The Sources of Indian Constitution

The Government of India Act 1935

Emergency provisions
Establishment of supreme court[ judiciary]
Public service commission
Office of governor
The federal scheme of government

United Kingdom

Parliamentary form of government

Single citizenship
Rule of law
Legislative procedure
Parliamentary privileges
Writs

United States of America

Fundamental rights
Supremacy of the constitution
Independence judiciary [Removal procedure of Supreme Court
and High Court Judges]
Judicial review
Election of the head of the state
Impeachment of president and its procedure
Post of vice president
Financial emergency
Canada
Federalism with strong centre
Centre appoints governor of the states
Residency Powers vest with the centre
Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Australia

Concurrent list
Division of powers between centre and state
Freedom of trade and Commerce
Joint sitting of the two houses of parliament

Ireland
Directive Principles of State Policy
Nomination of members in Rajya Sabha
Method of election of president

Germany

President's power during emergency

Suspension of fundamental rights during emergency

Soviet Union [USSR]

Fundamental duties
The ideals of social, economy and justice
South Africa

Election of members of Rajya Sabha

Procedure of constitutional amendment

Japan

Procedure established by law

France

Republican system
Ideas of Liberty, equality and fraternity
 SALIENT FEATURES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

1. Lengthiest Written Constitution: A written constitution is framed at a given

time and comes into force on a fixed date as a document. Our constitution was
framed in 2 years, 11 months and 18 days; it was adopted on 26th November,
1949 and enforced on January 26, 1950. It consisted of 22 parts, 395 articles
and 8 schedules. (448 art,25 parts,12 schedules)

Geographical reasons( size, variety of race, religion, caste, diversity of India)

Common constitution (union/ state)
Made by a constituent assembly dominated by lawyers (covered the
loopholes)
GOI Act, 1935( Interim constitution of India)
Various sources
Ransacking of constitution-American, British, Irish, Russian, Japan etc

2. Rigid and Flexible: The Indian Constitution is a unique example of

combination of rigidity and flexibility. A constitution is called rigid or flexible on
the basis of its amending procedure. In a rigid constitution, amendment of the
constitution is not easy like the constitutions of USA, Switzerland
and Australia are rigid constitutions. Whereas, the British Constitution is
considered flexible because its amendment procedure is easy and simple. The
Constitution of India has three categories of amendments ranging from simple to
most difficult procedure depending on the nature of the amendment. (art. 368)

Some provisions are easy to amend( flexible)

 Some provisions are very difficult to amend( rigid)
Most provisions are moderate

3. Federal Polity: India has a federal structure. In a federation there are two
distinct levels of governments. There is one government for the whole country
which is called the Union or Central Government and there is a government for
each Unit or State. The USA is a federation whereas the UK (Britain) has a unitary
form of government where there is only one government for the whole country
and the power is centralized. The Constitution of India does not use the term
federal state . There is a proper distribution of
powers between the Union/Central Government and the State Governments in
form of Union List, State List and the Concurrent List.

4. Quasi Federal: It means a federal set up where despite having two clear sets
of government central and the states, more powers are given to the Central
Government, supremacy of the judiciary is an essential feature of a federation so
that the constitution could be interpreted impartially.

Federal system with unitary bias (quasi federal)

Federal features of Indian Constitution
two governments + bicameralism +Supremacy of written constitution + division
of power+ independence of judiciary result
Unitary features of Indian Constitution
strong Centre + single constitution + single citizenship + governor + all India
services

5. Parliamentary Democracy: India has a parliamentary form of democracy.

This has been adopted from the British system. In a parliamentary democracy
there is a close relationship between the legislature and the executive. The Cabinet
is selected from among the members of legislature. The cabinet is responsible to
the legislature. In this form of democracy, the Head of the State is nominal so in
India, the President is the Head of the State. Constitutionally the President
 has numerous powers but in practice the Council of Ministers headed by the PM,
exercises these powers. The President has to act on the advice of the Prime
Minister and the Council of Ministers.

Parliamentary form of Government

presence of nominal and real executive
majority party rule (273+)
collective responsibility of the executive to the Legislature(art 75)
membership of ministers in the legislature(dual membership)
leadership of prime minister for chief minister
dissolution of lower house (lok Sabha or assembly)

6. Single Integrated Judicial System: India has a single integrated judicial

system. The Supreme Court is the apex court of the judicial system. Below it are
the High Courts which control and supervise the lower courts. The Indian
judiciary is like a pyramid with the lower courts as the base, High Courts in the
middle and the Supreme Court at the top.
 S
A
M
E

L
A
W
S

7. Independence of Judiciary: Indian judiciary is independent and impartial. It

is free from the influence of the executive as well as the legislature. Its judges are
appointed on the basis of their qualifications and cannot be removed easily
neither can their terms of office be altered to their disadvantage.

Independent and integral judiciary

same law throughout India
protection given to the judiciary (art. 124,125,126)
One single apex court unlike USA

In India there is unique blend of Parliamentary sovereignty with judicial

Supremacy
Due process of law/ procedure established by law(art 21)
Judicial review
Provincial subjects reserved & transferred(residuary power with union)
8. Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties: The Constitution of India
guarantees Fundamental rights. The Constitution provides for six Fundamental
Rights which are justifiable and hence are protected by the judiciary.
Fundamental Duties were added to our Constitution by the 42nd Amendment. It
lays down a list of ten Fundamental Duties for all citizens of India. While the
rights are given as guarantees to the people, the duties are obligations which
every citizen is expected to perform.
Fundamental rights (adopted from USA-BILL OF RIGHTS first 10 amendments of
BOR)
Guaranteed rights to the individuals by the constitution of India enforceable by
the courts against the state.
present in part 3 of the constitution
Writs (justifiable/ enforceable) (32/226)
fundamental duties
added by the 42nd constitutional amendment on Recommendation of Swaran
Singh committee
part 4A of the constitution ( initially 10th, 11th fundamental duty added by the
86th amendment 2002)
non enforceable

9. Directive Principles of State Policy: These have been adopted from the Irish
Constitution, included in our Constitution to ensure social and economic justice
to our people. Directive Principles aim at establishing a welfare state in India
where there will be no concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
Directive principles of State Policy
socialistic, Gandhian, liberal, intellectual
welfare state
non justifiable
Balance between fundamental rights and Directive principles
10. Single Citizenship: Usually in a federal state the citizens enjoys double
citizenship like in the USA. But in India there is only single citizenship which
means that every Indian is a citizen of India, irrespective of the place of his/her
residence or place of birth. He/she is not a citizen of the Constituent State like
Rajasthan, Uttaranchal or Chhattisgarh to which he/she may belong to. All the
citizens of India can secure employment anywhere in the country and enjoy all the
rights equally in all the parts of the nation.

single citizenship
fraternity the sense of brotherhood
unlike USA

11. Universal Adult Franchise:

India through the method of universal adult franchise. Every citizen of India who
is 18 years of age or above is entitled to vote in the elections irrespective of
caste, sex, race, religion or status.

Universal adult franchise (7% literacy at time of independence)

initially the age of voting was 21 years
by the 69th Constitutional Amendment this age was made 18 years
give equality to people
equal opportunities to minority
make the scope of parliament broad-based

12. Emergency Provisions: The Constitution makers expected that there could be
situations when the government could not be run in usual manner due to difficult
circumstances. To cope with such situations, the Constitution elaborated on
emergency provisions. There are three types of emergency; A) emergency caused
 by war, external aggression or armed rebellion; B) emergency arising out of the
failure of constitutional machinery in states; and C) financial emergency.

emergency provisions ( Part 18)

Concentration of powers
article 352 national emergency
article 356 presidential rule
Article 360 financial emergency

[Link] bodies
Checks and balances
Comptroller Auditor General article (148- 151)
UPSC/ SPSC
Election Commission of India(324-325)

[Link] tier government

added by73rd(Panchayati Raj) and 74th (municipal government) constitutional
amendment 1992
Union + state + local( based on Gandhian Gram Swaraj model) 24/APRIL/1993
Power given to people also
 SOURCE

NATURE

OBJECTIVES

DATE OF
ADOPTION

1/5
 Preamble to the Indian Constitution

Derived from a Latin term

The idea of preamble is taken from the American Constitution

It is the summary of constitution, essence/reflection of constitution.

It presents the intention of its framers, the history behind its creation, and
the core values and principles of the nation.
The preamble basically gives idea of the following things/objects:
Source of the Constitution
Nature of Indian State
Statement of its objectives
Date of its adoption

Soul of the Constitution by Thakur Das Bhargava

Political horoscope of Indian Constitution by KM Munshi
Identity card of the Constitution by N.A. Palkhivala
Key note of constitution of India by Sir Ernest Barker

History of the Preamble to Indian Constitution

The ideals behind the Preamble to Constitution were laid down by

Jawaharlal Nehr Objectives Resolution, on 13, December 1946. It
adopted by the Constituent Assembly on January 22, 1947.
Although not enforceable in court, the Preamble states the objectives of the
Constitution, and acts as an aid during the interpretation of Articles when language is
found ambiguous.

Components of Preamble

It is indicated by the Preamble that the source of authority of the Constitution lies
with the people of India.
Preamble declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic
republic.
The objectives stated by the Preamble are to secure justice, liberty, equality to
2/5
 all citizens and promote fraternity to maintain unity and integrity of the
nation.

The date is mentioned in the preamble when it was adopted i.e. November 26,
1949.

Article 394 of the Constitution states that Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 60, 324, 367, 379 and
394 came into force since the adoption of the Constitution on 26th November 1949
and the rest of the provisions on 26th January 1950.

Key words in the Preamble

We, the people of India: It indicates the ultimate sovereignty of the people
of India. Sovereignty means the independent authority of the State, not being
subject to the control of any other State or external power.

Sovereign: The word sovereign refers to a state which is free to conduct its own affair
both internally and externally. India became a sovereign on the date of 26th January
1950 before this India was a Dominion that means it had external influence of England
Now India has its own independent authority and it is not a dominion of any other
external power. In the country, the legislature has the power to make laws which are
subject to certain limitations.
India joining the Commonwealth of Nations is not India losing its sovereignty rather it is
extra constitutional arrangement. India joining United Nations is also not violation of
sovereignty because the decisions of UN are not binding on India.

Socialist: The term means the achievement of socialist ends through

democratic means (democratic socialism). Democratic socialism aims to remove
poverty, ignorance, disease and in equality of opportunity. Indian socialism is a blend of
Marxism and Gandhism, leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism. India has a
purely follow communist or Marxist socialism, in
which the state has full control over the resources and distributes them equally. In India
we follow the Ghandhian socialism, here the directly distribute the
resources but gives equal opportunity to all individuals to earn the resources. It holds
faith in a mixed economy where both private and public sectors co-exist side by side. It
was added in the Preamble by 42 nd Amendment, 1976. It means that we will have social

3/5
and economic equality.

Social equality means everyone is equal despite what their caste, color, creed, sex,
religion or language.
Economic equality means that government will endeavor to make the distribution of
wealth more equal and provide a decent standard of living for all.

In excel wear v. Union of India (1979)

The Supreme Court found that with the addition of word socialist, a portal is opened to
lean the judgments in favor of nationalization and state ownership of the industry. But
the principle of socialism and Social Justice cannot ignore the interest of right of a
different section of society that is the private owners.
In Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India (1980)
The constitutional bench had considered the meaning of the wo
crystallize a socialistic state securing to its people social economic Justice by interplay of
fundamental rights and directive principle.
In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
The Supreme Court said that basic purpose of socialism is to provide the working people
a decent standard of living and social security to people.
In Air India statutory corporation v. United labor Union (1996)
The Supreme Court observed that the word socialist is added in the constitution to
establish an egalitarian social order through rule of law.

Secular: The term has a western meaning, it means divorce or no relation between
the state and religion (panthnirpeksha) but in India secularism is used in a sense
which means that all the religions in India get equal respect, protection and support
from the state (sarva dharma sambhav).
It was incorporated in the Preamble by 42 nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976.
BELIEVE, FAITH, & WORSHIP.
In S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)
It was held that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution.
In St Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat and Anr (1974)

4/5
 The court said that secularism is neither anti god nor pro god. Secularism means
elimination of God from the matters of the state and state has nothing to do with
the religion of the people.
In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002)
The Supreme Court has said that secularism has a positive meaning and it means
to develop understanding and respect towards different religions.

Democratic: The term implies that the Constitution of India has an established
form of Constitution which gets its authority from the will of the people expressed
in an election. The people of India elect their governments (through free, fair and
periodic elections at all levels Union, State and local) by a system of universal

Republic: The term indicates that the head of the state is elected by the people. In
India, the President of India is the elected head of the state.
LEX REX (SUMPREMACY OF LAW), ELECTED HEAD, NO DYNASTY,
PUBLIC OFFICES OPEN.

Objectives of the Indian Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law and it helps to maintain integrity in the
society and to promote unity among the citizens to build a great nation.
The main objective of the Indian Constitution is to promote harmony throughout
the nation.
The factors which help in achieving this objective are:

Justice: It is the pinnacle achievement of the State. It is necessary to maintain

order in society that is promised through various provisions of
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
provided by the Constitution of India. It comprises three elements, which are
social, economic, and political (Tag line of Russian
Revolution/constitution).
a) Social Justice Social justice means that the Constitution wants to create a
society without discrimination on any grounds like caste, creed, gender,
religion, etc. ART. 14-18
b) Economic Justice Economic Justice means no discrimination can be
caused by people on the basis of their wealth, income, and economic status.
5/5
 Every person must be paid equally for an equal position and all people must get
opportunities to earn for their living. ART. 39
c) Political Justice Political Justice means all the people have an equal, free
and fair right without any discrimination to participate in political
opportunities. ART- 325,326(voting rights, electoral rights)
Liberty:
life, have political views and behavior in society. Liberty does not mean freedom to
do anything; a person can do anything but in the limit set by the law. Liberty
means freedom to do anything which the law allows (Montesquieu)
It is absence of restrain.
It gives opportunity of development to all individuals.
Liberty is not absolute but always qualified.

Equality:
privileges and all the people have given equal opportunities for everything
without any discrimination. Everyone is equal before the law.

Fraternity:
attachment with the country and all the people. Fraternity helps to promote dignity and
unity in the nation.

The concept of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in our Preamble was adopted from
the French Motto of the French Revolution.

Status of Preamble

The preamble being part of the Constitution is discussed several times in the
Supreme Court. It can be understood by reading the following two cases.
In Re Berubari Case 1960:
It was used as a presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution
which was on the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement related to the
Berubari Union and in exchanging the enclaves which were decided for
consideration by the bench consisting of eight judges.
Through the Berubari case Preamble is the key to open the
but it cannot be considered as part of the Constitution.
6/5
 Therefore it is not enforceable in a court of law.
Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973:
In this case, for the first time, a bench of 13 judges was assembled to hear a
writ petition. The Court held that:
The Preamble of the Constitution will now be considered as part of the
Constitution.
The Preamble is not the supreme power or source of any restriction or
prohibition but it plays an important role in the interpretation of statutes and
provisions of the Constitution.
So, it can be concluded that preamble is part of the introductory part of the
Constitution.
In the case of Union Government Vs LIC of India 1995 also, the Supreme Court
has once again held that Preamble is the integral part of the Constitution but is not
directly enforceable in a court of justice in India.

Amendment of the Preamble

42nd Amendment Act, 1976:

After the judgment of the Kesavanand Bharati case, it was accepted that the
preamble is part of the Constitution.
As a part of the Constitution, preamble can be amended under Article 368 of the
Constitution, but the basic structure of the preamble cannot be amended.
As of now, the preamble is only amended once through the 42nd Amendment
Act, 1976.
The term Socialist Secular and tegrity were added to the preamble through
42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

Some Additional case laws

S R Bommai vs. Union of India 1918: Supreme Court held that Preamble is the
integral part of the constitution

7/5
Sajjan Singh vs. state of Rajasthan 1965: The Supreme Court held that Preamble is
the sum and substance of the features of the constitution. Also said Preamble represents
the quintessence, the philosophy, the ideal, the soul of the entire constitution.
KK Bhaskaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011: Supreme Court held that the
constitution should be interpreted in such a manner, so as to secure the goal of social,
economic and political justice.
Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2011: Supreme Court said that the
promise to provide social, economic and political justice given in Preamble cannot be
forgotten or neglected.

8/5
 PART I
THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY

1. Name and territory of the Union.

1. India that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
2. The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
7TH CA 1956
3. The territory of India shall comprise
a) the territories of the States;
b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and] 7TH CA 1956
c) such other territories as may be acquired.

2. Admission or establishment of new States. Parliament may by law admit into

the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
2A. [Sikkim to be associated with the Union.] Omitted by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth
Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 5 (w.e.f. 26-4-1975).

3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of

existing States. Parliament may by law
(a) Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) Increase the area of any State;
(c) Diminish the area of any State;
(d) Alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) Alter the name of any State:
[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament
except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal
contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill
has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing
its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such
further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has
expired.] Subs. by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955
[Explanation I. In this article, in clauses (a) to (e

Explanation II. The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to
form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to
any other State or Union territory.]
4. Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the
First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and
consequential matters. (1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain
such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may
be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such
supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to
representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States
affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary. (Simple majority)
(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this
Constitution for the purposes of article 368.
 Creation of states

At the commencement of the constitution states were classified into four main
categories, Parts A, B, C and D. Thus, initially there were

- 9 states,

- 9 states

- 10 states

- 1 state

After independence the demand for reorganization of States on the linguistic basis
was raised from different regions. The constituent assembly appointed the S K
Dhar commission in 1947 to study the issue.
The Dhar commission recommended linguistic basis but it was rejected by
congress
Later Congress had to concede to the demand after violence started in Telugu
speaking areas
The state reorganization Commission was set up under Faisal Ali Commission.
On the commission's recommendations the states were reorganized on a linguistic
basis.
Andhra Pradesh was the first state to be reorganized on linguistic basis in 1953.

The 7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956 abolished these categories and
placed all the states on the same footing as a result of reorganization of states
under States Reorganization Act, 1956. Only two categories of states were
kept.

Parliament has enacted Jammu And Kashmir Reorganization Act In 2019

which has bifurcated the state of Jammu and Kashmir in union territory of Ladakh
and union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore presently there are 28
states and 9 union territories.
ARTICLE 1: NAME AND TERRITORY OF THE UNION

(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
(7th CAA, 1956)
(3) The territory of India shall comprise-
(a) the territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.

- K.T. SHAH- suggested that the word federation

should be used instead of union.

According to Dr Ambedkar, the chairman of drafting committee, constitution may

be
reasons indicated

Union of India is not a result of an agreement

States have no right to secede from the Federation. Federation is union

because it is Indestructible

Amar Singh Ji vs. State of Rajasthan 1955 the Supreme Court has ruled
that any given point of time, the territory of India is the area which is specified in
first schedule under article 1

ARTICLE 2: ADMISSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW STATES

Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms
and conditions as it thinks fit.

Art. 2 Talks about external modification

Conditions as it thinks fit. (Power to redraw the map of India)

 R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India AIR 1993- these terms and conditions
should not be in violation of basic structure doctrine

ARTICLE 2A: SIKKIM TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNION

ARTICLE 3: FORMATION OF NEW STATES AND ALTERATION OF

AREAS, BOUNDARIES OR NAMES OF EXISTING STATES

Parliament may by law

(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State:
[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of
Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the
proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the
States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State
for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the
reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period
so specified or allowed has expired.] Subs. by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment)
Act, 1955,

ARTICLE 3 - talks about internal modification

Step-1: Either House of the Parliament, only on the recommendation of the President,
can introduce a Bill giving effect to any or all the changes stated above.

Step-2: If such a bill affects the boundary or name of a State, then the President will
refer the Bill to the concerned State Legislature before introducing it in the
Parliament for their opinion.
Step-3: If the State Legislature fails to express an opinion within the given time limit
then it is deemed that it has expressed its views. Parliament is not bound to accept or
act upon the views of the State Legislature even if State has submitted their views
within the time period.

In the case of Union Territories, it is not necessary to seek the views of Legislatures of
Union Territories before such Bill.

Does ART.3 include cession of territory?

In the Re Berubari case 1960 the power of Parliament to diminish the area of
state does not cover session of Indian Territory to a foreign state. The agreement
could only be implemented by an amendment to the constitution under Article
368.

9CAA,1960

Similarly 100 CAA, 2015 was passed to ratify the Land boundary agreement between
India and Bangladesh.
 RC poudyal vs. Union of India 1993 even though the admission or
establishment of new state will be on such terms and conditions as Parliament
may think fit such conditions cannot be imposed which is against the basic
structure of the constitution

ARTICLE 4: LAWS MADE UNDER ARTICLES 2 AND 3 TO PROVIDE FOR

THE AMENDMENT OF THE FIRST AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE
AND SUPPLEMENTAL, INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL
MATTERS

(1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the
amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to
give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental,
incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation
in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected
by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.

(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be in amendment of this

Constitution for the purposes of article 368.

Art 4 protects art. 2 & 3

Shipan Lal Saxsena the amendment should not be done by simple majority
but by special majority. As may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the
law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions
(including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or
Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem
necessary.

(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of

this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.
 PART-II Citizenship of India

What is Citizenship?

Constitution of India does not define the term .

Citizenship signifies the relationship between individual and state.
Citizenship is an idea of exclusion as it excludes non-citizens.
Like any other modern state, India has two kinds of people citizens and aliens. Citizens are
full members of the Indian State and owe allegiance to it. They enjoy all civil and political
rights.
There are two well-known principles for the grant of citizenship:
While confers citizenship on the basis of place of birth, gives
recognition to blood ties.

Constitutional Provisions

The Constitution of India does not lay down a comprehensive law on citizenship. Part II of
the Constitution Lays down the classes of persons to be the citizens of India. The entire Law
relating to citizenship is to be regulated by the law of parliament

INDIAN CITIZENSHIP

After the
On commencement of
commencement of
the constitution.
constitution
PART II(ART. 5-11)
CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

1/6
 Citizenship is listed in the Union List under the Constitution and thus is under the
Exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
categories of
persons who are entitled to citizenship are given in Part 2 (Articles 5 to 11).
Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, which came into being on January 26, 1950,
these articles were enforced on November 26, 1949 itself, when the Constitution was
adopted.
Article 5

Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution:-

At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the
territory of India and
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years
preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India

It provided for citizenship on commencement of the Constitution.

All those domiciled and born in India were given citizenship.

Even those who were domiciled but not born in India, but either of whose parent was
born in India, were considered citizens.
Anyone who had been an ordinary resident for more than five years, too, was entitled
to apply for citizenship.
Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India 1984- It was held that the domicile of a person is
in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent
house.
Muhammad Raza vs. State of Bombay 1966- the Supreme Court has held that
the term domicile means a permanent house or place where the person concerned
resides with intention of remaining for an infinite period.
Abdul Samad vs. state of West Bengal 1973-The court held that to attract article
5 (c) of the constitution a person applying must have Indian domicile. The domicile
denotes a connection with the territorial system of the law.

2/6
 Dr Yogesh Bhardwaj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1991/ D.P Joshi vs. State of
Madhya Bharat- The Supreme Court has held that article 5 recognizes domicile of
India. It does not recognize the concept of state domicile.

Article 6

Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from

Pakistan:-
Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India
from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the
commencement of this Constitution if
(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the
Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
(b) (i) in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948
, he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or
(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July,
1948 , he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the
Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefor to such officer
before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that
Government: Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the
territory of India or at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application

It provided rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from
Pakistan.
Since Independence was preceded by Partition and migration, Article 6 laid down that
anyone who migrated to India before July 19, 1949, would automatically become an Indian
citizen if he or either of his parents or grandparents was born in India.
But those who entered India after this date needed to register themselves.

Article 7

7. Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan:-

Notwithstanding anything in Articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of
March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in
Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so
migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of
India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the
authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of Article
6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July,
1948

3/6
 It Provides the Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan. Those who had migrated
to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 but subsequently returned on resettlement permits were
included within the citizenship net.
The law was more sympathetic to those who migrated from Pakistan and called them
refugees than to those who, in a state of confusion, were stranded in Pakistan or went there
but decided to return soon.

Article 8

Rights of citizenship of certain persons of India origin residing outside

India:-
Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or
any of whose grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India
Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside
India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a
citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country
where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefor to such
diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of
this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the
Dominion of India or the Government of India

It Provided Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India.
Any Person of Indian Origin residing outside India who, or either of whose parents or
grandparents, was born in India could register himself or herself as an Indian citizen with
Indian Diplomatic Mission.

Article 9

Person voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be

citizens
No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen
of India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship
of any foreign State

Provided that if any person voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State will no
longer be a citizen of India.

Article10

Continuance of the rights of citizenship:-

Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing
provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by
Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

4/6
 It says that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the
foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made
by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

Article 11

Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law:-

Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of
Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of
citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship

It empowers Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and
termination of citizenship and all matters relating to it.

Rights and privileges available to citizen of India

No discrimination on the basis of religion race caste sex place of birth [article 15]
Right to Equality and opportunity in matters of public employment [article 16].
F.R
Right to freedom enumerated in [Article 19].
Cultural and educational rights [article 29 and 30]
Certain offices under the constitution can be occupied by citizens only like, President [article
58 (1) (a)] vice president [Article 66 (3) (a)] judges of supreme court and high court [article
124 (3), 217 (2)]; Attorney General of India article [76 (1)]; governor of state [article 157];
Advocate general of state [article 165] etc. CONSTITUTIONAL POSTS
Right to vote for election of Parliament and state legislature. Only citizens can become
members of parliament and state legislature.

Can a company or Corporation be regarded as a citizen?

Company is a legal personality and not a natural person. Provisions related to citizenship in
part II of the constitution and citizenship act 1955 deals with citizenship of natural persons.
The Supreme Court in State Trading Corporation vs Commercial tax officer 1963
held that a company is not a citizen of India and therefore cannot claim fundamental rights
which have been conferred upon its citizens.
The court further clarified that citizenship in part 2 is concerned with natural persons and
not juristic persons.

5/6
 Can a company become citizen through its shareholders?
In Tata Engineering vs State of Bihar 1965 it was contended by shareholders of the
company, that though the company was not a citizen but shareholders for citizens and
therefore the fundamental rights of a shareholder must be protected by lifting the corporate
veil. The Supreme Court while rejecting the said contention held that what cannot be achieved
directly cannot be achieved indirectly. Thus, the company does not receive the protection of
fundamental rights through shareholders.
RC Cooper vs Union of India (Bank nationalisation case) [1970]. Even if all the
members of company are citizens of India, till the company cannot be considered as a citizen of
India, because even if all the members of the company are married, the company cannot be
considered as
well as of the company they will be entitled to protection under article 19 from this case
Supreme Court adopted a flexible approach in interpreting this aspect.

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited 1973: if the company is not a citizen of India but all
the rights of citizenship are available to the company indirectly through its members who are
citizens of India. If any governmental policy adversely affects the trade of the company, then it
automatically affects the interest of its members who are citizens of India. Therefore, the
company can invoke citizenship rights through the members who are citizens of India. To a
citizen does not lose his citizenship by becoming a member of company

In Godhra electricity company limited vs. State of Gujarat [1975] the supreme
court held that though a company is not a citizen but a shareholder has a right to carry on
business through agency of company.

6/6
 Citizenship Act, 1955 and Amendments

The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for the acquisition and termination of Indian
citizenship.

Modes Acquisition and termination of Indian Citizenship

ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE CITIZENSHIP ACT.

1955

INCORPORATION
BIRTH DESCENT REGESTRATION NATURALIZATION
OF TERRITORY
SEC.3 SEC.4 SEC.5 SEC. 6
SEC. 7

There are five ways in which Indian citizenship can be acquired: birth, descent,
registration, naturalization and incorporation of territory. The provisions are listed
under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
By Birth: sec 3 of Citizenship Act
A person born in India:-

26 January 1950 1 July 1987(every person born in India)

1 July 1987 2 December 2003 (born in India+ either parent Indian Citizen)

After 3 December 2003 2 parents Indian/ 1 Indian+ not illegal migrant

Every person born in India on or after 26.01.1950 but before 01.07.1987 is an Indian citizen
irrespective of the nationality of his/her parents.
Every person born in India between 01.07.1987 and 02.12.2003 is a citizen of India given
either of his/her parents is a citizen of the country at the time of his/her birth.
Every person born in India on or after 3.12.2003 is a citizen of the country given both
his/her parents are Indians or at least one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal

7/6
migrant at the time of birth.

By Descent: sec 4 of Citizenship Act

A person born outside India

January 26, 1950 December 10, 1992 (father Indian citizen)

December 10, 1992 December 3, 2004 (either parent Indian citizen)

December 3, 2004 No passport + registered within 1 year of birth

A person born outside India on or after January 26, 1950 is a citizen of India by descent if
his/her father was a citizen of India by birth.
A person born outside India on or after December 10, 1992, but before December 3, 2004 if
either of his/her parent was a citizen of India by birth.
If a person born outside India or after December 3, 2004 has to acquire citizenship, his/her
parents have to declare that the minor does not hold a passport of another country and
his/her birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of birth.

By Registration: Sec. 5 of Citizenship Act

Person of Indian origin:-he/ his parents were born in undivided India or he/ his parents
were born in a territory which became a part of India after 15 August 1947

Citizenship can also be acquired by registration. Some of the mandatory rules are:
A person of Indian origin who has been a resident of India for 7 years before
applying for registration.

A person of Indian origin who is a resident of any country outside undivided India.
A person who is married to an Indian citizen and is ordinarily resident for 7 years
before applying for registration.
Minor children of persons who are citizens of India.

8/6
By Naturalization: sec 6 of Citizenship Act

Any person of full age and capacity not being an illegal migrant can apply for the grant of a
certificate of naturalization to him, the Central Government may, if satisfied that the
applicant is qualified for naturalization:

A person can acquire citizenship by naturalization if he/she is ordinarily resident of

India for 12 years (throughout 12 months preceding the date of application and 11 years in
the aggregate) and fulfils all qualifications in the third schedule of the Citizenship Act.
The Act does not provide for dual citizenship or dual nationality (renounce any
other citizenship).

He should not be citizen of a country where Indians are prevented from taking citizenship
Person of good character.
Adequate knowledge of languages prescribed in the 8th schedule.
If certificate is issued, he should have intent to reside in India.
If in the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant is a person who has rendered
distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace
or human progress generally, it may waive all or any of the conditions specified in the
Third Schedule.

Citizenship by incorporation of territory

If any territory becomes a part of India, the Central Government may, by order notified in
the Official Gazette, specify the persons who shall be citizens of India by reason of their
connection with that territory; and those persons shall be citizens of India as from the date to
be specified in the order.

9/6
 Loss of citizenship

TERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP UNDR THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955

RENUNCIATION TERMINATION DEPRIVATION

[SECTION 8] [SECTION 9] [SECTION 10]

Declaration by citizen voluntarily acquires another compulsory termination by

Citizenship govt. of India

Renunciation of citizenship

(1)If any citizen of India of full age and capacity, who is also a citizen or national of another
country, makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his Indian citizenship,
the declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority; and, upon such registration,
that person shall cease to be a citizen of India:

Provided that if any such declaration is made during any war in which India may be engaged,
registration thereof shall be withheld until the Central Government otherwise directs.

(2)Where [a person] ceases to be a citizen of India under subsection (1), every minor child of
that person shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of India:

Provided that any such child may, within one year after attaining full age, make a declaration
that he wishes to resume Indian citizenship and shall thereupon again become a citizen of
India.

(3)For the purposes of this section, any woman who is, or has been, married shall be deemed to
be of full age.

10/
9. Termination of citizenship

(1)Any citizen of India who by naturalization, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or

has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily
acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case
may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war
in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until
the Central Government otherwise directs.

(2)If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of
another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard
to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf.

10. Deprivation of citizenship

(1)A citizen of India who is such by naturalisation or by virtue only of clause (c) of Article 5 of
the Constitution or by registration otherwise than under clause (b) (ii) of Article 6 of the
Constitution or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act, shall cease to be a citizen of
India, if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order of the Central government under this
section.

(2)Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Government may, by order, deprive any
such citizen of Indian citizenship, if it is satisfied that

(a)the registration or certificate of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false

representation or the concealment of any material fact; or

(b)that citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the
Constitution of India as by law established; or

(c)that citizen has, during any war in which India may be engaged unlawfully traded or
communicated with an enemy or been engaged in, or associated with, any business that
was to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or

(d)that citizen has, within five years after registration or naturalisation, been sentenced in
any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years; or

11/
(e)that citizen has been ordinarily resident out of India for a continuous period of seven years,
and during that period, has neither been at any time a student of any educational institution in
a country outside India or in the service of a Government in India or of an international
organisation of which India is a member, nor registered annually in the prescribed manner at
an Indian consulate his intention to retain his citizenship of India.

(3)The Central Government shall not deprive a person of citizenship under this section unless
it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the person should continue to be a
citizen of India.

(4)Before making an order under this section, the Central Government shall give the person
against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground
on which it is proposed to be made, and, if the order is proposed to be made on any of the
grounds specified in sub-section (2) other than clause (e) thereof, of his right, upon making
application therefor in the prescribed manner, to have his case referred to a committee of
inquiry under this section.

(5)If the order is proposed to be made against a person on any of the grounds specified in sub-
section (2) other than clause (e) thereof and that person so applies in the prescribed manner,
the Central Government shall, and in and other case it may, refer the case to a Committee of
Inquiry consisting of a chairman (being a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial
office) and two other members appointed by the Central Government in this behalf.

(6)The Committee of Inquiry shall, on such reference, hold the inquiry in such manner as may
be prescribed and submit its report to the Central Government; and the Central Government
shall ordinarily be guided by such report in making an order under this section.

The act has been amended five times in 1986, 2003, 2005, and 2015, 2019.

Through these amendments Parliament has narrowed down the wider and universal
principles of citizenship based on the fact of birth.
Moreover, the Foreigners Act places a heavy burden on the individual to prove that he/she
is not a foreigner.

1986 amendment: Unlike the constitutional provision and the original Citizenship Act
that gave citizenship on the principle of jus soli to everyone born in India(sec. 3)

12/
o The amendment has added the condition that those who were born in India on or after

January 26, 1950 but before July 1, 1987, shall be Indian citizen.
o Those born after July 1, 1987 and before December 4, 2003,

India, can get citizenship only if either of his parents was an Indian citizen at the time of birth.
2003 amendment: The amendment made the above condition more stringent, keeping
in view infiltration from Bangladesh.
oNow the law requires that for those born on or after December 4, 2004, in addition to the
fact of their own birth, both parents should be Indian citizens or one parent must be Indian
citizen and other should not be an illegal migrant. (Introduced the definition of illegal
migrants).
oWith these restrictive amendments, India has almost moved towards the narrow
principle of jus sanguinis or blood relationship. This lays down that an illegal
migrant cannot claim citizenship by naturalization or registration even if he has
been a resident of India for seven years.
2005 amendment: Brought major changes in Overseas Citizens of India

13/
History of migration in India

14/
 Citizenship constitutional amendment Act 2019

Sec.2 (1) (b)

entered into India a valid
passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority as may
be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; or (ii) with a valid passport or
other travel documents and such other document or authority as may be
prescribed by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein beyond the
permitted period of time;

Amendment in the definition (2019)

In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in
section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted,
namely: "Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,
Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or
Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December,
2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause
(c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or
from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or
order made there under, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of
this Act;".

Members of six communities Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and

Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to continue to live in India if they
entered India before December 14, 2014.

It also reduces the requirement for citizenship from 11 years to just 5 years. Two
notifications also exempted these migrants from the Passport Act and Foreigners Act.
A large number of organizations in Assam protested against this Bill as it may grant
citizenship to Bangladeshi Hindu illegal migrants.
The justification given for the bill is that Hindus and Buddhists are minorities in Bangladesh,
and fled to India to avoid religious persecution, but Muslims are a majority in Bangladesh and

15/
so the same cannot be said about them.

Different Scenario in Assam

Assam witnessed large-scale illegal migration from erstwhile East Pakistan and,
after 1971, from present-day Bangladesh.

1978- Death of Hira Lal Pathwari reelection increase in number of voters election
cancelled
This led to the six-year-long Assam movement from 1979 to 1985, for deporting
illegal migrants.
The All Assam Students' Union (AASU) led the movement that demanded the
updating of the NRC and the deportation of all illegal migrants who had entered
Assam after 1951.
The Assam Movement against illegal immigration eventually led to the historic Assam

Accord of 1985, signed by the Movement leaders and the Rajiv Gandhi government.

It set March 25, 1971, as the cut-off date for the deportation of illegal migrants
irrespective of their relegion.

Since the cut-off date prescribed under articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution was July 19,
1949 - to give force to the new date, an amendment was made to the Citizenship Act,
1955, and a new section (6A) was introduced.

Section 6A

The section was made applicable only to Assam.

It laid down that all persons of Indian origin who entered Assam before January 1, 1966
and have been ordinary residents will be deemed Indian citizens.
Those who came after 1 January, 1966 but before March 25, 1971, and have been
ordinary residents, will get citizenship at the expiry of 10 years from their
detection as a foreigner.
During this interim period, they will not have the right to vote but can get an
Indian passport.

