ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
CENTRE, MALAPPURAM
Constitutional law - II Project
Topic - Case Law Analysis (Unit-IV)
Constitutional Law
SUBMITTED BY :
Md Nadeem Akhtar (gl6618)
22llbwk284
2nd Year, semester IVth
B.A. LLB (HONS)
SUBMITTED TO :
Dr. Naseema PK
Asst. Professor AMUMC
1
CASE - A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan, a Communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention
Act of 1950 by the State of Madras (now Tamil Nadu). He was arrested for
allegedly making speeches that were deemed to be against the state and its
interests. Gopalan challenged his detention in the Supreme Court, arguing that
it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
Legal Issues:
a. Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 violated Article 21 (right to life and
personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
b. Whether the Act provided for procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary detention.
c. Whether preventive detention laws were in conflict with the concept of personal
liberty under the Constitution.
Court's Decision:
The case was heard by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. The
majority judgement, delivered by Chief Justice H.J. Kania, held that the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The court
interpreted Article 21 narrowly, stating that it only protected against physical
restraint and did not encompass a broader concept of personal liberty.
The majority held that the Preventive Detention Act provided for adequate
safeguards such as the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to
make a representation against detention, and the right to have the case reviewed by
an advisory board.
The court emphasised that preventive detention was a necessary measure to
maintain public order and national security.
Impact:
a. The case highlighted the limitations of Article 21 in protecting personal liberty and
paved the way for subsequent constitutional interpretations that expanded the scope
of fundamental rights.
b. It underscored the need for legislative reforms to ensure that preventive detention
laws are in line with constitutional principles and provide adequate safeguards
against arbitrary detention.
2
CASE - Gracy vs State of Kerala AIR 1991 SC 1090
Background and Facts:
The petitioner, Smt. Gracy filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India challenging the detention order against her son, Noor alias Babu.
Noor alias Babu was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) based on allegations of
involvement in extensive illicit cultivation of ganja plants.
The detention order was served on Noor alias Babu on 30th January 1990, and the
Central Government confirmed the detention for a period of two years from that
date.
The petitioner contended that there was a breach of the guarantee under Article
22(5) of the Constitution because the Central Government did not consider her son's
representation independently of the Advisory Board's opinion.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether there was an infringement of the detenu's rights under Article 22(5)
of the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the Central Government's duty to consider the detenu's
representation independently of the Advisory Board's opinion was fulfilled.
Court's Decision:
The Court held that the Central Government's obligation to consider the detenu's
representation is separate and additional to the Advisory Board's duty to consider it.
The Government's consideration must be unbiased by the Board's opinion. The
detenu's right to have the representation considered independently is crucial, and the
mode of address (to the detaining authority or the Advisory Board) is merely a
formality. Since the Central Government failed to fulfil its duty under Article 22(5), the
detention order and its confirmation were quashed.
Additionally The detention order against Noor alias Babu was quashed, emphasizing
the importance of considering detenu's representations independently to uphold
constitutional safeguards in cases of preventive detention.
CASE - Gaurav jain vs Union of India AIR 1990 sc 292
3
Background and facts:
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of
the Indian Constitution. The PIL basically sought and demanded directions from the
court to provide separate schools with vocational training facilities and separate
hostels and accommodations for children of prostitutes.
Key Issues:
Segregation vs Integration: The primary issue was whether children of prostitutes
should be segregated by providing separate schools and hostels or integrated into
mainstream society.
Court's Decision:
The court rejected the plea for separate schools and hostels for children of
prostitutes. It reasoned that segregating these children would not be in their best
interest or that of society. Instead, it emphasized the importance of integrating these
children into mainstream society.
The court acknowledged the need to protect such children from the undesirable
environment of prostitute homes, especially young girls who may be at risk of being
forced into the profession.
And directed for the construction of a committee to examine the issue
comprehensively and make recommendations to the court within eight weeks. The
committee consisted of legal experts, advocates, and representatives from women's
organizations.
The Union of India's Ministry of Welfare was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
20,000 with the court for the expenses related to the committee's work.
Key Points:
The court emphasized the importance of not segregating children of prostitutes but
ensuring their integration into society, and recognised the need for legislature and
social measures to protect these children and address the issue of prostitution in a
society.
CASE - Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802
Background and Facts:
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a non-governmental organization working for the
liberation of bonded laborers, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme
4
Court of India. The petition highlighted the prevalence of bonded labour in various
industries and regions across the country, particularly in states like Bihar, Rajasthan,
and Madhya Pradesh.
Key Issues:
1. Whether the concept of bonded labor is a violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
2. What measures should be taken to eradicate bonded labor and rehabilitate
the affected individuals.
