Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
historical underpinnings,
Constitution: Aimed at changing social, political, economic and psychological
Decisions in Constituent assembly: Consensus, Accommodation and by theArt of selection
and modification
Timelines:
o 1922: Gandhi talked aboutself-determination in Young India
o 1928: “Nehru Report”
o 1938: Haripura session, demandfor constituent assembly
o 1940 (August offer): Constitutionfor the Indians was offered
o 1942 (Cripps offer): Constitutionfor Indians by the Indians
features
Blend of Federal and Unitary
Independent Judiciary (Keshavand Bharati)
Advisory Jurisdiction of SC (Art 143): Not in US
Rigidity and flexibility, Emergency Provisions
Indian Socialism (Marxist + Gandhian): Right to Work absent
Economic Democracy
Other features: FR, DPSP, FD
o FR - J Bhagvati in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India
o DPSP - Unnikrishnan vs State of AP - Directive Principles are as good as
fundamental rights.
FR – DPSP fight (Includes some important CAA and Basic Structure) [CAA:
1, 17, 24, 42]
o Shankari Prasad v. UoI (1951)
constitutional validity of CAA 1, 1951 challenged: curtailed Right to
Property
SC: Power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend FRs
o Champakam Dorairajan case, 1951
DPSP-FR supplementary, interpret harmoniously > If conflict > FR will
prevail
o GolakNath v. State of Punjab (1967): CAA 17, 1956: inserted certain state
acts in 9th Sch
SC: FRs are immutable (REVERSED stand) - cannot abridge/ take away
o CAA 24, 1971: Parliament can amend any part using
368, President MUST give assent to CAA
o CAA 25, 1971: Added 31(C):
Law to implement DPSP 39(b) & 39(c) may violate FRs (14 & 19), cannot be
held void, cannot be challenged in court of law (took away JR)
39(b): Equitable distribution of wealth (LDC goes to PHC)
39(c): Prevention of concentration of wealth in fewer hands
o Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): 13 Judge Bench
Concept of Basic Structure: cannot be amended
Preamble is part of IC (overturned Berubari Union case)
Struck down JR part of CAA 25. DPSP 39(b) & 39(c) CAN override 14 & 19
JR as basic structure
o CAA 42, 1976 (To counter SC): amended Art 368 (no limitation on the
constituent power of Parliament)
Change to 31(c): made all DPSP > 14,19,31 (extension of CAA 25), kept JR
open
o Minerva Mills v. UoI (1980) – Struck down amendment of 368
Basic Structure/Feature: JR, FR-DPSP Harmony and balance
Struck down the provision of CAA 42 which under Article 31-C gave pre-
eminence to all DPSP against FR 14,19,31
Held that Social Welfare Law cannotcurtail the FRs
amendments
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): Parliament cannot amend
‘basic structure’
Initiation: either House, minister/pvt member, No Joint sitting, special
majority
Types of Majority
o Ordinary/Simple Majority (NOT in 368): a majority of the House present
and voting
o Absolute majority: a majority of the total membership of each House
o Special Majority: a majority of the total membershipof each House and a
majority of two-thirds of the members of each House presentand voting
Examples
o Simple (outside the scope of Article 368)
New states, alteration of boundaries/names
Conferment of more jurisdictions on the SC.
Citizenship -- acquisition and termination.
Election to the Parliament and State legislatures.
5th Schedule (administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes)
6th Schedule (administration of tribal areas)
o Special Majority: FR/DPSP
o Special Majority + ratification of half SL: When Federal structure in impacted
Election of President (Art 54)
SCs and HCs
Distribution of powers (legislative/exec) between Union and states
7th Schedule
Representation of states in Parliament (delimitation by simple majority)
Power of Parliament to amend theConstitution and its procedure (Article
368 itself)
Amendments
o 38: Prez can declare emergency, Ordinance byPresident/Guv/
Administrators of UT final and could not be challenged
o Schedules:
39 (1975): Added 9th Schedule.