Identification of foreigners as needed by Section 6A was to be done under the Illegal

16/
 Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, (IMDT Act), 1983, which was
applicable only in Assam while the Foreigners Act, 1946 was applicable in the rest of
the country.
The provisions of the IMDT Act made it difficult to deport illegal immigrants. On the
petition of Sarbananda Sonowal (now the Chief Minister of Assam), the Act was held
unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2005. This was eventually
replaced with the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006, which again was
struck down in 2007.
In the IMDT case, the court considered classification based on geographical
considerations to be a violation of the right to equality under Article 14.

In the run-up to the publication of the final N ational Register of Citizens (NRC)
in

Assam, the Supreme Court, in August, 2019 rejected a plea to include those born in
India between after March 24, 1971 and before July 1, 1987 in NRC unless they
had ancestral links to India.

In any other Indian state, they would have been citizens by birth, but the
In this context, citizenship has become the most talked about topic in the country.

Law is different for Assam.

National Register of Citizens (NRC)

The National Register of Citizens, 1951 is a register prepared after the conduct of the
Census of 1951 in respect of each village, showing the houses or holdings in a serial
order and indicating against each house or holding the number and names of persons
staying therein.

The NRC of 1951 and the Electoral Roll of 1971 (up to midnight of 24 March 1971) are
together called Legacy Data.
Persons and their descendants whose names appeared in these documents are certified
as Indian citizens.
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a register of all Indian citizens whose creation
is mandated by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Its purpose is to

17/
 document all the legal citizens of India so that the illegal immigrants can be identified
and deported. It has been implemented for the state of Assam starting in 2013 2014.
Last NRC 2019 Nineteen lakh illegal immigrant

The National Population Register (NPR)

Introduction
The National Population Register (NPR) is a Register of usual residents of the country.
It is being prepared at the local (Village/sub-Town), sub-District, District, State and
National level under provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955 and the Citizenship
(Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. It is
mandatory for every usual resident of India to register in the NPR. A usual resident is
defined for the purposes of NPR as a person who has resided in a local area for the past
6 months or more or a person who intends to reside in that area for the next 6 months or
more.
B. Objectives
The objective of the NPR is to create a comprehensive identity database of every usual
resident in the country. The database would contain demographic as well as biometric
particulars.

18/
 Fundamental Rights

Origin and development of fundamental rights

Magna Carta(1215) in England was the first written document which assured English
people of certain basic rights and liberties
America was the first country to give constitutional status to the Bill of Rights (1789).
Framers of Indian constitution took inspiration from them and incorporated a dedicated
Part III to fundamental rights.
In France Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen 1789 declared natural,
inalienable and sacred rights of man.

Meaning

Part III of Constitution- This part is also known as Magna Carta of Indian constitution

1/2
India adopted the idea of Fundamental Rights from Constitution of USA. They Justifiable
Rights which means they can be enforced in court of Law.
Rights given to the individual enforceable by the courts against the state.
These rights are regarded as fundamental because they are most essential for attainment of
certain basic liberties and freedoms in order to live a dignified life.
In Maneka Gandhi VS Union of India 1978 the Supreme Court observed that
fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India and they
protect the dignity of an individual and create conditions in which every human being can
develop his personality to fullest extent

All articles under Part III of Constitution

Right to Equality a) Equality before law and equal protection of law (Article 14)
( Articles 14-18) b) Prohibition of discrimination on Grounds of religion, race,
cast, sex or place of birth [article 15]
c) Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
[article 16]
d) Abolition of untouchability and prohibition of its practice
[Article 17]
e) Abolition of titles except military and academic [Article 18]
Right to freedom a) Protection of six rights regarding freedom of (i) speech and
(Article 19- 22) expression,(ii) Assembly, (iii) Association, (iv)movement,
(v)residence, and (vi)profession [article 19]
b) Protection in respect of conviction for offences [article 20]
c) Protection of life and personal liberty [article 21]
d) Right to Elementary Education [article 21A]
e) Protection against arrest and detention of in certain
cases[Article 22]
Rights against a) Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
exploitation (Articles 23 [article 23]
-24) b) Prohibition of employment of children in factories [article
24]
Right to freedom of a) Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
religion (article 25- 28) propagation of religion [article 25]
b) Freedom to manage religious affairs [article 26]
c) Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any
religion [article 27]
d) Freedom from attending religious instruction or worship in
certain educational institution [article 28]
Cultural and a) Protection of language, script and culture of minorities
educational rights b) Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
(article 29-30) institution [article 30]

2/2
Right to constitutional a) Right to move to the supreme court for enforcement of
remedies (article 32) fundamental rights including the writs Habeas Corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto

3/2
 Article 12 State under Constitution of India

are enforceable through writs. Writs can only be issued against state.
Part III of our constitution consists of a long list of fundamental rights; it starts right
from Article 12 to Article 35.
The purpose behind having our fundamental rights rests in the need for having a just
society i.e. a nation ruled by law and not by a tyrant.
With great power comes a greater risk of abuse and in order to safeguard the rights and
freedom of individuals it needs constitutional protection from the acts of the state itself.

article 12 of Part III talks about State,

This definition is applicable only to part III & part IV of the Indian constitution..

Article 12 gives Definition of State

Definition-
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under
the control of the Government of India.

Article 12

Union Legislature & Executive

Union Legislature: Parliament (President, LokSabha and RajyaSabha)

Union Executive: President, Vice-President, and the Council of Ministers with the Prime
Minister

State Legislature & Executive

State Legislature: Governor, State legislative assembly and the State legislative council
State Executive: Governor and the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister

All local authorities

a person or body exercising power
to command. In context of Article 12, the word authority means the power to make laws (or

4/2
orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc.) which have the force of law. It also includes the
power to enforce those laws

Local Authority: As per Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,

Local Authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of commissioner or
other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government within the control or

The term Local authority includes the following:

1. Local government:

settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or
village administration.
2. Village Panchayat: In the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that
within the meaning of the term local authority, village panchayat is also included.

Other Authorities

in Article 12 has not been defined in the Constitution nor in the

general clauses Act, 1897 or in any other statute of India. Therefore, its interpretation has
caused a good deal of difficulty, and judicial opinion has undergone changes over time.

Dispute and discussion:

Around phrase of Article 12 i.e. this has evolved over time:
Earlier, a restrictive interpretation was given to this term, i.e, the authorities
exercising governmental or sovereign function would only be covered under other
authorities.
The liberal interpretation says that it is not necessary for an authority to be engaged
in sovereign or governmental function to come under the definition of the state. The
bodies like State Electricity Board, LIC, ONGC and IFC also come

University of Madras v. Shantha Bai 1953

Madras High Court evolved the principle of i.e. of the like nature.

which perform governmental or sovereign functions. Further, it cannot include persons,

natural or juristic, for example, unaided universities.

5/2
 Ujjammabai v. the State of U.P. 1962

T rule could not

no common genus running through them and they cannot be placed in one single category on
any rational basis.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal 1967,

The
constitution or statute on which powers are conferred by law. Such statutory authority need not
be engaged in performing government or sovereign functions. The court emphasized that it is
immaterial that the power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature or not.

Sukhdev v. Bhagatram (1975)

The Corporations are State when they enjoy Power to make regulation and those regulations
have force of law. So LIC, IFC (Industrial Finance Corp.) and ONGC were held to be State
because they were performing very close to governmental or sovereign functions

R.D Shetty v. International Airport authority (1979)

Court held that following factors would determine whether a body comes under the
definition of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution:
1. The entire share capital is held by the government.
2. Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire
expenditure of the corporation
3. Deep and pervasive control of the State
4. The functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to
governmental functions,
5. A department of Government transferred to a corporation.
6.

The SC concluded International Airport Authorities undoubtedly an instrumentality or agency

of the Central Government

Some Prakash v. Uol (1980)

Question was where a statutory company Indian Petroleum Corporation is a state under Article
12 or not. It was observed that merely because a legal corporation has a legal personality of its
own, it does not mean that the corporation is not an agent or instrumentality of the state if it is

6/2
subject to governmental control for all important matters. A public performs duties and carries
out its transactions for the benefit of the state
Some of the tests laid down by this Court for deciding whether a body is State within the
meaning of Article 12 are:

1. Financial resources of the state are the chief funding source of the corporation
2. Functional character of government in essence
3. Plenary Control in the hands of government
4. Prior history of the same activity being carried out by the government and made over to
the new body

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981)

Petitioner gave a viva-voce exam in which he was given exceptionally low marks because of
which he did not get admission in the regional Engineering colleges, Srinagar even though he
scored really well in the written tests. He filled for violation of Article 14. Question arose
whether Regional Engineering College, Srinagar is state within the meaning of other
Authorities under article12.
Court approved of the tests laid down in R.D Shetty case and on basis of the tests held that
Regional Engineering College, Srinagar is Stat
Court also added that these tests are not conclusive, they are merely indication which have to
be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be
realized that it should not be stretched
so far as to bring in very autonomous body which has some nexus with the government
within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be limited by
wise limitation.

Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and

Training (1992)

In this case, the question arose whether the National Council of Educational Research

registered under the Societies Registration Act. After considering the provisions of its
memorandum of association as well as the rules of NCERT, this Court came to the conclusion
that since NCERT were not wholly related to governmental functions and that the
governmental control was confined only to the proper utilization of the grant and since its
funding was not entirely from government resources, the case did not satisfy the requirements
of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005)

Question raised was whether Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is State within

7/2
meaning of Art 12. The majority Court held that the BCCI would not come within the definition
of State under Article 12.
The facts established in this case:-
1. Board is not created by a statute.
2. No part of the share capital of the Board is held by the Government.
3. Practically no financial assistance is given by government to meet the whole or entire
expenditure of the Board.
4. The board does enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket but such status is not State
conferred or State protected.
5. There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control. The control if any is only
regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. This control is not specifically
exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board. All functions of the Board are not
public functions nor are they closely related to governmental functions.
6. The Board is not created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. It is an
autonomous body.

On the other hand, the minority Court held that the BCCI would fall within the ambit of the

the fact that the BCCI discharges an important public function and that its actions may impinge
on the fundamental rights of the players, the actions of the body are subject to judicial review.
Interestingly, the minority Court in the same breath also opined that in time of privatization
and liberalization where in most of the Governmental functions are being relegated to private
bodies; the actions of such private bodies would also be amenable to the write jurisdiction of
the Court.

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

7 judge bench held that the ultimate test in determing whether an entity would be an
instrumentality of the State would be whether functionally, financially and administratively the
body was under the deep and pervasive control of the State. Mere regulatory control by the
Government will not suffice to fulfill the requirements of Article 12.

Recently Delhi High Court has given judgment in Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India &
Others case, that the United Nations is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The court says, by no stretch of the imagination an
organization of the United Nations which is an international body be treated as
"instrumentality" and or an "agency" of the Government."

Whether Judiciary Is State

The Judiciary is not expressly mentioned in Article 12 and a great amount of dissenting
opinions exist on the same matter. Bringing judiciary entirely under Article 12 causes a
great deal of confusion as it comes with an attached inference that the very guardian of

8/2
our fundamental rights is himself capable of infringing them
Jurists like [Link], [Link] consider judiciary to be State. Their view
is supported by Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution of India.
( i ) The Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and
procedure of Courts.
( ii ) The Supreme Court is empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants;
decide the its service conditions.
In Prem Garg v/s Excise Commissioner H.P. the Supreme Court held that when
rule making power of judiciary is concerned, it is State.
Other jurists say that since judiciary has not been specifically mentioned in Article 12, it
is Not State.
In Rati Lal v/s State of Bombay, it was held that judiciary is not State for the
purpose of Article12. In [Link] v/s [Link] and [Link] v/s State
of Maharashtra, it has been observed that when rule making power of judiciary is
concerned it is State but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not State.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 2002 the Apex Court reaffirmed and ruled that
no judicial proceeding could be said to violate any of the Fundamental rights and that it
is a settled position of law that superior courts of justice did not fall within the ambit of

This gave the rationale that a Superior Judicia

fall under the definition of State but when it performs any administrative or similar
functions
that remedy could be sought in that context only in case of violation of fundamental
rights.

9/2
 Article 13 of Indian Constitution

Introduction to article 13
When we were making our constitution we already had a lot of nations as an
example which adopted Democratic and humanitarian concepts .Founding
fathers endeavored to formulate something which reflects multiple things like
Rights of minority, principle of UDHR, a struggle for independence etc.
Therefore, while making the constitution part 3 was discussed for 38 days
Part 3 exist with the objective that our rights and freedom should be protected

So this means that States action should be judged on the basis of their impact on
the rights and freedom of the people. This entire concept is article 13.

Article 13 of the constitution talks about the four principles relating to fundamental
rights. Fundamental rights do exist from the date on which the Indian constitution
came into force i.e. on 26th January 1950 hence fundamental rights became operative
from this date only.

13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall,
to the extent of such inconsistency, be void

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred
by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance,
order, by law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of
India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other
competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part
thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made
under Article 368 Right of Equality. (24th CAA1971)
Article 13- Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental
rights.

Article 13(1)
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall,
to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

article 13(1) talks about the pre-constitutional laws i.e. the day from which the
constitution came in existence there were many laws in the country and when the
constitution came into existence fundamental rights do came, therefore the laws before the
existence of the constitution must prove their compatibility with the fundamental rights,
only then these laws would be considered to be valid otherwise they would be declared to be
void.

For example article 15 of the constitution do gives the right to education to all without any
discrimination on the basis of caste, sex, religion, etc, but an Education act which came in
existence in 1930 says that a particular group of kids would not be provided education on
the basis of their caste'. As this particular clause of the act is inconsistent with that of the
fundamental rights therefore it is declared to be null and void.
Article 13(1) is prospective in nature but not retrospective i.e. the article will be in
effect from the day when constitution came in effect.(26th jan,1950) and the person who
committed offence afterwards will be prosecuted according to the laws of Indian
constitution but not according to the pre-constitutional laws.
CaseLaw

Keshva Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, Air 1951

In this case the petitioner published a pamphlet which was in violation of the pre-
constitutional laws in 1949 but as the Indian constitution came in effect from 1950 it gave
the freedom of speech and expression under article 19 of the Indian constitution, the apex
court held that the petitioner's trial would not be effected, benefit of article 13 could not be
availed as article 13 is not retrospective in nature.
Article 13(2)

The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void

article 13 (2) talks about the post constitutional laws i.e. it says that once the
constitution is framed and came in effect then any of the state may not make laws that takes
away or abridges the fundamental rights of an individual and if done so then it would be
void till the extent of contravention.

Doctrine of severability:
The doctrine says that if some parts of the statue are inconsistent with that of the
fundamental rights, then the whole statue would not be declared to be void but that
particular clause would be treated to be void by the court of law.

A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950

In this case section 14 of Preventive detention act, 1950 was challenged. Section 14 of the
act says that if any person is being detained under this act then he or she may not disclose
the grounds of his or her detention in court of law, this particular statement is inconsistent
with that of fundamental rights as per article 22(5) of the Indian constitution, The court
applied the doctrine of severability so the whole act (preventive detention act,1950) was not
declared as void but only section 14 of the act was declared as void as it was inconsistent
with the fundamental rights.

In Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras 1950

Supreme Court held that where the law authorizes restriction on fundamental rights
which is wide enough to cover restriction both within and without the limits provided by
constitution and it is not possible to separate the two then the whole law is to be struck
down.
Kihota Holahan vs. Zachillhu 1992
Supreme Court held that only Para 7 of 10 schedule is unconstitutional the rest of the act
remains valid and constitutional the remaining provision of 10th schedule are complete in
themselves and workable.

State of Bombay Vs FN Balsara 8 provisions of Bombay prohibition act were held to

be unconstitutional

RMDC vs. Union of India 1957

In this case Section 2(d) of price competition act which was wide enough to provide
gambling as well as game of skill. The power of the court to strike out invalid provisions
of an Act must not be exercised beyond the necessity of the case. But sometimes valid
and invalid portions of the act are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one
another. In such cases the invalidity of caution must result in the invalidity of the act in
its entirety. The intention of the Legislature is determining factor if the valid parts of the
statute are severable from invalid parts.

Doctrine of eclipse

The doctrine says that if some laws are violating fundamental rights , they would not be
declared void ab-initio but would be unenforceable for a time being i.e. they would be in
dormant state, such laws are over-shadowed by the fundamental rights.
These dormant laws are applicable to non-citizens.
Thus doctrine of severability states that all the pre-existing constitutional laws are to be
filtered out in respect with that of the fundamental rights so as to make them valid and the
laws which do not respect the fundamental rights would not be declared void completely
but would be over shadowed by fundamental rights and in future if any amendment is made
related to such a law, it becomes valid provided that the pre-constitutional law must be
consistent with that of the fundamental right.

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras vs State of MP 1955

CP and Berar motor vehicle Amendment Act 1947 was amended which were
related to article 19 but the Act was passed prior to the commencement of the
constitution.
The petitioners contended that the law having become void for unconstitutionality was
dead and could not be vitalized by subsequent amendment of the Constitution remove
in the constitution objection unless it was re-enacted.
The court held that under this doctrine the law is overshadowed by fundamental right
and remains dormant; it becomes enforceable against citizens as constitutional
impediment is removed. The law is merely eclipse from for the time being and soon as
eclipse is removed the law begins to operate.

Applicability of doctrine of eclipse to post constitutional laws

In Sagir Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1954 the Supreme Court held
that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to pre constitutional laws and not
to post constitutional laws. The court reasoned that post constitutional laws if
they contravene part 3 are void ab initio and a subsequent Constitutional
Amendment cannot revive them.
The view was endorsed by the court in Deep Chand vs. State of UP 1959 and
Mahendra Lal Jain vs State of UP.
In state of Gujarat vs. Ambika Mills the court modified its views expressed
in the Deep Case, case and Sagir Ahmed
case. The court held that post constitutional laws which are inconsistent with the
fundamental rights are not void ab initio for all purpose.
State of Gujrat v. Ambika mills, AIR 1974
Here a certain labor welfare fund act was challenged, as certain sections in it were
against the fundamental rights. Since the fact that the laws made by the state
after the constitution is framed would be declared void if those laws are against
the fundamental rights, but here the question arose that fundamental rights are
only granted to citizens but what will happen in the case of non-citizens or a
company (company here is the respondent i.e. Ambika mills). It was held by the
apex court that since the fundamental rights are only granted to the citizens but
 not to the company or any non-citizen, therefore the labour welfare fund act is
valid.
Void under article 13 means void against persons whose fundamental right has
been taken away. If a post constitutional law takes away right conferred by article
19 then such law will be void only with respect to the citizens. Such law will
validly operate with respect to non-citizens because rights conferred under
article19 are only available to citizens.

Doctrine of waiver

In India no person can waive or abandon his fundamental rights. The doctrine of
waiver has no application in part 3 of the constitution.
Supreme Court in Bashesher Nath vs Income Tax commissioner 1959
held that these rights have not only been enriched in constitution for personal
benefit but also for the benefit of entire society.
Court has said in clear words that American doctrine of waiver does not apply to
Indian Constitution.

Article 13(3)
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance,
order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the
territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by
Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in
operation either at all or in particular areas.

article 13(3) talks about the meaning of law i.e. the laws whether by laws, notifications,
rules, regulations, customs, usage, etc if do effect the legal rights of the citizens do come
under the definition of law, thus would be considered as laws under article 13 but there are
two exceptions to the same, firstly the administrative and the executive orders are being
covered under article 13 but if their nature is just to give instructions or guidelines then
they would not be covered under article 13. Second exception is the personal laws which are
not being covered under article 13.

Article 13(4)
Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under
Article 368
This clause of article 13 do says that any of the amendment made in article 368 of the
Indian constitution would not be challenged under article 13 moreover if the
amendment so made would be against the fundamental rights then also it would not be
challenged under article 13.

Judicial Review

Judicial review
The concept of Judicial review was evolved in America from the case of marbury
vs Madison
The power of Judicial review is the power of the court under which they check the
constitutionality of the act passed by the Legislature.
power of Judicial review has not been expressly named in the constitution but it
is implicit in article 13
Being the custodian of constitution and the final interpreter, the Supreme Court
has been given the power of judicial review under article 13. This power has not
only provided to Supreme court under article 32 but also to high courts under
article 226
With this power the Supreme Court and the high court can declare any act
passed by the legislature as unconstitutional which is incompatible with the
fundamental right.
 In the case of Keshavnandan Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 justice
Khanna said that the power of Judicial review is not limited to only deciding
Whether the legislative bodies have worked within the boundaries of certain
legislative list in making the required law but it is necessary whether the laws
have been made in accordance with the articles of the constitution and they do
not violate any other provision of the constitution.

Minerva Mills V. Union of India AIR 1980

In this case, further Judicial Review was added to the list of Basic Structure of the
constitution along with the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles.

I.R. Coelho V. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007

In this case the court held that any act inserted in Schedule 9 can be judicially
scrutinized but only those enactments which are inserted after 24th April 1973.

L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India 1997 the supreme court held that
the power of Judicial review given to the supreme court and high court under A-
32 and A-226 is a part of the basic structure of constitution and it cannot be
terminated by statutory amendment under Article 368

Article 13 v. 368/Basic Structure Doctrine

Article 13 (4) gave birth to a landmark doctrine to our constitution moreover it prohibits
the parliament to make laws or amendments which are inconsistent to the fundamental
rights. The doctrine being mentioned above is the Basic Structure Doctrine.

While discussing about this doctrine two most important articles do comes into the
picture, one is article 13, which acts as the protector of the fundamental rights and
another one is article 368, which holds the power to amend the constitution. The
doctrine is merely a big tussle of power between the judiciary and the parliament of
India i.e. as the power of amending the laws exercised under article 368 do gives the
power to the parliament to amend the constitution, fundamental rights and the
preamble too? Or the Indian judiciary is supreme which do acts as the protector of law.

Article 368. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its
constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this
Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a
Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each
House by a majority of the total membership of that House present and voting, it shall
be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the
Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill: Provided that
if such amendment seeks to make any change in
(a) Article 54, Article 55, Article 73, Article 162 or Article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or

(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or

(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or

(e) the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the
Legislature of not less than one half of the States by resolution to that effect passed by
those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to
the President for assent
(3) Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article (24CAA,
1971)

(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or
purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the
commencement of Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976
shall be called in question in any court on any ground

(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation
whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation
or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article PART XXI TEMPORARY,
TRANSITIONAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
 1st Amendment (1951) Shankari Prasad v. UOI (1951)

17th Amendment (1964) Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964), Golaknath v.

State of Punjab (1967)

24th, 25th, 26th, 29th Amendment Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973) , Raj
Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1975)

39th Amendment (1975) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

42th Amendment (1976) Minerva Mills v. UOI and Ors. (1980), WamanRao v. UOI
(1980), IR Coelho Case(2007)

1st Amendment (1951)

Article 31A, 31B and 9th Schedule were added 31A provided that the state could
take over estates, corporations for public interest and could also extinguish and
modify right of people relating to such estates and corporations.
31B provided immunity from judicial review to everything put in 9th schedule
9th Schedule was a new constitutional device, introduced to protect against laws
that are contrary to the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights under
Article 13.

Shankari prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951

Here in the case a question arose that as per article 13, if parliament makes any
law which is inconsistent to fundamental rights would be considered invalid but
if any amendment done by parliament under article 368 would be considered as
valid or not? So, while answering this question it was held that in article 13 does
not cover constitutional amendments in its ambit.
It was held that Article 13 only talks about ordinary laws and not amendments to
the constitution (which is a special law) so, 1st amendment is valid

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

17th Amendment was challenged (1964): More provisions were added to 31A,
more entries were added in 9 th Schedule. A five judge bench (Decision was 3:2)
Confirmed decision given in Shankari Prasad Case
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967

In this case the court over-ruled it's judgment given in Shankari prasad and held
that parliament cannot abridge FR (subject to limitation and judicial review. Art.
13 will apply to constitution amendments which means parliament cannot make
any law or make any constitutional amendments which is inconsistent to
fundamental rights.
In order to nullify this judgment parliament passed 24th amendment, 1971 by
saying that any amendment made under article 368 would not be considered as
law and hence article 13(4) is different from the word law used in article 13(3).

24TH Amendment (1971)

It Added Art.13 (4) and Art. 368(3), now parliament can amend any part of
Constitution
Article 13(4): Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this
Constitution made under article 368
Article 368(3): Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under
this article. This made Parliaments power unlimited in regard to amending the
constitution.

25th Amendment (1972)

Added Article 31C- Dividing 31C in two parts we get

i. No law which gives effect to the directive principles can be declared invalid
and unconstitutional on the grounds that it is violating fundamental rights
namely Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19
(protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) &
Article 31 (right to property).
ii. No law containing a declaration for giving effect such policy shall be
questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a
policy.

26th Amendment (1971): Abolition of Privy Purses

29th Amendment (1972): Place land reform acts and amendments to these acts
under Schedule 9 of the constitution.
 This 24th amendment was challenged in the case of Kesavananda bharti v.
state of Kerala, AIR 1973, the apex court was of the view that 24th amendment
is valid and confirmed that Parliament can amend the constitution but except the
Basic Structure.

KesavanandaBharti v. State of Kerela (1973)

13 Judge Bench (Decision was 7:6, headed by CJ Sikri)

Most Landmark judgment so remember its date too i.e. 24th April 1973, you will
understand why this date is important later.
Gave Doctrine of Basic Structure
Upheld the validity of the amendment and confirmed that Parliament can amend
the constitution but except the Basic Structure. So in 31C the (ii) part (underlined
above) was declared unconstitutional, because part (ii) was in contravention of
basic structure as it was restricting judicial review.
To find out if anything is covered under basic structure, you need to find out the
intention of constitution makers.

Raj Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1975)

Case was heard by the Allahabad High Court that found the Prime Minister of
India Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices.

emergency and added 39th

39th Amendment (1975)

to try Electoral Disputes

relating to election of President, Vice president, Prime minister and Speaker of Lok
Sabha

39th Amendment was challenged in:

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

This was the first landmark judgment in which Kesavananda Bharti was applied
by the Supreme court
It declared the newly added 329A clause 4 as unconstitutional because it violated
the basic Structure.
Mathew J. said this clause destroyed essential democratic feature of the
Constitution viz. the resolution of an election dispute by ascertaining the
 adjudicative facts and applying the relevant laws, a healthy democracy can only
function when there is possibility of a contest of free & fair elections.
Chandrachud J. found the said amendment violative of the principle of
separation of power as it intently transferred a pure judicial function into the
hands of legislature.

After the introduction of the basic structure of the constitution, the parliament
introduced 42nd amendment, 1976 which is also called as the mini constitution,
It inserted Article 368(4) and 368(5) which conferred unlimited amending power to the
parliament and amended Article 31-C amended therefore gave power to the parliament
to amend any law in the constitution including the basic structure of the constitution,
but this was again over-ruled in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980, as it
Declared 368(4) and 368(5) unconstitutional because it is taking away judicial review
which is a basic feature, Article 31-C also restored to per 1976 position. It held that

part of basic structure.

42nd Amendment (1976)

Mini Constitution of India

Added Article 368(4) and 368(5) which conferred unlimited amending power
to the parliament
Article 31-C amended again

Minerva Mills vs. UOI and Ors (1980)

Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivered the majority judgment (4:1)

Declared 368(4) and 368(5) unconstitutional because it is taking away judicial
review which is a basic feature, Article 31-C also restored to per 1976 position

amending power is in itself part of basic structure

WamanRao v. UOI (1980)

5 Judge bench
Basic Structure doctrine is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively.
 It was held (retrospectively) that any law put in 9 th schedule after 24th of April
1973 (date of forming of Basic Structure Doctrine by Kesavnanada Bharti case)
shall be under the purview of judicial review,

IR Coelho Case (2007)

9 judge bench reiterated Waman Judgment that all laws put in 9 th

Schedule after 24th April 1973 shall be under the purview of judicial review.
Laws placed in the ninth schedule were challenged; it was argued that any
th schedule (Which is immune to judicial

review) should be removed.

 RIGHT T EQALITY

RULE OF LAW
A v dicey in his book The Constitution of England developed the concept of
rule of law. According to this rule every individual whether of any status does
anything against the legal framework would be equally liable under the legislations
of law and would be treated equally. According to rule of law Supremacy does not
belong to any person there is always Supremacy of law.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, declares that all
are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
law.
Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the Preamble. The succeeding
article 15 16 and 17 down specific applications of general rules laid down in Article 14.

Article 14 reads the state shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

While equality before law is somewhat a negative concept implying the absence of any
special privilege in favor of individuals and equal subject of all classes to ordinary law.
Equal protection of law is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment in
equal circumstances. The rule is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike
should be treated alike.
the state shall not deny any person equality before law and
equal protection of law within the territory of Ind
equality before law English and the expression
has been taken from the 14th amendment of American constitution.
According to Dicey the expression equality before law is a negative concept and implies
the absence of any special privilege in favor of individuals.
The expression equal protection of law is a positive concept implying equality of
treatment in equal circumstances.
The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 held that
the second expression is a corollary to the first and it is difficult to imagine a situation in
which the violation of equal protection of law will not be violation of equality before law.

Equality before law-

It envisages the absence of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like in
favor of any individual. Among equal the law should be equal and should be equally
like should be treated alike
Equality before law is an aspect of Dicey's rule of law in England. rule of law requires
that no person shall be subject to Harsh and discriminatory treatment. Thus , rule of law
envisages-
1. Supremacy of law and absence of arbitrary power
2. Equality before law
3. constitution is the result of ordinary law of the land

The first two aspects of rule of law apply in Indian legal system. The last effect does not
apply to our system.

Equal Protection Of Law-

It means that similarly circumstanced people shall be treated alike both in the privileges
conferred and the liabilities imposed. This concept is similar to the one embodied in the
14th amendment of American constitution.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi VS Raj Narain 1975 Supreme Court held that rule of law
embodied in article 14 of the Constitution is the basic feature of the constitution and it
cannot be destroyed by the amendment of the constitution.

Exception to the rule of equality

The rule of equality is not an absolute rule. There are certain exceptions to it.
1. It does not mean that powers of private citizens are the same as powers of public
officials. Public officials are sometimes given wider powers under certain standards
for enforcement/ implementation of loss.
2. Certain special classes of persons are subject to special rules. Article 361 of
Constitution provides that the president and the governor of the state shall not be
answerable to any code for exercise of their powers and performance of their duties.
 No criminal proceeding process for arrest of president of the Governor shall be
instituted.

Reasonable classification

Classification is necessary for better public welfare. To protect this classification from
undue influence a test was formulated in the case of State Of Bombay V. F.N.
Balsasra 1951. Test list down two essential conditions necessary to establish the
reasonable classification:

1) intelligible differentia
2) rational Nexus

In RG Garg vs. Union of India 1981 the Supreme Court held that Article 14 forbids
class legislation but it does not prohibit reasonable classification.
The classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. for the classification to be
reasonable following two conditions must be satisfied:
1. the classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes person
or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and
2. The differentia must be a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.

In the State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 Supreme Court held that
differentia which is the basis of classification and the object of act are two different
things. It is important to have a Nexus between the basis of classification and object of
the act.

Application Of Law To Single Individual

The Supreme Court in Chiranjit Lal versus Union of India 1961 held that law even
though it applies to a single individual on account of special circumstances. That single
individual may be treated as a class. The presumption of constitutionality is always in the
favour of the statute and the person whose challenges the constitutionality has to show
that law is arbitrary and unreasonable.
In DS Nakara vs. Union of India in 1983 Supreme Court held the doctrine of
classification was evolved to sustain legislation to state in order to help weaker sections
of the society.

The new concept of equality

Article 14 spells the traditional concept of equality which is based on reasonable
classification.
The Supreme Court in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu 1974 laid down a new
concept of equality which is different from the traditional concept of reasonable
classification.
The Supreme Court held that equality is a dynamic concept and it cannot be cabined
for confined to the traditional or doctrinaire limits. Equality is antithesis to
arbitrariness.
In Maneka Gandhi VS Union of India 1978 the supreme court again reiterated the
concept laid down in and held that Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment of people.
Principle of reasonable reasonableness provides Article 14.
In Javed vs State of Haryana 2003 the apex court upheld the constitutional
validity of certain provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj act 1994 which disqualified a
person for holding office of Sarpanch or a Panch of Gram Panchayat, etc. if he had no
more if he had more than two living children. the provision was held to be not
discriminatory and the classification made by it that is (person having two or more
children and persons having not more than two children) is based on intelligible
differentia having Nexus with the object of popularization of family program for stop the
provision also does not violate article 25 of the constitution.
Danial latifi versus Union of India 2001 the petitioner challenge the
constitutional validity of the Muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act 1986
under which section 125 of CrPC providing for maintenance of wife (including divorced
women) by their former husband, was made inapplicable to divorced Muslim women.
The Act was said to be in violation of article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Upholding the act the apex court said that a careful reading of the provision of the act
would indicate that a Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provisions
for the future of a divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Even
under the act the provision of section 125 CrPC Would Still Be attracted.
John Vallamatton vs Union of India 2003 the Supreme Court held that section
118 of Indian succession act 1926 is discriminatory and thus violative of article 14. The
important provision places certain restrictions upon Indian Christian to bequeath with
their property for religious or charitable purposes.
 Reservation

Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality

among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical
injustice.
Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of
society in employment and access to education.
It was also originally developed to correct years of discrimination and to give a
boost to disadvantaged groups.
In India, people have been historically discriminated on the basis of caste

Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India that provides historically

disadvantaged groups representation in education, employment and politics. based
on provisions in Indian Constitution, it allows the Indian government to set reserved
quota for seat which will lower the qualification needs in exams jobs opening except

Reservation is primarily given to three groups- scheduled castes, scheduled

tribes, other backward classes
 Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth Article 15

15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of
them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for
women and children.
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the
State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled
Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational
institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the
State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.
(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 or clause (2) of Article
29 shall prevent State from making:
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than the clauses mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) insofar as such special
provisions relate to their admissions to educational institutions including private
educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority
educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30, which in the case of
reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of
ten per cent of the total seats in each category.
Explanation.

family income and other indicators of economic disadvantages.

Article 15 of the constitution provides for a specific application of equality. It states

that state shall not discriminate against any Citizen on the ground of religion, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.
Fundamental rights under article 15 is available to citizens only and not to any person as
mentioned under article 14.
In Kathi Ranning vs State of saurashtra 1952 Supreme Court held that when a law
comes within the provision of article 15 it cannot be validated by recourse to Article 14
by applying the principle of reasonable classification.
Article 15 (1) prohibits the state from discriminating citizens on the ground of religion
race cast sex place of birth or any of them
Article 15 (2) declares that no citizen shall be subject to any disability, restriction or
condition on the grounds only of religion race, cast, place of birth or any of them with
regards to access of shops, hotels etc. and all places of public entertainment or use of
Wells, tanks bathing Ghats, roads and places of public Resort.
Article 15 (1) prohibits discrimination by State while article 15 to prohibits both states
and private individuals from making any discrimination.
Article 15 (3) and 15 (4) exception to the general rule laid down in clauses (1) and (2).
Article 15 (3) provides that nothing in article 15 shall prevent the state from making
any special provisions for women and children. It talks about positive discrimination.
Women and children sometimes require special attention and care and therefore, any
special provision intended to be benefited to them shall not offend article 15(1) 15 (2).
In Yousuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay 1954, Section 497 of Indian Penal
Code which only punishes man for adultery and exempts the woman from punishment
even though she may be equally guilty as an abettor was held to be valid since the
classification was not based on the ground of sex alone.
Similar provisions apply to children. The provision of free education for children or
measure for prevention of their exploitation would also not come within the inhibition
of Article 15 (1). It has, however, been held that Article 15 (3) provides for only special
provisions for the benefits of women and children and does not require that absolutely
identical treatment as those enjoyed by males in similar matters must be afforded to
them.
But recently the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India,2018 struck
down Section 497 as unconstitutional being violative of Art 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian
constitution and held that Section 198(2) of CrPC shall be unconstitutional to the
extent of its applicability to Sec 497 IPC.
The stated sections are held to be discriminative as there is no provision or right of a
woman to prosecute her husband who indulges in adultery and it does not punish a
woman in adultery not even as an abettor

Article 15 (4) enables the state to make special provisions for protection of interest of
backward classes of citizens.
It was added by constitution (first Amendment) Act 1951. it was inserted to nullify the
effect of decision in State Of Madras Vs Champakam Dorairajan 1951
In Champakam Dorairajan Vs State Of Madras 1951 the supreme court declared
void the government order by Madras government which reserved seats in state Medical
and engineering colleges for different communities on the basis of religion, race and
caste. The Supreme Court nullified it because it classified students on the basis of caste
and religion.
The principle behind article 15 (4) is that preferential treatment can be given validly
when socially and educationally backward classes in need of it. This provision is only
an enabling provision.
In Balaji vs. State of Mysore 1973 the Supreme Court held that this provision only
confers discretion to make special provision on backward classes of citizens. In Balaji
vs State of Mysore 1963 Supreme Court held that
Caste of a person cannot be the sole test for ascertaining whether a particular class is
backward class or not Poverty, occupation etc. are other relevant factors to be taken into

it may be included in the list of backward classes.

In this case for the first time 50% ceiling limit was put on reservation.
It also said that further categorization of backward class into more backward class is not
valid.
This decision was majorly overruled in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India 1993.
majority opinion of the court is summarized as follows:
1. Backward classes of citizens in 16 (4) can be identified on the basis of caste and
not only on economic basis but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration.
2. The Court struck down economic criteria for reservation on the ground that article
16 (4) does not mention it.
 3. Reservation can be made under article 16 (1). Court overruled decision in Balaji
vs State of Mysore in which it was held that article 16 (4) is an exception to
article 16 (1)
4. backward classes in article 16 (4) are not similar to socially and educationally
backward in article 15(4) it is much wider than socially and educationally
backward classes. Certain classes may not qualify for article 15 (4) but they may
qualify for 16 (4). Court overruled Balaji's decision on this point in which it was
held that backward classes of citizens under article 16 (4) are the same as socially
and educationally backward classes.
5. Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
6. Article 16 (4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more
backward classes.
7. Reservation shall not exceed 50%. In extraordinary situations it may be relaxed in
favour of people living in far-flung and remote areas of the country.