Court’s Decision:
The supreme courts in its judgement addressed the issues raised by the petitioner
and also laid down several guidelines and directives:
1. The court issued directions to the state govt to identify the bonded labourers
and take necessary steps for their immediate release and liberation and
emphasized that the concept of bonded labour violates Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution and also said that it is a form of slavery.
2. The court ordered that the released bonded labourers should be provided with
adequate compensation and measures such as education rehabilitation and
employment opportunities.
3. The court mandated the formation of vigilance committees at the district, sub-
divisional, and block levels to monitor and prevent the practice of bonded
labour.
CASE - M.C. Mehta vs State of tamil nadu AIR 1997 SC 699
Background & facts:
In the late 20th century, the state of Tamil Nadu, particularly around the city of
Chennai, witnessed a significant increase in industrial activities, notably the
establishment of numerous tanneries. These tanneries were involved in leather
processing, which led to the discharge of untreated effluents containing harmful
chemicals and waste into water bodies, soil, and the air. Consequently, this
unregulated pollution caused severe environmental degradation, posing serious
health risks to the local population and ecosystem.
Issue:
5
M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, challenged the state's failure to regulate
tannery pollution effectively, citing violations of environmental laws and
endangerment of public health.
Judgement:
In its landmark judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental right of citizens to a
clean and healthy environment. The court recognized the gravity of the pollution problem
caused by tanneries and issued several directives to address the issue effectively. These
directives included:
1. Installation of Effluent Treatment Plants: Tanneries were ordered to install
effluent treatment plants to treat and purify the wastewater generated during
the leather processing process, ensuring that harmful chemicals and
pollutants were removed before discharge.
2. Monitoring of Pollution Levels: The court mandated regular monitoring of
pollution levels in the vicinity of tanneries to assess environmental impact and
ensure compliance with prescribed standards.
3. Enforcement of Environmental Regulations: The state government was
instructed to enforce environmental laws and regulations strictly, imposing
penalties for non-compliance and taking proactive measures to prevent
further environmental degradation.
Overall, the judgement underscored the judiciary's crucial role in safeguarding
environmental protection and public health, setting a precedent for the effective
enforcement of environmental laws and regulations across the country.
CASE - M.H Qureshi vs State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC731
Background & facts: M.H. Qureshi, the petitioner, challenged the constitutional
validity of certain provisions of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. The
Act conferred upon the state government the power to detain individuals without trial
if they were perceived as a threat to public order. These provisions enabled the state
to detain individuals for an extended period without presenting them before a court
of law, Qureshi argued that these provisions violated the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
Issue:The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of the
Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, which permitted preventive detention without
trial, were in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution,
particularly Articles 14 and 22.
Legal Challenge: Qureshi approached the Supreme Court to challenge the
constitutionality of the provisions allowing preventive detention without trial under
6
the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act. He argued that such provisions were
arbitrary and unconstitutional as they deprived individuals of their fundamental rights
without due process of law.
Judgement:The Supreme Court, in its ruling, held that the provisions allowing
preventive detention without trial under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act
were unconstitutional. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting individual
liberties and ensuring that any deprivation of personal freedom was in accordance
with due process of law. This landmark judgement reaffirmed the principles of
equality before the law and the right to a fair trial, setting a precedent for the
limitations on the state's power to detain individuals without trial.
CASE - Hindu Religious Endowment vs L.T. Swamiar AIR 1954
Background and Facts:
In the case of Hindu Religious Endowment vs. L.T. Swamiar (AIR 1954), the dispute arose
over the management of a religious endowment. L.T. Swamiar, purportedly a hereditary
trustee, was challenged by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board regarding his authority to
administer the endowment.
L.T. Swamiar claimed his right as a hereditary trustee to manage the religious endowment,
while the Hindu Religious Endowment Board contested his authority, asserting that the
management should fall under its jurisdiction.
Issue:
The primary issue before the court was to determine the legitimacy of L.T. Swamiar's
claim as a hereditary trustee and to establish the extent of authority vested in the
Hindu Religious Endowment Board concerning the administration of the religious
endowment.
Judgement:
The court ruled in favour of L.T. Swamiar, recognizing his status as a hereditary
trustee entitled to manage the religious endowment. The court emphasized the
importance of respecting traditional practices and upheld the rights of hereditary
trustees in matters of religious administration. Additionally, it clarified the limited
jurisdiction of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board, affirming that its authority did
not extend to superseding the rights of hereditary trustees in the management of
religious endowments.