Election inparliament (PM/ Speaker, President and VP) cannot be
questioned: Struck down in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
52 (1985): Added the Tenth Schedule (regardinganti-defection)
91: Amended the Anti-Defection Law, Max ministers15%
73 (1992): PRI
74 (1992): Municipality
o 24:
o 25:
o 42: Supremacy to Parliament, DPSP>FR, Added10 FDs
New words: Socialist, Secular and Unity andIntegrity of the Nation
Art. 74 amended: President shall act in accordance with the advice of CoM
President can proclaim emergency in any part of the country (Earlier:Entire
country)
o 44 (1978): Right to Property deleted as FR, 300Aadded.
352 amended: Armed Rebellion
Art. 74(1) modified: President could require theCouncil of ministers to
reconsider > must act after reconsideration
o 86 (2002): RTE an FR
o 93: Reservation (27%) for OBC in government aswell as private educational
institutions.
o 99 (2014): NJAC, struck down (Advocate Council VsUoI, 2015)
o 100 (2015): Exchange of enclaves (LBA)
o 101: GST
o States
7 (1956): Reorganization of states on linguisticbasis
10 (1961): Dadra & Nagar Haveli as a UT
12 (1961): Goa, Daman & Diu as a UT
13: Nagaland State
14: Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam asPondicherry
17 (1967): inserted certain state acts in 9thSchedule > GolakNath v. State of
Punjab (1967)
18: Re-organised Punjab (PN, HR, Chandigarh)
27 (1971): Manipur and Tripura as States, Mizoramand Arunachal as UTs.
36 (19750: Sikkim as State
53: Mizoram State
55 (1986): Arunachal Statehood
o Languages:
21 (1967): Sindhi
71 (1992): Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali (KlMN)
92 (2003): Bodo, Maithili, Santhali and Dogri(BDSM): 21+71=92
basic structure
Originated in Keshavanand Bharati vs State of Kerala, 1973:
o SC: basic structure/features cannot be altered
o Tussle between Judiciary (protect FR) and State (pursuing social welfare)
Case Laws: KIMBasic
o Keshvananda Bharti V. State of Kerala, 1973
o Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
39th CAA was declared unconstitutional by SC (JR as Basic Str)
39th CAA: introduced Article 392A (appointment of PM and Speaker cannot
be challenged in court)
o Minerva Mill v. UoI, 1980: JR, FR-DPSP Harmony
o Bommai v. UoI, 1994: SECULARISM, Preamble indicates the basic structure
of the constitution
Power of President under 356 is not absolute.
‘Secularism’ was part of IC before the word ‘Secular’ was added to preamble.
Transgressions
o Ex-CJI appointed as Governor (P. Sathasivam)
Though IC doesn't specifically prohibits, it hinders
separation/independence of Judiciary (Basic structure)
significant provisions
Basic
123 and 213: Ordinance making power
110: Money Bill
PREAMBLE
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into
a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political; (PSE)
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; (TEBFaW)
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November, 1949,
do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.
Preamble
reflects the ideals, aspirations and expectations
Aims and objectives of the Indian Republic
Soul/Philosophy of the Constitution
Terms
o ‘We, the people of India……’: sovereignty with the
people, government power flows from people
o Sovereign: independent
o Socialistic: ownership & control of material resources to serve the
common good (DPSP: )
o Secular: freedom of conscience & free profession, practice & propagation
of religion
o Democratic: Government of, by and for the people
o Republic: Elected head for government
Fundamental rights
History:
o Magna Carta (1214 CE): From King John by the people of England
o Bill of Rights (1689): Englishmen given certain civil and political rights that
could not be taken away
o 1789: "Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen" after French Revol
o Need for FR: Rule of Law, First fruits, Quantification of Freedom
Amendability of FRs: See above
Fundamental Rights in India
o A K Gopalan vs State of Madras 1950: FR not absolute
o Romesh Thaper vs State of Madras, 1950:
Freedom of speech and Freedom of press lay the foundation of a democratic
society
o Menaka Gandhi v UoI, 1978 (Art. 21): widest possible interpretation
not jist life but a life of dignity.
not just physical, but mental+spiritual
FRs are not mutually exclusive, form an integrated theme of IC
Test of reasonableness (14): for any law that takes away FR
J. Bhagvati: FR represent the values that are cherished by the people of this
country since Vedic ages
Necessary for a human being for attaining full social, intellectual, and
spiritual status.