Article 15 (5) was inserted by Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2005. It enables the
state to make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens including schedule caste and Scheduled Tribes for admission in
educational institutions including private educational institutions.
Prior to this amendment the supreme court in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, in
T M A Pai Foundation Vs State Of Karnataka and in P A Inamdar vs State of
Maharashtra held that state could not make reservations of seat in admission in
privately run educational institution and higher educational institutions. 93rd
Constitutional Amendment was brought to nullify the effect of these observations.
This amendment was challenged in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India 2008.
The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutionality of this amendment. The court
however, held that benefits of reservation cannot be given to creamy layer candidates.
Supreme Court in Pramati Educational And Cultural Trust Vs Union Of India
2014 held that classification of unaided private educational institutions and aided private
educational institutions is not violative of article 14.
Article 15 (5) is not an exception to article 15 but it is an enabling provision to make
equality of opportunity and raised in the Preamble a reality.
 Article 15 (6) enables the state to make special provisions for advancement of any
economically weaker section of citizen other than those mentioned in article 15 (4) and 15
(5).
It further provides that special provisions with respect to reservation in educational
institutions including private educational institutions will be in addition to the existing
maximum of 10% of the total seats in each category.
This provision was inserted by constitution (103 Amendment) Act 2019

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment article 16

16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment
or appointment to any office under the State
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any
employment or office under the State
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in
regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment
or appointment
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of
posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services
under the State. (4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any
unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance
with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class
of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall
not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up
for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent Reservation on total number of vacancies of that
year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational
institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a
particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination
(6): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.

Article 16 deals equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It

embodies the particular application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article
14 with reference to employment for appointment under the state.
Article 16 (1) provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matter of
employment for appointment to any post under the state.
Article 16 (2) for the states that citizens shall not be discriminated in respect to any
employment under the state on the ground of religion race cast sex decent place of
work residence or any of them.
Article 16 (3) enables the state to make laws with respect to any class of employment
for appointment under state or Union Territory or local authorities, prescribing
requirements as to residence within the state or union territory. (residence as a
ground of reservation)
Article 16 (4) enables the state to make provisions for reservation of post in
government jobs in favor of any backward classes of citizens which in the opinion of
the states are not adequately represented in the service of the state. (Reservation for
backward classes).
Article 16 (4-A) was added by the 77th constitutional amendment 1995. it
empowers the state to make any provisions for reservation in matters of promotions
for SCs and STs.
The 85thConstitutional Amendment 2001 the provision for reservation in promotion
with Consequential seniority was added.
Article 16 (4-B) was added by the 81st constitutional amendment act 2000. it
sought to end the 50% reservation limit for SC ST and other backward classes. it
enables the state to fill backlog vacancies of previous years without considering the
50% ceiling limit
article 16 (5) states that law which provides that incumbent of the office in
connection with the affairs of any religious domination and institution will be formed
from a particular religion or denomination shall not be affected by clause (1) and (2) of
article 16.
Article 16 (6) was added by 103 rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019. it
enables the state to make any provisions for reservation of appointment or post in
favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than those mentioned in
clause 4 in addition to the existing reservation and subject to the maximum of 10% of
the post in each category.
Clauses (3),(4),(4-A) for 5 of the article 16 are exceptions to the general rule of
equality in matters of employment or appointment.
In the state of Bihar versus Chandrashekhar Pathak 2014 the Supreme Court
held that in the case of state service and equality of opportunity means equality before
members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of
separate and independent classes.
In Balaji vs State of Mysore 1963 Supreme Court held that caste of a person
cannot be the sole test for ascertaining whether a particular class is backward class or
not Poverty, occupation etc. are other relevant factors to be taken into consideration.
But ionally backward it may be
included in the list of Backward classes. It Was held that 16 ( 4) would apply to the
person who would qualify these two condition
person should be from socially and educationally backward class
This Backward class does not have adequate representation in services under the
state
Devdasan vs Union of India 1964 carry forward rule was struck down.
 article 16 (4) must be interpreted in the light of Article 335 which says that claims
of scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes be taken into consideration consistently with
maintenance of efficiency of Administration.
Scope and extent of article 16 (4) was examined through by Supreme Court in Indra
Swamy vs Union of India 1993. majority opinion of the court is summarized as
follows:
1. Backward classes of citizens in 16 (4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not
only on economic basis but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration.
2. The Court struck down economic criteria for reservation on the ground that article 16
(4) does not mention it.
3. Article 16 (4) is not an exception to article 16 (1). It is an instance of classification.
Reservation can be made under article 16 (1). Court overruled decision in Balaji vs
State of Mysore in which it was held that article 16 (4) is an exception to article
16 (1)
4. backward classes in article 16 (4) are not similar to socially and educationally
backward in article 15(4) it is much wider than socially and educationally backward
classes. Certain classes may not qualify for article 15 (4) but they may qualify for 16
(4). Court overruled Balaji's decision on this point in which it was held that backward
classes of citizens under article 16 (4) are the same as socially and educationally
backward classes.
5. Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
6. Article 16 (4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more
backward classes.
7. Reservation shall not exceed 50%. In extraordinary situations it may be relaxed in
favour of people living in far-flung and remote areas of the country.
8. Court overruled Devdasan vs Union of India 1964 and held that the carry
forward rule is valid provided it should not result in breach of the 50% rule.
9. Court held that reservation under article 16 [4] cannot be made in promotions.
Parliament enacted the 77thConstitution Amendment Act, 1995 in order to counter the
court's ruling on the point that no reservation can be made and promotions.
It inserted Clause (4-A) article 16 and made provision to enable the state to make
provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any clerk or classes of post in
service of the state in favor of scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes.
 case Mandate that 50% limit on reservation will apply to current as
well as backlog vacancies. Parliament by 81st Constitution Amendment Act, 2000 the
effect of this law by inserting clause 4-B after clause 4-A
clause (4-B) provided that the vacancies which could not be filled UP due to non
liability of candidates shall be treated as a separate class of vacancies and will be filled
up in succeeding years and shall not be considered together with trick in series of the
Year, even if they go beyond the limit of 50%.
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Virpal Singh 1995 held that caste Criterion
for promotion is violative of article 16(4) of constitution. Seniority between reserved
category candidates and general candidates would continue to be governed by their
panel position prepared at the time of selection. Accelerate Promotion Does not give
accelerated or consequential seniority. The court held article 16 4 and 16 4A does not
Mandate seniority over general category as a matter of right.
After Virpal Singh's case the Parliament passed 85th Constitutional Amendment 2001
in matter of promotions to any
was
inserted.
The aim of the amendment was to extend the benefit of reservation in favour of SC and
ST in matters of promotion with constitutional seniority.
Clause 4A & class 4B we were challenged in M Nagaraj vs Union of India 2007.
Supreme Court held that article 16 (4-A)
and 16 (4-B) flow from article 16 and do not alter the basic structure of article 16 (4)

Judicial Scrutiny of Reservation

Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India

Article 16 (4A) -77TH AMENDMENT
Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan
Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab
S Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India
Article 16(4B) and carry forward rule-81st amendment
Provisions to Article 335- 82nd constitutional amendment
Article 16 4A a and consequential seniority for SC/STS 85th amendment
M Nagaraj vs. Union of India
Journals in vs. Lakchmi Narayan Gupta
BK Pavitra vs. Union of India II

Indira Sawhney versus Union of India 1993

The maximum limit of reservation cannot exceed 50%. However in extraordinary
situations it may be relaxed in favour of people living in Far flung and remote areas
of the country.
The reservation under article 16(4) cannot be made in promotion and the reservation
is confined to the initial appointment.
Carry forward rule is valid provided it should not result in breach of 50% rule.

Article 16 (4A) - 77TH AMENDMENT 1995

In 1995 the government nullified the effect of Indira Sawhney by introducing article
16 4A through the 77th amendment of constitution.
The article 16 4A allowed the state to provide reservation to SC/ST in matters of
promotion, as long as the state believes that SC /ST are not adequately
represented in government services.

Union of India Vs Virpal Singh Chauhan 1996

Facts - What is the Catch up rule?
Suppose there is a General candidate who is senior to a reserved candidate both
being in the same job level.
Through reservation in promotion the reserved candidate gets promoted before the
general category candidate this makes the reserved candidates senior over the
general candidate.
Now whenever the general candidate is promoted he would become senior to the

Held:
 The court held that article 16 (4) and 15 (4A) are only in the nature of enabling
provisions wasting discretion in the state to consider providing reservation if the
circumstances mentioned so warranted.
The that the candidates recruited under the reservation quota cannot continue to
claim seniority over general category as a matter of right

Ajit Singh Juneja versus State of Punjab 1999

In this case similar to virpal Singh the apex court held that when the senior general
candidate is promoted, he will regain his seniority over the junior reserve
candidate, who was promoted to the higher post earlier than the general candidate as
result of reservation policy.
It was also held that consequential seniority on promotion post is not covered by
article 16 4A

No relaxation in reservation in promotion

S. Vinod Kumar versus Union of India 1996

Facts: the constitutionality of memorandum was challenged which provided for
relaxation in qualifying marks and Standards of evaluation for persons from SC and
ST in matters of reservation in promotion.
Held: the court held that relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion was not
permissible under 16 4 of the Constitution in the view of provision contained in
Article 335 of the constitution. The law on the subject has already been decided in
Indira Swamy and required no revision.

Removal of 50% reservation ceiling limit Article 16 (4B)

Through the 81st amendment 2000the government introduce article 16 (4B)
which allowed reservation in promotion to Breach the 50% ceiling limit set on
regular reservation by the case of Indira Sawhney.
The amendment allowed the state to carry forward unfilled vacancies from previous
years.
article 16 (4B) [The State may consider] any unfilled vacancies of a year which are
filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up
for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of
vacancies of t

Relaxation of standards for reservation Article 335 (82nd constitutional

amendment, 2000)
In 2000 the state amended the constitution for the second time. in 82nd
amendment, the state added a provision to Article 335. according to Article 335,
the claim of SC ST to services and posts have to be consistent with overall
administrative efficiency.
In a way the 82 amendment removed the efficiency requirement.
It introduce a provision which held that nothing in Article 335 would prevent the
state from relaxing the qualifying marks for lowering the standard of evaluation
for reservation in matters of promotion to members of SC and ST community.
The provision to Article 335 judgment in
Vinod Kumar, which specifically ruled against relaxation in qualifying marks in
matters of reservation in promotion.

Consequential seniority for SC/ST Article 16 (4A) ( 85th Constitutional

Amendment 2001)

In 2001 Parliament navigated the catch up rule that the court had introduced in
Virpal Singh 1995 And Ajit Singh 1996. In the 85th amendment Parliament
amended article 16 4A and introduced the principle of consequential seniority to
promoted SC and ST categories of candidates.
subsequently the text of article 16 4A was amended such tha
M Nagaraj vs Union of India 2007

The 77, 81st 82nd and 85th amendment of the Indian Constitution was
challenged before the Supreme Court.
The court validated the 77, 81st and 82nd and 85th constitutional amendments.
Court and 16 4B float from article 16(4) which

constitutional validity of Art 16(4A) held that any such reservation policy in order
to be constitutionally valid shall satisfy the following three constitutional
requirements:
The SC and ST communities should be socially and educationally
backward.
1. The SC and ST communities are not adequately represented in
public employment.
2. Such a reservation policy shall not affect the overall efficiency of
the administration.

In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta case of 2018,

The Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not require the
state to collect quantifiable data on the further backwardness of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

The Court held that creamy layer exclusion extends to SC/STs and, hence the
State cannot grant reservations in the promotion to SC/ST individuals who
belong to the creamy layer of their community.

BK Pavitra versus Union of India II

In an earlier judgment of BK Pavitra I the Court struck down the reservation
Act 2002. It held that the state had failed to provide completing evidence
justifying the consequential seniority policy.
After the following decision the state of Karnataka created the Ratnaprabha
committee to submit the quantitative report demonstrating the three M.
 Nagraj criteria. On the basis of the report Karnataka passed the 2018
reservation act.
The court observed that the need for reservation lies within the domain of
Executive and legislature the court would only strike down a legislation if it is
found that the Ratnaprabha committee relied on external and arbitrary
consideration and also help the reservation act of 2018 is not a legislative
overruling but it a corrective legislation

Recent approach of Supreme Court on reservation

On 11th June 2020, in the case of Umedsinh P. Chavda vs. Union of India and
Ors., the political parties of Tamil Nadu challenged the policy of Central Government
according to which the Central Government has decided to not give the reservation to
the Other Backward Classes (OBC). A petition was filed under article 32 of the Indian
Constitution under the argument that the fundamental rights of OBC candidates are
violated. However, the Supreme Court of India held that the reservation is not a
fundamental right and hence this petition cannot be filed under article 32 as article
32 is available only for violation of a fundamental right. Therefore, a three-judge bench
led by justice L.N. Rao ordered the petitioners to withdraw their petitions.

In February 2020 as well, the Supreme Court of India observed the same in the case
of Mukesh Kumar and Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors. In this case,
the argument of reserved category candidates was given under the decision of M.
Nagraj vs. UOI (2006) that the government of Uttarakhand has not given reservation
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes whereas the State is bound to give reservation
according to the report submitted in M. Nagraj Case which said about unsatisfactory of
SCs and STs in government jobs that time.

The Supreme Court held that Reservation programmes allowed in the Constitution
enabling provisions

It held that no mandamus can be issued by the court directing state

governments to provide reservations.
 In other words, it argued that there is neither a basic right to reservations
nor a duty by the State government to provide it.

SUB CLASSIFICATION

E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P (2005)

Issue: Whether Sub classification or micro classification of scheduled caste for the
purpose of reservation is violative of article 14 of the Constitution or not?
The Supreme Court held that Sub classification is violative of article 14 of the
constitution. Referring to the constituent assembly debates and article 341 of the
constitution the court observed that the constitution provided for only one list of
scheduled castes to be prepared by the president with Limited power of inclusion
and by parliament.
The court held that only Parliament and not state legislature can exclude cast
Deemed to be scheduled caste from presidential list under article 341 of the
constitution.
Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2020
On 27th August 2020 a 5 judge bench decided to refer E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P
to a larger bench.
The court noted that article 16 4 has a wide scope. It empowers the state to provide
reservation for backward classes in public employment and the term backward
classes could be understood to not only include socially and educationally backward
classes but also caste.
Relying on Indira Sawhney vs Union of India 1993 the court noted that scheduled
caste Scheduled tribe and other backward classes stand on the same footing and
they cannot be treated as different
The insertion of article 342 a in 2018 for the restrictions of this argument article
342A allows the President to identify socially and educationally backward classes of a
state or union territory. This provision is similar to article 341 and 342 which
empowers the President to identify scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes respectively
and therefore denial of subclassification is direct denial of equality.
Invoking the Jarnail Singh and others versus Lacchmi Narain Gupta and others the
court noted that if creamy layer exception equally is applied to SC and ST category
then sub classification should also be extended.
 Abolition of untouchability [Article 17]

Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of
any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance
with law

Article 17 provides that untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is
forbidden. The
offence punishable in accordance with the law.
In Jai Singh vs. Union of India case Rajasthan High Court and Devrajiah vs B.
Padmana case of Madras High Court defined the word untouchability.

commas, which means the word is not to be taken by its literal or grammatical
interpretation. The meaning of the word is to be derived from historical development
and historical practices.
Untouchability refers to the social disability imposed on certain classes of a person
because of their birth in a specific backward class. Hence, it does not cover any social
boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion from religious services, etc.
-
Article 17 Anyone who practices untouchability shall be punished.
Article 35 In entire fundament rights if any punishment is prescribed,
then it can be given through section 35.

Article 17 Has been protected by the protection of civil rights act 1955 whose
earlier name was untouchability (offences) act, 1955.
In People's Union of democratic rights vs. Union of India 1982 also known as
ASIAD Project Workers case Supreme Court held that right under Article 17 is
available against private individuals also.
In State of Karnataka vs Appa Balu Ingale case, the supreme court said that the
objective of the article 17 is to remove all forms of disability, restrictions and disability
on the sole basis of caste and religion.
Apart from the Civil Rights Protection act, there is one more law that describes the
-SC Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. This
Act also provides other crucial information such as how the trial has to be conducted,
 Abolition of titles [article 18]

No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State No citizen
of India shall accept any title from any foreign State No person who is not a citizen of India
shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of
the President any title from any foreign State No person holding any office of profit or trust
under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or
office of any kind from or under any foreign State Right to Freedom.

Article 18(1) prohibits the state to confer any title except military or academic
distinction.
Article 18 (2) to provide that no cry citizen of India shall accept any title from any
foreign state.
Article 18 (3) provides that non citizens holding any office of profit or trust under state
shall not accept any title from any foreign state except with the consent of president.
Article 18(4) provides that no person holding any office of profit or trust under the state
shall, without the consent of the president, accept any present emolument, for office or
any kind from or under any foreign office.
In Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India 1996 Supreme Court held that
. The court also held that national
awards shall not be used as suffixes and prefixes.
 RIGHT TO FREEDOMS Article 19

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) To freedom of speech and expression;
(b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) To form associations or unions;
(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) Omitted by 44thamendment act. (It was right to acquire, hold and dispose of
property)
(g) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law,
or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub
clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests
of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall
affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law relating to,
(i) The professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or
carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) The carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of
any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
citizens or otherwise
 Freedom of Speech and Expression

The English Bill of Rights, 1689 adopted freedom of speech as a constitutional right and
it is still in effect. Similarly, at the time of the French revolution in 1789, the French had
adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens.
The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10
December 1948 under Article 19 which recognized the freedom of speech and expression
as one of the human rights.
According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the freedom to seek, receive, and convey information and all kinds of ideas
irrespective of boundaries, either orally or in the form of writing, print, art or through
any other media of their choice are included in the right to freedom of speech and
expression.
Meaning of freedom of speech and expression:
thoughts and opinions freely through writing, printing, picture, gestures, spoken
words or any other means is the essence of freedom of speech and expression. It
includes the expr
signs and other means of the communicable medium. It also includes the right to

channel.
This implies that freedom of the press is also included in this category. The
Constitution does not make any special / specific reference to the Freedom of Press. The

However, the freedom of expression includes freedom of press. Dr. Ambedkar in this
context had said on speaking behalf of the Drafting Committee that the press had no
special rights which are not to be given to an individual or a citizen. Dr. Ambedkar
editors or managers of press are all citizens of the country and
when they chose to write in newspapers they are merely expressing their right of

So, the word expression covers the Press. In modern times it covers the blogs and
websites too.
 The right that is mentioned above, guaranteed by our constitution, is regarded as one
of the most basic elements of a healthy democracy because it allows citizens to
participate in the social and political process of a country very actively.

Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc

Article 19 is the most important and key article which e

Article 19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right- (originally 7, now 6)
to freedom of speech and expression;

to assemble peaceably and without arms;

to form associations or unions;

to move freely throughout the territory of India;

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

Omitted by 44 thamendment act. (it was right to acquire, hold and dispose of
property)

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

However, Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. As of now, there are 8
restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. These are in respect of the
sovereignty and integrity of the country. These 8 restrictions were:

1. Security of the state and public order- Public order means public peace, safety
and tranquility.
2. Friendly relations with foreign states

3. Public Order

4. Decency or morality
Exception Parliamentary
5. Contempt of Court Privileges under Art. 105 And
6. Defamation Art. 194 Of Constitution

7. Incitement to offence
 8. Sovereignty and integrity of India.

The 1st Constitutional Amendment Act 1951 added public order, friendly relations with
foreign states and incitement to an offence as a ground for restriction.
When a proclamation of emergency is made under article 352, article 19 remains
suspended. ART- 358

Some landmark Supreme Court Judgments regarding the Freedom of press

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950): Freedom of speech and of the press
laid at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political
discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process
of popula
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India ((1982) :Supreme Court directed the
Superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow representatives of a few newspapers to interview
Ranga and Billa, the death sentence convicts, as they wanted to be interviewed.
Indian Express v. Union of India (1985): Press plays a very significant role in
the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of press and
invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
In Sakal Papers v/s Union of India the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page)
Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could
publish at a price was held to be violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable
restriction under the Article 19(2)

In a Rajgopal vs. state of Tamil Nadu 1994 the Supreme Court held that
government has no authority in law to impose prior restraint upon publication of the
defamatory material against its officials.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978): Freedom of speech and expression

has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather
information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.

Various facets of freedom of speech and expression

right to telecast/ broadcast - Supreme court In Secretary Ministry Of I & B Vs
Cricket Association Of Bengal 1995 held that government has no Monopoly on
electronic media and a citizen has come under article 19 1 (a) right to telecast and
broadcast through electronic media
Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, the Supreme
Court held that the right of the citizens to display films on state channels such as
Doordarshan came under the purview of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
19 of the Indian Constitution.

Rights of voters to know about their candidates: in Union of India vs

Association of Democratic reforms 2002 the Supreme Court held that voters'
right to know about their candidate is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court
directed the election commission to make it compulsory for candidates to disclose
their education Assets and liabilities criminal antecedents etc.
Commercial advertisement: in Tata press Limited vs Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Limited 1995 Supreme Court held that commercial speech/ advertisement
is a part of freedom of speech and expression.
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India1959: This case challenged the validity of the
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1956, on the ground
of restriction that it took away or abridged this freedom. The Supreme Court held that
an advertisement is a form of speech only if every advertisement was held to be
dealing with commerce and trade and not for propagating any idea.
calling for bundhs: Supreme Court in Communist Party Of India(M) Versus
Bharat Kumar And Others 1998 held that calling for bundh by a political party or
organization is unconstitutional bundhs do not fall within fundamental right to
speech.

Film censorship: Supreme Court in K A Abbas Vs Union Of India 1971 held that
censorship of film was justified under article 19 (2) on the ground that films have to
be treated separately from other forms of art.
Freedom of silence: in Bijoy Emmanuel vs State of Kerala 1986 Supreme Court
held that no person can be compelled to sing National Anthem if he has genuine
 objections based on his religious faith. The court held that a person should
stand respectfully when the National Anthem is being played.
Right to express gender identity: National Legal Services Authority Vs Union
Of India 2014 Supreme Court held that transgender has a freedom to express his
gender identity through various means.
Right hoist the national flag: In Naveen Jindal vs. Union of India, the high court
held that the restrictions that the Flag Code imposed on citizens on hoisting the
National Flag were not permissible under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution. The court has also stated that displaying a flag is an expression of pride
as well as an expression of genuine enthusiasm and it can only be restricted in
accordance with what has been prescribed in the Constitution, otherwise, the
restriction would discourage the citizens or Indian nationals from identifying with
the flag of the country.
Right to Criticize: In Kedar Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar, the Supreme
Court held that mere criticism of the government is not sedition unless this criticism
leads to incitement of violence or breach of public order.
Right to Expression beyond Boundaries: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
the Supreme Court analyzed whether Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution was
confined to the Indian territory and finally held that the freedom of speech and
expression was not confined to the national boundaries.

State v. Disha A. Ravi 2021- while granting bail order the court held the freedom
of speech and expression includes the right to seek a global audience. There are no
geographical barriers on communication. A Citizen has the fundamental rights to use
the best means of imparting and receiving communication, as long as the same is
permissible under the four corners of law and as such have access to audience
abroad". Creation of a WhatsApp group or being editor of an innocuous Toolkit is not
an offence
RIGHT TO INTERNET

In Faheema Shirin RK vs. State of Kerala and others 2019 Hon'ble High
Court stated that Right to access internet is a part of Right to education and Right
to Privacy under Article 21A and Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian
respectively. Internet Access not only enhances the opportunities of students to
acquire knowledge but also enhances the quality of education
In Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India and Ors [Link] Court in its
recent judgement observed that freedom to practice any profession or carry on
any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys
Constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g), but the
restriction of such fundamental rights should be according to Article 19(2) and
(6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality. Internet is an
imperative tool for trade and commerce and plays an important role in carrying
e-commerce business as it provides a virtual platform to a businessman which is
more affordable.

Foundation of Media Professionals vs. Union of India 2020 Appeal was

made to restore the 4G internet in the area of Jammu and Kashmir which was
imposed on connectivity black out in 2019 August by the central government this
ban on 3G and 4G services was challenged.
The court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression, health,
education and Entrepreneurship must be balanced against national security
concerns.

Grounds of restriction

It is necessary to preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democratic

country. And it is also necessary to restrict this freedom to maintain social order
otherwise some people might misuse this freedom. There are some restrictions
imposed through Clause (2) of Article 19 on freedom of speech and expression on
certain grounds.
 Article 19(2) states that nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the
operation of the existing law, neither can it prevent the State from making any
law, in so far as such type of law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right bestowed by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign states, the
security of the State, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence
The ground for restriction is as follows:

1. Security of the state

Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and
should be

form of public order. For e.g., waging war against the state, rebellion,

mean danger to the security of the entire country but it also implies danger to the
security of a part of states or threat to a part of states.
2. Friendly relations with a foreign state
This ground of restriction was added through the Constitutional First
Amendment, 1951. The main objective behind adding this provision was to forbid
unrestrained vitriolic propaganda against a foreign-friendly state, which could
jeopardize the maintenance of good relations between India and that state. If the
freedom of speech and expression disturbs or hampers the friendly relations of
India with foreign states, the government has the right to impose a reasonable
restriction.
3. Public order
This ground of restriction was also added through the Constitutional First
Amendment, 1951. A situation had arisen in the case of Romesh Thapar by the
Supreme Court and to meet that situation, this ground had been added in the

peace, and peace of the community. In Om Prakash v. Emperor,it has been

said by the judge that anything that whatever disturbs public peace can be said to
 disturb public order automatically. There is also a test that determines whether
an act affects law and order or public order.
4. Decency and Morality
The word to express or say something should be a decent one that it should win
the heart of the opposite person and it should not affect the morals of the society.
So our Constitution has considered this view and added this ground in our
Constitution. On the ground of decency and morality, Sections 292 to 294 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides an example of a restriction on the freedom
of speech and expression. These are the terms of variable content having no fixed
meaning or we can also say that these words are of wide meaning. It varies from
society to society and time to time depending upon the morals prevailing in
contemporary society. The word morality and decency is not confined to sexual
morality only; it has a broader scope.
5. Contempt of court
In a democratic country, we know that the judiciary plays an important role in
governing a country in a peaceful manner so in such types of situation it is
important to respect the institution and its order. What hampers the
administrative law? How does anything interfere with justice? We know that
there is a limitation in a judicial proceeding and anything that curtails its
freedom leads to hampering of the administrative law and also anything can
interfere with the decision of justice.
Contempt of court can be defined in two categories i.e., civil contempt and
criminal contempt. Contempt of court has been defined in section 2(a) of the

court but in 2006 an

the Indirect Tax Practitioner Assn. v. R.K. Jain case, the court has held that
truth which is based on the facts should be allowed as a valid defence.
Elements or essential needed to establish contempt:
1. Making of a valid court order.
2. The respondent should have knowledge of that order.
3. The respondent should have the ability to render compliance.
4. Intentionally or willfully disobey the order.
 6. Defamation
Article 19(2) prevents any person from making any statement that defames the
reputation of another person. One who gets the freedom of any type should not
misuse that freedom to hurt or affect the reputation or status of another person.
Generally, a statement that injures the reputation of a man results in defamation.

reputation which is protected under Article.

7. Incitement to an offence
This ground was also added by the Constitutional First Amendment act, 1951. It
is obvious that freedom of speech and expression does not include the right to

under section 40 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Any type of offence takes place in two ways:
1. By the commission of an act
2. By the omission of an act

8. Sovereignty and Integrity of India

To maintain the sovereignty and integrity of a state is the main duty of a
government. This ground has been added by the Constitution (Sixteenth
Amendment) Act, 1963.
From the above analysis, it can be stated that grounds contained in Article 19(2)
show that they are all concerned with national interest or in the interest of the
society.

Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms [art. 19 1 (b) and 19 (3)

The constitution guarantees right to hold meetings and take out processions. The
processions and meetings should be unarmed and peaceful. This right may be
 restricted in the interest of the public order or sovereignty and integrity of the
country.

Section 144 of the Sub-section (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be
imposed by the government in certain areas which makes the assembly of 5 or
more people an unlawful assembly. This section was challenged in the Supreme
Court via Kamla Kant Mishra and ors. vs State Of Bihar And ors. Case
(1962), on the basis that it violates article 19(1) of the constitution and thus is
invalid. The Supreme Court in its judgment held that power conferred upon the
State Government under Section 144, Sub-section (6), of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is constitutionally valid.

Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the police to disperse
any unlawful assembly which may cause disturbance to public peace.

Freedom to form Associations and unions or co-operative society [Art. 19

1(c) and Art. 19(4)]
Article 19 1 (c) guarantees the citizen the freedom to form Association or unions
for cooperative societies.
the word
Amendment 2011
It includes the right to form companies, societies partnership, trade Union and
political parties. It also includes the right not only to form Association but also to
continue with Association as such.
In Damyanti vs Union of India 1971 the Supreme Court held that the right to
form Association Necessarily implies that persons forming the association have
also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily
admit in the association. Any law by which members are introduced in a
voluntary Association without any option been given to members to keep them
out for any law which takes away membership of those who have voluntarily
joined it will be a law violating the right to form Association.
Grounds of restriction article 19 (4) provides the following Grounds on which
state put reasonable restriction
1. unity and integrity of India
 2. public order
3. morality

Right to protest

Amit Sahani V. Commissioner Of Police (Shaheen Bagh Case) -

Supreme Court in said public places cannot be occupied indefinitely. Such
occupation
administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachment or
obstructions".
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that: "Democracy and dissent go hand in
hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated
places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an
undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave
inconvenience to commuters."

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan V. Union of India 2018- The right of

the protestors Under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and the
rights of the residents Under Article 21 of the Constitution, as both the rights are
fundamental rights. The principle of primacy cannot be given to one right
whereby the right of the other gets totally extinguished. Total extinction is not
[Link] rights under Article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution are
not free and are unlimited in scope. Article 19 (2) to (6) establishes a specific
provision to impose reasonable restrictions on the rights that confer restrictions
on the exercise of those rights

Ramlila Maidan Incident V. Home Secretary, UOI & Ors. (2012)- the
fundamental right to assembly
and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or

EXCEPTION: UAPA
Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India [19 (1) (d) and 19
(5)]
Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India is guaranteed in 19 1
(d) is in addition to the right to personal liberty guaranteed under article 21.
The basic principle for this right is that the Constitution lays stress that the entire
territory is one unit as far as citizens are concerned.
Grounds of restriction article 19 (5) Provides the following Grounds on
which the state may put on reasonable restriction:
1. interest of general public
2. protection of interest of any scheduled tribe

Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India article 19
1(e) and article 19 (1) (5)
Article 19 1 (a) provides that citizens have the right to decide and settle in any
part of territory of India.
The Object is to remove internal barriers within the country.
Grounds of restriction 19 (5) provides the following Grounds on which the
state may put reasonable restriction:
1. interest of general public
2. protection of interest of any scheduled tribe

Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation trade or

business article 19 (1) (g) and article 19 (6)
Article 19 [1][g] provides that all citizens shall have the right to practice any
profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business.
The right to carry on business also includes the right to close the business. The
state cannot compel a person to carry on business against his will.
In Sodan Singh vs New Delhi Municipal committee 1989 Supreme Court
held that hawkers have fundamental right to carry on trade on pavement of
roads. However their right is subject to reasonable restriction mentioned
in article 19 (6)
In Khoday Distilleries Limited Vs State Of Karnataka 1995 Supreme
Court held that a citizen has no right to carry on trade or business in liquors or
beverage. The state has a power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession
and distribution except in cases of medicinal purpose.
In B.R. Enterprise Versus State Of UP 1999 Supreme Court held that
lottery cannot be construed as a trade or business within the meaning of article 19
1 (g). it contains an element of chance and therefore it is a gambling.
In Om Prakash vs State of up the Supreme Court held that the ban on sale of
eggs within the municipal limit of Rishikesh is valid as it contains reasonable
restriction. The reason ability must be construed from the point of view of
culture and religious background of the town.
in Ghodawat Pan Masala Products Private Limited versus Union of
India 2004 supreme court held that ban on Pan Masala and Gutka containing
tobacco to underage persons is not violative article 19 1 (g)
in State Of Gujarat Versus Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kassab Jamat 2006
Supreme Court held that ban on slaughter of cows and ka and other milch and
draught cattle is not violated of article 19 1 (g). It is reasonable restrictions as
cows and her progeny are backbone of Indian agriculture and economy.
 Protection In Respect Of Conviction for Offences. [Article 20]

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission
of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted
under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Protection against Ex Post facto laws article 2o (1)

Article 20(1) provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at
the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, not be subjected to Greater penalty which might
have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of offence.

Article 20 (1 )has two parts

1. No conviction for offences except for violation of law at the time of commission of act charged

2. The no penalty greater than that at the time of commission of offence.

Ex Post facto means a law which imposes penalty retrospectively article 20 (1 imposes restriction on law
making power of Legislature.

Generally the legislature has plenary power to make laws i.e. It can make laws both retrospectively as well as
prospectively. But it cannot make criminal laws retrospectively.

No Conviction for offence except for violation of law at the time of commission of act charged:
it means that if the act is not an offence at the date of its Commission it cannot be an office subsequent to it.

The protection is only against conviction and sentence and not against trial.

Sec304B of IPC was enacted on19/11/1986 making dowry death as a punishable offence. Because of art20 (1),
this section would not be applicable to the dowry death cases which took place prior to this enactment
Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar (1983): A law was made in 1923, and certain rules
were made there under. The act was replaced in 1952 by another act, but the old rules were deemed to be the
rules under the new act.
It was held: as these rules had been operative all along and did not constitute retrospective legislation, if any
offence committed in 1955 could be punishable under them as these rules were factually existed at the date of
the commission of the offence

No penalty greater than that at the time of commission of offence: it means that if at the date of
commission of offence the penalty was less but subsequently it was increased to some greater extent than the
person cannot be subject to greater penalty. He will be liable for that much penalty which was there at the
time of commission of offence. Hence no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
Kedar Nath v. State of west Bengal (1953): an accused committed an offence in 1947, under the act,
the offence was punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. Amendment in act 1949 enhanced the
punishment for the same offence. Court Held that the enhanced punishment could not be applicable to the
act committed by accused in 1947.
Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh chand v. UOI (1984): it was held that imposing or increasing a penalty with
retrospective effect for a violation of a taxing statute does not infringe article 20(1).
Rule of Beneficial Construction
Rattan lal v. State of Punjab (1965) If a particular law makes a provision which reduces the punishment
of an offence, though retrospective in operation, it will be valid. Sc under the rule of reduced the punishment
the benefit construction, of the young offender.

Double Jeopardy 20(2)

Meaning of Jeopardy: The danger conviction. No person

shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Objective: to avoid harassment, which must be caused for successive criminal proceedings, where the
person has committed only one crime.
Nemo debet bis vexari : a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence.
Constitution bars double punishment for the same offence. The conviction for such offence does not bar for
subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter the some ingredients of these two
offences are common.
This rule has been recognized under sec 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Two aspects of Doctrine of Jeopardy:
1. Autrefois convict means that the person has been previously convicted in respect of the same
offence.
2. The Autrefois acquit means that the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is
being prosecuted but under Art. 20(2) this principle is not incorporated as the article may be invoked
when there has been prosecution and punishment at the instance
Essentials:
1. Prosecuted and punished: The prosecution and punishment should co-exist for Art.20 (2) to be
operative. A prosecution without punishment would not bring the case under the said article.
2. Under article 20(2) the prosecution against the double jeopardy is given only when the accused has
been prosecuted and punished. This is narrower than what is under American constitution. Under
the American constitution the protection is available irrespective of whether the accused is
acquitted or convicted.
3. Before a court of law or tribunal: though not specifically found in the article; nevertheless have
been read there in.
4. An accused must be prosecuted and punished in the previous proceedings.
5. The offence must be the same for which he was prosecuted and punished in the previous
proceedings.
Inquiry could not regarded as a prosecution for a criminal offence- When a civil servant is
dismissed from governmental service on the ground of misbehavior after a departmental inquiry, his later
prosecution on the same charges on which he had been punished by dismissal would not be barred by the
said article.
Venkataraman v. Union of India,(1954) An enquiry was made before the enquiry commissioner
on the appellant under the Public Service Enquiry Act,1960 & as a result, he was dismissed from the
service. He was later on, charged for committed the offence under Indian Penal Code & the Prevention
of Corruption Act. The court held that the proceeding held by the enquiry commissioner was only a
mere enquiry & did not amount to a prosecution for an offence. Hence, the second prosecution did not
attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy or protection guaranteed under Fundamental Right Article 20
(2).
Maqbool Husain v. State of Bombay (1953): SC held that the sea customs authorities were not a
court or a judicial tribunal and the adjudicating of confiscation under the sea customs act did not
constitute a judgment of judicial character, which is necessary to take the plea of double jeopardy.
Hence the prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not barred.
 Self incrimination 20(3)

No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

-
prosecuted. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation
where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a self-
incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.
Based on a legal maxim: Nemo tenture prodere accussare seipsum- no man bound to accuse
himself.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Art. 11.1
has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he
has had all the
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to which India is a party states in

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
states in Art. 6(1)
to
At the first instance it appears that the right is absolute. But as the Constitution of India prevents
absolutism, it is provided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that if any substance or object or material is
in the possession of the accused, in the absence of which process of investigation shall not be completed,
he may be put under pressure, for example, DNA sample for paternity test.
To ensure fair trial the Act also provides that this protection is available only to the accused, not to
witnesses who may be asked incriminating questions to find out the truth.
The characteristics features of these provisions are That the accused is presumed to be innocent, that it is
for the prosecution to establish his guilt, and that the accused need not make any statement against his
will.
Three components
1. It is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offence
2. It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness;
3. It is a resulting in protection against his giving evidence such compulsion against himself.
All the three components shall be co-exist of the before protection of the said article.

