelihood under Art-21
c) Freedom of speech and expression
 According to SC “Hartal” is a strike , it is not a
general strike , so it is legal.
 CAN RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION
BE RESTRICTED?
 Art-33 of constitution confers the power on the
state to modify the right available under
Art19(1)(c) in its application of right to the
members of the forces that are involved in the
maintenance of law and order and security of the
country
 So in simple language the members of the police
forces and armed forces may be restricted in the
availability of rights under Art-19(1)(c)
 So parliament has made the Army Act, Navy Act,
Air force Act, Police Act (passed by states), Under
which the right to form political association and
trade unions has been denied to the members of
the armed forces and police forces. Therefore
they don’t have right to strike also. They can form
only non-political organisations like cultural etc.
4. ART-19(1)(d)
 It confers the right to freedom of movement
throughput the territory of India
 The constitution uses the expression throughput
the territory of India not within the territory of
India
 Throughout the territory of India means no part
of the country shall be made inaccessible to the
citizens, however, Within doesn’t guarantee that
 Freedom of movement promotes national
integration , fraternity, ad it treats whole country
as a single nation and people as a single people.
 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
IS OF THREE TYPES
1. Right to move Inside the country:- Art
19(1)(d) only guarantees this right
2. Right to travel abroad:- guaranteed under Art
21 of constitution
3. Right to Return back to country:- guaranteed
under Art 21 of constitution
 Exception :- to Art 19(1)(d), freedom of
movement can be restricted under two grounds
a) In interest of general public
b) In interest of Schedule tribes
 So INNER LINE PERMIT (ILP) SYSTEM is a policy of
Govt under which travel restrictions are imposed
on citizens and non-citizens both in the interest
of the schedule tribes
 The ILP system can only be introduced by the
center not the state. At present it is enforced in
a) Arunachal Pradesh
b) Nagaland
c) Mizoram
d) Manipur
 Whereas ILP is a special pass which is issued by
state govts to citizens and non-citizens to travel
to certain restricted parts of the state
5. ART 19(1)(e)
 It confers the fundamental right to reside and
settle down throughout the territory of India
 Reside:- for temporary period
 Settle down:- for permanent time
 It is a corollary of the previous right (right to
freedom of movement)
 Exception :- to Art 19(1)(e), can be restricted
under two grounds
c) In interest of general public
d) In interest of Schedule tribes
6. ART 19(1)(g)
 It confers the fundamental right to Avocation
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ONLINE GAMING
 Under Article 19 (1) (g) citizens can take up any
profession, occupation, business or trade.
However the state can impose reasonable
restrictions-
a) in the interest of general public
b) take over any business or trade either
partially or completely to the exclusion of the
citizens
c) prescribe professional or technical and other
necessary qualifications.
 For example, the business or trade in liquor,
money lending, gambling, lottery or betting etc
can be banned or regulated by the State in the
interest of general public.
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ONLINE
GAMING
 Online gaming including fantasy games like
Dream 11 has fast emerged as the most engaging
form of entertainment in India because of the
presence of a huge younger population,
increased internet penetration and affordable
smart phones.
 The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh
Vs. Satyanarayana 1967 case held that gaming is
of two types viz, skill based and chance based. It
held games of skill like bridge, rummy and poker
are legal and protected under Article 19 (1) (g).
However “games of chance” that involve a high
degree of chance and unpredictability like
roulette, dice, teen patti etc are essentially about
gambling and hence are deemed illegal. In
Avinash Mehrotra Vs. State of Rajasthan 2021,
the Supreme court held that fantasy sports of a
predominant format require considerable skill,
judgment and discretion. It held the online
fantasy game “Dream 11” involves skill and does
not amount to gambling.
 The High Courts of Madras (August 2021) and
Karnataka (February 2022) have held that a
complete ban imposed on Online gaming as
unconstitutional and void and that a game
involving substantial skill would not amount to
gambling.
 STEPS TAKEN:
 A game of skill may involve issues like addiction,
emotional and mental health issues, affect one’s
social life, lead to increased incidence of violence
in the society and financial ruin of not only an
individual but also his family. It also involves
ethical issues where a gaming programme may
be designed to be addictive and tweaked to the
benefit of Online gaming companies.
 The Law Commission of India and the Lodha
Committee have recommended to legalize
betting so as to regulate the industry and bring it
over board and prevent it from being held
underground.
