Consti law Flashcards

Question

Dulare Lodh v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur

Answer 1

1984 the Court modified its previous judgments and held that doctrine of eclipse would apply to both- pre-constitutional law as well as post-constitutional law even against the citizens. A ‘void’ statute can be revived by constitutional amendment.

Answer 2

1955 eclipse an existing law inconsistent with a fundamental right, though it becomes inoperative from the date of commencement of the Constitution, is not dead altogether.“ The provisions of C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1948 gave power to the State Government to monopolise any motor transport business in the province. Upon commencement of the Constitution, eclipse was casted on this law as it violated Article 19(1)(g) [Right to trade] and hence it became unenforceable. However, the law became operative again when Clause 6 of Article 19 was added that authorized the Government to monopolise any business. It was held that “the effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from infirmity”.

Answer 3

1955 doctrine of waiver does not apply to fundamental rights, as they are not merely for individual benefit but serve broader societal interests and public policy. The Court reasoned that fundamental rights are enshrined as a matter of constitutional policy and cannot be relinquished by an individual through any agreement or conduct, thereby establishing a principle against the waiver of these fundamental rights in India.

Answer 4

1970 upheld the constitutionality of the Cinematograph Act, which provided for pre-censorship of films, ruling it a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression under Article 14. The court found that films, due to their unique ability to influence public emotions, warranted different treatment from other forms of expression, justifying the Act's classification of films and its censorship powers to maintain public morality and decency

Answer 5

1956 Secular not athiest

Answer 6

1986 constituent convention not standing for anthem

Answer 7

1980 judicial review is a basic str.

Answer 8

1966 Jurisdictional Limits: The court maintained that while Article 32 provides for a remedy against violations of fundamental rights, it does not extend to the review of judicial orders passed by the High Court within its inherent jurisdiction of art 226 judicial decision by a competent court cannot be challenged as a violation of fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that if a court acts within its jurisdiction, the resultant order cannot be struck down for violating fundamental rights.

Answer 9

2004 (i)- The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, distinguishing grouped together persons or goods from the left out ones of the group. (ii)- The differential must be in a rational relation with the sought object that is to be achieved by the act. The object of the act and differential on the basis of classification are two separate things. It is essential that there must be the presence of nexus between the object of the act and the basis of classification. When a reasonable basis is not present for classification then such classification made by the legislature must be declared discriminatory.

Answer 10

1995 Supreme Court held that the Preamble forms an important part of the India Constitution. It specifies that the folks of India are the creator of the India Constitution. It is an act of the people, for the people and by the people. It declares the rights and freedom to be provided to the citizens of India. Preamble forms an important element of Constitution of India and helps in interpreting the provisions of Indian Constitution.

Answer 11

Purpose of having a constitution is to transform the society for better. the concept of transformative constitutionalism- ability of constitution to adapt with changing times

Answer 12

although we are of single citizenship there are ambiguities In D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat (1955) 1 SCR 1215, the Supreme Court held that imposing higher capitation fees on students from outside the state for admission to a state-run medical college did not violate Articles 14 or 15(1) of the Constitution. The court reasoned that residency (domicile) is a valid basis for classification, distinct from the "place of birth" prohibited by Article 15(1), and that this differentiation was rationally connected to the state's objective of promoting its own residents' access to medical education.

Answer 13

Supreme Court held that there is only one domicile in India. The court said that the domicile does not change with the change of residence within India.

Answer 14

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India was the first major case to address the scope of Parliament's amending power. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the First Amendment and ruled that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.14 Feb 2025

Answer 15

BASIC STR. INCLUDES Rule of Law Democratic Principles Free and fair elections Judicial RevieW

Answer 16

The object of the NCERT is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of the governmental policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school education. These activities are not wholly related to governmental functions. The governmental control is confined only to proper utilization of the grant. It is an autonomous body. Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression, 'State'

Answer 17

Application of the Doctrine of Eclipse: The court ruled that the law was not "void ab initio" or completely invalid. Instead, it held that while the law was void concerning the fundamental rights of citizens, it remained operative for non-citizens who could not invoke certain constitutional provisions to challenge it.