Person accused of an offence-

accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been leveled
Formal accusation in India can be brought by lodging of an F.I.R or a formal complaint, to a competent
authority against the particular individual accusing him for the commission of the crime.
A person cannot claim the protection if at the time he made the statement, he was not an accused but

Article 20 (3) does not apply to departmental inquiries into allegations against a government servant,
since there is no accusation of any offence within the meaning of Article 20 (3).
Not available for the witnesses-The right is only available to a person accused of a offence. Under
American constitution the right is also available to the witness.
Narayanlal Bansi lal v. Maneck Fhiroz Mistri (1961): sc denied that the appellant could not get
immunity under article 20(3) and pointed out that the privilege was available to an accused person only
and as no formal accusation was laid against him, he could not claim the privilege under this article.
Protection against compulsion to be a witness The protection contained in Article 20(3) is against

In M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) the Supreme Court gave a wide interpretation of the

also held that the protection not only covered testimonial compulsion in the Court room but also included
compelled testimony previously obtained from him.
Exception-It follows that giving thumb impressions, or impression of foot or palm or fingers or
specimens of writings or exposing body for the purpose of identification are not covered by the expression

- The protection under Article 20(3) is available only

against compulsion of the accused to give evidence against himself. Thus, if the accused voluntarily makes
an oral statement or voluntarily produces documentary evidence, incriminatory in nature, Article 20(3)
would not be attracted.
The term compulsion under Article
accused is beaten, starved, tortured, and harassed etc. To extract a confession out of him/her then
protection under Article 20(3) can be sought.
Mohd. Dastagir v. State of Madras (1960): where the appellant went to the residence of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and handed him an envelope. On opening the envelope, the DSP found cash in it,
which meant that the appellant had come to offer bribe to the officer. The DSP refused it and asked the
appellant to place the envelope and the notes on the table, and he did as told, after which the cash was
seized by the Police.

currency notes were seized from him. Hence in this case the scope of Article 20(3) was not applicable.
Right to silence
The right to silence has various facets.
1. The burden is on the State or rather the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty.
2. An accused proved to be is presumed to be innocent till he is guilty.
3. The right of the accused against self incrimination, namely, the right to be silent and that he cannot be
compelled to incriminate himself.
There are also exceptions to the rule. An accused can be compelled to submit to investigation by allowing
his photographs taken, voice recorded, his blood sample tested, his hair or other bodily material used for
DNA testing etc.
State Of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1961 The Apex Court held that handwriting exemplars, fingerprints,
thumbprints, palm prints, footprints or signatures were considered to be outside the scope of Article 20(3)
Nandini Sathpathy vs [Link] (1978) the appellant, a former Chief Minister of Orissa was directed
to appear at Vigilance Police Station, for being examined in connection to a case registered against her
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under S. 161/165 and 120-B and 109 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Based on this an investigation was started against her and she was interrogated with long list
of questions given to her in writing. She denied to answer and claimed protection under Article 20(3). The
Supreme Court ruled that the objective of Article 20(3) is to protect the accused from unnecessary police
harassment and hence it extends to the stage of police investigation apart from the trial procedure.
Tape Recording of statements made by the accused- If statements recorded are made by the
accused, without any duress, with or without his knowledge are not hit by Article 20(3).
R M Malkani v. State of MH (1973), the telephonic conversation were recorded by the police officer
with the permission of the one party, that case is not hit by the said article.
Scientific tests admissible when voluntary
Narcoanalysis- a method of psychological investigation in which the conscious or unconscious
unwillingness of a subject to express memories or feelings is diminished by the use of a barbiturate drug.
Polygraphy -The use of a polygraph to record several physiological characteristics simultaneously; the
interpretation of data from a polygraph.(Lie detector test)
Selvi v. State of Karnataka(2010)-
spoke of behalf of the Apex Court, and drew the following conclusions:
The right against self-incrimination and personal liberty are non-derogable rights, their enforcement
therefore is not suspended even during emergency.
The right of police to investigate an offence and examine any person do not and cannot override
constitutional protection in Article 20(3)
The protection is available not only at the stage of trial but also at the stage of investigation;
 That the right protects persons who have been formally accused, suspects and even witnesses who
apprehend to make any statements which could expose them to criminal charges or further investigation
Article 20(3) proceedings cannot be that cannot invoked by witnesses be characterized as during criminal
proceedings
Compulsory narco-
20(3);
Conducting DNA profiling is not a testimonial act, and hence protection cannot be granted under Article
20(3);
That acts such as compulsory obtaining signatures and handwriting samples are testimonial in nature,
they are not incriminating by themselves if they are used for the purpose of identification or corroboration
That subjecting a person to polygraph test or narco-analysis test without his consent amounts to forcible
processes and hence violates the right to privacy for which protection
can be sought under Article 20(3);
Those courts cannot permit involuntary administration of narco-tests, unless it is necessary under public
interest.

Conclusion

Art. 20 provides right of protection to a person in respect of conviction for offences against police
authorities.
Applicable only to the criminal offences.
Applicable to citizens and non-citizens as well as corporations.
Article 20 also constitutes the limitation on the legislative powers of the Union and State legislatures.
The article20 (3) also known as Protective Umbrella against the testimonial compulsion.
 Protection of Life and Personal Liberty [Article 21]

Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Right under this article is available to citizens as well as non citizens.

Difference Between Procedure Established By Law And Due Process Of

Law
American constitution follows due process of law. it checks whether any law in
question is fair and not arbitrary. The due process of law gives wide scope to the
court to Grand protection to the rights of its citizens. Under due process, it is a legal
requirement that states must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person
and laws that state and act must confirm to the laws of the land.
Procedure established by law means that a law that is duly enacted by the
Legislature of the body in question is valid if the procedure to establish it has been
correctly followed. are rigid and flexible following of the procedure established by law
may rise the risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individual due to
unjust laws made by the law making authorities.

The scope of article 21 was expanded by the Supreme Court in Maneka

Gandhi VS Union of India 1978. Therefore, for the purpose of
convenience we will study the scope and Ambit of article 21 from a
standpoint.

1. Position prior to Maneka Gandhi case.

2. position after Maneka Gandhi case

Positio

Scope of article 21 came up for consideration in A K Gopalan Vs Union

of India 1950.
AK Gopalan vs State of Madras 1950
He was a communist leader who was detained under preventive detention act 1950,
he challenged his detention on the ground that his civil liberty was being hampered,
Supreme Court held that he was detained according to the procedure established by
law.
At the time of this case the Supreme Court only provided remedy against arbitrary
action of the executive as long as the law was made by procedure established by law
it was a valid law. this was a narrow view taken by the Supreme Court but this was
changed in the case of Maneka Gandhi.

The court in the AK Gopalan v Union of India

body that is freedom from arrest and detention without authority of law.

The court held that law means a state made law and does not include jus
natural. The court further held that articles 19 and 21 deal with different
aspects of Liberty.

Thus, the court in A K Gopalan case gave a restrictive interpretation of

Position afte

In Maneka Gandhi's case the Supreme Court overruled A.K. Gopalan case
and widened the scope of article 21.

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978

The passport of Gandhi was impounded under passport act 1967 and she was not
given any reason for the impounding. Without a passport one can travel outside of
India, so Manika Gandhi filed a writ petition under article 32 for violating her
personal liberty under article 21.
The seven judge bench of the Supreme Court involved not just article 21 but also
article 19 and 14, the Court was of opinion that article 19 and 21 go hand in hand and
the procedure established by law restricting these rights should stand the scrutiny of
other provisions of the Constitution as well including Article 14.
 The Supreme Court overruled AK Gopalan case and ruled that a loss should be just
fair and reasonable and article 21 can be involved against arbitrary executive as
well as arbitrary legislative action if the action is not just fair and reasonable

The court held that procedure contemplated under article 21 could not be
unfair and unreasonable. it should be just fair and reasonable. Similarly
principles of natural justice.

Article 21 is controlled by article 19. The law must satisfy the requirements
of article 19 also.

The court elaborated that the right to life is not merely confined to Physical
existence but it includes the right to live with human dignity.

In Francis Coralie versus Union Territory of Delhi 1981, the

Supreme Court held that the right to life is not limited to mere animal
existence. It is something more than just physical survival right to life
includes the right to choice and dignity.

Article 21 requires the following conditions to be fulfilled:

There must be a valid law.

The procedure provided in law must be just, fair and reasonable.

Law must satisfy the requirements of article 14 and 19.

Various aspects of right to life and personal liberty

Right to privacy: In Justice K S Puttaswamy and Anr Vs. Union Of

India And ors. 2017 Supreme Court held that right to privacy is a
fundamental right and it is protected under article 21. Court overruled MP
Sharma case and to the extent that they held the
right to privacy is not a fundamental right.
Kharak Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu (1963), this issue was raised for
the first time. Justice Subba Rao it is Minority judgement said that the right
to privacy flows from the expression personal liberty. This minority
judgment paved path for the development.

In PUCL vs. Union of India (1997), Telephonic conversation, the court

private life. Therefore, the Court ruled that telephone tapping would attract
article 21, unless it was permitted under the procedure established by law.

In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, it was held that in involuntary

subjection of person to test such as narco analysis, polygraph examination
also violates the right to privacy.

Aadhar held to be constitutional: Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of

India 2018 Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar
after reading down and striking down certain provisions.

Offence of adultery is unconstitutional: In Joseph Shine vs Union of

India 2018 the Supreme Court scrapped down section 497 of Indian penal
code as unconstitutional. Court held that it is violative of women's right to
dignity and hence it infringed article 21.

Homosexual as our constitutional; Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of

India 2019 Supreme Court declared Section 377 of Indian penal code,
unconstitutional insofar as it criminalize is sexual acts between consenting
adults.

Nonpayment of minimum wages: in People's Union for democratic

rights vs. Union of India 1982 Court held that nonpayment of minimum
wages is violative of article 21
Right to livelihood: In Olga tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
1986, Supreme Court held that right to life includes right to livelihood also.

Right to shelter: in Chameli Singh vs. State of UP 1996 Supreme

Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right under article 21

Reproductive choices: in Suchitra Srivastava vs. Chandigarh

administration 2010 Supreme Court held that right to make reproductive
choices( decision to produce child or not) is included in article 21.

Right to health: In Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India 1989

Supreme Court held that all doctors (private or government) or employees
are obliged to extend medical assistance to person injured immediately
without asking for legal formalities.

Right to sleep: in RamLila Maidan Versus Home Secretary Union Of

India Supreme Court held that right to sleep is a fundamental right as it is
biological and essential element of basic necessities of life.

Arrest of judgment debtor: In Jolly George Varghese vs. State Bank

of cochin: Supreme Court held that arrest And attention of honest
judgment debtor, in absence of willful failure to pay despite sufficient means
is violative of article 21.

Bonded labor: In Neerja Chowdhury vs State of Madhya Pradesh

1984 Supreme Court held that bonded labour should be identified and
rehabilitated.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others respect of

bonded labour and weaker section of the society.

Right to die:

P. Rathinam vs. Union of India 1994

Keeping article 21 as well as the principle of natural justice in mind, the Court ruled
that right to life also included the right to die.
Gian Kaur vs. state of Punjab 1996 Supreme Court held that right to
life does not include right to die.

Passive Euthanasia: in Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug vs Union of

India, 2014 Supreme Court held that in certain cases passive Euthanasia is
allowed.

Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs. Union Of India 2015

a constitutional bench decided that right to life with dignity under article 21 includes
right to die with dignity and introduced the concept of living will

Self determination of gender: National legal service authority versus

Union of India 2014 Supreme Court held that self determination of
gender is a part of personal liberty guaranteed under article 21.

Child rights: In Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India 2011

Supreme Court held that sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children
detained in circus is violation of article 21.

Right to free Legal Aid- MH Hoskot vs. State Of Maharashtra, 1978

Supreme Court held that right to free Legal Aid is a part and parcel of right
to life and liberty.

Right to speedy trial: Hussainara Khatoon Vs State Of Bihar 1979

Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and it is
implicit in article 21.

Fair investigation: In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs State Of Punjab 2009

Supreme Court held that their trials include fair investigation.

Keeping under trials with Convicts: In Sunil Batra vs. Delhi

administration 1980 Supreme Court held that keeping undertrials with
Convicts in jail offends article 21.

Right against handcuffing: In Prem Shankar vs Delhi administration

1980 Supreme Court held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman,
arbitrary and unreasonable. Handcuffing should be resorted to when there
is clear and present danger of escape.

Use of third degree methods: In Kishore Singh versus state of

Rajasthan 1981 Supreme Court held that use of third degree method by
police is violative of article 21.

Ban on smoking in public places: In Murali S There Vs. Union Of

India 2002 Supreme Court directed the government to issue orders
banning smoking in public places considering the adverse effect of smoking
on non smokers.

Public hanging: In Attorney General Of India Vs Lakshmi Devi 1986

Supreme Court held that execution of death sentence by public hanging is
violative of article 21.

Hanging by rope: In Deena Vs Union Of India 1983 Supreme Court

held that hanging by a rope does not violate article 21

Delay in execution of death sentence: In TV Vatheeswaran V. State Of

Tamil Nadu 1981 Supreme Court held that delay in execution of death
sentence is violative of article 21.

Custodial torture / death: In Nilabati Behera Vs State Of Orissa 1993

Supreme Court awarded compensation to the family of deceased who died in
police custody due to beating.

In Dk Basu Vs State Of West Bengal 1997 Supreme Court laid down

guidelines to be followed by investigating agencies in cases of arrest and
detention.

In Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP 1994 Supreme Court laid down

guidelines providing arrest of person during investigation.
Compensation for violation of article 21: Rudal Shah Vs State Of Bihar
1983, Supreme Court held that courts have power to award compensation
in appropriate cases of violation of article 21.

Prevention of sexual harassment in workplaces: In Vishaka Vs State Of

Rajasthan 1997 Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual
harassment of working women in workplaces.

Right to clean environment: In following cases Supreme Court held that

right to clean environment is fundamental right protected under article 21.
Consequently supreme court also give various directions regarding upkeep
of environment it and control of pollution

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988), the Supreme Court ordered the
closure of tanneries that were polluting water.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court issued
several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an
ancient monument, from environmental degradation.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court took
cognizance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that
were polluting the water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and
agricultural land. The Court issued several directions to deal with the
problem..
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006), the Court held that the blatant
and large-scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi
violated the right to salubrious sand decent environment. Taking note of the
problem the Court issued directives to the Government on the same.
In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the persons not indulging in
smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account
of the act of smokers. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-
smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.
In Re: Noise Pollution, the court held noise pollution caused by
obnoxious levels of bursting of crackers during Diwali sentence is violative
of article 21.
 Right to Education [Article 21A]

Article 21A provides that the state shall provide free and compulsory
education to all the citizens of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as
the state may by law determine.

This article was inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act

2002

Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka 1992 the supreme court held that
right to education at all levels is a fundamental right flowing from article 21

In Unni Krishnan versus state of Andhra Pradesh 1993 the supreme

court held that the right to education is a fundamental right flowing from
article 21 but right to free education is available to children until they
complete the age of 14 years. After that the obligation of the state to provide
education is subject to economic capacity and development.

In State Of Tamil Nadu Versus K Shyam Sundar 2011 Supreme

Court held that the right to education should be extended to have quality
education without discrimination on the grounds of economic social and
cultural backgrounds.
 Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as
soon as may not be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right
to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the
nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the
magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a magistrate

(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply (a) to any person who for the time being is
an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law
providing for preventive detention

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person
for a longer period than three months unless

(a) An Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be
appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said
period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such
detention:

Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person
beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by the parliament
under sub- clause (b) of clause (7)

(b) such person detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by the
parliament under subclause (a) and (b) of clause (7); or
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law
providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may
be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made
and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
order

(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred
to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the
public interest to disclose

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe

(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person
may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for
preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in
accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 );

(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be
detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause (a)
of clause ( 4 )

Preventive Detention

There are two types of detention:

1. Punitive
2. Preventive

Punitive detention is detention after a trial. Preventive detention is detention

without trial. The idea behind this is to prevent an individual from committing a
crime. This means that persons can be detained on grounds of suspicion. The
rights of people arrested in this manner are governed by preventive detention
laws.

Francis coralie Mullin vs administrator Union 1981

The difference between preventive and punitive detention was discussed.
Punitive detention is to punish a person for an offence committed by him after
trial and conviction in the court. Preventive detention on the other hand means
detention of a person without trial and conviction by the court, its purpose is not
to punish a person for a past offence but to prevent him from committing an
offence in near future. so preventive detention is only a precautionary measure
and based on suspicion. our constitution recognises preventive detention but also
provide safeguards for it in article 21 and 22

done when a person is charged with a crime. An arrested person is

produced before a magistrate within the next 24 hours.
In case of preventive detention, a person is detained as he/she is simply
restricted from doing something that might deteriorate the law and order
situation.

Under Section 151 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) preventive
detention is action taken on grounds of suspicion that some wrong actions may
be done by the person concerned.

The observations of Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a distinguished jurist is

typical: he described preventive detention a necessary evil
 TWO ASPECTS OF ARTICLE 22

PERSONS DETAINED UNDER

PERSONS DETAINED UNDER
ORDINARY LAW PREVENTIVE DETENTION
LAWS
ART. 22(1) TO 22(3)
[ART. 22(4) TO 22(7)

Persons detained under ordinary law [article 22(1) to 22(3)]

Article 22 (1) and 22(2) provide the following rights:-

1. right to be informed of Grounds of arrest [ Art. 22(1)]

2. Right to be consulted and represented by a lawyer of choice [ article 22(1)]

3. Right to be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest [article

22(2)]

4. No detention in custody beyond 24 hours except with the order of the magistrate.

5. Article 22 provides minimum procedural safeguards that must be provided in any

law enacted by the State.

Article 22 provides minimum procedural safeguards that must be provided in any

law enacted by the State.

Article 22(3) provides that clause 1 and 2 shall not apply to any alien and person
arrested detained under preventive detention laws.
Persons detained under preventive detention laws article 22 (4) to article
22 (7)

Article 22 (4) to 22 (7) lay down the procedure to be followed in case of a

person is determined under preventive detention laws.

The object of preventive detention is to intercept the person before he commits a

crime. Arrest in such a law is made on the basis of suspicion or reasonable
probability of commission of offence.

Article 22(4) provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall
authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than 3 months unless the
advisory body reports that detention beyond the period of three months is
necessary.

Advisory board shall consist of persons who are or have been or are qualified to
be appointed as judges of the High Court.

Article 22(5) provides that the authority making an order under preventive
detention laws shall communicate the grounds on which the order is made and
shall afford him the opportunity to make representation against order.

Article 22(6) provides that authority may refrain from disclosing such facts which
in its opinion are against public interest to disclose.

Article 22(7) enables the Parliament to make laws of preventive detention

prescribing:-

Circumstances under which and classes of persons who may be detained for a
period longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of the advisory
body.

maximum period of which a person may be detained under preventive detention

laws

Procedure to be followed by the advisory board.

 44th constitutional amendment 1987 changed certain rules in article 22 (4)
relating to preventive detention but this amendment has not been brought into
force.

A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras The preventive Detention Act,
1950, with the exception of section 14 thereof did not contravene any of the
Articles of the Constitution and even though section 14 was ultra vires inasmuch
as it contravened the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution, as this section
was severable from the remaining sections of the Act, the invalidity of Section 14
did not affect the validity of the Act as a whole and the detention of the petitioner
was not illegal.

In A K Roy vs Union of India 1982 Supreme Court laid down following

guidelines relating to arrest under preventive detention laws:

1. After detention the family members of detenue should be informed about

detention and place of detention

2. detenue must be detailed in a place where he had actually resides unless in

certain exceptional circumstances detention at other places is feasible

3. return you must be and title to books writing materials on food and visits from
family and friends

Ahmed Noor Mohamad Bhatti V. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005

while upholding the validity of the power of the Police under section 151 of the
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to arrest and detention of a person without a
warrant to prevent the commission of a Cognizable offense ruled that a provision
could not be held to be unreasonable as arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional
merely because the Police official might abuse his authority.
This preventive detention act is a necessary tool in the hands of the executive
which authorizes them to arrest any person from whom reasonable suspicious
arises that he can commit any cognizable offense or his activities are prejudicial
to law and order to state and the police can arrest that person without warrant
1. Preventive Detention Act was passed in the year of 1950.
The validity of this act was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Gopalan v/s
State of the Madras Court. In fact, the Supreme Court held this act constitutionally
valid except the some provisions. However, this act expired in the year of 1969, and also
before it expired, it was amended for approx 7 times, each expansion was to make it
valid for 3 more years and also this it was extended till 31 December in the year of 1969.

2. Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA)

3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1967 (UAPA),
amended in 2004 and 2008.
4. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971: MISA was basically a
modified version of the PDA Act. It was abolished in the year of 1978. (repealed)
5. The conservation of the Foreign exchange and also the Prevention of
Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) was enacted in the year of 1974 and it
continued.
6. National Security Act (NASA), 1980.
7. Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act (ESMA) in 1980.
8. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1985.
Repealed in 1995. (Repealed).
9. The prevention of Illicit Traffic in the Narcotic Drugs and also the
Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPSA), 1988.
10. Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. (Repealed in 2004).
 Right against exploitation article 23- 24

Article 23 and 24 deals with right against exploitation

Article 23 deals with prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
Article 24 deals with prohibition of employment of children and factories etc.

Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour [Article 23]

Article 23 (1) provides that traffic in human beings and beggars and other
forms of force deliver are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall
be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Article 23 (2) provides that state can impose compulsory service for public
purposes.
Traffic in human beings means selling and buying human beings as goods for
Immoral or other purposes. Beggar means in voluntary work without payment.
Right under article 23 is available not only against the state but also against
private individuals.
In People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India 1982
Supreme Court held that a person who provides labour or service to another for
less than minimum wage also amounts to forced labour.
Deena vs Union Of India 1983 Supreme Court held that labour taken from
prisoners without paying proper enumeration is violative of article 23.

Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories Etc Article 24

Article 24 provides that no child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to
work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.
[(read with art. 39(f)]
Employment of children act, 1934 a child means a person less than 12
years of age.
 The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 was enacted to
prohibit children from engagement in certain hazardous conditions. It contains a
list of occupations such as bidi making, manufacturing of match boxes, explosives
and fireworks, etc. where employment of children is prohibited.

The law was further amended in 2016 to increase its scope. It now prohibits the
employment of a child in the age group of 14-18 years in hazardous jobs.
However, it allows a child upto 14 years of age to work in family enterprises.
Further, it allows a child in the age group of 14-18 years to work non-hazardous
jobs

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 [A Changing Provision]

a) Hazardous

b) Non hazardous (2012 amendment)

c) Right to education (2016 amendment)

d) Entertainment industry

The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,

1986-

Sec.3- Prohibition of employment of children in any occupation and process.

(1) No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply where the child, (a) helps his family
or family enterprise, which is other than any hazardous occupations or processes
set forth in the Schedule, after his school hours or during vacations; (b) works as
an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry, including advertisement,
films, television serials or any such other entertainment or sports activities except
the circus, subject to such conditions and safety measures, as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such work under this clause shall effect the school education of
the child.
sec 14 Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in
contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand
rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.

In People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India 1982

Supreme Court held that the construction work is a dangerous work and
Employment of children in construction industry amounts to violation of article
24.
In MC Mehta Vs Union of India 1997 Supreme Court held that children
below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, or other
works. The court laid down guidelines to protect economic, Social and
humanitarian rights of children.(shivakashi firecracker)
 Right to Freedom of Religion Article 25- 28

Article 25- 28 deals with the right to freedom of religion.

Provides for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation
of religion.
Article 26 provides for freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27 provides freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any
particular religion.
Article 28 provides for freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or
religious worship in certain educational institutions.

Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of

religion article 25

Article 25 (1) provide that all persons are equally and title to freedom of concise
and the right really to Profess, practice and propagate religion.
Freedom of Conscience: it is enough freedom of an individual to mould his
relationship with God in whatever manner he likes.
Freedom to Profess:
Freedom to Propagate religion means to spread and publisher is the religious
views.

The right is subject to following restrictions

1. Public order
2. Morality
3. Health
4. Other provisions of part 3
India is a secular state and it is expressly provided in the Preamble. Secular state
treats all religions alike.
In S R Bommai Vs Union of India 1994 Supreme Court held that secularism is
the basic feature of constitution. Indian constitution embodies a positive concept of
secularism. In matters of religion, the state is neutral and treats every religion
equally.
In Aruna Roy Vs Union of India Supreme Court held that study of religion in
school is not against secular philosophy of constitution. Secularism is susceptible to
positive meaning that is developing understanding and respect towards different
religions

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras [Link]

Mutt case.1954
A 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that what constitutes the essential part

of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that

religion itself.

prove these essential feature

In Ismail Faruqui versus Union of India 1994 Supreme Court held that offer
of prayer for worship is religious practice but offering at every location where such
there can be offered would not be an essential religious practice.
Church Of God (Full Gospel) Of India versus KKRMC Welfare
Association 2000 Supreme Court held that no person can be allowed to create
noise pollution or disturb the peace of other while exercising religious freedom.
Religious prayers through loudspeakers are not an essential element of any religion.
Article 25(2) provides that the state can make law for regulating or restricting
Economic, financial, Political or other secular activities associated with religious
practice and also for social welfare and Reform for throwing open of Hindu religious
institution of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Indian Young Lawyer Association & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. 2018
On 28th September 2018, the court delivered its verdict in this case by 4:1 majority which
held that the practice violated the fundamental rights to equality, liberty and freedom of
religion, Article 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1). It struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship Act as unconstitutional. Rule 3(b) allowed for Hindu
denominations to exclude women from public places of worship, if the exclusion was based
on custom.
The apex court has allowed entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala Temple, and
held that cannot be subjected to Gender Discriminat

Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association [review petion case]

Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs Article 26

Article 26 provides that subject to public order morality and health every
religious denomination or any section there of shall have the right.
1. To establish and maintain Institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
2. To manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
3. To own and acquire movable and immovable property.
4. To administer such property in accordance with law.
In SP Mittal versus Union of India 1983 Supreme Court held that religious
denominations must satisfy the following requirements.
It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they
regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being.
It must have a common organization.
It must be designated by distinctive name.
 Freedom as To Payment of Taxes for Promotion of Any Particular Religion
Article 27

Article 27 provides that no person shall be compelled to pay taxes the proceeds of
which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or
maintenance of any particular religion or religious denominations.

Freedom as To Attendance at Religious Instruction or Religious Worship in

Certain Educational Institutions Article 28

Article 28 (1) provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any

educational institution wholly maintained out of the state fund.

Article 28 (2) provides that clause (1) shall not apply to any educational institution
which is administered by State but it has been established by any endowment or trust
which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institutions.

Article 28 (3) provides that no person shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction in any e educational institution recognized by state or receiving aid out of
state fund unless such person or his guardian has given his consent
 Cultural and Educational Rights Article 29- 30

Article 29 Protection of Interests of Minorities

Article 29(1): This provides all citizen groups that reside in India having a distinct
culture, language, and script, the right to conserve their culture and language. This

general public here.

Article 29(2): The State shall not deny admission into educational institutes
maintained by it or those that receive aids from it to any person based on race,
religion, caste, language, etc. This right is given to individuals and not any
community.

In terms of religious minority communities, Section 2(c) of The Minorities

Act 1992 recognizes 5 religions as minority communities namely Muslims, Sikhs,
Christians, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians (NCMA).

In Re Kerala education bill where the supreme court held that minority means
a community which is numerically less than 50% of total population. But the
question arose that whether the total population is the population of the state or the
population of the whole country; this was resorted to in TMA Pai Foundation
case. The supreme court confirmed the position that minority status of a
community is to be decided with reference to the state population

Provides that no citizen shall be denied admission in any educational institution

maintained by state or receiving aid out of the state funds on Grounds only of
religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

Article 30 Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational

Institutions
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of
an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in
clause ( 1 ), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under
such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or
abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause
(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate
against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management
of a minority, whether based on religion or language..

This right is given to minorities to form and govern their own educational
institutions. Article 30 is also called the .

Article 30 (1) provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language
shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice.

Article 30 (2) provides that state shall not discriminate educational institutions
on Grounds of minority in granting it to them.

In Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association Vs Union of

India 1987 Supreme Court held that idea of giving special rights to minorities is
to give them a sense of security and feeling of confidence.

Relationship between Article 29 (1) And 30 (1)

St Xaviers College Vs State Of Gujarat 1974 Supreme Court held that

a) Article 29 (1) confers right on any section of citizens, including minorities while
article 30(1) confirm write only on religious or linguistic minorities.
b) Article 29 (1) is concerned with language, Script and culture while article 31 deals
with minorities based on language and religion.
c) Article 29 (1) deal with right to conserve language while article 30(1) deals with
right to administer educational institutions.

Right to administer educational institution consists of following four matters:

1. Right to choose managing for governing body

2. Right to choose teachers
3. Right to admit students of their choice subject to reasonable regulations as to
academic qualifications
4. Right to use the properties and assets for benefit of Institution Saint Xavier
College Vs State Of Gujarat 1974

In Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association Vs Union of

India and 1987 it was held that regulatory measures aimed at making minority
institution effective instruments for imparting education, without nullifying
management right are permissible.

In T M A Pai Foundation Vs State Of Karnataka 2002 Supreme Court laid

down the following

1. State is to be regarded as a unit for determining linguistic as well as religious

minority
2. Institutes which receive aid from state could be subject to government rules and
regulations.
3. In respect of an aided institution only regulation which the government may put
is regarding the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility of teachers
and principal.
4. Conditions of recognition and affiliation by or to a board or university are to be
complied with.
5. An aided institution has to admit a reasonable number of non minority students.
6. Minority Institutions may have its own procedure and method of admission but
the procedure must be fair and transparent.
In Islamic Academy Of Education Vs State Of Karnataka 2003 Supreme
Court held that educational institutions can have their own fee structure but there
must be no profiteering and caption fee cannot be charged.

In P A Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra- The supreme court held that the
policy of reservation to admit students is not applicable to a minority Institution
and the policy of reservation and terms of employment is not applicable to a
minority institution
SP Mittal versus Union of India- the Supreme Court stated that the benefit of
article 30 can only be demanded by religious or linguistic minority community and
their organization; the Auroville community in this case was not held to be a
religious or linguistic minority.
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution (NCMEI): It
was established on 11th November 2004 which later got replaced by the new act
passed on December 2004. Its main function is to provide protection to an interest
of minorities in terms of minority educational institution.
Functions: Giving advice to state government and central government on any query
related to the education of minorities.
i. Interfering in any proceeding related to deprivation or violation of the
educational right of the minorities before the court.
ii. Measures to protect the minority status and character of the institution.
Take decision for all questions concerning the status of any minority
educational institution.
iii. It recommends to the government to implement schemes for the minority
educational institution.
 Right to constitutional remedies [article 32]

Article 32 under Part III of the Indian Constitution allows all the citizens to
move to the Supreme Court in case of violation of Fundamental Rights.
During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, a discussion on this
fundamental right (in the draft, it is referred to as Article 25), Dr B R Ambedkar had
If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most
important an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity I could not
refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the
is
Article could not be taken away unless the Constitution itself is amended and hence it

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and
(2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as
otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
 Article 32 (1) provides the right to move the supreme court by for
enforcement of rights conferred by part III of the constitution.
Article 32(2) to empower the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or
red including the red of Habeas Corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari for enforcement of rights conferred by part 3 of constitution.
Article 32( 3) provide that Parliament may by law empower any other Court to
exercise the rights exercisable by supreme court under article 32(2)
Article 32 (4) provides that the rights guaranteed by this article shall not be
suspended except otherwise provided in the constitution.

Significance of Article 32:

1- Article 32 makes the Apex Court both the guarantor and defender of
Fundamental Rights.
2- It entitles the Indian citizens to move to the Supreme Court for the remedy
against the breach of Fundamental Rights.

Writs

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, Supreme Court has the power to
issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights while under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Courts have
the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of the
Constitutional Rights. An Indian citizen can seek justice through five prerogative
writs as provided by the Indian Constitution under Article 32 and Article 226. These
are as follows:
1- Habeas Corpus
2- Certiorari
3- Mandamus
4- Quo-Warranto
 5- Prohibition

Habeas Corpus:
.
This writ protects an individual from unlawful detention.
The writ is issued in the form of an order calling upon the person by whom another
person is detained to bring that person before the court and to let the court know by
what authority he has detained that person.
The court then examines the grounds on which the individual has been
detained.
If the detention has no legal justification, the detained person is set free.
The writ can be issued against public authority and also against individuals.
It is to be noted that the writ cannot be issued in the cases where
a) the detention is lawful
b) the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court
c) an individual is detained by a competent court, and
d) The detention falls outside the jurisdiction of a particular High Court.
An individual can seek compensation from the state against the arbitrary
detention.
The petition under this writ can be filed by the detainee, prisoner or by any
person on behalf of the detainee/prisoner.
The writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended even during the
emergency under Article 359.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (Habeas Corpus Case), AIR 1976

The judgment, in this case, was laid down by a 5-judge bench consisting of
Justices Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati, and Khanna.

The majority ruling was pronounced by four judges while Justice Khanna
delivered a powerful dissent.
The Court held Given the Presidential order dated 27 June 1975 no person has
any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High
Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the
legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in
compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala-fides factual or legal
or is based on extraneous consideration.
The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16A (9) of MISA.

Justice H.R. Khanna in his dissent stated that invoking Article 359(1) does not
take away the right of an individual to approach the Court for the implementation
of statutory rights.
He added that Article 21 is not the sole repository of life and personal liberty.
He further stated that during the proclamation of emergency, Article 21 only loses
the procedural power but the substantive power of this article is very
fundamental and the State does not have the power to deprive any person of life
and liberty without the authority of law.
There was so much political pressure during that particular hearing that this
dissent cost Justice Khanna his chance of becoming the Chief Justice as he was
the second in line to the Chair of CJI at that time.
Even Justice Bhagwati expressed his regret later for siding with the majority by
saying that he was wrong not to uphold the cause of individual liberty.

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) -The petitioner who was detained in
prison for over 14 years after his acquittal filed a habeas corpus petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for his release on the ground that his
detention in the jail was unlawful. He also asked for certain other reliefs
including compensation for his illegal detention. When the petition came up for
hearing the Court was informed by the respondent State that the petitioner had
already been released from the jail. Allowing the petition, the court held that the

In Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, a convict had

written a letter to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court alleging inhuman
torture to a fellow convict. The late justice Krishna Iyer treated this letter as a
petition of habeas corpus and passed appropriate orders. Courts can also act suo
motu in the interests of justice on any information received by it from any source.
The general principle is that a person illegally detained in confinement without
legal proceedings is entitled to seek the remedy of habeas corpus.
 Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate the court may examine the legality of the
detention without requiring the person detained to be produced before it
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra if the detained person is unable to
pray for the writ of habeas corpus, someone else may pray for such writ on his
behalf.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa The petitioner was awarded compensation of
Rs.1,50,000.

Mandamus:
It means 'we command'.
It is an order issued by superior court commanding a lower court or
public authority to perform his official duties correctly.
The writ of Mandamus can be issued against any public body, a
corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal or government itself.
It is an important writ to check arbitrariness of an administrative action. It is also

It cannot be issued against a private individual/ body and to enforce

contractual obligation/departmental instruction that do not possess statutory
force.
This writ cannot be issued against the President of India or the State
Governors; Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity.
This writ can also be issued by the High Courts for violation of ordinary
rights.
This writ is a discretionary remedy and the Courts may refuse to grant
it where some alternate remedy is available.

Prohibition:
It means: 'to forbid' or 'Stay order'.
It is issued by a higher court to a lower court to enforce inactivity in
the jurisdiction (in case of excess or absence of jurisdiction).
 It is a writ issued by superior Court to Lower court or Tribunal forwarding it to
perform an act which is outside its jurisdiction
It can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
It is preventive writ in nature.
It is not available against administrative authorities, legislative
bodies, and private individuals or bodies

Certiorari:
It means 'to be certified' or 'to be informed'.
It is issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts to a lower court,
tribunal or Quasi-judicial body usually to quash the judgment of the
latter.
It can be issued under the following grounds (a) to correct errors of the
jurisdiction (excess or lack of jurisdiction) (b) in case of error of law.
It can also be issued against administrative authorities in case the
rights of individuals get affected.
This writ is unavailable against the equal or higher court and is only
available against the lower courts.