 The center has appointed a four-member
committee to examine issues related to online
gaming and make recommendations to regulate
the sector and ensure online gaming is played
responsibly, safely, transparently and securely.
The committee will also examine the ways to
identify the online games which are addictive and
prevent the system to be misused by online
gaming companies.
 WAY FORWARD
 India needs a comprehensive law to regulate the
gaming industry. The law should impose time and
age- related restrictions, where an online gaming
platform should not be allowed to operate 24
hours a day. The system should operate on the
basis of informed consent and parental consent
given by the players. The KYC norms should be an
integral part of the system. The state should
educate the general public about the potential
risks involved in playing the online games.
 THE PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF
CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES (Art-20)
 Article 20 of the Constitution provides for the
protection in respect of conviction for offences. No
one can be convicted for an act that was not an
offence at the time of its commission, and no one can
be given punishment greater than what was provided
in the law prevalent at the time of its commission
 Protection is given in the form of Prohibition on
the states (no direct protection given to you)
 Art-20 talks about three types means
State is prohibited from doing three
things
1) Enacting the ex-post facto Criminal
legislations (Cr. Legis) (Art20(1)
2) Practicing Double Jeopardy {Art20(2)}
3) Compelling an accused to provide self-
incriminating evidences (Art20(3)}
 Term “post” indicates future, its opposite is ex-
post means something in the past. So Art 20(1)
prohibits the state to enact a law and give a
retrospective effect for the law
 For example:- If a law is passed on 25-11-22 ,
either the law is given legal enforceability from
25-11-2022 or from a future date :- which is
known as PROSPECTIVE EFFECT
 Therefore, to prevent the state from victimizing
individuals ,and to allow the citizens to enjoy
other fundamental rights fully, Art-20 has been
included
 Therefore, Art-20 and Art-21 cannot be
suspended even during a national emergency
1. Art20(1)
 Prohibits state from Enacting the ex-post facto
Criminal legislations
 Under this article, an individual can be punished
for the commission of an Act only if than the Act
was described as a criminal offense in the law
books at the time of its commission
 Act which was not originally a criminal offense at
the time of its commission, cannot be
subsequently made into a criminal offense and
Individuals cannot be punished for that
 Further, no person shall be given a punishment
greater than what is prescribed under the law at
the time of its commission
 Art-20(1) prohibits the states fro giving
retrospective effect to a criminal legislation
 All criminal legislations can be given prospective
effect
 But civil legislations can be given with both
retrospective and prospective effect
2. Art20(2)
 It prohibits the state from Practicing Double
Jeopardy
 It provides that no person shall be prosecuted
and punished more than once for the commission
of a single offense.
 It prohibits only the criminal courts and criminal
tribunals from prosecuting and punishing an
Individual more than once for the commission of
a single offense
 It doesn’t cover civil courts, executive
 Similarly, Defamation gives rise to civil and
criminal wrongs under Sec499 of IPC , it is a
criminal offense. At same time the victim can file
case in civil court for compensation. So it doesn’t
come under Double jeopardy .{Note it}
3. Art20(3)
 It prohibits the state from Compelling an accused
to provide self-incriminating evidences
 It binds only the police but doesn’t bind the
judiciary and the legislation
 It prohibits the police from compelling an
accused to make a confessional statement, any
such statement made by accused to police either
voluntary or otherwise is not admissible as
evidence in a court of Law.
 However, any confessional statement made
voluntarily by an accused is admissible as
evidence if made to a judicial magistrate.
 The SC held that the protection given under
Art20(3) to an accused is not extend to cover if
he is compelled to submit specimen in the nature
of handwriting, signature, body tissues and fluids
etc for forensic examination as part of criminal
investigation because the outcome of such a
scientific result don’t be different whether the
specimen is submitted voluntarily or otherwise.
 Narco-Analysis tests:- for this three types of
tests are done
1) Polygraph (or lie detector )test
2) Brain mapping test
3) Narco-drug test
 1 + 2 are non-invasive tests
 3 is an invasive test , chemical substance i.e.
Sodium pentothal is injected into veins of the
accused
 Sodium thiopental, also known as Sodium
Pentothal thiopental, thiopentone, or Trapanal
(also a trademark),
 M. selvi vs state of Karnataka
 SC held that all these 3 tests are unconstitutional
and void if conducted on a subject without his
consent on the grounds , they are violative of his
right to privacy under Art-21 an Right against self
incrimination under Art 20(3)
7th class ended and his lectures are also ended