Issue 1 Cases Background

- Case Name: People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476. Court: SC

In the landmark case regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Supreme Court of India
delivered a significant judgment. The case stemmed from a challenge to certain provisions of the UAPA, which
were criticized for being vague and violative of fundamental rights.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the UAPA, emphasized the need
for strict interpretation of its provisions to prevent any potential abuse. The Court also underscored the importance
of safeguarding civil liberties and fundamental rights, even in the context of national security legislation.

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): The petitioners likely argued that certain provisions of the (UAPA)
violated the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): The petitioners may have contended that the UAPA provisions impinged
upon the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a), the right to assemble peacefully and
without arms (Article 19(1)(b)), and the right to form associations or unions (Article 19(1)(c)).

3. Right against Exploitation (Article 23): While not explicitly mentioned in most discussions of the case,
challenges could have been raised regarding any provisions of the UAPA that might have led to exploitation
or abuse of power.

4. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): The petitioners likely invoked Article 32, seeking remedies
from the Supreme Court for the alleged violations of their fundamental rights under the UAPA.

- Case Name: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597,1978 SCR (2) 621 Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, had
her passport impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967. She challenged this action, arguing that it
violated her fundamental rights.

Maneka Gandhi's case thus set a precedent for expansive interpretation and protection of fundamental rights in
India. It underscored the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state action and
ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

Case Name: R. Subba Rao v. N. Veeraju (A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 969), the Madras High Court addressed issues
related to the doctrine of lis pendens, which pertains to the principle that pending litigation affects the subject matter
of the suit and any subsequent transactions involving it.

The case involved a dispute over the sale of immovable property. The plaintiff, R. Subba Rao, claimed ownership of
the property and initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, N. Veeraju. During the pendency of the suit,
Veeraju purportedly sold the property to a third party.

The Madras High Court, in its judgment, examined the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens to the transaction
between Veeraju and the third party. The court held that the sale was subject to the outcome of the ongoing litigation
between Subba Rao and Veeraju. Therefore, the third party could not claim valid title to the property, and the sale
was deemed ineffective against Subba Rao's rights. It was observed that When a question of law is fairly arguable
and have a room for difference of opinion, then the question would be substantial question of law.

Page 1 of 2
Simranjit vs Union of India (UOI) (1992), decided by the Supreme Court of India, the court addressed the
constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitioner, Simranjit, challenged the disqualification of candidates for contesting elections under Section 8(3) of
the Representation of the People Act, which imposed a mandatory disqualification if a candidate was convicted of
certain offenses, regardless of the pendency of an appeal against the conviction.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the provision but introduced the principle
of "presumption of innocence" to mitigate its harshness It also reported that a mere threat to infringement of
fundamental rights is enough to justify the issue of the writ. In the instant case the Act infringes the right to
deprivation of personal liberty. Therefore, petitioners submit that in this present case is maintainable before this
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981), heard by the Supreme Court of
India, the issue at hand pertained to the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and the validity
of certain reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The petitioner, Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway), challenged the constitutional validity of the
reservations made by the Union of India in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees under
Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that such reservations were unconstitutional and violated the
principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 298, upheld the validity of reservations in
promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4). The Court ruled that reservations in
promotions were a valid means of ensuring equality of opportunity and representation for historically disadvantaged
groups. The judgment provided important clarification on the scope and application of affirmative action policies
in India, setting a precedent for future cases involving reservations in public employment. the hon’ble supreme
court concluded that current Constitutional jurisprudence is not of individualistic mold but is broad based and
people oriented

Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951), the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutionality
of certain provisions of the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947. The Act empowered the State
Government to impose restrictions on the use of motor vehicles on public roads without obtaining permits.

The petitioner, Chintaman Rao, challenged the Act on the grounds that it violated Article 19(1)(f) of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to hold property and to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment reported in AIR 1951 SC 118, held that the Act was unconstitutional as it
imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade or business. The Court emphasized that the
restrictions imposed by the Act were not in the interests of the general public and were arbitrary in nature.

This landmark judgment reaffirmed the importance of the fundamental right to carry on trade or business
without unreasonable restrictions and established the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be
reasonable and in the interests of the general public. The Supreme Court opined that a restriction in order to be
referred to as reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be beyond what is required in the interest of the
public.

Page 2 of 2