Quo-Warranto:
It means 'by what authority or warrant' .
It is issued by the court against the person who usurps a public office.
It enquires the legality of usurpation of public office by a person.
It is a writ issued with a view to restrain a person from acting in a public office to
which he is not entitled to. The writ of quo warranto is used to prevent illegal
assumption of any-office for or usurpation of any public office by anyone.
The grounds on which this writ is issued (a) public office created by a
statute or by the Constitution of India (b) person to be appointed by a statute.
The writ cannot be issued against a ministerial office or private office.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
Secretary asking him to explain why contempt proceedings not be initiated
against him for threatening Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami for
moving the court.
"Can any authority in the country penalize someone for approaching this court?
This is in the teeth of Article 32. How dare this officer write something like this in
his letter?" a Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde said pulling up the
Maharashtra Assembly Secretary.
"We have a serious question on the author of this letter and we find it extremely

The top court ordered the Assembly Secretary to remain present before it on the
next date.
It also appointed senior advocate Arvind Datar as amicus curiae and posted the
matter for further hearing after two weeks.
The court told senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Maharashtra
government, to look into the conduct of the officer concerned.
The CJI's outburst came after senior advocate Harish Salve, representing
Goswami, told the Bench that the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Secretary
 wrote a letter to Goswami on October 13 questioning the Republic TV Editor-in-
Chief for "breaching" confidentiality of privilege proceedings by moving the top
court.
The Bench also granted protection from arrest to Goswami in this case as Salve
urged the court to protect him from any coercive action by the Privileges
Committee of the Assembly.
Pointing out that "cases after cases" were being filed against Goswami, Salve said,
"Constitutional courts have to see the reality, not the smokescreen."
The Assembly Secretary, who had already been served with a notice on Arnab's
petition, hasn't made an appearance so far in the court.
Instead, he wrote a letter to Goswami threatening him for approaching the court.
Noting that the letter written by the Secretary of the Assembly was
unprecedented and had a tendency to bring the administration of justice to
disrepute, the Bench said it also amounted to interference with the
administration of justice.
"The intention of the author (Assembly Secretary) seems to intimidate the
petitioner (Goswami) because he approached this court and threaten him with a
penalty for doing so," the top court said.
In its order, the court said the Assembly Secretary must know that the
right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 itself was a
fundamental right.
"There is no doubt that if a citizen is deterred from exercising his
right under Article 32, it will amount to serious interference with the
administration of justice," the top court said.
The Supreme Court had on September 30 issued notice to the Maharashtra

privilege issued to him for his alleged remarks against Chief Minister Uddhav
Thackeray in Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

These contrasting observations made in the same week by the CJI led many to wonder
whether the fundamental right of Article 32 was being reduced to a selective remedy
under the law for a favored few. Arnab Goswami was arrested in early November in a
2018 abetment to suicide case of an architect.

On November 6, Justice Bobde, while issuing a contempt notice to the Secretary of the
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for sending a letter to Arnab Goswami, allegedly
intimidating him for approaching the court against the privilege notice issued by the
Assembly, said:
court. What is Article 32 for? How dare this officer say all this. This is in the teeth of
Article 32. ART 32 itself is a fundamenta

Limitations to Article 32

There are certain circumstances during which the citizens do not get the
privileges which they ought to under Article 32. Therefore, the situations when
the fundamental rights may be denied to the citizens but the constitutional
remedies will not be available i.e. Article 32 will not be applicable are:

Under Article 33, the Parliament is empowered to make changes in the

application of Fundamental Rights to armed forces and the police are
empowered with the duty to ensure proper discharge of their duties.
During the operation of Martial law in any area, any person may be
indemnified by the Parliament, if such person is in service of the state or
central government for the acts of maintenance or restoration of law and order
under Article 34.
Under Article 352 of the Constitution when an emergency is proclaimed, the
guaranteed Fundamental Rights of the citizens remains suspended. Also,
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 is restricted by the
Parliament under Article 358 during the pendency of an emergency.
Article 359 confers the power to the President to suspend Article 32 of the
Constitution. The order is to be submitted to the Parliament and the
Parliament may disapprove Pr .
 Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Concurrent jurisdiction of high courts: article 226 enables the high court to issue
writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other legal rights.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have
powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue
to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.] sub by
44th CA 1978
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of
such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any
proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without
(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High
Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party
in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court
shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period,
before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the
application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or,
as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this Article shall not be in
derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of
Article 32.
Difference between Article 32 and Article 226:

[Link]. Article 32 Article 226

1. It includes Fundamental Rights. It includes Constitutional Rights.

The rights of an individual can

The rights of an individual cannot be
2. be suspended during the
suspended during the emergency.
emergency.

It has a limited scope and is only It has a wider scope and is applicable in
3. applicable in case of violation of case of violation of fundamental as well
fundamental rights. as legal rights

It has jurisdiction in the concerned State

It has jurisdiction all over India
only and empowers High Courts to issue
4. and empowers Supreme Court to
writs only in their own local
issue writs pan India.
jurisdiction.

The rights under Article 32

The rights under Article 226 are under
5. cannot be refused by the
the discretion of the High Courts.
Supreme Court.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is known as 'the heart and soul of the
Constitution provides the Fundamental Rights of an Indian citizen while Article
226 of the Indian Constitution gives discretionary power to the High Courts and
provides the Constitutional Rights of an Indian citizen.
Thus, it can be said that Articles 32 and 226 are slightly different in terms of
powers but both of them ensures that the rights of the Indian citizens are
protected and provisions of the Constitution of India are upheld.

Cases

Daryao versus state of UP 1961 when the matter has been heard and
decided by high court under article 226 the writ under article 32 is barred by the
principle of res judicata.
L Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India 1997 the jurisdiction of high court
under article 226 and supreme court under article 32 is inviolable basic structure
of the constitution.
 PART IV A

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICIES

36. Definition: In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State has the
same meaning as in Part III
It says the State Part III.
Therefore, the same definition as Article 12 will apply, which means State includes:
1. Executive and Legislature of Union and State
2. All local or other authorities within the territory of India or which are under the
control of the Government of India

Classification of DPSP

Socialistic Principles,

These Principles aim at providing social and economic justice and set the path
towards the welfare state. (Article 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43, 43A, 47)

Gandhian Principles.

Principles are based on Gandhian ideology (Article 40, 43, 43B, 46, 47, 48,)

Liberal-Intellectual Principles.

These principles reflect the ideology of liberalism. (Articles 44, 45, 48, 49, 50,
51)

Social and Economic Charter (Article 38,39)

Social Security Charter (Article 40,41,42,43,43-A,45,46,47)
Community Welfare Charter (Article 44,48,48A,49,50,51)
 ARTICLE 37- APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES CONTAINED

37. Application of the principles contained in this Part: - The provisions

contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein
laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall
be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

Provides that the directive principles shall not be enforceable by any court,
But these principles are fundamental in governance of the country and
It shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
Note: - Hence this article imposes duty on the organs of the Government to apply
these principles in making laws. It is the duty of the Judiciary to interpret the law in
the light of these directive principles.

ARTICLE 38- SOCIAL ORDER FOR WELFARE

38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic
and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and
endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only
amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations

State should secure social to promote welfare of people and strive to minimize
inequalities in income and in status, facilities and opportunities.
(Article 38 was renamed as Article 38 (1) by 44th amendment and Article 38(2) was
added)

ARTICLE 39 CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF POLCIY TO BE FOLLOWED BY

STATE

39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State: The State shall, in
particular, direct its policy towards securing
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to
livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of
children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to
enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) That children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy
manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are
protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment

a. Right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens

b. Equitable distribution of material resources of the community for the common
good
c. Prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production
d. Equal pay for equal work for men and women (E.g.: Equal Remuneration Act
1976)
e. Preservation of the health and strength of workers and children against forcible
abuse
f. Opportunities for the healthy development of children (clause (f) added by 42 nd
amendment 1976)
In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India 1982 Supreme Court held that
directive principle of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but
since it is a constitutional goal it can be enforced through art. 32.

ARTICLE 39A- EQUAL JUSTICE AND FREE LEGAL AID

39A: The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a
basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable
legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing
justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities .

State shall secure that operation of legal system promotes justice on a basis of
equal opportunity
State shall provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice
are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities
(Article 39A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976)
Implementation: Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (NALSA/DALSA)

ARRICLE 40- PANCHAYAT SYSTEM

States to take steps to Organize village panchayats

Endow them with powers and authority
Endow them to function as unit of self-government
Implementation: 73rd Amendment Act 1992. (Added a new part IX ( The

Constitution.)

Article 41- RIGHT TO WORK, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases: - The
State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective
provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved
want

State shall within its economic capacity and development make effective
provision for securing
Right to work
Right to education
Right to public assistance
In case of unemployment, old age, sickness, disablement, and undeserved want

Article 42- JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK AND MATERNITY

RELIEF

State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and
for maternity relief
Implementation: Maternity Benefit Act 1961.

Article 43- PROTECTION OF WORKERS

43. Living wage, etc, for workers:- The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable
legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural,
industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent
standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and,
in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or
co operative basis in rural areas.

State shall endeavor to secure to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise

Provide A living wage
Provide A decent standard of life
Provide Full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities
 Implementation: Amendments to Minimum Wages Act 1948 Payment of Bonus
Act 1965
State shall endeavor to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-
operative basis in rural areas
Implementation: Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act 1956

Article 43A- PARTICIPATION OF WORKERS

43A participation of workers in management of industries: - the state shall

take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way to secure the participation of
workers in the management of undertaking establishments or other organisations
engaged in any industry.

State shall take steps to secure participation of workers in management of

undertakings, establishments engaged in industry
(Inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976)

Article 43B- CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

43BPromotion of cooperative societies:- The State shall endeavour to promote

voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional
management of co-operative societies.

State shall endeavor to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning,

democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies.
(Inserted by the 97th Amendment Act 2012)

Article 44- UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

 44 uniform civil code for the citizens:-Sate shall endeavor to secure for citizens a
uniform civil code throughout the territory of India

Article 45- EDUCATION AND CARE TILL 6 YEARS AGE

45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children:- The State shall
endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this
Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the
age of fourteen years

State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all
children until they complete the age of six years.
(Article 45 was amended by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002, Before
amendment it talked about free and compulsory education to all children until
they complete 14 years of age, 86th amendment made that Fundamental Right by
adding 21A)

Article 46- PROTECTION OF WEAKER SECTIONS

46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections: - The State shall promote with
special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people,
and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect
them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation

State shall promote with special care educational and economic interests of
weaker section in particular, of SCs and STs State shall protect them from social
injustice and exploitation
Implementation: 65th Amendment Act 1990- National Commission for SCs and
 89th Amendment Act 2003- Bifurcated the commission into two separate
c
SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

Article 47- NUTRITION, PUBLIC HEALTH, STANDARD OF LIVING AND

PROHIBITION

47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living
and to improve public health:- The State shall regard the raising of the level of
nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health
as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and
of drugs which are injurious to health.

State shall make its primary duty in

Raising of level of nutrition
Raising of standard of living of people improvement of public health
State shall endeavor to
Bring about prohibition of consumption except for medicinal purpose of
intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health.

Article 48- PROTECTION FROM COW SLAUGHTER AND SCIENTIFIC

AGRUICULTURE

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry:- The State shall

endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines
and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and
prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

State shall endeavor

 To organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines
State shall take steps for
Preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting slaughter of cows and
calves and other milch and draught cattle

Article 48A- PROCTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND WILD LIFE

48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of

forests and wild life: - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

State shall endeavor: To protect and improve environment and to safeguard

forests and wild life
(Inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976)
Implementation:
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
Environment (Protection) Act 1986
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981

Article 49- PROTECTION OF HISTORICAL SITES

49. Protection of monuments and places and objects of national

importance: - It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or
place or object of artistic or historic interests, declared by or under law made by
Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction,
removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.

It shall be the obligation of State

To protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest
declared by Parliament to be of national importance
From spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal or export
Implementation: Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites
and Remains Act 1951

Article 50- SEPARATION OF JUDICIARY

Separation of judiciary from executive The State shall take steps to separate the
judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

State shall take steps

To separate judiciary from executive in public services of State
Implementation: Criminal Procedure Code 1973- Judicial powers haven been
taken away from executive authorities like Collector, Tehsildar

Article 51- INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Promotion of international peace and security The State shall endeavour to

(a) promote international peace and security;
(b) maintain just and honorable relations between nations;
(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by
arbitration.

State shall endeavor

To promote international peace and security
To maintain just and honourable relations between nations
To foster respect for international law and treaty obligations
To encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

ChampakamDorairajanCase(1951)

Conflict was between Article 15, Article 29(2) (of Fundamental Rights) and Article 46
(of DPSP), issue was reservation, there should be equality according to F.R but DPSP
is asking to promote interests of weaker section.
Supreme Court in its verdict said that in case of conflict between Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights would always prevail.
It also said that Directive principles have to work as a supplement with Fundamental

1st Amendment (1951)

As a Response to Champakam case, Parliament added Article 15(4) which created a
way to provide reservation as special provision for the advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes.

In Re: Kerela Education Bill (1958)

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill (1957) had propounded
the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict
while enforcing DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights. As per this doctrine, the
court held that there is no inherent conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the
courts while interpreting a law should attempt to give effect to both as far as
possible i. e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible.
The court further said that where two interpretation of the law is possible, and
one interpretation validates the law while other interpretation makes the law
 unconstitutional and void, then the first interpretation which validates the law
should be adopted. But if only one interpretation is possible which leads to
conflict between DPSPs and FRs, the court has no option but to implement FRs
in preference to DPSPs.
Similar Observation was made in State of Kerela v. N.M Thomas (1975) and
Dalmia Cement v. Uol (2017)

Golaknath Case (1967)

Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Right to give
effect to the Directive Principles.
24th Amendment (1971)- This amendment was done in reaction to Golaknath
Case judgment and to nullify the effect of the same.
Added Art. 13(4) and Art. 368(3), meaning parliament can amend any part of
Constitution
25th Amendment (1972)-It was also done in reaction Golaknath Case
judgment. It inserted a new Article 31- C which contained the following two
provisions:
1. No law which gives effect to the directive principles can be declared invalid and
unconstitutional on the grounds that it is violating fundamental rights namely
Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19
(protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) &
Article 31 (rights to property).
2. No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be
questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a
policy.
(Note: Right to Property was a fundamental right at this time.)

KESHAVNANDA BHARTI CASE (1973)

Supreme Court in its verdict held that the second provision mentioned in the
Article 31-C is invalid & unconstitutional as it is taking away the power of court
 for judicial review. However, first provision of Article 31-C was held valid &
Constitutional.
42nd Amendment (1976)
DPSP were given precedence over fundamental rights and any law made to this
effect by parliament was kept beyond scope of judicial by court.
MINERVA MILLS CASE (1980)
Supreme Court in its decision declared that Directive Principles are subordinate
to Fundamental Rights. But position of Fundamental Rights under Article 14 &
Article was made subordinate to Directive Principles. Supreme Court also said
that Constitution demands to maintain balance between the Fundamental Rights
& Directive principles. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to
disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
(Note: Right to property (Article 31) was abolished as a fundamental right by 44th
Amendment Act (1978))

PRESENT POSITION

This means that DPSP 39B and 39C has been given precedence over Fundamental Right
14 (Right to Equality) and Fundamental Right 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression).

Article
Content
Number

Defines State as same as Article 12 unless the context otherwise

Article 36
defines.

Article 37 Application of the Principles contained in this part.

Article 38
It authorizes the state to secure a social order for the promotion of
 the welfare of people.

Article 39 Certain principles of policies to be followed by the state.

Article 39A Equal justice and free legal aid.

Article 40 Organization of village Panchayats.

Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain

Article 41
cases.

Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity

Article 42
leaves.

Article 43 Living wage etc. for workers.

Article 43-A Participation of workers in management of industries.

Article 43-B Promotion of cooperative societies.

Article 44 Uniform civil code for the citizens.

Provision for early childhood care and education to children below

Article 45
the age of six years.

Promotion of education and economic interests of SC, ST, and other

Article 46
weaker sections.

Duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
Article 47
living and to improve public health.
 Article 48 Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry.

Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of

Article 48-A
forests and wildlife.

Protection of monuments and places and objects of national

Article 49
importance.

Article 50 Separation of judiciary from the executive.

Article 51 Promotion of international peace and security.

 FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES [Article 51A]

Part IV A containing article 51A was added by the 42nd Constitutional

Amendment Act 1976.

Originally it contained 10 fundamental duties. The 11th fundamental duty was

added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002.

The concept of fundamental duties was taken from USSR

Duties were added on Recommendation of Swaran Singh committee.

These duties are non enforceable but many of these duties are imposed
through various legislations

51A. Fundamental duties: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India

(a) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag
and the National Anthem; [Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971.]

(b) To cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for
freedom;

(c) To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; [sec 153B IPC-
activities that encourage enmity between groups are prohibited]

(d) To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people
of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; [SEC 153A IPC also
SEC.295- 298 Offences related to religion and caste punishable]

(f) To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; [ EPA ACT, 1986]

(h) To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) To safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that
the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievement

(k) Who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as
the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

Fundamental duties case laws

In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala 1987 which is popularly known as the
National Anthem Case, on refusing to sing the National Anthem in the school, three

that was issued by the Director of Instructions, Kerala which made it compulsory for the
school students to sing the National Anthem. These three children did not join the

religious faith. They were expelled on the ground that they violated their fundamental
duties and committed an offence under the Prevention of Insult to National
Honours Act, 1971. The court reversed this decision of the High Court because they
did not commit any offence and also they committed no crime under the Prevention of
Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 as though they did not sing the National Anthem
but they stood out of respect.

In [Link] (2) vs. Union of India 1998, the Supreme Court held that it is
compulsory for all the educational institute to organize a teaching lesson of at least one
hour a week on the protection and improvement of the natural environment and it is the
duty of the Central Government under Article 51A (g) to introduce this in all the
educational institute. The Central Government should also distribute books free of cost
on the same subject in all the institutes and also raise consciousness amongst people
towards clean environment. The government should organize
at least once in a year.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a
complete ban and closing of mining operation carried on in Mussoorie hills was held to
be sustainable by deriving support from the fundamental duty as enshrined in Article
51-A (g) of the Constitution. The court held that preservation of the environment and
keeping the ecological balance unaffected in a task which not only government but also
every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation of the state as well as of the
individuals

In the case of AIIMS Students Union vs, AIIMS 2002 the Supreme Court held that the
fundamental duties are equally important like the fundamental rights. The court also
said that just because they are duties they cannot be overlooked. They have the same
importance which the fundamental rights hold.

In Aruna Roy vs. Union of India 2002, the court upheld the validity of the National
Curriculum Framework for School Education which was challenged on the ground that
it violated the Article 28 of the Indian Constitution and it was anti-secular because it
provided for value development education relating to the basics of all religions. The
court said that the NCFSF does not mention anything related to imparting religious
instruction which is prohibited under Article 28 and education neither violate Article
28 nor the concept of secularism.

In order to make a right balance between Fundamental Rights and Duties the petitioner
in the case of wrote a
letter to the President so that he can give directions to the State in order to educate
citizens in the matter related to fundamental duties. This letter was treated as a writ
petition by the Court. But by the time this matter would be heard a report was submitted
to the Government of India by the National Commission who was reviewing the
Constitution at that time. Following suggestions were provided by the commission in the
court:

1. In order to sensitise the people and to create general awareness regarding the
fundamental duties, the State and the Union Government should take proper
steps on the lines that were recommended by the Justice Verma Committee.
 2. For generating awareness and consciousness of citizens related to
fundamental duties, modes and manners needs to be adopted.

The court took into account the recommendations made by the National Commission
and also directed the government to take necessary steps. The writ was disposed of.

In Government of India vs. George Philip 2006, the compulsory retirement was
challenged by the respondent from the service. Two years of leave was granted to him by
the department to pursue advanced research training. After the repeated reminders he
overstayed in foreign, so, an inquiry was instituted against him and the charge was
proved. The High Court provided him with a remedy to join the service again on one
clause that no back wages would be provided but the Supreme Court had set aside this
order. The Supreme Court said that according to Article 51A(j) one should always strive
towards excellence in all spheres of life of an individual and also for the collective
activity so that the nation constantly rises to a higher level of endeavour, achievements
and excellence could not be achieved unless discipline is maintained by the employees.
The court also said that no order should be passed by the courts which destroy the
essence of Article 51A and the order passed by the High Court, in this case, was
destroying the essence of the Article.

The court in the case of Dr. Dasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1984, held
that under Article 51(j) every citizen must abide by its duty to always strive towards
excellence in all spheres of life and also for the collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to a higher level of endeavour and achievements. For this, the State can
provide ways to achieve excellence according to the methods which are permitted by our
Indian Constitution.

In the case of Charu Khurana vs. Union of India 2015 the Supreme Court held that
the State should provide for opportunities rather than curtailing it. The court also said
that the duty of the citizen have also been extended to the collective duty of the state.

: In Parmanand Katara vs Union of India 1989 Supreme Court held

that all doctors (private or government) or employees are obliged to extend
medical assistance to person injured immediately without asking for legal
formalities.
 THE UNION EXECUTIVE [PART V, ARTICLES 52-72]

THE PRESIDENT

Article 52 provides that there shall be a President of India.

The president is the head of Indian state. He is first citizen of India

Executive power of union article 53

Article 53 provides that executive power of the union shall be vested in the
president and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers
subordinate to him in accordance with the constitution.

The president shall be supreme commander of Defence forces in India.

Election of president article 54

Article 54 provides that president shall be elected by the members of electoral

college consisting of:
 A. Elected members of both houses of parliament and

B. Elected members of Legislative assemblies of state

State includes the national capital territory of Delhi and union territory of
Pondicherry. It means that elected members of Legislative assemblies of NCT of
Delhi and union territory of Pondicherry shall also be eligible to vote in the
election of president.

Member who do not participate in election of president: it is to be

noted that

1. nominated members of both the houses of parliament; and

2. nominated members of state legislative assembly; and

3. members both elected and nominated of state legislative council[ in case

of bicameral Legislature] and

4. Nominated members of legislative assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry do

not participate in the election of president.

Article 55

Provides that there shall be uniformity in the scale of Representation of different

states as well as parity between the state as whole and union at the election of the
president.

the president election is held in accordance with the system of proportional

representation by the means of Single Transferable Vote and the voting is by
secret ballot[ article 55(3)]

Term, Resignation And Re Election [Article 56]

Provides that president shall hold office for the term of five years from the date
on which he enters upon his office.

the president may resign by addressing his resignation to the vice president
 The president may for violation of constitution be removed from office by
impeachment in the manner provided in article 61.

The president shall not withstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold
the office until his successor enters upon his office.

Resignation address to vice president shall be communicated by him to the

speaker of the house of people.

Resignation

President Vice President Speaker

Article 57 provides that the person who holds or has held the office of president
shall subject to the other provisions of the Constitution be eligible for re-election
to that office.

Qualification for the election of president [article 58]

Article 58 provides that following shall be the qualification for election of

president.

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. He should have completed 35 years of age.

3. He should be qualified for election as a member of Lok Sabha.

4. He should not hold any office of profit under the union government or any
State government or any local authority or any other public authority.

A sitting president or vice president of the union, the governor of any state and a
Minister of the union or any state is not deemed to hold any office of profit and
hence qualified as presidential candidate.

Conditions of president's office [article 59]

Article 59 provides that the president shall not be a member of either the
House of Parliament or of the House of Legislature of any state.
 If a member of either House of Parliament or of house of the Legislature
of any state be elected president, he shall be deemed to have vacated his
office in that house on the date on which he enters upon his office as a
president.

The president shall not hold any other office of profit.

The president shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of his
official residence and shall be also entitled to search emoluments,
Allowances and privileges as maybe determined by the Parliament by law.

The emoluments and allowances of president shall not be diminished

during his term of office.

Oath or affirmation by president [article 60]

Article 60 provides that before entering upon his office, the president has to
make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation. In his oath the president swears:

1. To faithfully execute the office.

2. To preserve, protect and Defend the constitution and law; and

3. To devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of India.

The Oath of the office of president is administered by Chief Justice of India and
in his absence, the senior most judge of Supreme Court available.

Any other person acting as a president or discharging the functions of the

president also undertake the similar oath or affirmation.

Impeachment of the president [article 61]

Article 61 provides the procedure for impeachment of president.

Grounds: president is impeached on the ground of violation of constitution. The

The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of the Parliament.

 14 days prior notice

These charges should be signed by one fourth member of the house (that framed
the charges).

The president has the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.

If the other house also sustains the charges and passes the impeachment
resolution by a majority of two third and total memberships, then the president
stands removed from his office from the date on which the resolution is
so passed.

in context of impeachment, two things should be noted:-

1. The nominated members Of either House of Parliament can participate in

impeachment of the president though they do not participate in his
election;

2. The elected member of legislative assemblies of the states and union

territories of Delhi and Puducherry do not participate in the impeachment
of president do they participate in his election.

Till date no president has been impeached.

Vacancy, time for holding election etc [article 62]

Article 62 provides that an election to fill a vacancy caused by expiration of the

term of office of president shall be completed before the expiration of the term of
the president.

vacancy in president's office

1. On expiry of his tenure of 5 year

2. by his resignation

3. on his removal by the process of impeachment

4. by his death
 5. Otherwise [when he becomes disqualified to hold the office or when his
election is declared void].

In the case of any delay in conducting the elections of new president by any
reason, the outgoing president continues to hold office the on his term of 5 years
until his successor assumes the charge. It is to be noted that in this situation the
Vice-President does not get an opportunity to act as a president.

If the office false vacant by resignation, removal, death or otherwise, then the
election to fill the vacancy should be held within six months from the date of
occurrence of such a vacancy.

The newly elected president remains an office for a full term of five years from
the date he assume the charge of his office.

Situations where vice president act as a president article 65

When a vacancy occurs in the office of president due to his resignation, removal,
death or otherwise, the vice president acts as the President until our new
President is elected article 65(1).

When the sitting president is unable to discharge is function due to absence,

illness or any other cause the vice president discharges his functions until the
president resumes his office article 65(2)

in the case of office of vice president is vacant, the Chief Justice of India for if his
office is also vacant the senior most judge of Supreme Court available acts as the
President of discharges the functions of president.

Powers of president

1. Executive Power
2. Legislative Power
3. Financial Powers
4. Judicial Power
5. Military Powers
6. Diplomatic Powers

Executive powers:

Powers of the union Vest in the president. few important executive powers
and functions of President are:

i. All executive actions of Government of India are formally taken in the name
of president [article 77]

ii. Appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers. they hold office during
his pleasure [article 75 (1)]

iii. He appoints office bearers of constitutional post like the governor of state,
Attorney General of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the
election commissioner and other Election Commissioner, the Chairman and
members of Union Public Service Commission the Chairman and member of
finance commission etc.

iv. he can appoint commissions to investigate into conditions of SC ST and

other backward classes[ article 338, 338 a 338 b]

v. He can appoint the Interstate Council to promote Centre state and

interested Corporation.[263]

vi. He directly administers union territories through administrator appointed

by him.[239]

vii. He can declare any area as scheduled area and has powers with respect to
administration of Scheduled Areas and tribal areas.[244(1) V SCHEDULE]
Legislative powers

Following are the few important legislative powers of the president:-

1. He can summon of prorogue the Parliament and dissolve the Lok Sabha.
article 85 [1]

2. He can summon a joint sitting of both the houses of parliament [article

108]

3. He can appoint any member of Lok Sabha to preside over its proceedings
when the offices of both the speaker and deputy speaker fall vacant.
Similarly he can also appoint any member of Rajya Sabha to preside over
its proceedings when the offices of both the Chairman and Deputy
Chairman fall vacant.

4. nominates 12 members of Rajya Sabha from person having special

knowledge or practical experience in Literature, science, art and social
service [article 80(3)]

5. He can nominate two members of Lok Sabha from Anglo Indian

community article 331. Repealed by 104th constitutional amendment
2019.

6. He decides on question as to disqualification of members of parliament in

consultation with election commission (article 103).

7. when a bill is sent to the president after it has been passed by the
parliament he can Give his assent to the bill or

a. withhold his assent to the bill or

b. Return the bill [if it is not a money bill] for reconsideration of the
Parliament.

c. if the bill is passed Again by the parliament, with or without amendment,

the president has to give his assent to the bill [article 111]
 8. He can promulgate Ordinance is when Parliament is not in session

Military Powers

Article 53 also states that the President shall be the Supreme Commander of all the
Armed Forces of the Union of India. It also states that no specific provisions can reduce
the scope of this general principle.

As the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Union, President has powers
regarding:

Appointment of all the officers, including the appointment of the chiefs of the
forces;

Wars are waged in the name of the President;

Peace is concluded in the name of the President.

Diplomatic Powers

The President forms the face of Indian diplomacy and helps the nation to maintain
cordial relationships with countries across the globe.

All the Ambassadors and high commissioners in foreign nations are his
representatives;

He receives the credentials of the Diplomatic representatives of other nations;

Prior to ratification by Parliament, the treaties and agreements with other

nations are negotiated by the President.

Ordinance making power of the President: Article 123

Article 123 talks about the presidential powers to promulgate ordinances. An ordinance
can be promulgated if:

neither of the House of the Parliament is in session;

And the President feels a need for immediate action.

The ordinance which is promulgated by the President will have the same effect as that of
an act or law of the Parliament.

The essential conditions to be met by an ordinance are:

It shall be presented before both the Houses of Parliament for passing when it
comes to the session;

The ordinance shall cease to operate six weeks after the date of
reassembling of the parliament;

The ordinance may also expire if the resolutions disapproving it are passed by
both the Houses of Parliament;

Therefore every Ordinance issued by the president during the Recess of

Parliament must be laid before both the houses of Parliament when it
reassembles. if the ordinance is approved by both the houses it becomes an act
and if Parliament takes no action at all, all the ordinance ceases to operate on
expiry of 6 Weeks from reassembly of parliament.

It can be withdrawn at any time by the President;

The ordinance must be in consonance to the Constitution of India

else it shall be declared void.

It is to be noted an ordinance made when both the houses are in session is

void. Thus the power of the president to legislate by Ordinance is not a parallel
power of legislation.
 Grounds of promulgation he can make an ordinance only when he is
satisfied that the circumstances exist that render it necessary for him to take
immediate action.

In RC Cooper vs. Union of India 1970 the supreme court held that the
president's satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the ground of
malafide.

In A K Roy versus Union of India the supreme court held that Ordinance
would be subject to the test of vagueness, arbitrariness, reasonableness and
Public Interest.

Scope of Ordinance making power is coextensive with that of Legislative

powers of parliament. It means that an ordinance can be issued only on those
subjects on which Parliament can make laws.

The ordinance making power of the president is not a discretionary power,

and he can promulgate or withdraw an ordinance only on the advice of
Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

In D C Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that
successive Re promulgation of Ordinance without any attempt to get the Bill
passed by the Assembly would amount to fraud on constitution and the
ordinance so promulgated is liable to be struck down. it held that the
exceptional power of law making through Ordinance cannot be used as a
substitute for legislative powers of state legislative assembly.

Financial Roles

Money bills can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior
recommendation of president [article 109 and 110]

He Causes to be laid before the Parliament the annual financial statement that
is the union budget [article 112]
 The Contingency Funds of India are at the disposal of the President. He can
make advances out of the contingency fund of India to meet any unforeseen
expenditure. [ART 267]

He also causes the presentation of audits in the Parliament. [151]

He constitutes a finance commission after every five years to recommend the

distribution of revenues between the centre and the states [article 280]

Judicial powers

The President enjoys the following privileges as his judicial powers:

He can rectify the judicial errors;

He exercises the power of grant of pardons and reprieves of punishments; or

suspend, remit or commute sentences of any person convicted of any offence.

President can seek the advice of Supreme Courts on: article 143

1. Legal matters,

2. Constitutional matter,

3. Matters of national importance.

So he can seek advice from the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact.
However the advice tendered by the Supreme Court is not binding on the
president.

Pardoning power: Article 72

Article 72 provides for the provisions relating to the pardoning powers of the President.
President can grant pardons, respites, reprieves, and remissions of punishments or
remit suspend or commute the sentence given to a person by the court in the following
cases:

When the sentence is granted through a court-martial;

 When the sentence or punishment is given for offense of violation of any law
relating to matters that fall in the ambit ;

When a death sentence is passed by a court.

Pardon: it removes both the sentence and the conviction and completely
absolved the Convict from all sentences punishments and disqualification

Commutation: it denotes the substitution of one form of punishment for a

lighter form. For example a death sentence may be commuted to rigorous
imprisonment.

Remission: it applies reducing the period of sentence without changing its

character. for example sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years may
be limited to a rigorous imprisonment for one year

Respite: it denotes awarding a lesser sentence in place of one originally

awarded due to some special facts such as physical disability of a Convict for
pregnancy of a women offender.

Reprieve: it implies a stay of execution of sentence [especially that of death]

for a temporary period. Its purpose is to enable the convict to have time to
seek pardon or commutation from the president.

In Maru Ram v Union of India, Supreme Court held that pardoning power under
Article 72 is to be exercised by the President, on the advice of the Central Government
and not on his own will and that the advice is binding on the head of the Republic.

Pardoning Power: subject to judicial review

In Kuljit Singh Alias Ranga Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors In this case, death
sentence of one of the appellants was confirmed by the Supreme Court. His mercy
petition was also rejected by the President. Then, the appellant filed a writ petition in
the Supreme Court challenging the discretion of the President to grant pardon on the
ground that no reasons were given for rejection of his mercy petition. The court
entirely a discretionary remedy and grant or rejection of it need not to be reasoned.

In Kehar Singh vs. Union of India and Anr 1989: the Supreme Court held that
while exercising the pardoning power of president can scrutinize the evidence on record
and can come to a different conclusion. In doing so the president does not modify or
supersede the judicial records. The petition for Mercy has no right to an oral hearing by
the president.

In Epuru Sudhakar vs. government of Andhra Pradesh 2006 the Supreme

Court held that pardoning power of president under article 72 and of governor under
article 161 are subject to judicial review. Pardoning cannot be exercised on the basis of
caste and political reasons.

Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution

Article 161 grants the power to the Governor of the state to suspend, remit or commute
sentences of the offenders in certain cases relating to a violation of provisions or laws to
which the executive power of the state extends.

Article 72 Article 161

Grants power to the President of India. Grants powers to the Governor of

state.

The power is wider in scope. The scope of powers is narrower.

The powers of pardon extend to cases of Power cannot interfere with cases of
Court Martial as well. Court Martial.
 Allows the President to grant pardon in Governor cannot grant pardon in
cases of death sentence. cases of death sentence.

Emergency Powers

Article 352 of the Constitution of India grants President, three kinds of emergency
powers as well:

When a National Emergency is declared in case of external aggression or

internal armed rebellion, the President holds the powers to declare a state of
emergency. Thus
However, the prime minister and the Council of Ministers must recommend
such an emergency;

When there exists a constitutional or law and order breakdown situation in a

state, the President may declare a state of emergency in such cases. The state

Whenever the financial stability of the nation or any country is seriously

affected, the President has the right to intervene and direct the state to check
and maintain public expenditure.

Privileges of the President: Article 361

Under Article 361, the President is protected from being answerable to any court for:

For exercise and performance of his powers and duties of his office;

For doing any act or claimed of doing any act in the exercise of those powers
and duties;

The conduct of the President can be reviewed only if either House of Parliament
designates or appoints any court tribunal or any other body to investigate the charges
under Article 61.
But it bars no person from bringing any valid proceeding against the Governor or
Government of India.

This Article immunes the President against all types of criminal proceedings during the
term of his office.

No issuance of any order relating to the arrest and imprisonment of the President can be
made by any court during his term of office.

A civil proceeding can be constituted against the president during his term of office if:

The act is done or alleged to have been done, whether before or entering the
office of the President, by him was in his personal capacity;

Two months prior notice is provided, to the president or was sent to his office,
stating:

1. The nature of the proceeding;

2. The cause of action;

3. The details of the other party including name, description, and place
of residence;

4. The relief claimed by the other party;

Position of the President [art. 74(1)]

The position of the President has changed, with respect to his discretion to use his
power, has changed since the inception of the Constitution. The two major changes
came through the 42nd and 44th Amendment Act of the Constitution.

Prior to the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976

Prior to the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, the President was free to make
decisions based on his wisdom. He may also consider the Council of Ministers for their
advice on the action. As the Constitution at that time talks about constituting a Council
of Ministers with a Prime Minister, as its head, to aid and advise the President in
carrying out his duties.

After the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976

Later, the Constitution was amended to add the phrase that the President shall act on
the aid and advice of the council of ministers. But the provision was still ambiguous
whether the advice given by the Council of Ministers is binding on the president or not.

44th Amendment Act, 1978

This amendment was brought to swipe off the ambiguity created by the 42nd
amendment. This provision said that:

President can send back the advice to the Council of Ministers for
reconsideration once;

If the same advice is sent again without modifications by the Council then the
President is bound to accept it.
 The Vice President

Article 63 provides that there shall be a Vice President of India

The office of vice president is the second highest office in the country

Article 64 provides that vice president shall be ex officio chairman of Council of

States. He shall not hold any office of profit

During any period when the vice president acts as president or this charges the
functions of President under article 65 he shall not perform the duties of the
office of chairman of Council of states and shall not be entitled to any salary or
allowances payable to the chairman of the Council of States.