o Sunil Batra vs Delhi Admin AIR 1980
tremendous power to Habeas Corpus, people not directly involved can
move the court (objective: remove injustice wherever it is found in the
society)
Enforce FR in a prison > Prisoners are humans > dignity
Menial/forced work without pay, solitary confinement, degrading
punishment not allowed.
o Olga Tellis v. BMC, 1986: Right to Life had to be a life with dignity (not
animal existence)
Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms 2002: Right to know
abt candidate before voting
o
DPSP: 50. The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the
executive in the public services of the State.
JudicialAppointments:
Problems
o Too many vacancies > pendency and delay
o Opaque
o Canvassing for other criteria rather than meritocracy
Collegium
o As long as the process of judicial appointments remains opaque, selection of
judges on considerations other than merit will continue
o Incompetent, inefficient, ethically compromised individuals being
appointed
o secrecy shrouding the appointments
The real issue is not whoappoints judges but how they are appointed.
o If opaque > favouritism, nepotism and appointments on criteria other than
merit
Another issue- While “who” shouldappoint judges can be debated
endlessly, the need is to broaden the debate onthe appointment of judges by
focusing on other relevant issues likehaving jurists as judges of the
Supreme Court. There has never been muchdebate on this issue.
o 124 (3): three categories of persons who are “eligible” to be appointed to the
Supreme Court —
HC judge with five years’ experience
Advocate in the HC with 10 years’ experience
a “distinguished jurist.”
o A “distinguished jurist” refers to academic lawyers or law professors: people
who have challenged and expanded the existing frontiers of legal knowledge
through cutting edge research and teaching > potential of raising the bar of
legal reasoning
o Regrettably, never ever has a “distinguished jurist,” i.e. a law professor, been
appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court
UK: The JAC assesses candidates againstfive merit criteria:
Intellectual capacity
Personal qualities
An ability to understand and dealfairly
Authority and communication skills
Efficiency
US
The ‘public’ senate hearings forappointments of judges: transparency,
accountability and citizen participation
Other reforms
o Only some cases can be put for repeal in higher courts
o Time alloted for oral argument (30 minutes in USA)
o Conduct legal audit- why cases took so long
o Repeal/modify archaic laws
Independence of judiciary
Fixed Tenure
o C Ramachandran Iyer vs A N Bhattacharjee 1995 SC: only the CJI can be the
prime mover of the action against erring judges. Thus, after this case, action
against judges was allowed only through in-house procedures of the
judiciary.
Salary
Jurisdiction of the courts can’t be decreased
Art 121: No discussion about the judges in the parliament is permitted except
for the discussion about his removal
Art 129 and 215: Power to punish for its contempt.
Art 50 Separation of judiciary from executive
Appointment of the judges only after consultation with legal experts.
Art 124(7) Prohibition on practicing before any court
Judges Transfer Case 1 (S P Gupta vs Union of India, 1982)
o SC: only ground on which the decision of the govt. can be challenged is that
it is based on mala fide and irrelevant consideration.
o substantially reduced its own power in appointing the judges and gave
control to the executive.
Judges Transfer Case 2 (SC Advocates on Record Association vs Union of
India, AIR 1982.)
o SC overruled the decision of the S P Gupta case and held that in the matter
of appointment of judges of high courts and supreme court, the CJ should
have the primacy and the appointment of the CJ should be based on
seniority.
o CJ must consult his two senior most judges and the recommendation must
be made only if there is a consensus among them
Judges Transfer Case 3
o CJ recommended without consulting
o advice without proper consultation with other judges is not binding on
govt
Judicial Review
Judicial Activism:
HC initiated a suo motu PIL (basedon a news report) to free an elephant in
MH zoo
Law ministry paper on strengthening the criminal justice system:
Pending serious criminal cases: 21L (2009) > 28L (2014)
In 58% cases tried in 2014, the accused was either discharged or acquitted.