Answer 18

The case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, which the petitioners argued unreasonably restricted their right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act's provisions were severable and only applied to competitions of a gambling nature, not those based on substantial skill The Court held that gambling and prize competitions are not “trade” or “business” under Article 19(1)(g) as they are harmful and against public policy. Therefore, such activities do not enjoy constitutional protection as legitimate business.

Answer 19

ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is unconstitutional. It is a violation of their right to livelihood. The court had emphatically objected to authorities treating pavement dwellers as mere trespassers. “They (pavement dwellers) manage to find a habitat in places which are mostly filthy or marshy, out of sheer helplessness.

Answer 20

A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the Madras HC ruling, declaring the Communal GO unconstitutional. The judgment stated that it violated fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, or Place of Birth). The SC ruled that FRs prevail over DPSPs and established that Parliament can amend FRs through constitutional amendments.

Answer 21

T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) was a Supreme Court of India case that ruled the "carry forward rule," which allowed unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried over to subsequent years, was unconstitutional because it resulted in excessive reservations. The court held that while reservations are permissible under Article 16(4), they cannot be so large that they violate the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1). This landmark decision placed a limit on the accumulation of reserved vacancies to maintain a "reasonable balance" and ensure fairness.

Answer 22

constitutionality of temporary exemptions from departmental tests for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) employees to allow for promotions. The ruling affirmed that the state can provide temporary preferential treatment to underrepresented groups to ensure substantive equality in public employment, clarifying that this does not violate the principle of equality under Article 16(1) and is a valid classification under Article 16(1). While initially reaffirming the primacy of Fundamental Rights, the Court began adopting the principle of harmonious construction. It suggested that the scope of Fundamental Rights should be determined by the court in a way that allows full effect to be given to both Part III and Part IV as much as possible. The DPSP was seen as providing the policy and guidelines, and the FRs (like Articles 14 and 16) as the means to implement that socio-economic policy. K

Answer 23

The State governments can identify more backward among SC/ST and reserve seats for them. * The States cannot reserve 100% seats for a particular sub-class within SC/ST. * The majority of 6 judges overruled E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh that disallowed sub-classification within SC/STs. * Evidence suggests that SCs are not a homogenous class. * There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 which prevents the State from sub- classifying a Caste. The basis of subclassification has to be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data by States that they are not adequately represented. * Creamy layer must be excluded.

Answer 24

while police surveillance including nighttime domiciliary visits was an unconstitutional invasion of personal liberty under Article 21, the right to privacy was not a guaranteed fundamental right under the Indian Constitution at that time. The court invalidated the specific regulation allowing for nightly visits but upheld other surveillance measures, noting that such powers could only be restricted by law, not by executive action. The majority held that only physical restraints violate freedom of movement, so surveillance was valid. However, Justice Subba Rao dissented, saying surveillance itself restricts liberty and dignity. His dissent became important in later privacy rulings.

Answer 25

which held that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was unconstitutional. The court declared that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes the "right to die," and therefore, criminalizing attempted suicide was a violation of this right. The ruling struck down Section 309, decriminalizing attempted suicide in India, stating it was a cruel and irrational provision that could punish individuals already in distress.

Answer 26

Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the "right to die," and therefore, the laws criminalizing attempted suicide and abetment of suicide were constitutional. The landmark judgment overruled a previous decision and established that neither attempting to commit suicide nor abetting it are protected rights.

Answer 27

legal battle over the right to end the life of Aruna Shanbaug, a woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for decades. The Supreme Court ultimately legalized passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support), citing Aruna's case as the catalyst to establish guidelines for it. The Court, however, rejected active euthanasia, citing concerns about potential abuse.

Answer 28

Right to die with dignity

Answer 29

Supreme Court held that a pre-censorship order requiring a newspaper to submit all content related to communal matters, Pakistan, and cartoons for approval was an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The court ruled that such prior restraint was a violation of this fundamental right.

Answer 30

for an act to qualify as a threat to public order, there ought to be a very proximate link between the speech used and the public disorder so alleged. - Proximity Test – relation between speech and public order

Answer 31

advertising protected as free speech. clarifying that commercial speech per se was not outside the domain of Article 19(1)(a) and Hamdard was applicable only to commercial speech that was deceptive and misleading.