Office Of Political Continuity

Election of vice president article 66

Article 66 provides that vice president shall be elected by the member of electoral
college consisting of the members of both the houses of parliament

The election shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional

representation by means of Single Transferable Vote and secret ballot

It is to be noted that the Electoral College for election of vice president shall
consist of both elected and nominated members of parliament.

It does not include the members of state legislative assembly

The vice president shall not be a member of either House of Parliament or of a

house of Legislature or any state.

If a member of either of the House of Parliament or of house of Legislature or of

any state be elected vice president he shall be Deemed to have vacated his seat in
that house on the date on which he enters upon the vice president's office.
Qualifications of election as vice president [article 66[3]]

Article 66(3) provides the following qualifications of the election as vice president

He should be a citizen of India.

He should have completed 35 years of age.

He should be qualified for election as a member of Rajya Sabha

He should not hold any office of profit under union government or any State
government or any local authority or any other public authority.

A person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by the reason only that
he is the president or vice president of the union for the governor of any state or
is a Minister either for Union or any state.

Term , resignation and removal [article 67]

Article 67 provides that vice president hold office for a term of five years from
the date on which he enters upon his office

Resignation: He can resign from his office at any time by addressing the
resignation letter to the president.

Removal: He can be removed from the office before completion of office term.

He can be removed by a resolution of Rajya Sabha passed by an absolute majority

[that is a majority of total members of house] an agreed to by the Lok Sabha

No such resolutions can be moved analyst at least 14 days advance notice has
been given

No Grounds has been mentioned in the constitution for his removal.

The vice president can hold office beyond his term of 5 years until his successor
resumes charge.[68]

He is also eligible for re-election to that office. He may be elected for any number
of terms.

Oath by the Vice-President article 69

Article 69 provide that before entering upon his office, the vice president has to
make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation

In his of the vice president swear:

True faith and allegiance to the constitution of India and to faithfully discharge
the duties of his office

The Oath of office to the vice president is administered by the President or some
person appointed on that behalf by him.

Election disputes article 71

Article 71 provides that matters related to or connected with the elections of

president and the vice president

All doubts and disputes in connection with the election of President and Vice
President are decided by Supreme Court whose decision is final.

The election of a person as the President or vice president cannot be challenged

on the ground that the electoral college was incomplete [ that is existence of any
vacancy among the members of the electoral college].
Emoluments: the constitution has not fixed any emoluments for vice president in
that capacity. Hi he draws his regular salary in capacity of ex officio Chairman of
Rajya Sabha.
 The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers

The Prime Minister

Appointment of the Prime Minister

Article 75 (1) provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the
President

According to the conventions of the parliamentary system of government the

president has to appoint the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha as
Prime Minister

When no party has a clear majority in Lok Sabha then the president usually
appoints the leader of the largest party or coalition in Lok Sabha as prime
minister and ask him to seek vote of confidence in Lok Sabha

In Parliamentary form of Government the president is the head of

the state while Prime Minister is the head of government

Oath and the term of office

Before the Prime Minister enters upon his office, The President
administers to him The Oath of office and secrecy. The form of Oath of
office and secrecy for prime minister is similar to that of any Union
Minister.

Term: article 75 [2] to provides that the Minister shall hold office
during the pleasure of the president. Therefore the term of Prime Minister
is not fixed and he holds the office during the pleasure of the President.

However the President cannot dismiss the Prime Minister anytime. So

long as the Prime Minister enjoying the majority support in Lok Sabha, he
cannot be dismissed by the president.

If he loses the confidence of Lok Sabha, he must resign or the president

can dismiss him.
Duties of prime minister [article 78]

Article 78 provides that it is the duty of prime minister

A. To communicate to the president all the decisions of the Council of

Ministers related to the administration of the affairs of Union and
proposals for legislation.

B. To furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs

of the union proposals for legislation as the President may call for; and

C. If the president so required to submit for the consideration of the

Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken in by
a Minister but which has not being considered by the Council.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Appointment of other ministers: the Minister shall be appointed by president on

the advice of the Prime Minister article 75[ 1]

A person who is not a member of either House of Parliament can also be

appointed as minister. But within six months he must become a member of either
House of Parliament; otherwise he sees is to be a Minister article 75[ 5]

In SP Anand versus H.D. Deve Gowda 1997 Supreme Court held that a
person who is not a member of either House of the Parliament can be appointed
by the prime minister for 6 months.

Article 74 and 75 broadly deal with principles of Parliamentary form of

Government post of do it has not been set out in detail
Council of Ministers to aid and advise president [article 74]

Article 74[ 1] provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the prime
minister at the head to Aid and advise the President who shall in exercise of his
function, act in accordance with such advice.[PM- Primus inter pares]

The president may require the Council of Ministers to consider such advice,
either generally or otherwise, and the president shall act in accordance with the
advice standard after such reconsideration [provision to article 74[ 1]] added
by the 44th constitutional amendment.

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment 1976 has amended article 74 [1] and has
made the advice binding on the president.

The question whether any, and if so what, advice was attended by ministers to
president shall not be inquired in any court room. Article 74( 2)

In UN Rao versus Indira Gandhi 1971 the Supreme Court has held that
article 74[1] is mandatory and the president cannot exercise the executive power
without aid and advice to the Council of Ministers. Even after The dissolution of
Lok Sabha the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold their office.

In Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs State Of Punjab 1955 the Supreme Court held
that the president has been made a formal or a constitutional head of the
executive and the real executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.

Principle of collective responsibility and individual responsibility

Collective responsibility

Principle of collective responsibility is a Hallmark of Parliamentary form of

Government. In India it is important in article 75[3] e of the constitution.

This provides that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the
house of people.
When the Lok Sabha passes on no confidence motion against the Council of
Ministers, all the ministers have to resign.

Individual responsibility

Article 75 also contains the principle of individual responsibility.

Article 75 [2] states that ministers hold office during the pleasure of president.

Each member is responsible for the works and functioning of his ministries and
department. The president can remove a Minister even at a time when the
Council of Ministers enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha. The president
removes a Minister only on the advice of the prime minister.

Size of Council of Ministers

Article 75[ 1 A] Provides that the total number of ministers, including the
prime minister in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total
number of members of the house of the people.

The clause was inserted by the 91st constitutional amendment 2003

At the top of all these ministers stars Prime Minister the supreme governing
authority of the country.
 Attorney General for India

Article 76 provides for the office of Attorney General for India. He is appointed
by the president.

Qualification: he must be a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of

Supreme Court [article 76]

Tenure: the attorney-general shall hold office during the pleasure of president.
[Article 76[4]].

He is the highest law officer of the country

Duties of attorney general

It shall be the duty of Attorney General to give advice to the Government of India
upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of legal character as
may be assigned from time to time by the president.[ article 76[2]].

He will also discharge functions conferred on him by or under the constitution or

any other law for the time being in force. [Article 76[2]].

In the performance of his duties he shall have the right to audience in all courts
in territory of India [article 76[3]]
 The State Executive Part VI [Article 153- 167]

Article 153 to 167 in part 6 of the Constitution deals with the State
Executive

GOVERNOR

Article 153 provides that there shall be a Governor for each state. The same
person can be appointed as governor for two or more states.
Article 154 provides that the executive power of the state shall be vested in the
Governor.
The Governor is the Chief Executive Head of the State. Like the president,
he is a head (titular or constitutional head).

Appointment of the Governor article 155

Article 155 the governor of the state shall be appointed by the president by
warrant under his hand and seal
The Governor is neither directly elected by the people not indirectly elected by a
special constituted electoral college as in the case of president
Hargovind vs Raghukul 1979 Supreme Court held that the office of governor
of a state is not an employment under central government. It is an independent
constitutional office and is not under the control of a subordinate to the central
government.

Qualifications for appointment as governor [article 157]

Article 157 provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment as governor
unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of 35 years

Term of the office of governor [article 156]

Joint reading of article 156 [1] and 156 [3] Provide that the Governor holds
office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
However his term is subject to the pleasure of president.
Resignation: the Governor may by writing under his hand at least to the
president, resign his office.
Governor shall notwithstanding expiration of his term continue to hold the office
unless his successor enters upon his office.
The Constitution does not lay down any Grounds upon which a Governor may be
removed by the president.

Conditions of governor's office [article 158]

Article 158 provides that the Governor shall not be a member of either of the
House of Parliament or of house of the Legislature of any state specified in the
first schedule
If a member of either of the House of Parliament or of a house of the Legislature
of any such States be appointed governor, he shall be Deemed to have vacated his
office in that house on the date on which he enters upon his office as governor
The Governor shall not hold any office under the office of profit
The emoluments and allowances of the Governor shall not be dismissed during
his term of office.

Oath or affirmation by the Governor [article 159]

Article 159 provides that before entering upon his office the Governor has to
make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation. In his oath the Governor swears:-
A. To faithfully execute the office
B. To preserve, protect and Defend the constitution and the law: and
C. To devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the
state.
Oath of office to the Governor is administered by the Chief Justice of the
concerned state High Court and in his absence the senior most judge of the court
available
 Power of the Governor to grant pardons, etc [article 161]
Article 161 provides that the governor of the state shall have the power to grant
pardons reprise respite for emissions of punishment for to suspend, remit or
commute the sentence of any person convicted of any office against any law
related to the matter to which the executive power of the state extends.

Ordinance making power of the Governor

Under Article 213, the Government can issue an ordinance if the circumstances
compel him to do so, when either houses of the legislative assembly are not in
session. However, there are two circumstances under which the Governor cannot
issue an ordinance. They are:
1. If the ordinance has certain provisions which the Governor would have reserved
for the President in case it were a Bill.
2. If the State Legislature has an act with similar provisions and the same would be

Advising the President for the Proclamation of an Emergency under Article

356
When the State Government is unable to function in accordance to the
constitutional machinery, then the Governor sends a report to the President
briefing him/her about the grievousness of the situation. This power has been
granted to the Governor under Article 356. This may happen when there is a vote
of no confidence in the house or a government breakdown in the state.
Protection of Governor
Article 361 lays down the provisions for the protection of the Governor. The
Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the performance and disposal
of his/her duties. There can be no criminal proceedings against him/her during
the term of his/her office. Neither can there be a process to arrest him/her during
the term of his/her office. Any civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against
the Governor of a State, shall be instituted during his/her term of office in any
court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him/her in his
personal capacity.

Chief Minister and Council of Ministers

The Governor is the nominal executive authority and the chief minister is the
real executive authority
The Governor is the head of the state Chief Minister is the head of the
government
The position of chief minister at the state level is analogous to the position of
prime minister at the centre.

Appointment of Chief Minister and Council of Ministers

Article 164 provides that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor
and the other ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of chief
minister
In the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha there
shall be a minister in charge of tribal welfare who may in addition be in charge of
the Welfare of SC and backward classes or any other work
Council of Ministers to aid an advice Governor [article 163]
Article 163 provides that there shall be a council of minister with chief minister
at the head to add and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except
insofar as he is by or under this constitution required to exercise function or any
of them at his discretion.

A convicted person cannot be appointed as Chief Minister:

Lily Thomas vs. Union of India,
for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less
than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article
164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.
 Union legislature part V [article 79- 122]

Article 79 to 122 in part V chapter II of the Constitution deals with the

organization, composition, duration, officers, procedures, privilege, power etc of
Parliament.

The Rajya Sabha is the upper house and the Lok Sabha is the lower house

Rajya Sabha represents the states and union territories. Lok Sabha represent
people of India

Composition of Rajya Sabha article 80

Article 80 provides that Council of state shall consist of

a. 12 members to be nominated by the President and

b. Not more than 238 representatives of the states and union territory.
 The members to be nominated by the president shall consist of a person having
special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as
literature, science, art, social service

The allocation of seats in Council of states to be filled by representatives of the

states and union territories shall be in accordance with the provisions in that
behalf contained in fourth schedule article 80[ 2]

The representatives of states in the Rajya Sabha are elected by elected

members of state legislative assemblies. The election is held in accordance
with the system of proportional representation by means of Single Transferable
Vote [Article 80[4]].

The seats are allotted to the states in Rajya Sabha on the basis of population.

The representatives of Union Territories in Council of states shall be chosen in

such manner as Parliament may by law prescribe.

Delhi and Puducherry are the only two union territories that have representation
in Rajya Sabha.

Composition of Lok Sabha [article 81]

Article 81 provide that Lok Sabha shall consist of following

A. Not more than 530 members are to be chosen from direct election from States

B. Not more than 20 members to represent union territories and

C. Two members are to be nominated by president from Anglo Indian community

article 331.[ removed from the 104 Constitutional Amendment Act 2020]

The Maximum strength of Lok Sabha is fixed at 552

 The Parliament has enacted the union territories [Direct Election to the
House of People] Act 1965 by which the members of Lok Sabha from the
union territories are also chosen by the direct election.

Readjustment after each census [article 82]

Article 82 provide that every census, a readjustment has to be made in

a) Allocation of seats in Lok Sabha to the states and

b) Division of each state into territorial constituencies

Parliament is empowered to determine the authority and the manner in which it

is to be made

Parliament has enacted The Delimitation Commission Act in 1952, 1962,

19, and 2000 for this purpose

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 froze the allocation of seats
in Lok Sabha to the states and the division of state into territorial constituencies
till the year 2000 at the 1971 level.

This ban on readjustment was extended for another 25 years that is up to 2026
by the 84th constitutional amendment 2001

The 87 Constitutional Amendment Act 2003 provided for delimitation of

constituencies on the basis of 2001 census and not on 1991 census.

Duration of Rajya Sabha [article 83 [1]]

Article 83[1] provides that the Council of state shall not be subjected to
dissolution, but As nearly one third of the members shall retire on the
expiration of every second year in accordance with provisions made on behalf
of the Parliament by law.
 The retiring member are eligible for re-election and re nomination any number
of time

The constitution has not fixed the term of office of members of Rajya Sabha and
left it to the Parliament to decide it by making a law

The parliament in Representation Of Peoples Act 1951 provides that the

term of office of the member of Rajya sabha shall be 6 years.

Duration of Lok Sabha [Article 83[2]]

Article 83[2] provides that the house of people shall continue for five years
from the date appointed for its first meeting.

After expiration of 5 years the Lok Sabha shall automatically dissolve

Lok Sabha can be dissolved at any time before the completion of 5 years by the
President.

Duration of Lok Sabha in national emergency: while a proclamation of

emergency is in Operation the period of 5 years can be extended by Parliament by
law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not exceeding in any case
beyond a period of six months after the proclamation has ceased to operate.
[provision to article 83[ 2] ]

Qualifications for membership of Parliament [article 84]

Article 84 provides the following qualifications for a person to be chosen a

member of parliament

1. He must be a citizen of India

2. He must he must make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before the
person authorized by Election Commission for this purpose
3. He must be not less than 30 years of age in the case of Rajya Sabha and
not less than 25 year of age in case of Lok Sabha
 4. He must possess other qualifications prescribed by parliament.

Disqualification for membership of Parliament article 102

Article 102 provide that every person shall be disqualified for being chosen as,
and for being, a member of either of the house of parliament

Clause 1

a) If he holds an office of profit under the Government of India or government of

any state other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify
its holder.
b) If he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by the competent court
c) If he is an undischarged insolvent.
d) If he is not a citizen of India, or have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a
foreign state or is under any acknowledgement of alliances two foreign states
e) If he is disqualified by or under any law made by parliament[Representation
Of Peoples Act 1951]
A person shall not be Deemed to hold any office of profit under Government
of India for the Government of any state by the reason only that he is a
Minister either for the Union or for such state
Clause 2
A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either of the houses of
Parliament if he is so disqualified under the tenth schedule [article
102[2]].

Cases on Parliamentary Privileges

PV Narasimha Rao vs State 1998- The scope of protection of immunity

available to the members of parliament is quite wide and is not confined only
against judicial proceedings but is available to them against all actions and
criminal proceedings or anything said or any vote given by them. The object of
 protection is to enable members to speak their mind in Parliament freely and
fearlessly.

In Re Keshav Singh 1965- In the case of conflict between provisions under

article 194 and the provisions pertaining to fundamental rights and attempt will
have to be made to resolve the set conflicts by adoption of rule of harmonious
construction article 194 and 105 are subject to fundamental rights guaranteed
under article 21 and 22.

What is office of profit?

The expression office of profit has not been defined in the constitution. Courts
have laid down certain test to determine which office is a office of profit
The office of profit means an office to which some benefit is derived or might
reasonably be expected to be made by the holder of the office
The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan versus Union of India 2016 held that
the office of profit is an office which is capable of yielding profit or pecuniary
gain. Whether a person actually receives the game is not important.

Disqualification on the ground of defection

The constitution also lays down that a person shall be disqualified from being a
member of parliaments if he is to be disqualified on the ground of defection
under the provisions of the 10 schedule. [52ND CAA, 1985] A member in class
disqualification in law.

a) If he voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party on whose

ticket he was elected to the house.
b) If he votes or abstains from voting in house contrary to any direction given by
his political party
c) If any independently elected member join any political party and
 d) If any nominated member joins any political party after expiry of 6 months.

The question of disqualification under 10th schedule is decided by the

chairman in the case of rajya sabha and speaker in the case of lok
sabha.

In Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachillhu supreme court ruled that function of

speaker / chairman while applying anti defection law is that of a tribunal and
therefore it is open to judicial review

91st constitutional amendment 2003 added to article 75 which provides

that a member of either house of parliament belonging to any political party who
is disqualified from being a member of the house under paragraph if off 10
schedule shall also be disqualified together minister.

Decisions on question as to disqualification of members article 103

Article 103 provides that if any question arises as to whether a member of either
House of Parliament has become subject to any of these disqualifications
mentioned in article 102[ 1], the question shall be referred for decision of the
president and his decision shall be final.

Before giving any decisions on any such questions, the president shall obtain
the opinion of the election commission and shall act accordingly to
such opinion.

Vacation of seats article 101

Article 101 provides for the vacation of seats. In the following circumstances a
Member of Parliament vacate his seat.
 1. No person shall be a member of both houses of Parliament and provision shall be
made by Parliament by law for vacation by a person who is chosen a member of
both houses of his seat in one house or the other. Article 101[ 1]

Representation of People Act 1951 provides for the following

If a person is elected to both the houses of parliament, he must intimate

within 10 days in which House he desires to serve. In default of such
intimation his seat in Rajya Sabha becomes vacant.

Member of one house is also elected to the other house his seat in the first
house becomes vacant

If a person elected to two seats in a house he should exercise his option for
one. Otherwise both seats become vacant.

2. No person shall be a member of both of Parliament and of House of Legislature of

the state and if a person is chosen a member both of parliament And off of a house of
Legislature of a state, then at the expiration of such period as may be specified in the
rules made by the president, that person seat in Parliament shall become vacant,
unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of state article 101[2]

3. If a member of either House of Parliament

A. Become subject to any disqualification in article 102[ 1] and [ 2]; or

B. Resign his seat by writing under his hand address to the chairman or the speaker,
as the case may be

Oath and affirmation by members article 99

Article 99 provides that every member of either House of Parliament shall before
taking his seat Make and subscribe before the President or some person
 appointed in that we have by him on and on or information according to the
form set out for the purpose in third schedule

Penalty Article 104

A person is liable to a penalty of rupees 500 for each day he sits or votes
as a member in the house in the following conditions

1. Before taking and subscribing to the prescribed oath or affirmation; or

2. When he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified for its

membership; or

3. When he knows that he is prohibited from sitting or voting in-house by virtue of

any law
 Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha

Article 89 provides that Vice President of India till the act official chairman of
Council of States

The Council of states choose a member of Council to be Deputy Chairman

Vacation, resignation, removal from Office of Deputy Chairman[Article 90]

Article 90 provides that a member holding office as Deputy Chairman of the

Council of States shall vacate his office

1. If he ceases to be a member of the Council;

2. Resign by writing under his hand address to the Chairman and

3. Removed from his office by a resolution of Council passed by a majority of all

the then members of Council

No resolution for the purpose of removal shall be moved unless at least 14 days
notice has been given of the intention to move resolution.

Removal of vice president/term of office [article 67]

He can be removed by a resolution of Rajya Sabha passed by an absolute majority

[that is a majority of total members of house] an agreed to by the Lok Sabha

No such resolutions can be moved analyst at least 14 days advance notice has
been given
 Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha

Article 93 provide that Lok Sabha shall as soon as may be choose to members of
the house to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker

As and when the office of speaker and deputy speaker becomes vacant, the house
shall choose another member to be speaker or deputy speaker

Vacation, resignation, Removal from the offices of speaker and deputy

speaker [article 94]

Article 94 provides that a member holding office as a speaker or deputy speaker

of the house of the people shall vacate his office if:

a) He ceased to be a member of house of people

b) Resign by writing under his hand addressed, if such member is the speaker
to the deputy speaker and if such member is the deputy speaker of the speaker
resign his office and
c) Removed from his office by a resolution of house of people passed by
majority of all the then members of the house.

No resolution for the purpose of removal shall be moved at 14 days notice has
been given of the intention to move the resolution.

Whenever the house of people is dissolved the speaker shall not vacate his
office until immediately before the first meeting of the house of people after the
dissolution

Article 96 provides that Speaker or Deputy Speaker shall not preside while a
resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.

The speaker shall have the right to speak in and take part in the proceeding of
the house of people, while any resolution for his removal from office is under
consideration.
He shall also be entitled to vote only in the first instance on such resolution
or on any other matter during such proceedings but not in the case of an equality
of votes.

Secretariat of the Parliament article 98

Article 98 provides that each house of the Parliament shall have a separate
Secretariat staff.

Parliament may by law regulate the recruitment and the conditions of the
services of person appointed, to the secretariat staff of either House of Parliament

Sessions of the Parliament- summoning, prorogation and dissolution

Article 85 provides that President shall from time to time summon each
house of parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit.

The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament cannot be more than
six months

The president may from time to time:-

a) Prorogue the houses or either house

b) Dissolve the house of the people

Propagation: it means adjourned, when the business of the session is

completed. The president issues a notification for propagation of the session. It
does not end the life of Lok Sabha
 Dissolution: It ends the life of the existing house and a new house is
constituted after general elections are held.

Rights of ministers and Attorney General as respects houses [article 88]

Article 88 provides that every minister and Attorney General of India

shall have the right to speak in and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of
either House any joint sitting of the houses and any committee of the parliament
of which he may be named a member but shall not by the virtue of this article be
entitled to vote.

It follows that the Attorney General of India can participate in meetings of either
houses of Parliament but shall not be entitled to vote.

Quorum and voting in the house of parliament article 100

Article 100 provides that all questions at any sitting of either houses or joint
sitting of the houses shall be determined by a majority of votes of members
present and voting, other than the speaker or the person acting as the chairman
or speaker.

The chairman of the speaker shall not vote in the first instance, but still have and
exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.

Quorum: the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament

shall be one-tenth of the total number of members of the house.
 Legislative procedure

Provisions as to introduction and passing of this article 107

Article 107 provides that except money bill [109] and other financial bill[117] of Bill may
originate in either House of Parliament.

Subject to the provisions of article 108 and 109, a bill shall not be deemed to
have been passed by the House of Parliament unless it has been agreed to by both
houses, either without amendment or with such amendment only as are agreed to
by both houses.

A Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by the reason of propagation of the
houses

A Bill Pending in Council of state which has not been passed by House of people
shall not lapse on dissolution of the house of people

A Bill Which is pending in the house of people or which having been pass by
house of the people is pending in Council of states, shall subject to the provision
of article 108, lapse on the dissolution of House of people.

Joint sitting of both houses [article 108]

Article 108 provides that if after a bill has been passed by one house and
transmitted to the other house and:-

Bill is rejected by the other house or

Houses have finally disagreed as to amendments to be made in the bill or

More than 6 months has lapsed from the date of reception of the bill by the
other house without the bill being passed by it.
The President can notify to the houses his intention to Summon them to meet
in a joint sitting for purpose of the deliberating and voting on the bill

There will be no joint meeting in cases of money bill

If at the joint sitting of the two Houses the bill, with such amendments, if any, as
are agreed to in joint sitting, is passed by a majority of total number of members
of both houses present and voting it shall be deemed for the purpose of the
constitution to have been passed by both houses.

In case of joint sitting of the house will be presided over by the speaker of Lok
Sabha. Article 118[4]

Money bill

Definition of money bill article 110

Article 110 provides that a bill shall be Deemed to be a money bill if it

contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters :

a) The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;

b) The regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by
the government of India or the amendment of the law with respect to any
financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the government of
India;
c) The custody of the consolidated fund[266] or the contingency
fund[267] of India, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys
from any such fund;
d) The appropriation of moneys out of the consolidated fund of India;
e) The declaration of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the
consolidated fund of India or the increasing of the amount of any such
expenditure;
 f) The receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the
public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of
the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
g) Any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clause (a) to (f).

Any question arises whether a bill is a money bill or not the decision of the
speaker of the house of the people shall be final.[110[3]]

There shall be endorsed on every money bill then it is transmitted to the Council
of states under article 109, and when it is presented to the president for a
Centre under article 111, the certificate of the speaker of the house of the people
signed by him that it is a money bill.

Special procedures in respect of money bill article 109

Money bill shall not be introduced in Rajya Sabha

After a money bill has been passed by Lok Sabha it shall be transmitted to Rajya
Sabha for its recommendations. The Rajya Sabha can within a period of 14 days
from the date of its receipt of the bill shall return the bill to Lok Sabha with its
recommendation and Lok Sabha may thereupon either accept or reject all or any
recommendations of Rajya Sabha.

If the Lok Sabha accepts any Recommendation of Rajya Sabha the money bill
shall be deemed to have been passed by both the houses with amendment
recommended by the Rajya Sabha and accepted by Lok Sabha.

If the Lok Sabha does not accept any of the Recommendation of Rajya Sabha, the
money bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both the houses in the form in
which it was passed by Lok Sabha without any of the amendment recommended
by the Rajya Sabha.

If a money Bill passed by Lok Sabha and transmitted to Rajya Sabha for its
recommendation is not returned to Lok Sabha within the set period of 14 days, it
 shall be deemed to have been passed by both the houses at the expiration of the
said period in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha.

Assent to bills [article 111]

Article 111 provides that when a bill has been passed by the houses of
parliament, it shall be presented to the President, and the President has following
options:-

1. Assent to bills, or

2. Withholds assent

3. He may also return the bill if it is not a money bill to the houses with a request to
reconsider the bill.

When a bill is so returned, the house shall reconsider the bill according, and if the
bill is passed again by the houses with or without amendment and presented to
the president for assent, President shall not withhold assent.

Annual financial statement [article 112]

Article 112 provide that The President shall in respect of every financial year
cause to be laid before both the House of Parliament a statement of estimated
recipes and expenditure of the Government of India for that year, in this path
referred as the annual financial statement

It is popularly known as the budget.

Appropriation bills [article 114]

 Article 114 provides that soon after the grants under article 113 have been
made by the Lok Sabha, there shall be introduced to provide for appropriation
out of the consolidated fund of India of all money required to meet

A. Grant so made by the house of people and

B. Expenditure charged on consolidated fund of India but not exceeding in any

case the amount shown in the statement previously laid before the parliament

Votes on account, votes of credit and exceptional grant article 116

Article 116 provides that Lok Sabha shall have power

1. To make any grant in advance in respect of estimated expenditure for a part of

any financial year ending the completion of procedure prescribed in article 113
for the voting of such grant and passing of law of in accordance with the provision
of article 114 in relation to that expenditure

2. Make a grant for meeting an Unexpected demands upon the resources of India
when an account of the magnitude for the indefinite character of the service the
demand cannot be stated with details accordingly given in an annual financial
statement

3. Make an exceptional grant which forms no part of the current service of any
financial year and Parliament shall have power to authorized by law the
withdrawal of money from the consolidated fund of India for the purpose for
which the state grant are made.
 Other matters

Language to be used in Parliament article 120

Article 120 provides that business in Parliament shall be transacted in Hindi or

in English
The chairman of the Council of states or speaker of the house of people may
permit any member who cannot adequately express himself in Hindi or in
English to address the house in his mother tongue.

Restriction on discussion in Parliament [article 121]

Article 121 provides that No discussion shall take place in the Parliament with
respect to the conduct of any judge of Supreme Court or of High Court in
discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting and address to the
president praying for the removal of the judge.

Courts not to enquire into proceedings of Parliament [article 122]

Article 122 provides that the validity of any proceeding in Parliament cannot be
called in question on the grounds of any list irregularity of procedure

No officer or Member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this

Constitution for regulating procedure for the conduct of business, for
maintaining order, in parliament shall be subject to jurisdiction of any court in
respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
 State Legislature Part VI [articles 168- 212]

Article 168 - 212 in Part VI of the Constitution deals with the organization,
composition, duration, officers, procedures etc of the state legislature

Constitution of legislatures in state [article 168]

Article 168 provides that for every state there shall be a legislature which
shall consist of the Governor and

in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya, Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh two houses;

in other states one house

Where there are two houses of Legislature or state, one shall be known as
Legislative Council and other as legislative assembly and where there is
only one house it shall be known as Legislative Assembly.

Abolition of creation of Legislative Council in state article 169

Article 169 provides that Parliament may by law or provide for abolition or
creation of the Legislative Council of a state if the Legislative Assembly of the
state passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of total membership of the
assembly and by a majority of not less than two third of the members of
the assembly present and voting.

No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this

Constitution for the purposes of article 368.

Composition of Legislative assemblies article 170

Article 170 provides that the Legislative Assembly of each state shall consist of
not more than 500 and not less than 60 members chosen by direct election
from territorial constituencies in the state.
Composition of Legislative Council article 171

Article 171 provides that the total number of members in Legislative Council of
a state having such a Council shall not exceed one third of total number of
members in the Legislative Assembly of the state. [1/3]

The total number of members in Legislative Council of a state shall in no case be

less than 40.

Of the total number of members of the Legislative council of a State

as nearly as may be, one third shall be elected by electorates consisting of

members of municipalities, district boards and such other local authorities in the
State as Parliament may by law specify; . [1/3]

as nearly as may be, one twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of

persons residing in the State who have been for at least three years graduates of
any university in the territory of India or have been for at least three years in
possession of qualifications prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament
as equivalent to that of a graduate of any such university;. [1/12]

as nearly as may be, one twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of

persons who have been for at least three years engaged in teaching in such
educational institutions within the State, not lower in standard than that of a
secondary school, as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament;
[1/12]

a) as nearly as may be, one third shall be elected by the members of the
Legislative Assembly of the State from amongst persons who are not members
of the Assembly; [1/3]
b) the remainder shall be nominated by the Governor
 The members to be nominated by the Governor shall consist of persons having
special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as
literature, science, arts, Cooperative movement, social service.

Duration of state legislature article 172

Article 172 provides that every Legislative Assembly of every state unless sooner
dissolved shall continue for a period of five years from the date appointed for the
first meeting.

The said period may while a proclamation of emergency is in Operation be

extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and
not exceeding in any case beyond the period of six months after the proclamation
has ceased to operate.

The Legislative Council of a state shall not be subject to dissolution but as nearly
as possible one third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on
expiration of every second year in accordance with the provisions made in that
behalf by the Parliament by law.

Qualification for membership of state legislature article 173

Article 173 provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat
in the Legislature of a state unless he

a. Is a citizen of India and make and subscribe before some person authorized in that
behalf by the election commission and oath or affirmation according to the form set out
for the purpose in the third schedule

b. In the case of a state in Legislative Assembly not less than 25 years of age and in
the case of seat of Legislative Council not less than 30 years of age
c. Possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed when that behalf by or
under any law made by parliament.

The speaker and the deputy speaker of Legislative Assembly [article 178]

Article 178 provides that every Legislative Assembly of a state shall as soon as
may choose two members of assembly to be respectively speaker and deputy
speaker

The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Legislative Council article 182

Article 182 provides that Legislative Council of every state having such Council
shall as soon as may be choose two members of Council to be respectively
Chairman and Deputy Chairman

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

[Article 197] Restriction on powers of Legislative Council as to Bills other

than Money Bills. (1) If after

A Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State having a Legislative
Council and transmitted to the Legislative Council

(a) The Bill is rejected by the Council; or

(b) more than three months elapse from the date on which the Bill is laid before the
Council without the Bill being passed by it; or

(c) The Bill is passed by the Council with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly
does not agree;

The Legislative Assembly may, pass the Bill again in the same or in any subsequent
session with or without such amendments, if any, as have been made, suggested or
agreed to by the Legislative Council and then transmit the Bill as so passed to the
Legislative Council.

(2) If after a Bill has been so passed for the second time by the Legislative
Assembly and transmitted to the Legislative Council

(a) The Bill is rejected by the Council; or

(b) more than one month elapses from the date on which the Bill is laid before the
Council without the Bill being passed by it; or

(c) The Bill is passed by the Council with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly
does not agree;

The Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the
Legislature of the State in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative
Assembly for the second time with such amendments, if any, as have been
made or suggested by the Legislative Council and agreed to by the
Legislative Assembly.

(3) Nothing in this article shall apply to a Money Bill.

[Article 198] Special procedure in respect of Money Bills.

(1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in a Legislative Council.

(2) After a Money Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State having a
Legislative Council, it shall be transmitted to the Legislative Council for its
recommendations, and the Legislative Council shall within a period of fourteen days
from the date of its receipt of the Bill return the Bill to the Legislative Assembly with its
recommendations, and the Legislative Assembly may thereupon either accept or reject
all or any of the recommendations of the Legislative Council.

(3) If the Legislative Assembly accepts any of the recommendations of the Legislative
Council, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the
amendments recommended by the Legislative Council and accepted by the Legislative
Assembly.
(4) If the Legislative Assembly does not accept any of the recommendations of the
Legislative Council, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses
in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative Assembly without any of the
amendments recommended by the Legislative Council.

(5) If a Money Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly and transmitted to the Legislative
Council for its recommendations is not returned to the Legislative Assembly within the
said period of fourteen days, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at
the expiration of the said period in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative
Assembly.

200. Assent to Bills. When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a
State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both
Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the
Governor shall declare either that

a) He assents to the Bill or

b) He withholds assent or that
c) He reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President

If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and
presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the
consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor
would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger
the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.

201. Bills reserved for consideration. When a Bill is reserved by a Governor for
the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he
assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent

a) Provided that, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may direct the
Governor to return the Bill to the House or,
b) When a Bill is returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider it accordingly
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message
and, if it is again passed by the House or Houses with or without amendment, it
shall be presented again to the President for his consideration.
 Ordinance Making Power of the President: Article 123

123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament.

(1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is
satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he
may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.

(2) An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act
of Parliament, but every such Ordinance

(a) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of
six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period
resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those
resolutions; and
(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President.
Explanation. Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates,
the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this
clause.

(3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would
not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.

Article 123 talks about the presidential powers to promulgate ordinances. An

ordinance can be promulgated if:
a) either of the House of the Parliament is in session;
b) And the President feels a need for immediate action.
The ordinance which is promulgated by the President will have the same effect as
that of an act or law of the Parliament.

The essential conditions to be met by an ordinance are:

It shall be presented before both the Houses of Parliament for passing when it
comes to the session;

The ordinance shall cease to operate six weeks after the date of reassembling
of the parliament; Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble
on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of
those dates for the purposes of this clause.

The ordinance may also expire if the resolutions disapproving it are passed by
both the Houses of Parliament;
Therefore every Ordinance issued by the president during the Recess of
Parliament must be laid before both the houses of Parliament when it
reassembles. If the ordinance is approved by both the houses it becomes an act
and if Parliament takes no action at all, ordinance ceases to operate on expiry of
6 Weeks from reassembly of parliament.
It can be withdrawn at any time by the President;
The ordinance must be in consonance to the Constitution of India else
it shall be declared void.
It is to be noted an ordinance made when both the houses are in session is void.
Thus the power of the President to legislate by Ordinance is not a parallel power
of legislation.
Grounds of promulgation he can make an ordinance only when he is satisfied
that the circumstances exist that render it necessary for him to take immediate
action.
In RC Cooper vs. Union of India 1970 the Supreme Court held that the
president's satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the ground of malafide.
The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 made the president's
satisfaction final and conclusive and beyond Judicial review but this provision
was deleted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act 1978
Ordinance can be retrospective in nature
Constitutional amendment cannot be done through ordinance
In A K Roy versus Union of India the Supreme Court held that Ordinance
would be subject to the test of vagueness, arbitrariness, reasonableness and
Public Interest.
Scope of Ordinance making power is coextensive with that of Legislative powers
of parliament. It means that an ordinance can be issued only on those subjects on
which Parliament can make laws.
The ordinance making power of the president is not a discretionary power, and
he can promulgate or withdraw an ordinance only on the advice of Council of
Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

R G Garg Vs Union of India 1981

The power to promulgate ordinances is a power exerciseable only when both
houses of Parliament are not in session and it has been conferred ex necessitates
rie in order to enable the executive to meet and emergent situation. This Power to
promulgate an ordinance is coextensive with the power of Parliament to make
laws and President cannot issue Ordinance which Parliament cannot enact into
law.
 Ordinance making power of the Governor, Article 213

213. Power of Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of

Legislature. (1) If at any time, except when the Legislative Assembly of a State is in
session, or where there is a Legislative Council in a State, except when both Houses of
the Legislature are in session, the Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which
render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such
Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require:
Provided that the Governor shall not, without instructions from the President,
promulgate any such Ordinance if
(a) a Bill containing the same provisions would under this Constitution have required
the previous sanction of the President for the introduction thereof into the Legislature;
or
(b) he would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions
for the consideration of the President; or
(c) an Act of the Legislature of the State containing the same provisions would under
this Constitution have been invalid unless, having been reserved for the consideration of
the President, it had received the assent of the President.
(2) An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as
an Act of the Legislature of the State assented to by the Governor, but every such
Ordinance
a) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State, or where there is a
Legislative Council in the State, before both the Houses, and shall cease to operate at the
expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature, or if before the expiration
of that period a resolution disapproving it is passed by the Legislative Assembly and
agreed to by the Legislative Council, if any, upon the passing of the resolution or, as the
case may be, on the resolution being agreed to by the Council; and

(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor.