Adversarial system of criminal justice system
Inefficiency of Judiciary:
Abhiram Singh case (Election dispute of 1990 wasresolved in 2017)
1993 Mumbai blasts got punished in 2017
Judicial reforms
Suggestions
o Role of CJI: should sit down with other Judges (who would be CJI
anyway) and create and then monitor the implementation of one,
two and five year plans for the entire judiciary (CJI has 1-2
yeartenure, too short for reforms)
o establish a flow chart for Judicial appointments (uniform,
unchangeable and institutional): Expedite appointment
Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries
Political reforms:
Report by the Association for DemocraticReforms: <2000 donations
withoutPAN during 2012-16 totaling 384 crores to the National political
Parties
makes a case for mandating all fields be filled in form 24A
Parliament Pay
Facts:
2015: 2.7L/month (salaries and expenses) to MPs, other perks
excluded
1,250% rise over last two decades
Past:
The first cabinet: collective decision not to avail of their
salaries for six months, owing to the economic suffering
Biswanath Das (Odisha): chose to draw only Rs. 25 a day
instead of Rs. 45 a day that he was entitled to, by saying that he did not
need
Madras Assembly: successful motion in 1949 to impose a
voluntary cut of Rs. 5 per diem, in recognition of the suffering of
farmers
Current method:
decided by a JPC consisting of members of both Houses
approved without delay
no external scrutiny
Issues with hike:
No timeline
no justification
no objectivity/transparency
Need: external, independent body, Self-regulation not enough
institutionalised process, transparent and accountable
Autonomous body to decide salary in mature democracies such
as the U.K. and Australia
linked to the civil service (France, Japan)
Incentive based: Attendance etc
Should be?
High: Attract talent, discourage corruption, difficult to link with
performance (subjective)
Remunerative: Service of Nation, rampant poverty, level of
corruption depends on morality and level of law enforcement (not on
salary), Incentivize lawmakers (people respond to incentives): partly
link to attendance/other incentives
Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Anti-Defection Law
Anti-defectionlaw: CAA 52, 1985 (added Tenth Schedule)
o deemedto have defected if he either
o voluntarilyresigned from his party
o disobeyedthe directives of the party leadership on a vote
o Independentmembers disqualified if they joined a political party
o Nominatedmembers could choose to join a party within six months
Exceptions
o .Any person elected as speaker or chairman could resign from his party,
andrejoin the party if he demitted that post.
o Aparty could be merged into another if at least two-thirds of its
partylegislators voted for the merger.
o Initiallypermitted splitting of parties, now deleted
Issues/questionswrt anti-defection laws
o Doesit affect right of free speech of the legislators?
KihotoHollohan vs Zachilhu and others, 1992: Constitution Bench said that
“theanti-defection law seeks to recognise the practical need to place
theproprieties of political and personal conduct…above certain
theoreticalassumptions.”
Heldthat the law does not violate any rights or freedoms, or the basic
structure ofparliamentary democracy.
o Whatconstitutes “voluntarily” resignation?
Variousjudgements: a member who publicly opposes the party or states his
supportfor another party would be deemed to have resigned
Newsreports may be used as evidence
o Canthe decision of the presiding officer be challenged in the courts?
Finaldecision is subject to appeal in HC/SC
Issues
o Shouldthe law be valid for all votes or only for those that determine the
stabilityof the government (such as the confidence and no-confidence
motions)?
Intentof the law was to deter defections motivated by lure of office or other
similar considerations.
Lossof membership is hardly a penalty (esp when elections are due/govt is
likely tofall)
Votingbehaviour may be affected even on issues not related to the stability
of thegovernment. A member may be unable to express his actual belief or
theinterests of his constituents.
Therefore,a case may be made for restricting thelaw to confidence and no-
confidence motions. (recommended by Dinesh Goswami Committee on
electoralreforms (1990))
LawCommission, 1999 suggested that political parties issue whips only
when thegovernment was in danger
o Shouldthe law apply only to pre-poll alliances?
Rationalethat a representative is elected on the basis of the party’s program
can beextended to pre-poll alliances only
o Shouldthe judgement be made by the presiding officers?
Goswami Committee, EC and VenkatachaliahCommission to Review the
Constitution (2002) have recommended that the decision should be made by
thepresident or the governor on the advice of EC (similar to the process
fordisqualification on grounds of office of profit)
o Additionalpenalties on defectors?