Answer 32

which held that it is difficult to lay down an abstract test of reasonableness and what the judiciary needs to closely examine are ‘the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, [and] the prevailing conditions at the time.

Answer 33

The Punjab government restricted the publication of materials likely to cause disorder. The Court upheld the law, holding that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and can be limited under Article 19(2) in the interests of public order. It also allowed reasonable prior restraint if necessary to prevent violence or unrest.

Answer 34

newsprint policy as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the policy placed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of the press by controlling page numbers, circulation, and new publications, and that the government could not use economic measures to control the press. The judgment affirmed that freedom of the press, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, includes both the right to publish and the right to circulate news and ideas.

Answer 35

its associated 1960 order unconstitutional because they violated the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court found that regulating the number of pages and prices of newspapers was a direct infringement on the press's right to publish and circulate information, and such restrictions were not reasonable. The judgment established that economic regulations that directly restrict the volume of circulation are not permissible, even if they are intended to prevent monopolies or promote fair competition. the State cannot make a law which directly restricts one freedom even for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom.

Answer 36

police required prior permission for meetings on public streets. The Court held that while the State may regulate, it cannot prohibit all assemblies in public places. → Principle: Regulation is valid; blanket ban is not.

Answer 37

Challenged Sec.144 CrPC order banning assemblies. The Court upheld it, holding preventive orders valid if based on imminent danger to public order. → Principle: Emergency restrictions permissible if proximate threat exists.

Answer 38

The appellant argued that the protest blocked the public way and caused grave inconvenience to commuters. Accepting this contention, the Court ruled that despite the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.

Answer 39

the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 34-A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. This section protects banks from disclosing certain confidential financial information, such as secret reserves and provisions for bad debts, during industrial disputes. The court ruled that while Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form unions, it does not guarantee the right to achieve every object for which the union was formed, and that Section 34-A appropriately balances the rights of bank employees with the need to protect the stability of the banking sector.

Answer 40

right to maintain its voluntary composition and character and to continue to be associated only with those whom the original members have willingly chosen. Any law that compulsorily alters the composition of a voluntary association against the will of its members is a direct infringement of the fundamental right itself, not a mere 'reasonable restriction.'

Answer 41

A suspected habitual offender was placed under police surveillance. Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations (which allowed for police surveillance, including domiciliary visits, of habitual criminals), upheld the validity of the regulations but simultaneously laid the foundation for the Right to Privacy as an implied fundamental right emanating from Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). The Court upheld the law but added that surveillance must be narrowly applied, with safeguards against abuse. It recognised privacy as part of liberty under Articles 19 and 21. This case softened the rigid view in Kharak Singh.

Answer 42

A businessman’s passport was impounded without legal authority, stopping him from travelling abroad. The Court held that freedom to go abroad is not covered by Art.19(1)(d) but falls under Art.21 (personal liberty). Movement within India is protected by Art.19(1)(d), while travel abroad comes under Art.21.

Answer 43

Goonda Act allowed restricting habitual offenders from entering certain areas. The Court upheld this measure as a reasonable restriction in the interest of public order. This case showed that preventive restrictions are valid if proportionate and justified by public safety needs.

Answer 44

The Bihar government enacted laws banning cow slaughter to protect cattle, considered socially and economically valuable. Butchers challenged it, arguing it deprived them of their right to trade. The Court upheld the ban on slaughter of young, milch, and draught cattle, as protecting useful cattle was in the public interest. However, it struck down the blanket ban on slaughtering unfit animals as unreasonable. The judgment balanced fundamental rights with Directive Principles. It showed that the Court will weigh social welfare against individual freedom and may uphold bans if they serve genuine public interest.

Answer 45

A liquor dealer challenged restrictions imposed by the State on his trade. The Supreme Court held that trading in liquor is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), since liquor is harmful to health and society. The State has absolute power to regulate or prohibit such businesses altogether. This case narrowed the scope of Article 19(1)(g), distinguishing between “legitimate” trades and those considered inherently harmful. It signaled that rights under 19(1)(g) are not absolute and can be completely denied in cases of immoral or injurious trades.