7
CASE - Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala 1987 SC 748
Background and Facts:
In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (1987 SC 748), the dispute arose
over the refusal of three Jehovah's Witness students to sing the national anthem on
religious grounds. The students, belonging to the Jehovah's Witness faith, abstained
from singing the national anthem as they believed it was against their religious
principles.
Issue:
The central issue before the court was to determine whether the students' refusal to
sing the national anthem on religious grounds could be considered a valid exercise
of their fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion under the Indian
Constitution, or is it violation or offence under the Prevention of Insult to National
Honour Act, 1971.
Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the students, affirming that their
refusal to sing the national anthem on religious grounds was protected under the
fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. The court emphasized that the right to freedom of religion includes the
freedom to profess and practice one's religion, and individuals cannot be compelled
to act contrary to their religious beliefs. Therefore, the students' decision not to sing
the national anthem did not constitute a breach of law or disrespect to the nation.
CASE - Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR1977
Background and Facts:
In the case of Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1977), the petitioner,
Stanislaus, was a Christian priest who was accused of converting individuals to
Christianity by means of force, fraud, or allurement. The case revolved around the
interpretation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom
of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
8
Issue:
The main issue in the case was whether the act of forcibly converting individuals to
Christianity violated the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in Article 25 of the
Indian Constitution.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 of the
Indian Constitution did not include the right to forcibly convert individuals. The Court
held that while individuals have the freedom to persuade others to adopt their
religion, such persuasion must be through legitimate means and not by force, fraud,
or allurement. Therefore, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of laws
prohibiting forced conversions and affirmed that the right to propagate religion does
not extend to coercive or fraudulent means of conversion.
CASE - Mittal vs Union Of India AIR 1983 SC 01
Background and Facts:
In the case of Mittal vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 01), the dispute centered around
the rights of a religious denomination to acquire, own, and administer property in
accordance with the law. The case specifically pertained to the management of
properties owned by a religious denomination.
Issue:
The primary issue before the court was to determine whether a religious
denomination had the constitutional right to acquire and own property and to
administer such property in accordance with the law.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court ruled that a religious denomination did indeed have the
constitutional right to acquire, own, and administer property in accordance with the
law. The Court emphasised that this right was subject to certain conditions and
regulations imposed by law. The judgement reaffirmed the principle that religious
denominations enjoy autonomy in managing their properties, provided such
management is in accordance with the law of the land.
9
CASE - Lily Thomas vs Union Of India AIR 2000 SC 1650
Background and Facts: In the case of Lilly Thomas vs. Union of India, the
petitioner Lilly Thomas, brought forth a case concerning the rights and legal
implications surrounding a Hindu man's conversion to Islam and subsequent
marriage to another woman while still having a Hindu wife.
Issue: The central issue in this case was whether a Hindu man who converted to
Islam and contracted a second marriage without legally dissolving his first Hindu
marriage could be held liable under Hindu personal laws or any other relevant legal
provisions, and the second marriage would be void as per muslim law.
10
Judgement:
The Supreme Court's judgment in Lilly Thomas vs. Union of India is significant. The
Court held that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, continues to govern Hindu individuals
even after their conversion to another religion. Therefore, if a Hindu man converts to
Islam but does not legally dissolve his first marriage under Hindu law, contracting a
second marriage would be void under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court
emphasized that conversion to another religion does not dissolve the existing
marriage under Hindu law, and any subsequent marriage without legally ending the
first marriage would be illegal and void. This ruling clarified the legal status of
marriages and the applicability of personal laws in cases of religious conversion.
CASE - Abdul Ghani Sofi vs State Of J&K AIR2008 J&K 40
Background and Facts:
In the case of Abdul Ghani Sofi vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 2000 J&K 40), the
petitioner, Abdul Ghani Sofi, contested the withholding of his travel document,
specifically a pilgrimage pass, by the State Committee. The pass was withheld due
to a lack of clearance by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) agency, named
as respondent No. 3 in the case. Sofi argued that this action violated his
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Issue:
The central issue was whether the withholding of Sofi's pilgrimage pass by the State
Committee, contingent upon CID clearance, infringed upon his fundamental rights
under the Constitution of India.
Judgement:
The judgement addressed the legality of withholding Sofi's travel document. The
court examined the grounds for withholding the pilgrimage pass and the authority of
the State Committee to require CID clearance for issuing such passes. After careful
consideration, the court ruled that withholding Sofi's pilgrimage pass without
sufficient justification and without following proper procedures violated his
fundamental rights. The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding individual
liberties and ensuring that administrative actions are lawful and proportionate. As a
11
result, Sofi's challenge against the withholding of his pilgrimage pass was upheld,
and he was granted relief by the court.
THANK YOU!
12