TheVenkatachaliah Commission: defectors should be barred from holding
anyministerial or remunerative political office for the remaining term of
theHouse
Conclusion:No ambiguity in the legality of current provisions. There is,
however, need forpublic debate on the working of the anti-defection law.
Current:
o EC disqualified former JH CM MadhuKoda from contesting polls for 3 years
for improper filing of electionexpenses. (RPA)
wrt 2009 LS elections, Takingcognizance of media reports
Uses: slow judiciary, Role of Media
Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and
responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
Presidential Election:
Test for new Prez:
o office of President was not conceived as a ceremonial post
o Use and abuse of Article 356
o discretionary powers: balance between unthinking rubber
stamp and overzealous interventionist
o On contentious legislation
o Use of moral authority and the weight of his public office
o Dalit
signals a socially inclusive agenda
o As President, he will have to rise above political and social identities
Appointment of EC
Appointment of ECs solely by political masters doesn’taugur well for a
democracy.
Article 324(2): the President (on the advice ofthe council of ministers headed
by the PM) will appoint ECs, the process ofappointment would remain
subject to the law made by Parliament.
Constitution says it will be subject to any lawenacted by Parliament. But
Parliament till date has not enacted any law. Insuch a scenario, in the absence
of a law and till Parliament legislates
There is anexpectation in the Constitution that Parliament will frame the
law. ButParliament has not framed it. In such a situation, is it not of
significantimportance that norms are fixed and neutral persons are
appointed in atransparent manner to ensure free and fair elections which are
so vital todemocracy?
Art 324(2): The EC shall consistof the chief election commissioner and such
number of other electioncommissioners, if any, as the President may from
time to time fix and theappointment of the chief election commissioner and
other election commissionersshall, subject to the provisions of any law made
in that behalf by Parliament,be made by the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------Yet to be Organized------------
----------------------------------------------
General electionsand assembly elections at the same time
Introduction:
o India until 1967 had the practice ofconducting simultaneous elections
Pros ofsimultaneous elections:
o Expenditure: can be utilised in strengtheningpublic investment
o Policy paralysis: results from theimposition of the Model Code of Conduct
o impact on delivery of essentialservices and
o Burden on crucial manpower that isdeployed during election time
o Maximum governance
Cons:
o Hamper the federal nature of Indian democracy
o Can create confusion among voters
o Implementation constraints and administrativeconstraints – constitutional
amendments, capacity of EC to provide logisticalsupport, deployment of
huge number of security personnel etc
o Problems like hung parliaments, untimely dissolutionquestion feasibility of
such actions.
Road Ahead:
o would require delebration andconfidence building measures among all the
stakeholders
o govt can follow various other ways toensure governance: amending MCC
etc.
o Immediate needs: opacity in political funding, exploitation of socialgroups
as votebanks etc
Important Case Laws (Can be used in Paper 2/3,4 and essays): ADD YEAR
FR
o Nandini Satpathi v. P.L. Dani, 1978: Police must inform the accused that he
has a right to call a lawyer before answering to any of their questions.
o Hussainara khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979
SC recognized the right to speedy trial and the right to legal aid
o Sheela barse v. Union of India, 1986: Right to legal aid FR under article 14
and Article 21
o ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, 1975 (HABEAS CORPUS case)
The right to move court under Article 14, 21 and 22 can be suspended during
the emergency
Order issued by the President under Article 359, suspending the right of
access to the courts for the enforcement of right under Article 14, 21 and
22 was held valid
Background
State of UP vs Raj Narain:Allahabad high court held Indira Gandhi guilty
of election malpractices andinvalidated her election and further barred her
for 6 years from contestingelections
The judgment was appealed to SC, Indira Gandhi, faced
byan unprecedented protest from an opposition united under J PNarayan,
invoked article 352 declaring National emergency onthe grounds of threat
from Internal disturbance
extensive use of preventive detention > Cases filed, 9 HCs gave judgment
that evenduring emergency the courts could entertain a writ of habeas
corpus filedby a person challenging his/her detention > Government (read
Indira Gandhi) appealed, SC declared Article 32 remains suspended under
emergency
o Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978
While explaining the expression ‘Procedure Established by Law’ under
Article 21, held that the procedure in Article 21 has to be fair, just and
reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.