Answer 46

Private medical colleges challenged regulations controlling admissions and fee structures, arguing that they restricted their freedom to run institutions as businesses. The Supreme Court upheld the regulations, stating that education is not a mere trade and cannot be fully commercialised. State control ensures fairness, merit, and equality in access to education. The case showed that Article 19(1)(g) is not about absolute profit-making but about balancing private rights with social responsibility. It highlighted that trades with a public welfare angle (like education and healthcare) can be strictly regulated.

Answer 47

Ratan Lal, a young offender, wanted the benefit of a new, lenient probation law that came after his crime. The question was whether applying this new law violated Article 20(1). The Court said no — Article 20(1) only forbids harsher punishment, not beneficial laws. 🔹 Result: A lighter or favourable law can apply even if it was passed later

Answer 48

company was fined for not following a rule that was made after their action took place. They argued that this was retrospective punishment under Article 20(1). The Court said no — the law only created a civil liability, not a criminal offence. 🔹 Result: Article 20(1) protects only from criminal punishment, not civil penalties.

Answer 49

A businessman was charged twice — once departmentally and once criminally — for the same act of smuggling. He claimed this was double punishment under Article 20(2) (double jeopardy). The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are different. 🔹 Result: Facing both is not double jeopardy, because one is disciplinary, the other criminal.

Answer 50

This case involved a company being searched and documents seized during investigation. The petitioners argued that the search and seizure violated Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination). The Supreme Court held that searching premises or seizing documents is not “compelling” a person to be a witness. 🔹 Result: Article 20(3) applies only when a person is forced to give personal testimony, not when documents are seized.

Answer 51

In this case, accused persons were forced to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests. They argued it violated Article 20(3) since they were being compelled to give information against themselves. The Supreme Court agreed — these tests violate the right against self-incrimination and also Article 21 (personal liberty). 🔹 Result: Forcing an accused to take scientific tests or give involuntary statements is unconstitutional under Article 20(3).

Answer 52

that legal aid and speedy trial are part of the right to personal liberty

Answer 53

The Court found that Purkayastha was not provided with a written copy of the grounds of arrest before his remand and was prevented from engaging an Advocate of his office, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Answer 54

landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment that established guidelines to protect human rights during arrest and detention, aiming to prevent custodial torture and deaths. The judgment created a set of enforceable rules for police, including informing a family member of the arrest, conducting regular medical examinations, and prohibiting public display of the arrested person. It also established a system for compensation for victims of police abuse.

Answer 55

Minimum wage as a fundamental right: The court ruled that not paying the minimum wage constitutes a form of forced labor, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.

Answer 56

issue of bonded labor, particularly in stone quarries. The court affirmed its role in protecting fundamental rights under Article 32, emphasizing the right to live with dignity (Article 21) and freedom from exploitation (Article 23). It directed the government to take concrete steps to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded laborers, ensuring they receive adequate welfare, housing, and legal protections.

Answer 57

Supreme Court of India case where the court struck down several provisions in state prison manuals that perpetuated caste-based discrimination. The ruling declared that caste-based segregation in prisons and the assignment of manual labor based on caste were unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The judgment ordered all states and union territories to revise their prison manuals to align with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Answer 58

the fundamental right to "propagate" religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person to one's own faith. Propagation is limited to the exposition and dissemination of religious tenets through persuasion. The Court upheld State laws prohibiting conversion by force, fraud, or allurement, ruling that such activities infringe upon the equally guaranteed "freedom of conscience" of the individual being converted and can constitute a disturbance to public order, thereby justifying legislative restrictions

Answer 59

decided by the Indian Supreme Court in 2018, ruled that the practice of preventing women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The majority opinion held that this exclusion violated women's fundamental right to equality and freedom of religion, and that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not form a separate religious denomination that would allow for such a restriction.

Answer 60

Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the practice of triple talaq in Shayara Bano vs Union of India by a 3:2 majority and deemed this practice as unconstitutional and held that it violated fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Answer 61

foundational case for the ERP doctrine. The Supreme Court established that the State's power to pass laws (Article 25(2)(a)) does not allow regulation of religious practices as such. Instead, the State can only regulate activities that are economic, commercial, or political in character, even if they are associated with religious practices. Crucially, the Court held that what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained by referring to the doctrines of that religion itself.