Explanation. Where the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative
Council are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be
reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.
(3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which would not
be valid if enacted in an Act of the Legislature of the State assented to by the Governor,
it shall be void:
Provided that, for the purposes of the provisions of this Constitution relating to the
effect of an Act of the Legislature of a State which is repugnant to an Act of Parliament
or an existing law with respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List, an
Ordinance promulgated under this article in pursuance of instructions from the
President shall be deemed to be an Act of the Legislature of the State which has been
reserved for the consideration of the President and assented to by him.

Under Article 213, the Government can issue an ordinance if the circumstances
compel him to do so, when either houses of the legislative assembly are not in
session. However, there are certain circumstances under which the Governor
cannot issue an ordinance. They are:

a) If the bill containing the same provision would require previous sanction of

president for its introduction in state legislature

b) If the ordinance has certain provisions which the Governor would have reserved

for the President in case it were a Bill.

c) If the State Legislature has an act with similar provisions and the same would be

In D C Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that
successive re promulgation of Ordinance without any attempt to get the Bill
passed by the Assembly would amount to fraud on constitution and the
ordinance so promulgated is liable to be struck down. It held that the
exceptional power of law making through Ordinance cannot be used as a
substitute for legislative powers of state legislative assembly. 256 ordinances
work promulgated in the state of Bihar and all of them were kept alive by
promulgation without being brought before the Legislature. The court held it

it amounted to fraud on constitution.

 UNION JUDICIARY

Part V, chapter IV of the Constitution. (Article 124-147)

We have different levels of Judiciary which is present at the central level, the
state level, and district level. In Part V of the constitution, chapter IV concerns
the Union Judiciary.
In India we have an independent, integral judicial system.

Article 124: Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court

1) Supreme Court of India will have Chief Justice of India and 7 judges (Now 33
Judges, 33+1(CJI), done by The Supreme Court (Number of judges)
Amendment Act, 2019)
2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after
consultation with the of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High
Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose.
Before 99th amendment judges of SC were appointed by the president. The
chief justice of Supreme Court was appointed by the president with the
consultation of SC and HC judges as he deemed necessary for the purpose. But
in appointing other judges the president would always consult the CJI. He
might consult such other judges of the SC and HC as he might deem
necessary.
Case 1: UOI vs. Sankalchand Sheth (1977)
The SC held that the word Consultation meant full and effective consultation.
It does not mean concurrence and the effective consultation. It does not
mean concurrence and the president is not bound such consultation.
Case 2: SP Gupta vs. UOI (1982) (1st
case)
as
explained by the majority in the case of UOI vs. Sankalchand Seth. This means
that the ultimate power to appoint judges was vested in the executive.
The decision of the government could only be challenged on the grounds of
malafides or based on a relevant consideration. In effect decision in SP Gupta
case gave absolute primacy to the government in appointment of judges.

Case 3: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union

of India (1993): (2nd Judges Case or Transfer case)
A nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a 7:2 majority overruled its
earlier judgment in the SP Gupta case -and held that in the matter of
appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the
Chief Justice of India should have primacy.

Greatest of significance should be attached to the opinion of chief justice

which is formed after taking into account the views of two senior most judges
of Supreme Court

The selection should be made as a result of participative consultative process.

In such process executive should only act as a check on the exercise of the
power of Chief Justice of India. Only in exceptional circumstances and for
strong reasons the names recommended by the Chief Justice of India me not
be appointed.

The court held that the appointment of Chief Justice of India should be made
on the basis of seniority.

Case 4: Re presidential reference 1999 (3rd Judge case or Transfer

case)
A nine-judge bench of Supreme Court held that consultation process to be
adopted by Chief Justice of India requires consultation of plurality of judges

The sole individual opinion of chief justice does not constitutes consultation

With regard to appointment of Supreme Court judge and transfer of High

Court judge the Chief Justice of India should consult a collegium of 4 senior
most judges of Supreme Court. The collegium must include the successor
Chief Justice of India.
 If two judges give adverse opinion then chief justice should not send opinion
to the government.

In regard to the appointment of High Court judge the collegium should

consist of Chief Justice of India and two senior most judges.

Court made it clear that recommendation for appointment without following

the consultation process is not binding on the government.

National Judicial Appointment Commission [99 Constitutional

Amendment, 2014]

99th Amendment: To remove the collegium system the constitution (ninety

ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 was passed which entailed the constitution of
National Judicial Appointments Commission 2014 and amended
articles 124 (2), 127 and 128. It inserted articles 124A, 124B and 124C.
This contended that a special committee needs to be set up for impartial and
uninterrupted appointing of judges, which consisted of PM. CJI and person
for civil society.
Case 5: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. UOI
(2015)
SC Held that both, 99th constitutional amendment and as well as NJAC act
2014 is unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the original collegium system
was initiated again.
124(A) (B) (C) declared void by SC on 16th October 2016 in the case of
Supreme Court advocates on record association vs. UOI 2016

3) Judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years [124[2]];
the age of Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority
and in such manner as Parliament may be law provide) [124(2A)] (Inserted
by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963)
4) A judge resigns to President of India. [124[(2)(a)]]
5) Qualification to be a Judge of Supreme Court[124[3]]
Citizen of India
Has been for at least five years as a Judge of a High Court or of two
or more such Courts in succession; or
Has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High court or of two
or more such Courts in succession; or
In the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.

6) Removal of Judge
Article 124(2) (b) provides that a judge may be removed according to art.
124 [4]
Article 124[4] provides the procedure for removal of a Supreme Court judge.
It lays down that a judge may be removed by the President only on grounds
are proved misbehavior or incapacity
Prior to the President passing this order, it should be addressed to both the
houses and both houses need to approve with Simple majority (total-
membership) and 2/3rd majority of members (present and voting)
Such order shall be presented to the president in same session and President
orders the removal.
Art 124[5] says that the Parliament may be law regulate the procedure for
the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the
misbehavior or incapacity of a judge under clause (4)

Article 124[6] provides that the Oath by Supreme Court Judge is taken in
front of President or some person appointed by President.

Article 124[7] No person who has held office as a judge of the Supreme
Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the
territory of India.
 Article 125. Salaries, etc. of Judges
Salary, privileges, allowances and rights as are specified in the Second
Schedule
Neither the privileges nor the allowances of a judge nor his rights in respect of
leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his
appointment.
Article 126. Appointment of acting Chief Justice President May
appoint acting Chief Justice to perform the functions of chief justice in his absence

Article 127. Appointment of ad hoc. Judges- Provide for appointment

of ad hoc Judges in Supreme Court to fulfill the quorum of the judges to hold
or to continue the session of court.

Article 129. Supreme Court to be a court of record

The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of a
a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Implementation: The contempt of courts Act 1971

Laws relating to Contempt of Court

The power to punish for contempt rests with the Judges under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
Section 2(b) states civil contempt and Section 2(c) states criminal contempt.
means willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an
undertaking given to a court;
means the publication (whether by words,
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of
any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority
of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with,
 or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;
Article 215 of Indian Constitution gives power to High Courts to punish for its
contempt.
Article 129 of Indian Constitution gives power to Supreme Court to punish for
its contempt.

In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat 1991, it has been held that
under Article 129 the Supreme Court has power to punish a person for the contempt
of itself as well as of its subordinate courts.
widens the scope of power.

It indicates that the Supreme Court as a court of Record has power to punish for
contempt of itself and also something else which would fall within the inherent
jurisdiction of the court of record.

In Rajeshwar Singh vs. Subrata Roy Sahara, 2014 Supreme Court held that
jurisdiction of Supreme Court under article 129 is independent of provisions of
Contempt Of Court Act, 1971

International rulings

In 1987, after the Spycatcher judgement, when the Daily Mirror called British

British judiciary consciously and

sensibly ignored the headlines and did not consider contempt prosecution. In fact,
comment on the Spycatcher headline is worth recalling

As far back as 1968, Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls in Britain and perhaps
Let me say at once that
we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must
rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against
us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more
important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. It is the right of every
man, in parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair
comment, even outspoken comment

130. Seat of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the chief
justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.

131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original
jurisdiction in any dispute-

a. Between the Government of India and one or more states; or

b. Between the government of India and any state or states on one side and one or
more other states on the other; or
c. Between two or more states,

If and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which
the existence or extent of a legal right depends:

Exclusion

Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, Sanad or other similar instrument which,
having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this constitution,
continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. (7th amendment act, 1956)

SC is excluded to use its rights of original jurisdiction in the following case:

The proviso mentioned in the (article 131)

Disputes between states with respect to the use, distribution or control of
water of Interstate River or river valley. (article 262)
Matters referred to financial commission. (article 280)
Adjustment of certain expenses as between union and state. (article
257,258)
 Recently Article 131 was invoked in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput where there
was clash of opinion between Bihar government or Maharashtra government

Article 132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from

High Courts in certain cases [CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION]

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of
a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other
proceedings, (if the High Court certifies under Article 134A) that the case involves
a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this constitution.

133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High

Courts in regard to civil matters [CIVIL JURISDICTION]

Provides that an appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgment,
decree or Final order in a civil proceeding of High Court in the territory of
India is the high court certified under article 134 A
a) When the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance
and
b) In the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court.

134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal

matters
Provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order
for sentence in a criminal proceeding of High Court in the territory of India

a) If the high court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused

person and sentenced him to death, or
b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced
him to death; or
c) Certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court

134A- Certificate for Appeal to Supreme Court

136. Special Leave Petition (SLP) to appeal by the Supreme Court
Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment. Decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
This shall not apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made my any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces. [136[2]]

Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991)

The Supreme Court has held that under Article 136 the Supreme Court has
wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order passed by any
court or tribunal in the country. In addition to the appellate power, the court
has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court.
The plenary jurisdiction of the court to grant leaves and hear appeals against
any order of a court or tribunal confers power of judicial superintendence over
all the courts and tribunals including subordinate courts of magistrate and
District Judge. The Supreme Court has therefore supervisory jurisdiction over
all courts of India.

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs UOI (2016)

It was held that The court not competent to judge economic policy of the
government,- The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and competence to judge
the validity of the economic policy decision of the government unless it is
unconstitutional or in violation of the statute and the rules or it is arbitrary,
unreasonable or mala fide.

137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court-

Article 137 provides that subject to the provision of any law made by the
Parliament or any rule made under article 145 the Supreme Court shall have
the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
Curative Petition

The remedy of the curative petition was introduced by the Supreme Court in

the case of Rupa Asok Hurra V. Ashok Hurra.

A curative petition is the last remedy provided for any grievances. Its

counterpart is the mercy petition which is filed before the President.

It was also filed in the famous Delhi rape case.

139. Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain

writs
Parliament may be law confer on the supreme court power to issue directions,
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of the, for any purposes
other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32.
139A. Transfer of certain cases.
Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and or more High Courts or before two or
more High Courts and the Supreme Courts is satisfied on its own motion or on
an application made by the Attorney- General of India or by a party to any
such case that such questions are substantial questions of general importance,
the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High
Court or the High Court and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of
law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such
questions to the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the
case in conformity with such judgment.

The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of

justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any high
court to any other high court. (42nd Amendment Act 1976)
In Union of India v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee
(1986)
A petition for transfer of a suit for damage filed in Punjab against Union of
India for loss of Gurdwara properties by respondents as a result of operation
Blue star was filed in the Supreme Court by the Union of India on the ground
that fair trial in Punjab would not be possible in view of extraordinary
situation prevailing there. In view of the unusual and sensitive nature of the
suit and the extraordinary situation in Punjab Court allowed the petition and
transferred the case to the Delhi High Court for trial. The Court said that the
power to transfer cases from one state to another must be used with
circumstances justified the transfer of the case from Punjab to Delhi Court.

141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts-

Article 141 provides that Law cleared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all
the courts within the territory of India.
In Bengal immunity vs. State of Bihar 1955 Supreme Court held that the
Supreme Court and apart from its previous decisions. Therefore Supreme
Court is not bound by its decision and in proper case it may reverse it.

ARTICLE 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme

Court and orders as to discovery, etc.- power to do complete
Justice article 142 provide that Supreme Court may pass such decree or make
such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any matter
pending before it.

ARTICLE 143: Power of President to consult Supreme Court[

ADVISORY JURISDICTION]
If at any time it appears to the President that
A question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise,
Which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to
obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to
that court for consideration and the court may, after such hearing as it thinks
fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
Article 143[2] provides that if the president refers to such matters which are
excluded from the provision of article 131 for the advisory opinion of the
Supreme Court then the court will be bound to give its opinion on it.
On any dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement,
Sanad or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or
executed before the commencement of this constitution,

In Re Kerala education bill-1958

SC held that the court is not bound to answer a reference made to it by the
president. It also held that in cases of advisory opinion conferred by article
143 is different from regular opinion, it is mandatory on the court to answer
any reference or discussion made to it.

In Special Courts Bill 1978: SC held that even in matters arising out of
article 143(2) the court may be justified in returning the reference unanswered
for a valid reason.
145. Rules of Courts, etc. - Article 145 provides that Supreme Court
may from time to time, with the approval of president make rules for
regulating Generally the practice and procedure of the court
 State Judiciary

Chapter V of Indian Constitution (Article 214-237)

The Parliament on the recommendation of the Law Commission in 1858

passed the Indian High Courts Act 1861 which suggested the establishment of
High Courts in place of Supreme Court in three Presidencies: Calcutta,
Madras, and Bombay. The Charter of High Court of Calcutta was ordered in
May 1862 and that of Madras and Bombay were ordered in June 1862.
Thereby, making the Calcutta high Court the first High Court of the
country.
The reason for the implementation of this act was the need for a separate
judiciary body for different states. Certain rules and eligibility criteria were set
for the appointment of a Judge in any High Court and later after
independence as per Article 214 of the Indian Constitution; it was declared
that every Indian state must have their own High Court.
There are currently 25 High Courts in India.

214. High Courts for States. - There shall be a High Court for each State.
Article 231 further provides that Parliament may by law establish a common
High Court for two or more States or for two or more states and union
territory.

215. High Courts to be courts of record. - Every High Court shall be a

court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself.
216. Constitution of High Courts. - Every High Court shall consist of a
Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time
deem it necessary to appoint.
217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a
High Court.-Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the
President after consultation with the Chief justice of India, the
Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other
than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High court,
Shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty Two years 217[1]
Judge may by writing under his hand Resigns to President. 217[1] [a]
A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner
provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a judge of the Supreme
Court; 217 [1] [b]
Procedure for removal of Judges:
governs the removal of judges of High Court.
Hence the grounds for removal are
Proved misbehaviour
Incapacity
He is removed by the President as per the removal order passed by each house
of the parliament by a special majority i.e. a majority of the total membership
of the house and a majority of not less than two thirds of members present
and voting. A detailed procedure followed is as follows:
1. The initial removal motion to be signed by 100 members in Lok Sabha or
by 50 members of Rajya Sabha and be presented to the speaker/ chairman
of the house.

2. The speaker has the option of either accepting or rejecting the motion

3. If it is accepted a committee would be constituted to investigate the matter

4. The committee so constituted consists of chief justice or judge of Supreme

Court, chief justice of high court and a distinguished jurist.

5. If the committee ascertains the guilty of the judge then the houses take up
the issue.

6. If the motion is passed in each house of the parliament by a special

majority then the it is later presented to the President for his assent.

7. The President then passes order for removal of judge. The judge is
considered removed from that day. (In fact no judge has been removed till
now)
Qualifications of high court judges 217[2]
a) Citizen of India
b) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
c) Has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or
more such Courts in succession.
If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question
shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief
Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.
218. Application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court to
High Courts. The provisions of clauses (4), (5) of article 124 shall apply in
relation to a High Court as they apply to the Supreme Court with the
substitution of references to the High Court for references to the Supreme
Court. (Process of removal)
219. Oath or affirmation by Judges of High Courts- In front of
Governor or any person appointed by him
220. Restriction on practice after being a permanent Judge- Article
220 states no person who has held the office as a permanent judge of high
court shall plead or act in any Court or before any authority in India except
Supreme Court and other high courts
221. Salaries, etc., of Judges- As per 2nd Schedule or as per parliament
determines by law.
222. Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another: Provides
that the President after consultation with Chief Justice of India
transfer a judge from one high court to another High Court.

When a Judge has been or is so transferred, he shall, during the period the
period he serves, after the commencement of the Constitution (Fifteenth
Amendment) Act, 1963 as a Judge of the other High Court, be entitled to
receive in addition to his salary such compensatory allowance as may be
determined by Parliament by law and, until so determined, such
compensatory allowance as the President may by order fix.
Union of India v. Sankalchand Sheth (1976)
The constitutionality of a notification issued by the President by which Justice
Sankalchand Sheth of the Gujarat High Court was transferred to the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, was challenged on the ground that the order was
passed without the consent of the Judge and against public interest and
without effective consultation of the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court
by a majority of 3:2 held-
A Judge of a High Court could be transferred under Art. 222(1) without his
consent if Consent.
The power to transfer a High Court Judge is conferred by the Constitution in
public interest and not for the purpose of providing the Executive with a
weapon to punish a Judge. The extraordinary power conferred on the
President by Art. 222 (1) cannot be exercised in a manner which is calculated
to defeat or destroy in one stroke the object and purpose of the various
provisions conceived with such care to insulate the judiciary from the
influence and pressures of the executive. Once it is accepted that a high court
Judge can be transferred on the ground of public interest only, the
apprehension that the Executive may sue the power of transfer for its own
ulterior ends and thereby interfere with the independence of the judiciary
loses its force.
Also Art. 222. (1) casts an absolute obligation on the President to consult the
Chief Justice of India before transferring a judge from one High Court to
another.
S.P Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (Judges Transfer case)
the validity of a circular letter of the Union Law Minister asking the Chief
ministers of Various States of get the advance consent of sitting additional
Judges and future incumbents to the post for being appointed as permanent
Judges outside their State was challenged the Court by 4:3 majority held.
The consent is not necessary element of Art. 222 they only requirement is that

effective. Power of transfer of Judges must be exercised in public interest.

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association (1993)

Supreme Court has overruled the Judges Transfer case and held that in case of
transfer of Judges of High Court the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has
 not only the primacy, but is determinative in the matter. The chief Justice was
however required to consult two senior most Judges of the Supreme Court
before sending his recommendation for transfer of a Judge from one High
Court to another. It was also held that the consent of the transferred
Judge/Chief Justice of a High Court is not required for either the fresh or any
subsequent transfer from one High Court to another.
Any transfer made on such recommendation of the Chief Justice of India not
deemed to be punitive, and such transfer is not justiciable on any ground
In re President Reference (1999)
A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that in case of
transfer of High Court Judges, the chief justice of India must consult four
senior most judges of the supreme court and in addition to the collegium of
four judges the CJI is required to consult the Chief Justice of the two High
Court (one from which the Judge is being transferred and the other receiving
him). The collegium should make the decision in consensus and unless
opinion of the collegium in conformity with that of the CJI no
recommendation is to be made. If two Judges give adverse opinion, the CJI
should not send the recommendation to the Government.
223. Appointment of acting Chief Justice- provides for the appointment of
acting Chief Justice of India. The president may appoint another judge to be acting
Chief Justice of India when the office of chief justice is vacant.
Article 224: Appointment of additional and acting judges- provides for
appointment of additional and acting judges. The additional and acting judges are
appointed for a period not exceeding two years

No person appointed as an additional or acting Judge of a High Court shall hold

office after attaining the age of sixty-two years.

224A. Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts- provides

for appointment of retired judges at the sitting of the High Court
225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts. It shall be the same as
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution:
[Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of
the High with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning
any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such
jurisdiction.]

Jurisdiction of High Court(s)

1) Original Jurisdiction- it means that applicant can directly go to High Court and
not by means of appeals. This power is used in the following matters

assembly

rt etc

2) Writ Jurisdiction- Article 226 states that High Court shall have power
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any
person or authority including in appropriate cases, any government, within those
territories directions, orders, or writs.

3) Appellate Jurisdiction-
It is said that the high court is the primary court of appeal i.e. it has power to hear
the appeals against the judgment of the subordinate courts within its territories. This
power can be classified in to 2 categories-Civil jurisdiction and Criminal
jurisdiction

In civil cases its jurisdiction includes to the orders and judgments of the district
courts, additional district courts and other subordinate courts.

In criminal cases its jurisdiction includes judgments relating to sessions courts and
additional sessions court. These cases should be involving imprisonment for more
than 7 years, confirmation of any death sentence awarded by session court before
execution
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

Every High Courts shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, any government within
those territories directions, orders or writes, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other
purpose.

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.

Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of

superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating
to the Armed Forces.
Hence in the exercise of this power it may

Call for return from such courts

May issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts
Prescribe the form in which books and accounts are being kept by the
officers of any court
Settle fees payable to the sheriff clerks, officers and legal practitioners

Control over Subordinate Courts [article 235]

This is an extension of the above supervisory and appellate jurisdiction. It states that the
High Court can with draw a case pending before any subordinate court, if it involves the
substantial question of law. The case can be disposed of itself or solve the question of law and
return back to the same court. In the second case the opinion tendered by High court would
be binding on the subordinate court. It also deals with matters pertaining to posting
promotion, grant of leave, transfer and discipline of the members there in. In
this regard it appoints officers and servants to be made by Chief Justice or such other judge
of High Court as the Chief Justice may direct.

228. Transfer of certain cases to High Court.

If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves
a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the
determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the
case and may-

a. Either dispose of the case itself, or

b. Determine the said question of law and return the case to the court from
which case has been so withdrawn together with a copy f its judgment on such
question, and the said court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the
case in conformity with such judgment.

229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.

230. Extension of jurisdiction of High Court to Union Territories.

231. Establishment of a common High Court for two or more States.

 Subordinate courts part VI [articles 233- 237]

Article 233 provides that appointment, posting and promotion of any

person as district judge in any state shall be made by the governor of the
state in Consultation with the high court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to such state.

a person not already in service of union or state shall only be eligible to

be appointed as A district judge if he has been not less than 7 year an
advocate for a pleader and is recommended by high court for
appointment

article 234 provides that appointments of person other than

district judge to the judicial service of the state shall be made by the
governor of the state in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf
after consultation with the state public service commission and with the high
court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state

Article 235 provides that the control over District Court and court
subordinate there too including the posting and promotions of and grant of
leave to persons belonging to judicial service of a state and holding any
posting period to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court.
Relations between Union and the states [Part IX, articles 245- 293]

Distribution of power between the Union and State is an essential feature of

federalism. The Constitution has provided exhaustive provisions for
distribution of power between Union and the state.
The centre-state relations are divided into three parts, which are mentioned
below:

A. Legislative Relations (Article 245-255)

B. Administrative Relations (Article 256-263)

C. Financial Relations (Article 268-293)

Legislative Relations [Article 245- 255]

Distribution of Legislative Powers

DISTRIBUTION
OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS

SUBJECT
TERRITOTORY
MATTER

Territorial relations
Article 245[ 1] provides that subject to the provisions of the constitution,
Parliament may Make laws for the whole or any part of the country and the
Legislature of the state may make law for the whole or any part of the state.
Article 245[2] Provides that no law made by Parliament shall be Deemed to be
invalid on the ground that it would have an extra territorial operation.
Theory of Territorial Nexus
The state legislature cannot make extraterritorial laws except when there is
sufficient connection between state and subject matter of the legislation. [A.H.
Wadia vs Commissioner of Income Tax]
The Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. RMDC 1957 held that extra
territorial legislature can be upheld only when there is the sufficient Nexus
between the object sought to be achieved and the state seeking to achieve them.
The connection must be real and not illusionary.
Wallace Bros. And Co. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner Of Income
A company which was registered and incorporated in India and which also
carried out its business in India through a sleeping partner. The firm made a
staggering profit in that accounting year. The income tax authorities sought to
levy a tax upon the company of the respondent. The income tax authority was
challenged by the respondent, it was held by the Privy Council that there existed
the doctrine of territorial nexus and held the tax valid. It is said that the major
part of that income was extracted from British India was the sufficient ground to
establish a territorial nexus.

Subject matter
Article 246 is related to subject matter of law making power of the Parliament
and state legislature.

LIST I
PARLIAMENT UNION LIST

STATE LIST II
LEGISLATURE STATE LIST

LIST III
BOTH CONCURRENT LIST

Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to matters

enumerated in the union list [ list I]
State legislature in state list[ list II]
 Parliament and state legislature both have powers to make laws with
respect to the matters enumerated in the concurrent list[ list III]
Javed vs State of Haryana 2003 Supreme Court held that the constitution
gives autonomy to the centre and the states within their respective fields. The
legislation of one state cannot be held to be discriminatory against its citizens
simply because Parliament or the state legislatures of the other states have not
chosen to enact similar laws.
Article 248 provide for residuary powers of the legislation. It Lays down that
subject to article 246A Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with
respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent list or state
list.

Article 246 A provides for special provisions with respect to goods and
service tax. This provision has been inserted by 101 Constitutional
Amendment 2016
Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to goods and
services tax where the supply of goods, or of services, or both takes place in
the course of inter-State trade or commerce.

Principles of interpretation of lists

Subject matters enumerated in the list are not scientifically perfect and there
cannot be a watertight compartmentalization. There has to be certain
overlapping. Therefore there are certain principles for interpretation of list
which are to be followed by the court while adjudicating upon the matter:-
1. Plenary powers of the Legislature
It is the absolute power to enact laws and it is only subject to legislative
competence and other constitutional limits.
The power of the Legislature to enact laws with reference to the matters
interested to it is unqualified and it is only subject to the limitations imposed
by the constitution. [JK Jute mills vs. State of UP 1961]
 Entries should not be interpreted in restrictive sense. Each general word in an
entry should be construed to include all ancillary powers or subsidiary matter.
[State of West Bengal versus Union of India]
The power to make laws include the power to give effect to it effectively as
well as retrospectively.
2. Ancillary or incidental powers
The power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on ancillary or
incidental matters which can be said to be reasonable included in the power
According to this doctrine, the entries enumerated in the three legislative lists
are not to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and each general word in an
entry should be held to extend to all incidental or ancillary matters which can
fairly and reasonably be comprehended in it. Hence, the power to levy tax
would include the power to make provisions for checking tax evasion.
Similarly, the power to legislate with respect to the collection of rent includes
the power to legislate to remission of rent. However, the above logic of wider
interpretation does not mean that the scope of the incidental or ancillary
power can be extended to any unreasonable extent. Hence, the power to levy
tax cannot be held to include the power to confiscate goods. Further, this
doctrine cannot be used as a cloak for extending the power of a legislature to
comprehend a subject which is explicitly mentioned in a list.
R.D Joshi versus Ajit Mills 1977 Supreme Court held that entries in the
list must be given wide meaning in performing all ancillary and incidental
powers. The court held that punitive measures for enforcing social legislation
are ancillary measures.
3. Doctrine of pith and substance
Doctrine of Pith and Substance is also known as the Doctrine of Predominant
Purpose of true nature and character of law
If the law passed by one legislature encroaches upon the field assigned to other,
then the court will apply the doctrine of pith and substance to determine whether
the legislature was competent to make the law or not.
Pith and substance of Legislature means true object and scope of legislation
 If substance of law relates to matters within the competence of Legislature then
the enactment will be held to be intra virus(valid)
Prafulla Kumar vs. Bank of Commerce Khulna 1947 In this case, the
validity of the Bengal Money Lenders Act,1946 was challenged on the ground that

it was ultra-vires the Bengal Legislature in so far as it related to promissory

Council held that the Act was, in

state subject and hence, was valid even though it incidentally encroached on

The court held that clear cut distinction is not possible between the legislation if
Power of Union and State legislatures because they are bound to overlap. In
ascertaining the pith and substance of the court must consider:-
a) The object of the
b) The scope of the act and
c) The effect as the whole
In the State Of Bombay Vs Fn Balsara 1951 the court held that Bombay
prohibition act as valid because the pith and substance of the act fell in the state
list even though it incidentally encroaches upon the union list.

4. Doctrine of colorable legislation

It is based upon the doctrine of power separation. Separation of power mandates
to strike power of balance between different state components.
It means that though apparently the legislature passing the statue purported to
act within the limits of the power. The transgression is covert or indirect.
This doctrine of colorable legislation is applied when a Legislature does not have
the right to make law upon a particular subject but indirectly makes one.
what cannot be done directly, cannot be also

Colourability is bound up in competency and not with bad fate or Evil motive.
 K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo and Other v. The State Of Orissa- If the
Constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers amongst different
bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by specific
legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the
shape of fundamental rights, questions do arise as to whether the legislature in a
particular case has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in

State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Singh 1952 is the only case where the law has
been declared invalid on the ground of colorable legislation. The Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 was held unconstitutional on the ground that although it
ostensibly purported to lay down the principle of compensation, it did not lay
down any such principle and therefore implicitly attempted to deprive the
petitioner of any compensation.

Power to Legislate On State Subject

In the following circumstances the Parliament gets the authority to legislate on

matters enumerated in the state list
1. National interest[ article 249]
Article 249 provides that if Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by two
third of the member present and voting that it is necessary and expedient in the
national interest that the Parliament should make laws with respect to the
goods and services tax or any other entry in state list then it shall be lawful for
Parliament to make laws for whole or any part of the country so long as the
resolution remains in force.
Such resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha remains valid for 1 year but it can be
renewed multiple times but not exceeding one year is time.
The law made by the Parliament shall cease to have effect after expiration of six
months after the resolution ceases to operate.
2. During proclamation of emergency [article 250]
Article 250 provides that while proclamation of emergency is an operation the
Parliament shall have the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the
country with respect to goods and service tax and other matters specified in state
list.
Such law will cease to have effect after expiry of six months from the date when
emergency cease to operate.

3. Consent of States [article 252]

Article 252 provides that if a legislature of two or more States passes a
resolution to effect that it is desirable to have a law passed by Parliament on any
matter in state list then it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws on that
subject matter.

4. To give effect to treaties and international agreements [article 253]

Article 253 empowers the Parliament to make law for the whole or any part of
India for implementing treaties and international agreements and conventions.

5. Failure of constitutional machinery in state article 356

Article 356 provides that Parliament is empowered to make laws with respect to
all matters in the state list in case of state emergency.

Repugnancy between centre and state laws [article 254]

Repugnancy means a contradiction between two laws which when applied to the
same set of facts produce different results. It is used to describe inconsistency
and incompatibility between the Central laws and State laws when applied in the
concurrent field.
Article 254[1] provides that if any provision of law made by the Legislature of
the state is repugnant to any provisions of law made by Parliament with respect
to one of the matters of the concurrent list then the law made by the
Parliament shall prevail. This provision is subject to article 254[2].
Article 254[1] is applied when there is inconsistency between State Law and
union law with respect to the concurrent list.

Article 254[2] envisages a situation where the State Law will prevail over
Union law.
It provides that if the state law is repugnant to any law made by Parliament on
the concurrent list but the state law has been reserved for ascent of the
president and has received the assent of the President then the law will
prevail over the law made by the parliament.
However Parliament can still override such laws by subsequently making a law
on the same matter
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Limited versus state of Bihar 1983- This
case discusses the effect of Clause (2) of Article 254. It was observed that the
assent of the President for a state law which is repugnant to a Central law for a
matter related to a concurrent subject is important as it results in the prevailing
of the State law in that particular State, thereby, overriding the application of the
Central law in that state only.

Important cases on repugnancy

M Karunanidhi versus Union of India 1979- In this case, a constitutional
bench of the Apex court considered the question of repugnancy between a law
made by the Parliament and a law made by the State legislature. It was observed
that the following conditions should be satisfied for the application of the
doctrine of repugnancy:

1. A direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2. The inconsistency must be irreconcilable.
3. The inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts should be of such
nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a
situation should be reached where it is impossible to obey the one without
disobeying the other.
Deep Chand versus state of UP 1959 - observed that repugnancy between
two enactments can be identified with the help of the following three tests:

Whether there is a direct conflict between the two conflicting provisions;

Whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive enactment on the
subject-matter and to replace the law made by the State legislature; and
Whether the law made by the Parliament and that made by the State legislature
occupies the same field.

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society- the Court

observed that the judiciary must interpret legislation made by the Parliament
and the State Legislature in such a way that the question of conflict does not
arise or can be circumvented. However, if such a conflict between laws is
unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall prevail.

Zhaveri bhai vs State of Bombay 1954 - a convict pleaded that he was

convicted by a Court having no jurisdiction. According to the state law, the
offence committed by him, that is, transporting food grains without permit
attracted imprisonment for a term of 7 years. On the other hand, the Central law
[essential supplies act] prescribed punishment of imprisonment for a term of 3
years for the offence committed by him. An additional provision in the Central
law was that the punishment could be increased to 7 years if the person was
found possessing double the permitted quantity of food grains [i.e. several
category of level]. The convict argued that he should have been governed by the
provisions of the Bombay Act and not the Central Act which would render the
decision of the court a faulty one, and without jurisdiction as the Magistrate who
punished him could sentence him for the imprisonment of only up to 3 years.
The occupation of the field of both the laws was observed as seen whether they
occupy the same field or not. The Supreme Court held that both the laws
occupied the same field and cannot be split up. Hence, the State laws were held
to be void and the Central law prevailed as per the doctrine of repugnancy.
 Administrative relations [article 256- 263]

Administrative relations are basically executive relations.

The executive power is co-extensive with legislative power.
Basic principles of union state executive relations

Article 256 provides that executive power of every state shall be so

exercise as to ensure compliance with the law made by the Parliament
and any existing laws which apply in that state
257. Control of the Union over States in certain cases. The executive
power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or
prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, [art
257[1]]

The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of

directions to a State [ in normal circumstances]
As to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in
the direction to be of national or military importance. [art 257[2]]
As to the measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the State.
[art 257[3]]

The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of

directions to a State [in the case of emergency]
Article 353- during the proclamation of national emergency center can give
direction on all matters
Article 356- during president's rule imposed, the state executive comes under the
union

258A. Power of the States to entrust functions to the Union. the

Governor of a State may, with the consent of the Government of India, entrust
either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers
 functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the State
extends.
Article 261 provides that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the
territory of India public the acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union
and of every state.
Final judgment or order delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the
territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within the territory
according to the law.

Adjudication of water disputes

Article 262[1] provides that Parliament May by law provide for adjudication of
any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the
waters of, or, in any interstate river or river valley.
Parliament may by law provide that neither Supreme Court nor any other courts
shall exercise jurisdiction in respect to any interstate water dispute or complaint.
[Article 262[2]].
Parliament has enacted Interstate Water Dispute Act 1956 under article
262.

Interstate Council
Article 263 provides for establishment of interstate Council to effect
coordination between the states and between the centre and States.
The President can establish such a Council is at any time it appears to him that
Public Interest would be served by its establishment.
He can define the nature of duties to be performed by such a Council and its
organization and procedure
Article 263 specifies the duty that can be assigned to it in the following manner:
a) Inquiring into the advice upon dispute which may arise between States;
b) Investigating and discuss in subjects in which the states of the centre and the
states have a common interest; and
 c) Making recommendations upon in such subject and particularly for the better
coordination of policy and action on it.
Recommendations of interstate council are advisory in nature and not binding.
The Sarkaria Commission on centre state relations [1983- 87] made a strong
case for establishment of permanent interstate council under article 263 of the
constitution.
In pursuance of the above recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission.
Government established the interstate council in 1990.

Composition
It consists of following members:
a) Prime Minister as chairman
b) Chief Minister of all the states
c) Chief minister of union territories having Legislative Assembly
d) Administrators of union territories not having Legislative Assembly
e) Governors of state under president rule
f) 6 central cabinet ministers, including the Home Minister, to be nominated by
Prime Minister.

Five minutes of cabinet rank / minister of state [independent charge] nominated

by the chairman of Council [i.e. Prime Minister] are permanent invitees to the
Council.
 Financial Relations [Article 264- 291]

Article 265 provides that no tax shall be levied [imposed] or collected except by
the authority of law.

Consolidated fund of India and of the states

Article 266 provides for a consolidated fund of India and States of public
account of India and of the state.
This provision shall be subject to article 267[contingency fund] and to
provisions relating to the assignment of whole or any part of the net proceeds.
Consolidated fund of India: following shall be the consolidated fund of India:-
a) All revenues received by government of India;
b) All loans raised by government of India by issue of treasury bills;
c) Loan for ways and means advances;
d) All money received by government in repayment of loans

Consolidated fund of the state

a) All revenue received by government of the state
b) All loans raised by government of States by issue of treasury bills
c) Loans or ways and means advances
d) All money received by government in repayment of loans.
e) All other public money received by or on behalf of Government of India or
government of the state shall be credited to the public account of India for the
public account of the state.