The ‘Procedure established by law’ is same as the ‘due process of law’ as
interpreted by the American Constitution
o Rajagopal v. State of Tamilnadu
The right to life and liberty (Article 21) includes right to privacy
It is a ‘right to be left alone’
o Justice Puttaswamy vs UoI, 2017: Privacy is a FR!! VERY IMPORTANT
S377 of IPC becomes ultra vires (though pendingbefore a larger bench)
consensual sexual acts of adults in private
Problems with 377: public health, criminals for being themselves,privacy a
pre-requisite for self-development, constitutional values of
dignity,fraternity and inclusiveness, encourages anti-gay violence
(harassment,blackmail, exploitation)
o Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
SC struck down Section 66A of the IT Act (which violated Freedom of
Speech and Expression), declaring it to be unconstitutional
o Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India: right to reputation
Criminal Defamation law not unconstitutional
SC upheld the Constitutional Validity of Sections 499 to 502 of IPC relating
to Criminal Defamation
held that the right to Life under Article 21 includes right to reputation
UCC
o Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995
The case is related to the offence of Bigamy, conflict between the personal
laws and a strong need for the uniform civil code in the country.
Second marriage of a Hindu man after being converted to Islam, will be
invalid if the first marriage has not been dissolved.
o Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
Muslim Women has the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.PC.
Remedy under Section 125 is available to wife (including a divorced wife),
irrespective of the religion to which they belong
J&K
o Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan
SC can transfer cases from J&K Courts to courts outside it and vice versa
(by invoking Article 32, 136 and 142 of the Constitution)
Access to Justice is guaranteed to citizens by Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution
o SBI Vs. Santosh Gupta and Anr Etc.
J&K Has No Vestige Of Sovereignty Outside The Constitution of India
SC set aside the J&K High Court’s judgment which had held that various
key provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were outside the legislative
competence of Parliament, as they collided with Section 140 of the Transfer
of Property Act of Jammu & Kashmir, 1920
Also rejected the J&K High Court’s view that the J&K Constitution was
equal to the Constitution of India
Homosexuality/ LGBT
o NALSA v. Union of India
SC affirmed the Constitutional rights and freedom of the Transgender and
recognized them as the ‘Third Gender’
o Naz Foundation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court declared Section 377 of IPC, which criminalizes
Homosexuality in India, as unconstitutional and violative of FRs guaranteed
under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Later on in Suresh Kumar Kaushal & Anr. V. NAZ Foundation & Others,
the Supreme Court of India struck down the decision of Delhi High Court
and held the Section 377 of IPC does not suffer from any constitutional
infirmity and
SC left on the legislature to deal with the legality of the Section
PIL
Reservation
o Chanpakam Dorairajan V State of Madras:
The Supreme Court had struck down the Communal Government Order,
which provided Caste based reservation in the Government Jobs and
Colleges. The Supreme Court has held that the order violates Article 16 (2)
of the Constitution.
The verdict led to the first amendment of the constitution.
o Indra Sawhney v. union of India
also known as Mandal Commission Case.
SC held that barring any extraordinary situations reservation should not
exceed 50%
SOCIETY
o Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
Court defined Sexual Harassment at work place
laid down the guidelines that has to be followed at the work place against
sexual harassment.
o Hiral P Harsora and ors Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Relief Possible Against Minors, Women under Domestic violence Act
SC struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section
2(q) of Domestic Violence Act holding that these words discriminate
between persons similarly situated, and is contrary to the object sought to be
achieved by the DV Act
o [Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India: Upload FIRs in Police
Websites
the copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, should be
uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official
website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the
registration of the FIR
o Jeeja Ghosh vs. UoI
People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity
SC asked SpiceJet Ltd to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs to Jeeja Ghosh, an eminent
activist involved in disability rights, for forcibly de-boarding her
IPC/CRPC
o Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
SC upheld the Constitutional validity of death penalty under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354 of CrPc
o Mithu v. State of Punjab
SC invalidated Section 303 of IPC, which provided for mandatory death
sentence for murder committed by a life convict.