Answer 62

The Court applied the ERP test to determine if the Tandava Dance was an essential rite of the Ananda Marga Faith. Despite the dance being introduced over a decade after the faith was founded and later prescribed in its scripture , the Court held that it was not an essential practice. The case established the definitive, strict test for ERP: a practice is essential only if the absence of the practice itself fundamentally alters the religion.

Answer 63

case established that Article 30 grants 'special rights' to minorities to ensure their autonomy in administration and to preserve their institutions. Chief Justice Ray saw the provision as a guarantee of equality. However, the Court clarified that this right is not absolute and does not permit mal-administration. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed to ensure the institution maintains a standard of excellence, such as rules for salary payment or account audits.

Answer 64

Supreme Court of India held that while minority educational institutions have a right to administer their institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable state regulations for maintaining educational standards and discipline. The Court ruled that specific provisions of the Kerala University Act, which interfered with the management's right to appoint its own administrators, were unconstitutional because they took away the right to administer the institution.

Answer 65

It ruled that a law discriminating against an institution simply because it was established by the majority is unconstitutional. TMA Pai essentially put minority and majority educational institutions at the same level, while stipulating that the right under Article 30 must not lead to reverse discrimination. Crucially, the Court permitted MEIs to deny admission to non-minority students to a "reasonable extent" to ensure the "minority character of the institution" is preserved (a limited exception to Article 29(2)).

Answer 66

The Supreme Court (5-judge bench) held that AMU was not a minority institution. It ruled that since AMU was established by an Act of Parliament, it was not established by Muslims. The Court’s restrictive interpretation required an institution to be both established and administered by a minority to qualify for Article 30 protection.

Answer 67

Muslims founded AMU, while Parliament only incorporated it legally. The Court laid down a Tri-Fold Test to determine minority status: Ideation – Did the idea originate from the minority? Purpose – Was it primarily for the minority’s benefit? Implementation – Were steps taken by the minority community? The Court did not directly grant AMU minority status, instead sending the case to a smaller bench for factual application. It also struck down religion-based reservations as unconstitutional under Articles 14–16.

Answer 68

The Court affirmed the wide reach of this writ, holding that a petition for Habeas Corpus lies not only against the Executive Authority (i.e., the State, police, or jail officials) but also against private individuals. This ensures that the writ is an effective remedy to secure the release of any person unlawfully detained by anyone, regardless of whether the detention is governmental or personal (e.g., in cases of illegal confinement, or sometimes, child custody disputes)

Answer 69

strongly reaffirmed how the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 is a crucial mechanism for protecting personal liberty. The court emphasized that it would not allow technical objections to hinder its duty to ensure a detenu's freedom if their constitutional rights had been violated. liberty based on delay

Answer 70

The writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by a competent court through an order that is prima facie within its jurisdiction and not wholly illegal. Habeas Corpus is a remedy against unlawful detention. Once a court of competent jurisdiction has legally passed a remand order, the detention is deemed lawful, and the writ is inapplicable unless the order is shown to be completely mechanical, without jurisdiction, or a nullity.

Answer 71

The Court clarified a key limitation on the remedial nature of Mandamus. It held that no Mandamus can be issued to directly command an authority to appoint a specific person to a post, even if that person was wrongly denied the appointment. The writ is used to command an authority to perform its duty, such as conducting a proper selection process or correcting an illegality, but it does not empower the court to substitute its own decision for that of the competent executive or statutory authority regarding the final act of appointment.

Answer 72

In a vital affirmation of fundamental rights, the Court used the principle of Mandamus to command the state to recognize the legal rights of the Chakmas (a refugee community). The Court held that the Chakmas had a constitutional right of citizenship and, as such, could not be required to obtain the restrictive Inner Line Permit typically imposed on non-domiciled Indian citizens, as they were lawfully settled in the State. The Mandamus here serves to uphold and enforce the status and rights flowing directly from the Constitution.

