Constitutional Law II

Definition of State, Law and Fundamental Rights.

Paper: LB 401: Constitutional Law - II LL.B. IV Term

Topic 1 – Fundamental Rights (General)

A. ‘State’ under Article 12

1. Som Prakash v. Union of India (1981)

The key issue in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India was whether Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a government company, could be considered "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, making it subject to fundamental rights enforcement. The parties involved were Som Prakash Rekhi, a retired employee, and the Union of India along with Bharat Petroleum. The Supreme Court reasoned that government companies, being instrumentalities of the State, are subject to constitutional limitations, including fundamental rights. The Court held that deductions from Rekhi's pension were illegal under statutory provisions protecting pension rights, and directed the restoration of his full pension. The appeal was allowed, with costs awarded to the Legal Aid Society, and the Court emphasized the importance of social justice in public sector employment.

2. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

The key issue in Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. was whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, thus making it subject to writ jurisdiction. The appellants challenged the Calcutta High Court's dismissal of their writ petition against CSIR, citing the precedent set in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, which held CSIR was not a "State." The Supreme Court re-evaluated this precedent, considering the evolution of the definition of "State" through cases like Sukhdev Singh, Ramana, and Ajay Hasia, which expanded the scope to include bodies financially and administratively controlled by the government. The Court concluded that CSIR is indeed a "State" under Article 12, overturning the earlier Sabhajit Tewary decision, and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellants.

G. Basi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003)

The key issue in the case of G. Basi Reddy and Ors. vs. International Crops Research Institute (ICRISAT) and Ors. was whether ICRISAT, an international organization, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The appellants, former employees of ICRISAT, challenged their termination and sought a writ of mandamus against ICRISAT and the Union of India. The Supreme Court held that ICRISAT was immune from being sued due to a 1972 notification under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, and was not a "State" or "authority" under Article 12, thus not subject to writ jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision, with no costs awarded.

4. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)

The key issue in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) qualifies as "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, making it subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32. The appellants, Zee Telefilms Ltd. and others, argued that BCCI performs public functions and exercises monopoly over cricket in India, thus should be considered a "State." The Supreme Court, however, concluded that BCCI is not a "State" as it is not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the government, and its control is merely regulatory. The appeal was dismissed, and the writ petition was deemed not maintainable under Article 32, but the court noted that remedies could be sought under Article 226.

5. State of U.P. v. RadheyShyam Rai (2009)

The key issue in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Rai was whether the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the Sansthan's formation, functions, management, and financial control, referencing precedents like Pradeep Kumar Biswas, which outlined criteria for determining if an entity is a 'State'. The Court upheld the Full Bench of the High Court's decision, concluding that the Sansthan is indeed a 'State' under Article 12, thus dismissing the appeal by the State of U.P. and others.

6. Jatya Pal Singh v.Union of India (2013)

The key issue in the case of Jatya Pal Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. was whether Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), after disinvestment, could be considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and thus be subject to writ jurisdiction. The appellants, former employees of VSNL, argued that despite the government's reduced shareholding, VSNL still performed public functions and was under government control. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that VSNL, now Tata Communications Limited, did not meet the criteria to be considered a "State" or perform public functions, as it operated in a competitive market and was not under pervasive government control. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the writ petitions were deemed not maintainable.

7. BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of conflict of interest and allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL) involving the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its officials. The key parties were the BCCI and the Cricket Association of Bihar, with Mr. N. Srinivasan and Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan being central figures. The Court found that the BCCI, while not a 'State' under Article 12, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 due to its public functions. The Court upheld findings against Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra for betting, leading to potential sanctions under BCCI rules. The amendment to Rule 6.2.4, allowing administrators to have commercial interests in IPL events, was struck down for violating principles of natural justice and public policy. The Court directed further actions to ensure the integrity of cricket, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in BCCI's operations.

8. Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015)

The key issue in Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors. was whether SRM University, a deemed university, is subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India, involving parties Janet Jeyapaul and SRM University, concluded that SRM University is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs a public function by imparting education and is governed by the UGC Act. The Court reversed the High Court's Division Bench decision, which had dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, and remanded the case for a decision on merits. The Court referenced precedents like Andi Mukta and Zee Telefilms to support its reasoning.

B. ‘Law’ under Article 13; Also Articles 31A, 31B, 31C, 368

(i) Doctrine of Eclipse

9. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay 1951

The key issue in the case of Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. The State of Bombay was whether proceedings initiated under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, before the commencement of the Indian Constitution could continue after the Constitution came into force, given that the Act was inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The parties involved were Keshavan Madhava Menon, the appellant, and the State of Bombay, the respondent. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the Bombay High Court, held that Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which renders inconsistent laws void, is prospective and does not affect past transactions or pending proceedings. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, allowing the prosecution to continue. The court emphasized that the Constitution did not intend to retrospectively invalidate actions taken under laws that were valid when enacted.

10. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M. P. 1955

The key issue in the case of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. was the constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, in light of Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The appellants, Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and others, challenged the Act, arguing it violated their fundamental rights by allowing the state to monopolize the motor transport business. The Supreme Court reasoned that while the Act was initially void due to inconsistency with Article 19(1)(g), the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(6) to permit state monopolies, thus removing the inconsistency. The Court concluded that the Act was no longer void and upheld its validity, effectively dismissing the petitions. The decision referenced the precedent set in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, which clarified the interpretation of "void" in Article 13.