Contingency fund of India and of the states

Article 267[1] provides for the contingency fund of India and article 267[2]
provide for the contingency fund of state
 Article 267[1] provides that Parliament may by law establishment contingency
fund of India and such sums shall be paid into it as may be determined by such
law.
Such fund shall be placed at the disposal of the President to enable advances to
be made by him out of such funds for purpose of meeting unforeseen expenditure
pending authorization of such expenditure by Parliament by law under article
115 or 116.

Goods and service tax

Provision related to goods and service tax has been introduced by the 101st
constitutional amendment act 2016
Article 269A provides that goods and service tax on supplies in the course of
interstate trade or commerce shall be levied and collected by the government of
India.
Such tax shall be appropriated between the Union and the state in the manner as
may be provided by Parliament by law on the Recommendation of goods and
service tax council.

Goods and service tax Council

Article 279A (inserted by the 101st constitutional amendment, 2016) provide
for establishment of goods and service tax Council
It provides that GST Council shall be constituted by president within 60 days
from the commencement of 101st constitutional amendment, 2016

Composition article 279[2] provide that goods and service tax counsel shall consist
of the following members:-
a) Union Finance Minister[ chairperson]
b) The Union Minister of state in charge of revenue of finance[ member]
c) The Minister in charge of finance and taxation or any other Minister nominated
by each state government[ members]
 The members of The goods and service tax Council referred to in sub clause [c ]
of the clause [2]shall as soon as may be choose one among themselves to be the
vice chairperson of the Council for such a period as they may decide
Quorum: one half of the total number of members of goods and service tax
Council shall constitute the quorum at its meeting.

275. Grants from the Union to certain States. (1) Such sums as Parliament may
by law provide shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in each year as
grants-in-aid of the revenues of such States as Parliament may determine to be in
need of assistance, and different sums may be fixed for different States:
Provided that there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid
of the revenues of a State such capital and recurring sums as may be necessary to enable
that State to meet the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by
the State with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of promoting the
welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in that State or raising the level of administration of the
Scheduled Areas therein to that of the administration of the rest of the areas of that
State

Therefore Statutory grants are such grants given by the Parliament out of the
consolidated fund of India to such States which are in need of assistance.
Different states may be granted different sums
Specific grants are also given to promote Welfare of scheduled tribes in a state or
to raise the level of of administration of Scheduled Areas there in

Finance commission [article 280]

Article 280 provides for the constitution of finance commission.
Finance commission shall be constituted by the order of president
It shall be constituted within two years from commencement of the constitution
and there after the expiration of every fifth year for such earlier time as president
may considered necessary
 Parliament may by law determine the qualifications of members of finance
commission [article 280[2]] Parliament has enacted finance commission
Act 1951, there in the qualifications of Chairman and members are given.
following are the qualifications:-
Chairperson must be a person having experience in public affairs
1. a judge of high court or one qualified to be appointed as judge of HC
2. a person who has special knowledge of finance and accounts of the government
3. a person who has wide experience in financial matters and in administration
4. a person who has special knowledge of Economics
composition: it shall consist of a Chairman and four other members to be
appointed by president

Duties of finance commission

article 280[3] provides that it shall be the duty of commission to make
recommendations to the president in the following matters:-
1. Distribution of net proceeds of tax to be shared between centre and state, and the
allocation between states of respective shares of such proceeds
2. The principles that should be governed the grant in aid to the state by centre[ that
is out of the consolidated fund of India]
3. The measures needed to augment the consolidated fund of state to supplement
the resources of the panchayats and municipalities in the state on the basis of
recommendations made by the eighth finance commission.
4. any other matters referred to it by president
 EMERGENCY

Part XVIII of the Constitution

Articles 352 to Article 360 contains emergency provisions

The emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution were borrowed from the
German Constitution
Part XVIII of the Constitution states three kinds of emergency:
1. Emergency (Art. 352)
2. State Emergency, called (Art 356)
3. Financial Emergency (Act. 360)

Two duties are imposed on the Centre by Article 355 of the Constitution:
1. To protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance
2. To ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution

NATIONAL EMERGENCY

ARTICLE 352

Proclamation of emergency can be made under any of the three circumstances

by President under Article 352(1) if he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists
for the following reasons. He may by proclamation make a declaration to that
effect in respect of the whole of India or part of territory thereof as may be
specified in the proclamation

War
External Aggression
Armed Rebellion [inserted by the 44th
disturbance]

Territorial extent of emergency: the emergency can be proclaimed either for

the whole of India or for any part of country
 The Proclamation of emergency could only be issued by the President, on
recommendations of the Council of Ministers, in writing.
44th Amendment also added that Proclamation of Emergency may be made if
the security of India or any part thereof is threatened, even before the actual
occurrence of war or of any such aggression or rebellion, if the President is
satisfied that there is imminent danger thereof

38TH amendment added that the President may, if satisfied, issue different
proclamations on different grounds, even if a proclamation has already been
issued and is in operation. It also made the declaration of National Emergency
immune to judicial review. But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the
44th Amendment Act of 1978.

In Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that National
Emergency can be challenged in the court on the ground of malafide or that the
declaration was based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts.

Procedure of Approval by parliament

PROCLAIM
CABINET written advice PRESIDENT 1 MONTH
EMERGENCY

Can be extended 6 MONTHS

PARLAMENT[ LOK
INDEFINITELY [at a time] SABHA +RAJYA
SABHA
44th CAA,
1978

The proclamation of emergency must be laid before each house of the Parliament and it
shall cease to operate at the expiration of one month unless before the expiry of one
month is it is approved by the resolution by both houses of the Parliament.
House approves the proclamation by passing a resolution with special majority
(44TH CAA, 1978 before this it was simple majority] to that effect; it shall remain
in force for a period of six months.

If either House takes no action, it shall expire after one month. If the proclamation
is rejected or disapproved, it shall be revoked by the president with immediate
effect.

If the proclamation of emergency is issued at a time when Lok Sabha is dissolved or

dissolution take place within one month of the proclamation without approving the
proclamation but the proclamation has been approved by Rajya Sabha then the
proclamation will have to be approved by Lok Sabha within 30 days from the date
when the newly constituted Lok Sabha first sits. If it does not approve within the
30 days then the proclamation shall cease to operate

Duration of emergency: proclamation of emergency was approved by the

Parliament shall remain in Force for a period of six months [unless revoked
earlier] from the date of passing of 2nd resolution approving the proclamation.

For the continuance of emergency beyond 6 month approval by Parliament

would be required every six months.

Revocation of proclamation

A proclamation of Emergency may be revoked by the President at any time by a

subsequent proclamation. Such proclamation does not require parliamentary
approval.
The emergency must be revoked if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution by a simple
majority disapproving its continuation.

Power of Lok Sabha to pass resolution for discontinuance of

emergency: the president shall revoke a proclamation if the Lok Sabha passes a
resolution disapproving the continuance in force of such proclamation

Special sitting of Lok Sabha: Where are written notice signed by not less
than 1/10th Of the total members of Lok Sabha has been given to:-
1. The speaker, if the house is in session or

2. The president if the house is not in session

Special sitting of the Lok Sabha shall be held within 14 days from the date of
receipt of the notice.

The notice will contain an intention to move a resolution for disproving the
continuance of proclamation. The special sitting will be held to consider such
resolution.

SARBANANADA SONOWAL V UNION OF INDIA (2005) The Supreme

Court for the first time got the opportunity to interpret the word aggression in

comprises many acts

which cannot be termed as war. The framers of the Constitution have deliberately

Internal disturbance is a matter of concern; it does not threaten the security of

the country or part thereof, unlike armed rebellion. Further, internal disturbance
by itself cannot be a ground for proclamation of emergency under Article 356 if
there is no failure of constitutional machinery of State.

EFFECTS OF PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY

ARTICLE 353: Effect of proclamation of emergency

1. During emergency, the executive power of the Union extends to giving
directions to a State as to the manner in which the executive power is to be
exercised. [article 353[a]]

2. The Parliament shall have power to make laws, conferring powers or imposing
duties with respect to any matter in the state list[article 353[b]]. This
means that the legislative power of the Union also is extended to making laws
in the State List, and has an overriding effect. This includes the power to
impose duties on the Union and its officers.

ARTICLE 354: Application of provisions relating to distribution of

revenues while a proclamation of emergency is in operation

The financial arrangements between states and the Union as given under
Articles 268 to 279 may also be altered by order of the President during
proclamation of emergency, which is to be laid before each House of
Parliament. This arrangement will cease to operate after the cessation of
emergency. This means The Centre can alter distribution of revenue
between Union and States under article 354

ARTICLE 358: Suspension of fundamental rights under article 19:

[automatic suspension]
If the emergency is an operation on the ground of War or external
aggression [44th CAA, 1948] then the state can make any law or take any
executive action abridging the rights guaranteed under article 19. [Article
358]

ARTICLE 359: Suspension of the enforcement of the rights

conferred by part III during emergencies
When a proclamation of emergency is in operation, enforcement of
fundamental rights except Articles 20 and 21 (44th Amendment) may be
suspended by the President in the whole or any part of India. This again has to
be laid before each House of Parliament.
In ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla 1976 Supreme Court held that
during the proclamation of emergency rights under article 21 can also be
suspended and no person shall have any locus standi for enforcement of such
right. This case is also known habeas corpus case.
 Failure of Constitutional Machinery of State or State Emergency [Article
356]

Two duties are imposed on the Centre by Article 355 of the Constitution:
1. To protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance
2. To ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution
It is this duty in the performance of which the centre takes over the government of
a state under Article 356 in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a state.
Grounds of imposition: can be proclaimed under Article
356 on two grounds:

1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation if he is satisfied

that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on
in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

2. Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give effect to any
direction from the centre, it will be lawful for the President to hold that a situation
has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the constitution.

EXTERNAL
AGGRESSION

INTERNAL
DISTURBANC
E

STATE DOESNT
COMPLY WITH
DIRECTION OF
CENTRE
 Article 356 provides that the president
a) On the receipt from the Governor or
b) Otherwise is satisfied that the situation as a rise in which the government of a
state cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitution
The 38th Amendment act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the President in invoking
Article 356 final and conclusive which would not be challenged in any court on any
ground.
But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44 th Amendment Act of 1978
implying that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond judicial review.
Once a proclamation is made, he assumes to himself, the functions of the
Government of the Sate and declares that the powers of the legislature of the State
shall vest in Parliament.
These powers, however, do not include the powers relating to High Courts

Parliamentary approval

PROCLAIMS PARLIAMENT
PRESIDENT PRESIDENTIAL [LOKSABHA+RAJY
RULE ASABHA]
SIMPLE
MAJORI
TY

MAXIMUM EXTENTION
NATIONAL EMERGENCY
+ 6
3 YEARS CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION
MONTHS
COMMISION

44TH CAA, 1978

by a simple
majority by both the houses of parliament within two months from the date of
its issue. [ Article 356[3]]
 Sabha has been dissolved or the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during
the period of two months without approving the proclamation, then the
proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after its
reconstitution, provided that the Rajya Sabha approves it in the meantime.

a proclamation once approved by Parliament shall[ unless revoked] remain in

Force for a period of six months [changed to 1 year from 42nd CAA, 1976 again
changed to 6 months by 44th CAA, 1978] from the date of issue of such
proclamation [article 356[4]]
for the further continuance of emergency it must be approved by Parliament each
time
Revocation: President can at any given time revoke .

Duration of rule:
No such proclamation shall remain in Force for the period longer than 3 years.
[proviso article 356[4]]
article 356[5] provides that resolution for continents of emergency beyond
one year shall not be passed by the Parliament unless
1. A proclamation of emergency is in operation in whole of India or in whole or any
part of the state; and
2. Election Commission certifies that continuation of emergency is necessary on
account of difficulties in holding elections to the state assemblies.

rule:

rule is imposed in a state:

1. He can take up the functions of the state government and powers vested in the
governor or any other executive authority in the state.
2. He can declare that the powers of the state legislature are to be exercised by the
parliament.
3. He can take all other necessary steps including the suspension of the
constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority in the state.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SARKARIA COMMISSION (1983)
The Sarkaria Commission made the following recommendations regarding use of
Article 356:

This article should be used very sparingly and as a matter of last resort. It can be
invoked only in the event of political crisis, internal subversion, physical
breakdown, and noncompliance with the constitutional directives of the centre.

Before that, a warning should be issued to the errant state in specific terms and
an alternate course of action must be explored before invoking it.

The material fact and grounds on the basis of which this article is invoked should
be made an integral part of the Proclamation; it will ensure effective
Parliamentary control over the invocation of President Rule.

publicity.

So the Sarkaria Commission was an important attempt to streamline the centre-

state relations.

It has become a reference point for any discussion on centre-state relations and it
has been frequently referred to even by the judiciary.

On its recommendation, the Inter-State council was established in 1990 and it has
considered its recommendations.

Judicial review of proclamation of rule

In S R Bommai vs. Union Of India 1994

Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the
arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out
restrictions.
The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State
government is not absolute.
The verdict said the President should exercise the power only after his
proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
 Till then, the Court said, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly
by suspending the provisions of Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.

The following propositions have been laid down by the Supreme Court with
respect to Article 356:
Presidential proclamation dissolving a State Legislative Assembly is subject to
judicial review.
The burden lies on the government of India to prove that relevant material existed
to justify proclamation.
If the court strikes down the proclamation, it has power to restore the dismissed
State Government to office.
A State Government pursing ant-secular politics is liable to action under Article
356 of the Constitution.

Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India 2006

Supreme Court held that Governor while recommending dissolution of assembly
has to annex with report relevant materials substantiating his decision. In absence
of relevant materials it will be considered as a personal opinion of the Governor

S.N. National Emergency (352)

1. It can be proclaimed only when the It can be proclaimed when the

security of India or a part of it is government of a state cannot be carried
threatened by war, external on in accordance with the provisions of
aggression or armed rebellion. the Constitution due to reasons which
may not have any connection with war,
external aggression or armed rebellion.

2. During its operation, the state During its operation, the state executive
executive and legislature continue is dismissed and the state legislature is
to function and exercise the powers either suspended or dissolved. The
assigned to them under president administers the state through
 the Constitution. Its effect is that the governor and the Parliament makes
the Centre gets concurrent powers laws for the state. In brief, the executive
of administration and legislation in and legislative powers of the state are
the state. assumed by the Centre.

3. There is no maximum period There is a maximum period prescribed

prescribed for its operation. It can for its operation, that is, three years.
be continued indefinitely with the Thereafter, it must come to an end and
approval of Parliament for every six the normal constitutional machinery
months. must be restored in the state.

4. It suspends fundamental rights It has no effect on Fundamental Rights

[19 and other FR except 20& (FR) of the citizens.
21]of the citizens.[358+359]

5. Every resolution of Parliament Every resolution of Parliament

approving its proclamation or its approving its proclamation or its
continuance must be passed within continuance can be passed within 2
1 month by a special majority. months only by a simple majority.

6. Lok Sabha can pass a resolution for There is no such provision. It can be
its revocation. revoked by the President only on his
own discretion.
 FINANCIAL EMERGENCY [ARTICLE 360]

Proclamation Of Financial Emergency

It states that if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby
the financial stability or credit of India (or any part thereof) is
threatened, he may, by a proclamation, make a declaration to that effect.
It was formerly by 38th CAA 1975, provided that the satisfaction of the
President on this point was to be final and conclusive, and could not be
questioned in any court on any aground. It was further provided that neither
the Supreme Court nor any other court had the jurisdiction to go into the
validity:
1. Of such a proclamation of the President; or
2. Of the continued operation of such a proclamation.
The provision was, however, deleted by the 44th Amendment, 1978.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration of the Financial Emergency

PROCLAIMS FINANCIAL
PRESIDENT EMERGENCY

2 MONTHS

NO PARLIAMENT
MAXIMUM SIMPLE
MAJORITY [LOKSABHA+RAJYASAB
HA]
PERIOD
A proclamation of financial emergency must be approved by both the Houses
of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue.
 A resolution approving the proclamation of financial emergency can be passed
by either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) only by a simple
majority.

However, if the proclamation of Financial Emergency is issued at a time when

the Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes
place during the period of two months without approving the proclamation,
then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the
Lok Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the
meantime approved it.

Once approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the Financial Emergency

continues indefinitely till it is revoked. This implies two things:
1. Repeated Parliamentary approval is not required for its
continuation.
2. There is no maximum time limit prescribed for the operation of financial
emergency
A proclamation of Financial Emergency may be revoked by the President
anytime without any Parliamentary approval.

Effects of Financial Emergency

1. During the financial emergency, the executive authority of the Center expands
and it can give financial orders to any state according to its own.
2. All money bills or other financial bills
consideration after being passed by the state legislature can be reserved.
3. Salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in the state can
be reduced
4. The President may issue directions for the reduction of salaries and
allowances of;
i. All or any class of persons serving the Union and
ii. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court
Thus, during the operation of a financial emergency, the Center gets full
control over states in financial matters, which is a threat to the state's financial
sovereignty.
Earlier, a serious financial crisis had arisen in India in 1991, but even then a
Financial Emergency was not announced. [Balance of payment crises]

Financial emergency has not been imposed in India till date.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY

44 CAA, 1978

PRESIDENT RULE

44 CAA, 1978

FINANCIAL EMERGENCY
 Election Commission [article 324]

Part XV of the constitution

The Election Commission of India is an autonomous constitutional authority

responsible for administering Union and State election processes in India.

Article 324 provides that superintendence, direction and control of

preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to the:

a) The parliament

b) State legislature

c) President and Vice President shall be vested in election commission

State Election Commissions (SECs)

The State Election Commission has been entrusted with the function of
conducting free, fair and impartial elections to the local bodies in the state.
Article 243K(1): It states that the superintendence, direction and control
of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to
the Panchayats (Municipalities under Article 243ZA) shall be vested in a
State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be
appointed by the Governor.
Article 243K (2): It states that the tenure and appointment will be
directed as per the law made by the state legislature. However, State Election
Commissioner shall not be removed from his/her office except in like
manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court.

Composition of election commission

Article 324[2] provide what Election Commission shall consist of Chief

Election Commissioner and such other number of other election
commissioners as President may from time to time fix.
 1989- 1990 1993- TILL
1950-1989 1990-1993 DATE
CEC CEC + 2 EC CEC
CEC + 2 EC

Since 1950 and till 15 October 1989, the election commission was as a
one-member body with only the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) as its
sole member.
On 16 October 1989, the voting age was changed from 21 to 18 years. So,
two more election commissioners were appointed by the president in order to
cope with the increased work of the election commission.
Since then, the Election Commission was a multi-member body which
consisted of 3 election commissioners.
Later on, the two posts of election commissioners were eliminated in January
1990 and the Election Commission was reverted to the previous position.
In October 1993 when the president appointed two more election
commissioners. Since then, the Election Commission functions as a multi-
member body comprising of 3 commissioners.

Appointment: of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election

Commissioner shall be by the President subject to the laws made by parliament.

When any other election commissioner is so appointed the chief election

commissioner shall act as the chairman of the election commission.

The President may also appoint after consultation with the election commission
such regional commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the election
commission.

Though the Chief Election Commissioner is the chairman of the election

commission, however, his powers are equal to the other election
commissioners. All the matters in the commission are decided by the majority
 amongst its members. The Chief Election Commissioner and the two
other election commissioners receive equal salary, allowances and
other benefits.

Removal: Chief election commissioner shall not be removed from his office
except in the manner of removal of a judge of the Supreme Court. Service
conditions of the chief election commissioner shall not be varied to his
disadvantage after appointment.

Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court, CEC, Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG) may be removed from office through a motion adopted by
Parliament on grounds of .
Removal requires special majority of 2/3rd members present and
voting supported by more than 50% of the total strength of the house.

Other Election Commissioners or regional commissioner shall be removed on

Recommendation of Chief Election Commission

Tenure Election commission of India: The Chief Election Commissioner

and other election commissioners hold office for 6 years or till they attain
the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They can resign at any time by
addressing their resignation to the president. The president can remove any of
the commissioners following the procedure provided in the constitution.

Powers and Functions Election commission of India: The powers and functions
of the election commission are mentioned below:

1) It determines the territorial area of the electoral constituencies in accordance

with the Delimitation Commission Act.
2) It prepares the electoral rolls and revises them from time to time. It registers all
the eligible voters.
3) It prepares and notifies the schedule of the election.
4) It receives and scrutinizes the nomination papers from all the candidates in the
elections.
5) It registers political parties and grants recognition to them. It provides election
symbols to the political parties.
6) It provides the status of national or state parties to the political parties on the
basis of their performance in the elections.
7) It acts as a quasi- judicial authority to look into disputes regarding the
recognition of political parties and allotment of symbols to them.
8) It appoints officers to enquire into disputes relating to electoral arrangements.
9) It prepares the time table for the publicity of the policies and programmes of
political parties through TV and radio.
10) It ensures that the model code of conduct is followed by all the political
parties and all the candidates.
11) It advises the president on matters relating to the disqualification of
the members of the parliament.[103]
12) It advises the governor of the state on matters relating to the disqualification of
the members of the state legislature.
13) It requests the president or the governor for the necessary staff required for
conducting elections.
14) It supervises election machinery and the conduct of elections to ensure free and
fair elections.
15) It cancels polls in the event of irregularities and wrongdoings during an election.
16) It advises the president whether the elections can be held in a state under
.

325. No person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be

included in a special, electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste
or sex. There shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial
constituency for election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either
House of the Legislature of a State and no person shall be ineligible for inclusion
in any such roll or claim to be included in any special electoral roll for any such
constituency on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.

This ensures political equality to all citizens

R.C. Poudyal Versus Union of India 1993 the court held that it is crucial for
maintaining the secular character of constitution any contravention of this
provision shall have adverse impact on Secular character of Republic which is
basic feature of Indian Constitution

326. Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative

Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage. The elections
to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be
on the basis of Universal adult suffrage

Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years
of age [Subs. By the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, for
- and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution
or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence,
unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be
registered as a voter at any such election.

327. Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections

to Legislatures.

Article 327 gives the power of legislation to the Parliament with respect to all
matters relating to or in connection with elections to the House of Parliament or
to the state legislatures including law related to the preparation of electoral rolls
and delimitation of constituencies or other connected matters

In exercise of the power conferred by this article the Indian Parliament has
enacted The Representation Of Peoples Act 1950 And 1951
The Preamble of Delimitation Act 2002 shows that it is an act to provide for the
adjustment of allocation of seats in house of the people to the states, the total
number of seats in Legislative Assembly of each state, the division of each state
into territorial constituencies for elections to the house of people and legislative
assemblies of the states and for matters connected there within

Article 82 only for shadows that readjustment may be necessary upon

completion of each senses but article 327 gifts power to the Parliament to make
elaborate provision for such as assistant, including delimitation of constituencies
and all other matters connected therewith as also elections to either House of
Parliament

328. Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to

elections to such Legislature. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by Parliament, the
Legislature of a State may from time to time by law make provision with respect
to all matters relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the House or
either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral
rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such
House or Houses.

329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.

The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the

allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under
article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition
presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or
under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.
Clause [a] says that law relating to delimitation of constituencies for the
allotment of seats cannot be challenged in court of law

Clause [b] excludes the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain any matter relating
to election disputes. Election can be challenged only in the manner laid down in
law made by the appropriate legislature.

In pursuance of Clause b of article 329, parliament enacted the Representation

1951

Part of 6 of the act deals with election disputes. Election petitions are trial able
by High Court, as provided in Representation Of People Amendment Act 1966

No other Court can decide election disputes. The word election has been used in
article 329 as well as other provisions of part 15 of the Constitution in the wide
sense- Rejection of acceptance of nomination papers is included in the term
election but preparation of electoral rolls is not election result the meaning of
article 329 b

CASES:

Brundaben Nayak vs. Election Commission of India and another 1965

AIR 1892, :If any question gets raised whether any sitting member of the
Parliament or of the State legislature has become a subject to disqualification for
continuing as a member under the Constitution of India (on grounds other than
that of the ground of defection) or any law. Such a matter is decided by the
President of India in cases which involve the members of the Parliament and in
cases which involve the member of the State Legislature then the governor of that
state has to decide on such a matter. And he is bound by the opinion of the
Election commission in these matters as established in this case.

Hence, in this case, it was held that the President of India and the governors of
States are bound by the opinion of the Election Commission of India in such
matters and they are not required to even consult the council of ministers in this
regard.
 In AC Jose v Sivan Pillai 1984 the Supreme Court, held that
1) When there is no parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said
legislation, the Commission is free to pass any order in respect of the conduct of
elections, but
2) Where there is an Act and express rules made there under, it is not open to the
Commission to override the Act or the rules, and pass orders in direct
disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or rules.
3) The powers of the Commission are meant to supplement the law in the matter of
superintendence, direction and control as provided by aft 324. Where a
particular direction by the Commission is submitted to the government for
approval as required by the rules, it is not open to the.

S.S Dhanova vs. Union of India 1991: in October 1989 the president
notified that decide CEC the commission should have two other members called
Election Commissioner with coordinates powers
On January 1st 1990 the president revoked his notification of 1989 as a result of
which the two ECs who had been appointed lost their office as EC. SS Dhanoa
was one of them and challenged the president's decision before Supreme Court
content in that one appointed an Election Commissioner continuous and office
for his full tenure as determined by the rules under article 324 and that the
president had no power to cut short the tenure so fixed.
The supreme court rejected the petition under article 324 on the following basis
1) The creation and evaluation of post is a prerogative of Executive and article 324
empowers the President to fix and appoint such number of election
commissioners as he may from time to time determine. Hence the abolition of
the election commissioner gave rise to no cause of action
2) While it was obligated to appoint the chief election commissioner the
appointment of other election commissioners or regional commissioner is left by
the constitution to the discretion of president
TN Seshan versus Union of India 1995
Parliament enacted the chief election commissioner and other Election
Commissioner condition of service act 1991
The validity of this act regarding the status, power in whereby the two
were declared equal was challenge in this case by the chief election
commissioner TN Seshan on the ground that it was arbitrary and
unconstitutional
The Supreme Court dismissing the petition has that the scheme of article
324 is that the election commission can either be a single member body or
a multi member body if the president considered it necessary to appoint
one or more Election Commissioner. The argument that a multi member
Election Commission would be unworkable and should not therefore be
appointed could not be accepted
The court in this case observed that nobody can be above the Institutions
which he is supposed to serve. He is nearly the creator of the institution;
he can exist only if the institution exists. To project the creatures of the
institution mightier than the institution would be a Grave injustice.

In Common Cause v Union of India and Ors[1996], the Supreme Court

held that the expression °conduct of election° in art 324 of the Constitution
is wide enough to include in its sweep, the power of the Election Commission
to issue in the process of the conduct of elections directions to the effect
that the political parties shall submit to the Commission for its scr utiny, the
details of the expenditure incurred or authorized by the political parties in
connection with the election of their respective candidates.
 Amendment of the constitution part XX, [Article368]

Article 368 describes the procedure and power of Parliament to amend the
constitution
Procedure of amendment: The bill to amend the constitution can be
introduced before any house of the Parliament. When this bill is passed by
majority of total number of members of each house [that is more than 50%] and
at least two third majority of the members present and voting, then the bill is
presented before the Presidents who will be bound to give his/ her assent for the
same[24th CAA]. After the approval of president on the bill, the constitution will
be amended
Types for the amendment
1. Amendment by simple majority- article 4, 162 and 239-A list in this
category. The simple majority of parliament is sufficient for amendment in
these provisions. These articles are excluded from purview of Article
368
A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple
majority of the two houses of Parliament outside the scope of Article 368.
These provisions include:
Admission or establishment of new states.
Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing states.
Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.
Second Schedule-emoluments,
Allowances, privileges and so on of the president, the governors, the Speakers,
judges, etc.
Quorum in Parliament.
Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.
Rules of procedure in Parliament.
Privileges of the Parliament, its members and its committees.
 Use of the English language in Parliament.
Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.
Conferment of more jurisdictions on the Supreme Court.
Citizenship-acquisition and termination.
Elections to Parliament and state legislatures.
Delimitation of constituencies.
Union territories
Fifth Schedule-administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes.
Sixth Schedule-administration of tribal areas.

2. Amendment by special majority

The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a

special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50
percent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of
the members of each House present and voting. The exp

irrespective of the fact whether there are vacancies or absentees.

The special majority is required only for voting at the third reading stage of the
bill but by way of abundant caution, the requirement for the special majority has
been provided for in the rules of the Houses in respect of all the effective stages of
the bill.

The provisions which can be amended by this way include

(i) Fundamental Rights;

(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and
(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third
categories.
 3. Special majority and ratification by States- which are basis a federal
structure are included in this category. These are vital matters states have
important powers and any unilateral amendment May adversely affect the
interest of States. For incorporating amendments in these provisions, special
majority of each house of parliament as well as ratification by not less
than 1/2 States is required.
Following provisions require such ratification
1. Election of president[ article 54, 55]
2. Extent of executive powers of union and state[ article 73, 162, 241, 279 A]
3. Articles dealing with union and state judiciary[ article 124- 147, 214- 231,
241]
4. Distribution of legislative powers between union and state[ article 245-
255]
5. Goods and service tax council[ article 279 a][ instead by 101 amendment
act 2016]
6. Representation of states in parliament[ Schedule IV]
7. Any of the list of seventh schedule; or
8. Article 368 itself

The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down in Article 368
is as follows:

1. An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a

bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha) and
not in the state legislatures.

2. The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does

not require prior permission of the president.

3. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority

(that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the House and a
majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.

4. Each House must pass the bill separately.

 5. In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision for

holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and
passage of the bill.

6. If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also

be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority, that is, a
majority of the members of the House present and voting.

7. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state
legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president for assent.

8. The president must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent

to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament

9.

amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the
terms of the Act.

Can fundamental rights be amended?

Yes fundamental rights can be amended by parliament in exercise of powers
conferred under Article 368 subject to basic structure of the constitution.
In Sankari Prasad vs. Union of India 1951 the Supreme Court held that
power to amend the constitution including the fundamental rights is contained in
Article 368 and the word law in article 13[2] includes only an ordinary law made
in exercise of legislative power and does not include the constitutional
amendment which is made in exercise of power. The Constitutional Amendment
will be valid even if it abridges or takes away any fundamental rights.
Subsequently in Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1965 Supreme Court
approved the majority judgment in Sankari Prasad case and held that
amendment of the Constitution means amendment of all parts of the constitution
In Golaknath vs. State of Punjab Supreme Court prospectively overruled its
earlier Sankari Prasad case and Sajjan Singh case. The court held that
Parliament had no power from the date of decision, to amend part 3 of the
Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights.
The court observed that the amendment is law within the meaning of article
13[2] and therefore if it vioates any of the fundamental rights it may be declared
void. The word law under article 13[2] includes the statutory as well as
constitutional law. The court further held that Article 368 only deals with
procedure to amend the constitution and the power to amend the Constitution is
derived from article 245
24th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971: to overcome the difficulties
resulting from decision Parliament passed 24th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1971
It added clause 4 to article 13 which provided that nothing in this article shall
apply to any amendment of this constitution made under Article 368
It amended Article 368 of the constitution and provided that Parliament May in
exercise of its constituent power may amend, vary or repeal any part of the
constitution. It also made mandatory for the President to give his assent
to the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
24th Constitutional Amendment not only restored the amending power of
the Parliament but also extended its scope
The validity of 24th Constitutional Amendment was challenged in the case of
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 the supreme court in this
case overruled Golaknath case. The court upheld validity of 24th Constitutional
Amendment and observed that Article 368 contains the power and procedure to
amend the constitution even prior to 24th amendment
The court however said that Article 368 does not empower the Parliament to
amend the constitution so as to damage or destroy the basic structure of the
constitution
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976: to nullify the effect of
KeshavNandan Bharti case clause 4 and 5 were inserted to Article 368 by 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act 1976
[clause 4] provided that amendment of the Constitution will not be called in
question in any Court and [clause 5] provided that there shall be no limitations
on constituent power of Parliament to amend any part of the constitution.
In Minerva Mills vs. Union of India 1980 the Supreme Court struck down
clause 4 and 5 of the Article 368 of the on the ground that it destroys basic
structure of the Constitution as is limited amending powers is itself a part
basic structure of the constitution.
The Supreme Court in IR Coelho versus state of Tamil Nadu 2007 held
that any law laid under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after April
24th 1974 would be open to challenge in court of law on the ground that it
destroys the basic structure of the constitution.
 Article 370 & 35A

Art 370 is in Part XXI of the constitution

When India attained independence on 15 August 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was
one of the 565 princely states of India. While Independence was being granted to
India, the Indian Independence Act handed over an option to the rulers of
princely states, which was they had the discretion either to join one of the two
dominions India or Pakistan or remain as an independent state.

This joining with either of the two countries was to be through an instrument of
accession[IOA]
Raja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir had initially decided to remain
independent & standstill agreement with India and Pakistan. But following an
invasion from the tribesmen and army men from Pakistan, he sorts the help of
India. India in turn sought the accession of Kashmir to India.
Raja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession on October 26 1947 and the
governor general Lord Mountbatten accepted on October 27th 1947.
India regarded the Accession as purely temporary and provisional

Terms included in the IoA for Kashmir

The schedule appended to the instrument of accession gave parliament the power
to legislate in respect of Jammu and Kashmir only on Defence, external
affairs and communication
Clause 5, Raja Hari Singh, ruler of
J&K, explicitly ment my Instrument of Accession cannot
be varied by any amendment of the Act or of Indian Independence Act unless
such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this

On October 17, 1949, Article 370 was added to the Indian constitution, as a
'temporary provision', which exempted Jammu & Kashmir from Indian
Constitution [except article 1 article 370 itself], permitting it to draft its own
Constitution and restricting the Indian Parliament's legislative powers in respect
 to Jammu and Kashmir. It was introduced into the draft constitution by N
Gopalaswami Ayyangar as Article 306 A.

Main feature of Article 370:-

Indian Parliament cannot make any law without the consent of state Assembly
Jammu Kashmir has its own flag and constitution
President rule cannot be initially proclaimed in that state instead Governor Rule
can be imposed. [Jammu and Kashmir, on account of its special status, has a
slightly different mechanism under Article 356 of the constitution. Here the

the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The Governor later obtains the

revoked for six months t

Article 356.]
Jammu Kashmir has its own Criminal code as well.
Except for Defense, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications, the Indian
her laws.
The central govt. has no power to impose financial emergency in the state.
Emergency can be imposed only on the grounds of internal disturbances and
imminent danger from a foreign enemy.
Therefore, the state government has the control on how it needs to govern the
state without worrying about the consent of the central government.

Article 35A

Clause 1 of Article 370 provides that the President, in concurrence with the
government of State (J&K) has power to make certain orders.
In pursuance of this provision, Article 35A has been added by Special Presidential

Article 35A empowers the Jammu & Kashmir legislature to define the
permanent residents of the state, and their special rights and
privileges.
 This Article provides for the rights and privileges of the permanent resident of
the Jammu and Kashmir which exclude other person
who are not the permanent resident of the State.
Due to this article, Indian nationals belonging to other states cannot buy land or
property in the state of J&K.
It appears in Appendix I of the Constitution.
Both of the Articles have been a source of public outrage & there has been a cry
for their repeal.

Hurdles in removal:

Article 370 provides for its removal itself. Clause 3 states that the President
ceases the operation of this article, if the Constituent Assembly of J&K so
recommends.
The condition is essential and is also a hindrance because The Constituent
Assembly of J&K was constituted in 1956 and was dissolved after it drafted the
state's constitution 1957.
So there is no constituent assembly, to recommend removal of Article 370
Also article 35A was not passed as per amendment process given an Article 368,
but was inserted on Recommendation of Jammu and Kashmir constituent
assembly through president.

Changes made by the recent legislative exercise

According to article 370 as originally stood, recommendations of constituent

assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was required for President to issued
notification on the article 370[3] to repeal or modify it
However the president by an order dated on 5th August 2019[ constitution
application to Jammu and Kashmir] order 2019] has replaced
Presidential Order of 1954 and made a change in article 367 to state that
constituent assembly Legislative Assembly of
Since the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was dissolved and the
state was under President's rule since November 2018, the recommendation of
Parliament has been treated as Recommendation of Legislature by the president.
The notification stated that all provisions of constitution, as amended from time
to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the state of
Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding any contrary contained in article 152 or
article 308 or any other article of the Constitution or any other provision of the
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgment, order, by
law, rule, Regulation, notification, customer or usage having force of law in
territory of India, or any other instrument treaty or agreement as envisaged
under Article 363 or otherwise
The Parliament has also passed Jammu and Kashmir reorganization act 2019 to
bifurcate the states into Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
 Cases on J&K's Special Status

Prem Nath Kaul v. J&K (1959)

Challenge to Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950 on the ground that it was

The Supreme Court upheld the Act

enary legislative powers were
not limited by Article 370

Sampat Prakash v. J&K (1968)

Challenge to 1959 and 1964 Presidential Orders made under Article 370(1) that
extended the operational period of Article 35(c). Article 35(c) made preventive
detention legislation immune in J&K from fundamental rights claims.
The petitioner made two primary arguments:
o Article 370 ceased to exist after J&K Constituent Assembly dissolves in
1957
o

Article 370(1) ceased after the J&K Constitution came into force
The Supreme Court upheld the Presidential Orders:
o Article 370 will only dissolve upon the recommendation of the Constituent
Assembly under Article 370(3)
o The power to issue orders includes the power to add, amend, vary or
rescind them because the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the
Constitution

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India

Dr. Shah Feasal Vs Union