Answer 73

Writ of Prohibition is a preventive remedy used to restrain an inferior Court or Tribunal from continuing with proceedings where it has usurped a jurisdiction not vested in it. The writ is not meant to correct mere errors of law or fact, but to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice stemming from an illegal assumption of authority. Specifically, it is normally issued only when the inferior body proceeds to act (a) without or in excess of jurisdiction, (b) in violation of the rules of natural justice, (c) under a law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or (d) in contravention of fundamental rights. The Court stressed that this power must be used with judicial discipline of the highest order to prevent it from being used as a "cloak of an appeal in disguise," which would undermine the dignity of subordinate courts.

Answer 74

appointment of J. Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu despite her having been convicted of a criminal offense, making her disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appointment was challenged via a writ petition, arguing that she was not "legally qualified" to hold the office and that the Governor acted illegally in appointing her. The primary legal challenge sought a writ of Quo Warranto to question her right to hold the public office. The Supreme Court set out the necessary ingredients for issuing the writ of Quo Warranto: the office in question must be public, created by the Constitution or law, and the person holding it must be an unqualified usurper in clear violation of the law. The Court emphasized that Quo Warranto protects the public from the illegal occupation of a public office. the Supreme Court of India ruled that a person disqualified from holding public office due to a criminal conviction cannot be appointed as Chief Minister, even if the sentence is suspended. The court held that the conviction itself, which resulted in disqualification, remained valid until set aside on appeal, and the appointment of J. Jayalalithaa was declared unconstitutional and invalid.

Answer 75

In this case, the Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Duties should be upheld not merely through legal sanctions but also through social sanctions. Furthermore, the court directed the implementation of Justice J.S. Verma Committee’s recommendations regarding the widespread dissemination of knowledge about Fundamental Duties to the public.

Answer 76

Ruled that Fundamental Duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, provide valuable guidance for interpreting constitutional and legal issues.

Answer 77

Supreme Court advised that citizens should first approach the High Court under Article 226 before directly filing a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 32 for infringement of fundamental rights. This is because the High Court has a broader jurisdiction to hear cases of any legal right infringement, not just fundamental rights, and approaching the High Court first helps reduce the Supreme Court's caseload, as noted in the case due to the backlog of cases.

Answer 78

M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath Oleum Gas Leak Case Ganga Pollution Case) taj trapezium

Answer 79

The Court ruled that Article 20(3), which guarantees the right against self-incrimination, applies not only during court trials but also at the stage of police interrogation. The right to remain silent is a fundamental right, and the Court emphasised that this protection should extend to the entire investigative process. Therefore, an accused person cannot be compelled to answer questions that might incriminate them, regardless of whether they have been formally charged in court. The Court interpreted Article 20(3) expansively, considering that the protection against self-incrimination applies even before formal charges are framed and during police investigations.

Answer 80

Education's significance for human dignity- right to education under article 21 The judgment broke from traditional views of Directive Principles as symbolic, emphasising their practical importance.

Answer 81

Violation of fundamental rights: The Supreme Court found that the Act violated several fundamental rights: Article 31(2): The Act did not provide for "just compensation" for the acquisition of property, which was a mandatory requirement. Article 14: The selective nationalization of 14 specific banks violated the right to equality, as other private banks, including foreign ones, were left out. Article 19(1)(g): The ruling also noted that the act affected the shareholders' rights and their ability to carry on a business. The "Effect Test": A crucial outcome of the ruling was the establishment of the "Effect Test." This test requires the courts to examine the effect of a law, not just its object, on fundamental rights to determine its constitutionality.

Answer 82

landmark Indian Supreme Court case that recognized prisoners' fundamental rights, holding that they retain rights to humane treatment and legal protection, and that solitary confinement and cruel treatment are unconstitutional. The case was initiated by a letter from a death-row prisoner detailing the torture of another inmate, which the court treated as a writ of habeas corpus. c

Answer 83

While constitutional rights may be waived by citizens as they are granted by the Constitution, fundamental rights are inherently different and immune from legislative interference, thus cannot be waived by citizens.