11. State of Gujarat v. Sri Ambica Mills (1974)

The key issue in this case was whether certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, as amended by the Gujarat legislature, violated the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were the State of Gujarat and others as appellants, and Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, and others as respondents. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, a corporation, could not claim fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) as it is not a citizen, and thus could not challenge the law on that basis. The Court also found that the classification of establishments under the Act did not violate Article 14, as it was based on reasonable criteria. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was overturned, upholding the validity of the impugned provisions.

(ii) Waiver of fundamental rights

12. Bashesher Nath v. CIT 1959

The key issue in Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan and Ors. was whether a settlement under section 8A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, was valid after the Constitution of India came into force, given that section 5(1) of the Act was declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14. The parties involved were Basheshar Nath (the assessee) and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights under Article 14 could not be waived, and since section 5(1) was unconstitutional, the settlement was invalid. The appeal was allowed, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and pending proceedings were quashed. The Court emphasized that fundamental rights are a matter of public policy and cannot be waived.

(iii) Severability

13. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara 1951

The Supreme Court of India in "State of Bombay and Ors. Vs. F.N. Balsara" addressed the validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The key issue was whether the Act's restrictions on the possession, sale, and use of liquor, including non-beverage alcohol, violated constitutional rights. The court upheld the Act's definition of "liquor" as including all liquids containing alcohol, finding it within legislative competence and not ultra vires. However, it agreed with the High Court that prohibiting the legitimate use of medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol was unreasonable and violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the High Court's decision to invalidate certain provisions while upholding others.

14. RMDC v. Union of India 1957

The key issue in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. The Union of India was the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prize Competition Act, 1955, which regulated prize competitions. The appellants, R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and others, challenged the Act, arguing it unreasonably restricted their right to conduct competitions involving skill, protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that competitions involving skill are protected under Article 19(1)(g), but those involving chance are not, as gambling is not considered trade or business. The Court found the Act's provisions severable, meaning they could apply to gambling competitions while being invalid for skill-based competitions. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the Act's application to gambling competitions.

(iv) Personal laws

15. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the compatibility of 'talaq-e-biddat' (triple talaq) with constitutional principles of gender equality and justice in the case of Shayara Bano and others vs. Union of India and others. The Court scrutinized the practice, which permits a Muslim man to divorce his wife unilaterally and instantaneously, in light of constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination, specifically Articles 14, 15, and 21. It noted that triple talaq is not sanctioned by the Quran and is considered sinful by many Islamic scholars. Ultimately, the Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional, thereby invalidating it. The judgment referenced various international conventions on human rights and gender equality and urged legislative action to codify divorce laws among Muslims in India.

Topic 2 – Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)

A. Equality among Equals; Treating un-equals as equals violates equality clause

B. Classification as such not completely prohibited: Reasonable Classification Permissible

C. Single Person may be treated as a separate class

D. Establishment of Special Courts

E. Conferment and/or exercise of discretionary or arbitrary power is antithesis of right to equality

F. Distribution of state largesse

G. Special provisions for women and children; requirements relating to residence; requirement of a particular religion being professed by the incumbent of an office related to a religious or denominational institution

H. Protective Discrimination - Reservations in appointments and promotions; Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

I. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

J. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006

K. Direct and Indirect Discrimination

16. State of W. B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952

The key issue in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar was whether Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by allowing arbitrary classification for trial procedures. The parties involved were the State of West Bengal and Anwar Ali Sarkar. The Supreme Court of India examined whether the Act's provision, which allowed the State Government to direct any case to a Special Court, constituted a denial of equal protection under the law. The Court found that the Act's provision was discriminatory as it vested arbitrary power in the State Government without a reasonable basis for classification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision to quash the conviction was upheld. The judgment referenced the importance of reasonable classification and the prohibition of arbitrary state action under Article 14.

17. Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra 1952

The key issue in the case of Kathi Raning Rawat vs. The State of Saurashtra was whether the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by allowing discriminatory legal procedures. The parties involved were Kathi Raning Rawat (Appellant) and the State of Saurashtra (Respondent). The Supreme Court's legal reasoning focused on whether the ordinance's provisions for special courts and procedures constituted unreasonable classification and discrimination. The final disposition was a split decision, with some judges finding the ordinance unconstitutional under Article 14, leading to the quashing of the appellant's conviction and ordering a retrial under ordinary procedures. The case referenced the precedent set in The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, which dealt with similar issues of discriminatory legal procedures.

18. Lt. Col Nitisha v. Union of India 2021

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of systemic discrimination against women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) in the Indian Army regarding the grant of Permanent Commission (PC). The case involved Nitisha and others versus the Union of India. The Court found that the Army's evaluation criteria, which benchmarked women against the lowest male officer and relied on outdated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), constituted indirect discrimination. The Court directed that all WSSCOs meeting a 60% cut-off should be granted PC, subject to medical criteria assessed at the 5th or 10th year of service, and extended benefits to certain batches for pension eligibility. The judgment emphasized substantive equality and ordered the Army to reassess the cases and provide consequential benefits within specified timelines.

Constitutional Validity of Reservations for OBCs in Public Employment

19. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1993

The Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney and Others vs. Union of India and Others, addressed the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission's 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). It upheld affirmative action, allowing caste as a criterion for identifying backward classes, but emphasized a 50% cap on reservations, barring exceptional circumstances, to preserve equality. The court excluded the "creamy layer" among OBCs from reservation benefits and mandated its identification for effective implementation. Citing the Kesavananda Bharati case, it reaffirmed equality as a cornerstone of the Constitution and upheld the recommendations with modifications.