Judiciary
o Supreme Court Advocate on-Record Association v. UOI (Third judge Case)
The concept of Collegium System for the appointment of Judges in the
higher judiciary was laid down.
Union Govt
o C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
The Concept of Public Trust Doctrine
State is the trustee of all the natural resources, which are meant by nature for
public use and enjoyment. These resources cannot be converted into private
property.
The State being the trustee of natural resources is under legal obligation to
protect such natural resources
Others
o C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987
The Supreme Court evolved the concept of ‘Absolute Liability’
Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for
example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable
to compensate all those who are affected by the accident
Education:
o Unnikrishnan v. State of AP, 1993: children under 14 have FR to freeeducation
Important Case Laws:
Narendra vs. K.Meena
o Forcing Husband to Get Separated from His Parents, Amounts to ’Cruelty’,
to grant divorce.
Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors
o Social Security to the Legal Profession Becomes an Essential Part of Legal
System
o SC observed that providing social security to the legal profession becomes
an essential part of any legal system which has to be effective, efficient and
robust to enable it to provide necessary service to the consumers of justice.
The Court upheld levy of additional court fee
Swaraj Abhiyan vs. UoI (SC, 2016)
o SC issued Landmark guidelines for disaster /drought managemen
No liquor shops near National Highways [State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu]
o Supreme Court ordered closure of all liqour shops along National and state
highways stressing on the need to improve road safety and curb menace of
drunken driving.
o should not be any liquor shops within 500 metres of such highways and they
should also be not visible from such roads
Union of India Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors
o High Court Judges Not Exempt From Airport Frisking
o SC set aside a Rajasthan High Court order which had directed the Union
Government to exempt judges of the high court from pre-embarkation
security checks
o Observed that the order of HC transgressed the ‘wise and self-imposed’
restraints on the power of judicial review
SC orders Floor test in Uttarakhand : [Union of India vs. Harish Rawat] The
Supreme Court today ordered a floor test monitored by it in Uttarakhand
assembly to end the constitutional impasse.
State of Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu
o Cauvery Dispute
o SC ordered Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, Later
on a plea by state of Karnataka, it was modified to 12000 cusecs.
o SC also held that t had the jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water
Dispute Tribunal (CWDT).
Common Cause vs Union of India
o Sedition: Direction to authorities [] Supreme Court of India issued a
direction to all the concerned authorities to follow the Constitutional bench
judgment in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962) which limited the scope of
Sedition Law (Section 124A) in India
Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India
o National anthem must in Theatres
o SC made it mandatory for all cinema theatres to play the national anthem
before a movie begins during which the national flag is to be shown on the
screen
http://www.theweek.in/news/india/significant-supreme-court-rulings-
of-2016.html
Important Case Laws (2017): COMPLETE THIS
Abhiram Singh Vs CD Commachen: With respect to Communalization of
elections
o S 123 of RP Act, 1951: Corrupt Practices
Includes Bribery, Any gratification, undue influence, threaten any
candidate/ elector (including social ostracism), or APPEAL to vote on
ground of religion, race, caste or language
o SC said:
Elections are a secular exercise, function of an elected rep should be secular
Relationship betn Man and God is an individual choice, State is forbidden
Won’t reconsider Ramesh Prabhu Vs Prabhakar case (Famously Hindutva
Judgement)
SC (Hindutva Judgement, 1995): Hindutva is a way of life and not a religion
https://unacademy.com/lesson/abhiram-singh-vs-cd-commachen-shyam-
narayan-chouksey-vs-union-of-india-and-more/YL0VS8MO
Constitutional Morality and Judicial Values
o IC is an evolving document whose meaning is so dynamic that new
dimensions unfold themselves with time
o Pre and Post Keshavandha Bharathi Case Analysis
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l186-Constitutional-Morality-
And-Judicial-Values.html
The tragedy with our politicians is that 'where they stand depends on
where they sit!'. Gone are the days when politicians used to resign based
on principles (foremost example: Ambedkar)