Answer 84

Supreme Court of India case that established the state's exclusive right to manufacture and sell liquor. The Court affirmed the state's authority to regulate the liquor trade and grant licenses, including through public auction, stating there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor, but rather it is a business that the state can control or prohibit in the interest of public health and morality.

Answer 85

case that clarified the scope of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The court ruled that compelling an individual to provide specimen handwriting, fingerprints, or footprints does not violate this right, as these are not considered testimonial compulsion. This decision established a distinction between testimonial evidence, which is protected, and physical evidence, which is not.

Answer 86

ruling that expanded the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life), to include the right to a wholesome environment. This case is not a direct constitutional provision, but a Supreme Court judgment that used constitutional principles to hold the municipality accountable for providing essential civic services like sanitation. The court affirmed that a municipality cannot plead financial inability to avoid its duty to the public.

Answer 87

severability the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 while striking down certain unconstitutional provisions. The court ruled that the Act was within the state's power to legislate for the prohibition of intoxicants, but found that some sections, especially those affecting medicinal preparations containing alcohol, violated fundamental rights and were void. The court's decision affirmed the state's authority to ban alcohol but limited this power to protect constitutional rights.

Answer 88

the Supreme Court of India ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution. The Court held that constitutional amendments are a form of "law" under Article 13(2), which prohibits any law that "takes away or abridges" fundamental rights. The decision affirmed the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling in Indian jurisprudence. The Golaknath case (1967) ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) because it declared that any such amendment would be considered "law" under Article 13(2), making it void if it violated Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights were of such a transcendental and inviolable nature that they could not be abridged or amended by Parliament. This ruling was later challenged by the 24th Amendment, which restored Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.

Answer 89

The document summarizes a landmark Indian Supreme Court case that determined the distinction between preventive detention and punitive detention under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court ruled that restrictions imposed on a detainee's right to interviews with their lawyer and family were unconstitutional.

Answer 90

The Court in Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that the right to basic education is implicit in the fundamental right to life (Article 21) when considered in conjunction with the directive principle on education (Article 41). It was emphasised that the parameters of the right to education must be understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 45, which mandates that the state should strive to provide free and compulsory education for all children under the age of 14 within ten years from the commencement of the Constitution.

Answer 91

Court held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued on mere suspicion or inferences; it requires indisputable facts to prove that a public officer is usurping their office without legal authority. The case established that a writ court cannot quash an income or caste certificate, which is the basis for eligibility, until the relevant administrative committee has invalidated it.

Answer 92

The case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa refers to a significant and often-cited judgment by the Supreme Court of India from 1954, primarily defining the scope and limitations of the High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The primary principle established was that a High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, acts in a supervisory capacity, not an appellate one. It cannot re-evaluate or re-weigh the evidence presented before the lower tribunal. Grounds for Certiorari: A writ of certiorari can be issued only in specific circumstances: When the lower court or tribunal acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. When there is a flagrant disregard of procedural rules or a violation of natural justice. When there is a patent or manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, not merely a wrong decision on facts.

Answer 93

writ of mandamus Continuing mandamus: The Supreme Court has maintained ongoing oversight of the case, issuing continuous orders and directions to ensure compliance and effective forest management. Establishment of monitoring bodies: The case led to the establishment of mechanisms like the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to oversee the implementation of the Court's directives.

Answer 94

Supreme Court declared the state's communal government order, which used communal rotation for public appointments, unconstitutional and void because it violated Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Indian Constitution. The court held that this system discriminated based on religion and caste and exceeded the permissible scope of reservations under Article 16(4), which can only be for genuinely "backward classes". Supreme Court said that only Harijans (Dalits) and truly backward Hindus could be considered for reservations — not every community. This case was important because it showed that reservation should be for the truly backward, not based only on caste or religion.

Answer 95

High Courts have unconditional authority to issue writs, including certiorari, against any person or authority within their territorial jurisdiction, which encompasses Election Tribunals. Distinction Between Prohibition and Certiorari: The Court distinguished between writs of prohibition (preventive) and certiorari (reviewative), emphasizing that while prohibition requires pending proceedings, certiorari can be exercised post-decision.

Consti law Flashcards

(119 cards)