Constitutional Validity of Reservations in Promotions

20. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

The Supreme Court of India in M. Nagaraj and Ors. vs. Union of India addressed the constitutionality of the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which provided for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The key issue was whether this amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by obliterating constitutional limitations on the amending power of Parliament. The Court held that the amendment did not violate the basic structure, as it was an enabling provision allowing states to provide reservations based on quantifiable data of backwardness and inadequacy of representation, without affecting administrative efficiency. The Court upheld the amendment, emphasizing that the principles of equality and efficiency must be balanced, and any law enacted under this provision must be scrutinized for compliance with constitutional limitations.

Constitutional Validity of Reservations for OBCs for Admission in Educational Institutions

21. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

The Supreme Court of India in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India addressed the constitutionality of the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which provided for reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions. The key issue was whether these provisions violated the "basic structure" of the Constitution, particularly the principles of equality. The Court upheld the validity of the amendment and the Act, ruling that reservations for OBCs, excluding the "creamy layer," did not violate the Constitution's basic structure. The Court left open the question of the amendment's applicability to private unaided institutions for future cases. The appeal was disposed of with these findings, and the "creamy layer" principle was mandated for identifying OBCs.

22. Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010)

The key issue in the case of Gulshan Prakash and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. was whether the State of Haryana was required to provide reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in Post-Graduate medical courses. The appellants challenged the prospectus issued by Maharshi Dayanand University, which did not include such reservations. The Supreme Court held that Article 15(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, allowing but not mandating states to provide reservations. The Court found no infirmity in Haryana's decision not to offer reservations at the Post-Graduate level, as it is a policy matter within the state's discretion. The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, with the Court noting that Haryana could reconsider its decision in the future if desired.

23. Rohtas Bhankar v. Union of India (2014)

The key issue in Rohtas Bhankhar vs. Union of India was whether the relaxation of qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in departmental promotions was permissible under the Indian Constitution. The appellants, Rohtas Bhankhar and others, challenged the withdrawal of such relaxations by the Union of India. The Supreme Court found that the decision in S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, which invalidated such relaxations, was per incuriam as it did not consider Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of providing relaxations for SCs/STs in promotions, aligning with the decision in Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh. The appeals were allowed, the 1997 Office Memorandum was declared illegal, and the respondents were directed to modify the examination results to provide reservations and consequential reliefs to the appellants.

24. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

The key issue in the case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. was whether the decision in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, which required states to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation in promotions, was valid. The Supreme Court, involving parties Jarnail Singh and others, and Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others, held that the requirement for states to collect such data was contrary to the precedent set by the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which presumed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be backward. The Court upheld the application of the creamy layer principle to these groups, affirming that it does not alter the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342. The final disposition was that the judgment in Nagaraj did not need to be revisited by a larger bench, but the requirement for quantifiable data on backwardness was invalidated.

24A. Jarnail Singh II v. Lachmi Narain Gupta 2022

The key issue in Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. was whether the State must collect quantifiable data to justify reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4-A) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, involving parties Jarnail Singh and others against Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others, upheld the need for such data, emphasizing that it should be collected cadre-wise, not group-wise, to determine inadequate representation. The Court reaffirmed the prospective application of the M. Nagaraj judgment, which requires data collection for reservations, and clarified that the State has discretion in determining representation adequacy. The appeal was not dismissed, and the matter was listed for further hearing on February 24, 2022.

25. BK Pavitra v. Union of India (2017)

The key issue in B.K. Pavitra and Ors. vs. Union of India was the validity of the Karnataka Determination of Seniority Act, 2002, which granted consequential seniority to SC/ST government servants promoted under reservation policy. The Supreme Court, involving parties B.K. Pavitra and others against the Union of India, held that the Act was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it did not comply with the requirements of determining 'backwardness', 'inadequacy of representation', and 'overall efficiency' as mandated by the M. Nagaraj judgment. The Court set aside the High Court's decision, declared the Act invalid to the extent it did away with the 'catch up' rule, and ordered a revision of the seniority list within three months, with further actions to follow.

25A. BK Pavitra II v. Union of India (2019)

The Supreme Court of India in B.K. Pavitra and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. addressed the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act 2018. The key issue was whether the 2018 Act, which aimed to provide consequential seniority to SC/ST employees, cured the defects identified in the earlier B.K. Pavitra I judgment, which struck down a similar 2002 Act for lack of quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and impact on administrative efficiency. The court upheld the 2018 Act, noting that the Karnataka government had conducted a data collection exercise through the Ratna Prabha Committee, thus addressing the deficiencies noted in B.K. Pavitra I. The appeal was dismissed, and the 2018 Act was deemed constitutionally valid, with the court emphasizing the state's compliance with the requirements set out in the Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh judgments.

26. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the State of Uttarakhand is obligated to provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, focusing on the adequacy of their representation in public services. The appellants, Mukesh Kumar and others, challenged the High Court's decision mandating reservations without quantifiable data. The Court reiterated that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, not conferring a fundamental right to reservations, and the State is not required to provide reservations unless it chooses to, based on quantifiable data. The Court set aside the High Court's judgments, affirming that no mandamus can compel the State to collect data or provide reservations, aligning with precedents like M. Nagaraj and Suresh Chand Gautam. The appeals were disposed of, nullifying the High Court's directions.

27. Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister, Maharashtra 2021

The Supreme Court, in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil and Others vs. The Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Others, examined the validity of the Maratha reservation under the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, which exceeded the 50% ceiling established by Indra Sawhney. It held that the 50% cap was a constitutional principle to ensure equality and could only be breached under exceptional circumstances, which were not met in this case. The Court also ruled that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment granted the President exclusive authority, in consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes, to identify backward classes for both central and state purposes. Consequently, the Maratha reservation was struck down as unconstitutional, reaffirming the principles of equality and adherence to constitutional mandates.

28. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of Clause (5) of Article 15 and Article 21A, inserted by the 93rd and 86th Amendments, respectively. The key issue was whether these amendments altered the Constitution's basic structure. The appellants, Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others, challenged these provisions, arguing they infringed on the rights of private unaided educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g). The Court upheld the amendments, affirming their validity and stating they did not violate the Constitution's basic structure. However, it ruled that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is ultra vires concerning minority schools under Article 30(1). The writ petition by Muslim Minority Schools Managers' Association was allowed, while those by non-minority private unaided institutions were dismissed.

29. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the validity of the Madhya Pradesh statute regulating admissions and fees in private unaided professional educational institutions. The appellants, including Modern Dental College and Research Centre, argued that the statute infringed on their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the regulation of admissions through a Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the state was permissible to ensure merit-based admissions, as established in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar. The Court found the restrictions reasonable and in the public interest, thus dismissing the appeals.

30. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019)

The Supreme Court of India in Joseph Shine v. Union of India addressed the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery, and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key issue was whether these provisions violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that Section 497 was based on gender stereotypes, treating women as property of their husbands, and was manifestly arbitrary, thus violating Articles 14 and 15. It also infringed on the dignity and autonomy of women, violating Article 21. Consequently, the Court struck down Section 497 and the related procedural provision in Section 198, overruling previous judgments in Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi.

L. Abolition of untouchability (Article 17,35)

(i) The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

(ii) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018

31. State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale 1993

The key issue in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and Ors. was whether the respondents unlawfully prevented the complainant party from accessing water from a borewell due to their status as untouchables, violating Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The parties involved were the State of Karnataka and the respondents, including Appa Balu Ingale. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the consistent and credible evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The final disposition was that the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The judgment emphasized the constitutional mandate against untouchability and the need for strict enforcement of social legislation to protect civil rights.

32. Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India (2014)

The key issue in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. was the enforcement of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, and the constitutional rights under Articles 14, 17, 21, and 23. The petitioners, including Safai Karamchari Andolan, sought the eradication of manual scavenging and rehabilitation of those involved. The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to abolish untouchability and the need for effective implementation of the 2013 Act, which prohibits manual scavenging and provides for rehabilitation. The Court directed all states and Union Territories to implement the 2013 Act fully and allowed aggrieved persons to approach relevant authorities or High Courts. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

33. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020)

The key issue in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India was the challenge to Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was enacted to nullify the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. The appellants argued that the amendment was arbitrary and violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, involving parties Prathvi Raj Chauhan and the Union of India, upheld the amendment, emphasizing the need for protective discrimination to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The court clarified that anticipatory bail is not applicable under the Act unless no prima facie case is made out, and the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used to prevent misuse. The petitions were disposed of, maintaining the amendment's validity and emphasizing the importance of enforcing the Act to achieve a casteless society.

M. Abolition of titles (Article 18)

34. Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996)

The key issue in the case of Balaji Raghavan and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the National Awards (Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri) are "titles" prohibited under Article 18(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, involving parties Balaji Raghavan and the Union of India, concluded that these awards are not "titles" as they do not carry suffixes or prefixes and are not hereditary, thus not violating Article 18(1). The Court emphasized that misuse of awards does not alter their nature and suggested forming a high-level committee to ensure the awards' integrity and limit their number. The petitions were disposed of with no costs.

Topic 3 – Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)

A. Right to Freedoms available only to citizens of India; Foreign nationals and artificial persons like bodies corporate (companies) are not citizens either under Part III of the Constitution of India or under the Citizenship Act, 1955

1. Freedom of speech and expression;

2. Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms;

3. Freedom to form association or unions or cooperative societies;

4. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India;

5. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

6. Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The freedoms are not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions which can be imposed by law made by the state for the purposes mentioned in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The term ‘reasonable restriction’ includes total prohibition.

(i) The Right to Information Act, 2005

(ii) The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007

35. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972)

The Supreme Court of India in Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India addressed the legality of the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73, which imposed restrictions on the import and use of newsprint, allegedly infringing the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners, including Bennett Coleman & Co., argued that the policy restricted their freedom of speech and expression and was discriminatory. The Court found that the policy's restrictions on page limits, circulation, and the prohibition on starting new editions were unconstitutional, violating Articles 19(1)(a) and 14. The Court struck down the impugned policy provisions, emphasizing that freedom of the press includes the right to determine circulation and content without unreasonable restrictions.

36. Secretary, Ministry of I & B, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995)

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) could telecast cricket matches through a foreign agency without utilizing government-controlled frequencies, and whether the government could impose restrictions on such telecasts. The appellants in the case were the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, and others, while the respondents included the Cricket Association of Bengal. The court's legal reasoning centered on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which encompasses the freedom to disseminate information through any media, including telecasting. The court emphasized that any restrictions on this right must be reasonable and align with the grounds specified in Article 19(2). Ultimately, the court granted leave and affirmed the CAB's right to telecast through a foreign agency without using government frequencies, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The judgment drew on precedents related to freedom of speech and expression, such as Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, to bolster its reasoning.

37. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

The key issue in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalized sending offensive messages via communication services, and its compatibility with the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were Shreya Singhal and others as petitioners, and the Union of India as the respondent. The Supreme Court reasoned that Section 66A was vague, overly broad, and not narrowly tailored to fit any of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), thus having a chilling effect on free speech. The final disposition was that Section 66A was struck down as unconstitutional. The court referenced important precedents on free speech and emphasized the need for laws to have a proximate connection to the restrictions allowed under Article 19(2).

38. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)

The key issue in People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India was the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, concerning telephone tapping and its impact on the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The parties involved were PUCL, a voluntary organization, and the Union of India. The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as part of the right to life and personal liberty, requiring procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary telephone tapping. The Court directed that orders for tapping must be issued by high-ranking officials, reviewed by a committee, and limited in duration, with records maintained and destroyed when no longer necessary. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives, emphasizing the need for rules to safeguard privacy rights.

39. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. vs. Union of India addressed the legality of internet shutdowns and restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Jammu and Kashmir post-August 2019. The key issue was whether these restrictions violated fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The court held that the freedom of speech and expression and the right to trade over the internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The court emphasized the need for proportionality and procedural safeguards in imposing such restrictions, directing that orders must be reasoned, published, and subject to periodic review. The court did not grant immediate relief but directed the government to review the restrictions based on the guidelines provided.

40. Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Another (2020)

The key issue in the case of Foundation for Media Professionals and Ors. vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. was whether the restriction of mobile internet speed to 2G in Jammu and Kashmir violated fundamental rights amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners argued that the restrictions impacted rights to health, education, and freedom of expression, while the respondents cited national security concerns. The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to balance human rights with national security and noted the ongoing insurgency in the region. The Court directed the formation of a Special Committee to review the necessity of the restrictions and consider alternatives, disposing of the petitions accordingly.

41. Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar (1998)

The key issue in the case of Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar and Ors. was whether the right to call a "Bandh" infringes on the fundamental rights of other citizens. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the High Court's distinction between a "Bandh" and a general strike or "Hartal," held that a "Bandh" interferes with the fundamental freedoms of others and causes national loss, thus cannot be justified. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that there is no right to call or enforce a "Bandh."

42. AIADMK v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, SLP (C) No. 18879 of 2007

The key issue in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others was whether the call for a Bandh by several political parties in Tamil Nadu was unconstitutional, violating Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved included the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) as the petitioner and the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, among others, as respondents. The Supreme Court, referencing the precedent set in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar, determined that the call was indeed for a Bandh, not a strike or hartal, and thus unconstitutional. The Court issued an interim order restraining the political parties from proceeding with the Bandh on October 1, 2007, or any other day, pending further orders.

43. Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. 1951

The key issue in the case of Chintaman Rao and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh was whether the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, 1948, which prohibited bidi manufacturing during the agricultural season, imposed reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The appellants, a bidi manufacturer and an employee, challenged the Act as violating their right to occupation. The Supreme Court found that the Act's provisions were excessively restrictive and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable relation to the public interest objective of ensuring agricultural labor supply. Consequently, the Court declared the Act void and directed the respondents not to enforce its provisions against the petitioners, allowing the petitions and awarding costs to the petitioners.

44. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 1960

45. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005)

The key issue in the case was the constitutional validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, which imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cow progeny in Gujarat. The parties involved were the State of Gujarat and others as appellants, and Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others as respondents. The Supreme Court of India, revisiting its earlier decision in Quareshi-I, held that the ban was reasonable and in the interest of the general public, considering the economic and agricultural significance of cow progeny. The Court emphasized the importance of Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties in interpreting the Constitution. The final disposition was that the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Act was upheld as constitutional.

46. Tehseen S Poonawala v. Union of India (2018)

The key issue in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India was the rise of cow vigilantism and mob lynching, challenging the state's duty to prevent such violence. The parties involved were Tehseen S. Poonawalla, a social activist, and the Union of India, among others. The Supreme Court emphasized the rule of law, stating that no individual or group should take the law into their own hands, and issued guidelines for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures against mob violence. The court directed state governments to implement these measures within four weeks and recommended that Parliament create a separate offense for lynching. The final disposition included issuing guidelines and setting a date for further directions.

B. Protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20)

(i) Ex post facto Law

(ii) Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

(iii) Right against Self Incrimination

47. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

The Supreme Court of India in Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka addressed the legality of involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests in criminal investigations. The core issue was whether these techniques violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that involuntary administration of these tests constitutes testimonial compulsion and violates Article 20(3), and also amounts to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under Article 21. The Court ruled that no individual should be forcibly subjected to these tests, but allowed for their voluntary administration with strict safeguards, including consent recorded before a magistrate and the presence of a lawyer. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

C. Protection in life and personal liberty, Doctrine of Proportionality (Article 21)

48. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The key issue in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India was whether the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were Maneka Gandhi and the Union of India. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the "personal liberty" under Article 21 and cannot be deprived except according to a procedure established by law, which must be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court found that the procedure followed in impounding the passport did not meet these standards, as it lacked a fair hearing. The Court quashed the impounding order and directed the government to provide an opportunity for Maneka Gandhi to be heard. The judgment emphasized the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21, and the need for laws affecting personal liberty to be reasonable and non-arbitrary.

49. AK Roy v. Union of India (1982)

The Supreme Court of India in A.K. Roy and Ors. vs. Union of India addressed the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, and the National Security Act, 1980, focusing on the ordinance-making power of the President under Article 123 of the Constitution. The key issue was whether this power is legislative or executive and if it can be used to deprive individuals of life or liberty. The court held that the ordinance-making power is legislative, equating ordinances with laws made by Parliament, and thus subject to the same constitutional constraints, including fundamental rights. The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the ordinance and the Act, and declined to issue a mandamus to enforce the 44th Constitutional Amendment, which was not yet in force. The judgment referenced the Bearer Bonds case and emphasized the legislative nature of ordinances, rejecting the argument that they violate the separation of powers.

50. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)

The Supreme Court of India in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India addressed the key issue of recognizing the legal rights and gender identity of the transgender community, including their classification as a "third gender." The parties involved were the National Legal Services Authority and the Union of India, among others. The Court reasoned that non-recognition of transgender identity violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and the right to life and personal liberty. The Court granted relief by recognizing transgender individuals as a third gender and directed the government to ensure their rights are protected, referencing international human rights principles like the Yogyakarta Principles.

51. Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547

The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of events like Jallikattu and bullock-cart races, focusing on animal rights under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and PETA challenged these events, arguing they inherently violate the PCA Act by causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. The court found that these events contravene Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and declared the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 unconstitutional due to repugnancy with the PCA Act. The court upheld the Central Government's notification banning bulls as performing animals, effectively prohibiting Jallikattu and similar events. The judgment emphasized the need for legislative amendments to enhance animal rights and penalties for violations. Appeals were disposed of, affirming the Bombay High Court's decision and setting aside the Madras High Court's judgment.

52. Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

The key issue in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected value under the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and others as appellants, and the Union of India and others as respondents. The Supreme Court of India, through a nine-judge bench, recognized privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and as part of the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19. The Court overruled previous decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they denied the constitutional right to privacy. The final disposition was that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, and the judgment set a precedent for future cases involving privacy issues.

53. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 791 266

The key issue in Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. vs. Union of India was the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual homosexual acts. The petitioners, directly affected by this provision, sought its declaration as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, referencing prior judgments like Suresh Kumar Koushal and National Legal Service Authority, emphasized the importance of constitutional morality over social morality and the protection of privacy and sexual orientation under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Court found the reasoning in Koushal flawed and referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration, indicating the need for a broader constitutional interpretation.

D. Right to education (Article 21 A)

54. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trusts v. Union of India (2014)

E. Protection against arrest and detention (Article 22)

55. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

The key issue in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal was the rampant custodial violence and deaths in police custody, raising questions about the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were D.K. Basu, representing Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, and the State of West Bengal. The Supreme Court

emphasized the need for accountability and transparency in police actions, issuing guidelines to prevent custodial torture, such as mandatory arrest memos, informing relatives of arrests, and regular medical examinations of detainees. The court's final disposition included the issuance of these guidelines, which are to be treated as law until formal legislation is enacted, and non-compliance would result in contempt of court proceedings. The judgment referenced the need for legislative amendments to address custodial violence, highlighting the importance of protecting human rights.

56. People’s Union for Civil Rights v. Union of India (2004)

In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties and Ors. vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). The key issue was whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact POTA, given the petitioners' argument that terrorism falls under "Public Order" in the State List, thus outside Parliament's purview. The Court, referencing Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, held that terrorism affects national security and sovereignty, thus falling under Parliament's jurisdiction. The Court upheld POTA's constitutionality, dismissing the petitions, and clarified interpretations of specific provisions, ensuring they align with constitutional safeguards.

Topic 4 – Right against Exploitation (Articles 23,24)

57. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

The key issue in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. was whether the labor laws were being observed for workers employed in construction projects for the Asian Games. The petitioners, People's Union for Democratic Rights, highlighted violations based on a report by social scientists. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of public interest litigation as a tool to ensure justice for disadvantaged groups, asserting that such litigation is a collaborative effort to uphold constitutional and legal rights. The court treated the letter as a writ petition, underscoring the role of public interest litigation in addressing systemic issues affecting the poor. The final disposition involved the court's acknowledgment of the need for observance of labor laws, though specific outcomes or directives were not detailed in the provided text.

Topic 5– Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)

The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967; the T.N. Prohibition of Forcible Conversion Act, 2002; the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003; the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018; the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019; the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021

58. Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972)

The key issue in the case of Seshammal and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu was the challenge to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1970, which abolished hereditary succession for temple priests, allegedly violating religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The parties involved were hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu and the State of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court reasoned that the appointment of priests is a secular act and not a religious practice, thus the amendment did not infringe on religious rights. The court upheld the Amendment Act, dismissing the petitions, and noted that any future rules conflicting with religious practices could be challenged.

59. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002)

The key issue in the case of N. Adithayan vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. was whether appointing a non-Malayala Brahmin as a priest at the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple violated constitutional and statutory rights. The appellant, N. Adithayan, argued that only Malayala Brahmins should perform temple rituals, citing religious customs and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the Kerala High Court's decision, reasoning that as long as the appointee is well-versed and trained in the necessary rituals, caste should not be a barrier, aligning with Articles 14 to 17 and 21 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the non-discriminatory appointment policy.

60. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (2004)

The key issue in this case was whether the Tandava dance, performed in public, is an essential religious practice of the Ananda Margi faith. The parties involved were the Commissioner of Police and others as appellants, and Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and others as respondents. The Supreme Court of India, referencing its earlier decision, concluded that the Tandava dance in public is not an essential part of the Ananda Margi faith, as the practice was introduced after the religion's establishment and is not fundamental to its beliefs. The Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's decision, dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal. The Court emphasized that essential religious practices must be integral to the religion's core beliefs and cannot be altered post-establishment.

61 Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2016)

The key issue in the case of Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and Ors. vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. was whether the Government Order (G.O.) allowing any qualified Hindu to be appointed as an Archaka (priest) in Hindu temples, irrespective of caste, violated religious customs and practices. The appellants, an association of Archakas, challenged the G.O. on grounds of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable, as the apprehension of harm from the G.O. was sufficient to furnish a cause of action. The court did not dismiss the petitions on preliminary objections and proceeded to address the substantive issues raised.

62. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977)

The key issue in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. was whether the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, violated the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution and whether the state legislatures had the competence to enact these laws. The parties involved were Rev. Stainislaus and the State of Madhya Pradesh, among others. The Supreme Court held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25(1) does not include the right to convert others, as it would infringe on others' freedom of conscience. The Court found that the Acts were within the legislative competence of the states under the "public order" entry in the State List, as they aimed to prevent conversions by force, fraud, or allurement, which could disturb public order. The Court dismissed the appeals against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment and allowed the appeals against the Orissa High Court's judgment, thereby upholding the validity of both Acts.

63. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)

The key issue in Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. was whether the expulsion of three Jehovah's Witness children from school for not singing the National Anthem violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India found that the children's respectful silence during the anthem, due to their religious beliefs, did not constitute disrespect or a breach of law. The Court held that the expulsion violated their rights to freedom of speech and religion, as the circulars mandating singing lacked statutory force. The appeal was allowed, and the Court directed the re-admission of the children to school, emphasizing the importance of tolerance

64. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019)

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala, addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala Temple violated constitutional rights. The court held that the practice was discriminatory and not an essential religious practice, thus violating Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution. The court ruled that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination, and the exclusionary practice was not protected under Article 26. Consequently, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, was declared unconstitutional, and the writ petition was allowed, granting women the right to enter the temple.

65. Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)

The key issue in the case of Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association was the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which restricted women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple. The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that this exclusion violated Article 25 of the Constitution, declaring the rule ultra vires. The review petitions filed were referred to a larger bench to address broader questions on the interplay of Articles 25 and 26, and the scope of judicial review on religious practices. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to refer questions of law to a larger bench in review petitions, maintaining the review petitions and reference.

66. Resham v. State of Karnataka 2022

The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of whether educational institutions can prohibit girl students from wearing the hijab in classrooms, as challenged by Resham and others against the State of Karnataka. The court considered arguments regarding the legality of a government order mandating student uniforms and whether wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice under constitutional protections. The court, emphasizing the need for peace and the reopening of schools, temporarily restrained students from wearing hijabs or other religious attire in classrooms where a dress code is prescribed, pending further consideration. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on February 14, 2022.

Topic 6 - Educational and Cultural Rights (Articles 29, 30)

Right to establish and administer educational institutions – rights of minorities and non- minorities; Degree of State Control in aided and non-aided educational institutions

67. Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka 2003

The Supreme Court of India in "Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors." addressed the key issue of whether private unaided educational institutions, including those run by minorities, have the autonomy to determine their own admission processes and fee structures. The appellants, Islamic Academy of Education and others, challenged state regulations mandating adherence to government-determined quotas and fees. The Court, referencing the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, held that while private unaided institutions have the right to establish their own admission procedures and fee structures, these must be transparent and merit-based, and cannot involve capitation fees or profiteering. The Court affirmed that state regulations could ensure educational standards but must not infringe on institutional autonomy. The appeal was disposed of with the Court upholding the principles of autonomy for unaided institutions, subject to reasonable state regulations.

68. T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka (2002)

The key issue in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. was whether private educational institutions, particularly those established by minorities, have the right to autonomy in administration, including admissions and fee structures, without excessive government regulation. The parties involved were the T.M.A. Pai Foundation and other private educational institutions against the State of Karnataka and other respondents. The Supreme Court of India held that private unaided educational institutions have the right to establish and administer their institutions, subject to reasonable regulations to ensure educational standards, but not to the extent of infringing on their autonomy. The Court overruled the decision in Unni Krishnan's case, which had imposed a scheme of admissions and fee structures, as it was deemed unreasonable. The final disposition was that the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellants by recognizing their right to autonomy, with the Court providing guidelines for reasonable regulation. The judgment referenced important precedents, including the Kerala Education Bill case, and emphasized the need for regulations to be in the interest of efficiency and educational standards without infringing on the rights of minority institutions.

69. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)

The Supreme Court of India in P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. addressed whether the State can regulate admissions and enforce reservation policies in unaided minority and non-minority educational institutions. The Court held that the State cannot impose quotas or reservation policies on such institutions, emphasizing their autonomy in admissions and fee structures, provided they are fair, transparent, and merit-based. The Court upheld the establishment of committees to oversee admissions and fee structures as a temporary measure until appropriate legislation is enacted. The decision in Islamic Academy was partially overruled to the extent it allowed State-imposed quotas, aligning with the principles laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation.

70. Sindhi Education Society v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi (2010)

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Ors. vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. addressed whether Rule 64(1)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, mandating reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in aided minority educational institutions, violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The appellants, Sindhi Education Society, argued that such provisions infringed their rights as a linguistic minority. The Court examined the balance between regulatory measures and minority rights, referencing precedents like T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Kerala Education Bill cases. Ultimately, the Court upheld the minority institution's autonomy in administration, including teacher appointments, and ruled that the imposition of reservation policies as a condition for grant-in-aid was unconstitutional, thus granting relief to the appellants.

Topic 7– Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Power of Judicial Review under Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution; Concurrent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 – Res judicata; Laches, Rule of locus standi, Public Interest Litigation; Existence of alternative remedies; Nature and scope of relief.

71. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402

The Supreme Court of India addressed the key issue of whether L.P. Nathani's appointment as Advocate General of Uttarakhand was valid despite his age exceeding 62 years, as challenged by Balwant Singh Chaufal and others. The court reaffirmed that the age limit for High Court judges under Article 217 does not apply to Advocate Generals, who serve at the Governor's pleasure per Article 165. The court dismissed the appeal, quashed the High Court proceedings, and imposed costs on the respondents for filing a frivolous petition, emphasizing the need to curb misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) while encouraging genuine cases.

72. Guidelines for Public Interest Litigation issued by the Supreme Court of India

https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2024/01/2024011510.pdf

Topic 8 – Fundamental Duties (Article 51 A)

73. Hon’ble Shri Rangnath Mishra v. Union of India 2003

In a recent Supreme Court judgment, the primary legal issue addressed was whether the State should be mandated to educate citizens on their fundamental duties to ensure a balance between rights and duties, potentially revisiting the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. The appellants in the case were Hon'ble Rangnath Mishra, while the respondents included the Union of India and others. The court's legal reasoning was informed by the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, both of which highlighted the significance of educating citizens on their fundamental duties and proposed legislative and social measures for their enforcement. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Central Government to consider and implement the recommendations of the Commission/Committee promptly. The court did not explore other questions raised in the petition but acknowledged the valuable contributions of the Amicus Curiae.

Topic 9 – Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51)

Relationship between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Topic 10 – Civil Servants (Articles 308-323)

74. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

The key issue in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. was the interpretation of Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Indian Constitution, particularly the second proviso to Article 311(2), which allows for the dismissal of government employees without an inquiry under certain conditions. The parties involved were the Union of India and other appellants against Tulsiram Patel and other respondents. The Supreme Court reasoned that the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is subject to constitutional provisions, and Article 311 provides safeguards against arbitrary dismissal, which can be bypassed only under specific circumstances outlined in the second proviso. The Court upheld the validity of dismissals made under these provisions, emphasizing public interest over individual hardship. The final disposition was that the appeals were dismissed, and the Court clarified the application of the pleasure doctrine and the exceptions to Article 311(2).

75. J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan (2003)

The key issue in the case of J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was whether the appellant was entitled to compensation following the premature termination of his tenure as Chairman of the abolished Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Arijit Pasayat, found that there was no enforceable Cabinet decision or statutory provision mandating compensation under Article 166 or Clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution. The court also rejected the application of the principle of legitimate expectation, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and dismissing it.

76. Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993)

The key issue in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. Karunakar and Ors. was whether a delinquent employee must be provided with the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority makes a decision on the employee's guilt and punishment. The parties involved were the Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, and others, and the respondent, Karunakar and others. The Supreme Court of India held that the report must be furnished to the employee as part of the reasonable opportunity to defend against charges, as it is a principle of natural justice. The court ruled that non-furnishing of the report constitutes a denial of natural justice, and the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case applies to all establishments. The final disposition was that the employee must receive the report regardless of whether they request it, and the effect of non-furnishing on the punishment must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

77. T.K. Rangarajan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2003)

The key issue in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu was whether government employees have a right to strike and the legality of their mass dismissal by the Tamil Nadu government for striking. The parties involved were T.K. Rangarajan and other government employees against the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court held that government employees do not have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable right to strike, emphasizing that strikes disrupt public services and are not justified. The Court ordered the reinstatement of most dismissed employees, subject to an apology and undertaking to abide by conduct rules, while allowing disciplinary action against those involved in violence. The appeals and writ petitions were disposed of, with no costs ordered.

Topic 11 – Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368)

78. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The key issue in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs. State of Kerala was the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, specifically whether it could alter fundamental rights. The parties involved were Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and the State of Kerala. The Supreme Court's essential legal reasoning focused on interpreting Article 368 in the context of the Constitution's history and aspirations, ultimately establishing the "basic structure" doctrine, which limits Parliament's amending power to ensure the Constitution's core principles remain intact. The final disposition upheld the validity of the challenged amendments but restricted Parliament's power to alter the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment referenced the Golak Nath case and set a precedent for future constitutional amendments.

79. Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu 1992

The key issue in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu and Ors. was the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, introduced by the Fifty-Second Amendment, which aimed to curb political defections. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, except for Paragraph 7, which was declared invalid due to lack of ratification by the states as required by Article 368(2). The court reasoned that the provisions did not violate democratic rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. The case was remitted to the High Court of Guwahati to resolve factual controversies in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

80. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007)

The key issue in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. was whether laws added to the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution after April 24, 1973, could be challenged for violating the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The appellants, represented by I.R. Coelho, contended that such laws should not be immune from judicial review if they infringe fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, held that post-1973 amendments to the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they damage the Constitution's basic structure, emphasizing the importance of fundamental rights and judicial review as integral to the Constitution. The Court's decision reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, allowing challenges to laws in the Ninth Schedule that violate fundamental rights, thus maintaining the balance between Parts III and IV of the Constitution.

81. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India addressed whether Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, which allow for the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in favor of Tribunals, violate the basic structure doctrine by undermining judicial review. The parties involved were L. Chandra Kumar and the Union of India. The Court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and while Tribunals can supplement the High Courts, they cannot replace them entirely. The Court concluded that the power of judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be ousted, and thus, the provisions were unconstitutional to the extent they excluded such jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and the decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar was overruled to the extent it conflicted with this judgment.

82. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014)

The Supreme Court of India in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India addressed the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, and the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which allegedly violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the High Courts' power of judicial review. The court found that the National Tax Tribunal (NTT), as constituted, could not replace the High Courts in adjudicating tax-related appeals, as it lacked the essential characteristics of a judicial body, thereby infringing on the independence and fairness required of such an authority. The court declared the NTT Act unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the judiciary's independence, and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the High Courts' jurisdiction over tax matters.

~The End~