TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

B.A., LL.B. (Hons) & B.Com. LL.B. (Hons) Degree Course

Second Year Fourth Semester
End-Semester Examinations, May 2016
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
ANSWER KEY
TIME: 150 MINS TOTAL MARKS: 50
Part A
Note: Answers comprises only the important points that are expected for every answer. However
presentation and content analysis with relevant judicial interpretations will decide on total
marks for every answer.

Answers for critical thinking questions should contain whys and hows, not the whats. It
should involve examples, explanations, comparisons, alternative approaches, discussions on
strengths & weaknesses and make links with practice.

Answer any two of the following in not less than 750 words: (2*10 = 20 Marks)
1. Critically comment on the following statement,
The assessment of the strength of the Ministry is not a matter of private
opinion of any individual be he the governor or the President. It is capable of
being demonstrated and ascertained publicly in the House. Hence when such a
demonstration is possible, it is not open to bypass it and instead depend upon the
subjective satisfaction of the Governor or the President. Such private assessment
is an anathema to the democratic principle, apart from being open to serious
objections of personal mala fides
Ans: Art.356 Art. 365 Failure of Constitutional machinery in a State It has
been used 125 times until January 2016 Report of the governor or otherwise
Presidential Proclamation Union would assume control over all functions in the
state except judicial Dead Letter, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly
42nd & 44th Amendment Act Judicial Review S.R. Bommai case a matter of last
resort Legislative assembly of a state cannot be dissolved before the proclamation
is approved by both Houses of Parliament status quo ante The court has the
power to order that the dissolved Ministry and assembly will be revived Situations
which do not amount to failure of constitutional machinery Sarkaria Commission
Report Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand cases.
2. Critically comment on the following statement,
Assumption that primacy of the judiciary in the appointment of judges
is a basic feature of Constitution is empirically flawed and the exclusion of the

Page | 1
 executive branch is destructive of the basic feature of checks and balances - a
fundamental principle in Constitutional theory
Ans: Appointment of SC and HC Judges Doctrine of Separation of Power &
Theory of Checks & Balances Collegium System Appointment in other
jurisdictions NJAC.
Issues:
Seniority v. Competent Administrator
Independence of Judiciary
Executive Primacy v. Judicial Primacy
Need for elimination of political influence
Dilution of Judicial Primacy v. Exclusion of Executive
Give reasons: why you agree with majority opinion or dissenting opinion in
Fourth Judges Case (NJAC).
3. Briefly examine the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution in the
light of decided cases.
Ans: Art.368 Nature Informal Methods Formal Method Procedure
General features No joint session President bound to give assent Golaknath
case 24th Amendment Parliament legislative and constituent capacity
Keshavananda Case FRs amenable Basic Features not amenable Doctrine of
Basic Structure 42nd & 44th Amendment Judicial Review Minerva Mills Case
List of Basic features Dangers of frequent amendments.
Part B
Note: Answers to the concepts asked must cover the core points to bring out its semantics in clear
terms. The allotted 3 marks for each concept will be awarded depending upon the presentation
of core points.

Answer any three of the following in not less than 250 words: (3*3 = 9 Marks)
4. a. Money Bill
Ans: Art. 110 involving taxation, borrowing, government funding, payment or
withdrawal of money from Consolidated or Contingency Fund of India
Introduced only in LS Simple majority in LS RS can pass or return the bill
within 14 days RS can recommend changes but LS has right to reject them.

b. Cooperative federalism
Ans: Corwins Definition minimises friction and promotes co-operation among
the Units within State Governments in a federation were arranged not arranged
hierarchically or vertically but horizontally Common policies among various

Page | 2
 governments can be promoted not by dictation but by a process of discussion,
agreement and compromise

c. Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

Ans: Art.143 enable the government to secure an authoritative opinion Not
binding upon the government and not executable as a judgment of the SC Special
Reference No.1 of 1993 2G Spectrum Case.
d. Central control over State Legislation
Ans: Art.31A (1) Art.31C Art.200 Art.288 (2) Art.304 (b) Art. 254 (2)
Art.360 (1) [Explain any 3]
Part C
Note: All Problems are to be valued as per the following schemes.

a. Issue/s, Right Approach & Correct Decision

b. Legal Reasoning & Principle/s Settled down
c. Application of legal reasoning to the problem asked

Answer any three of the following: (3*7 = 21 Marks)

Note: Identify the issues in each problem and derive solution by applying relevant
provisions, settled legal principles and decided cases.
5. The State of Uttar Pradesh enacted a law levying a tax. The law needed
presidential assent but it was not secured. Later Uttar Pradesh enacted another
law declaring that the earlier law would not be deemed to be invalid by reason of
the fact that Presidential assent had not been secured. This later law secured
Presidential assent. Whether the later law cures the infirmity of the earlier law?
Ans:
If a law passed by a legislature is struck down by the Courts for one infirmity or
another, the legislature can cure the infirmity by passing a law, as so to validate
the earlier law. Such legislation is necessarily to be regarded as subsidiary or
ancillary to the power of legislation on the particular subject.
See Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667; Khyerbari Tea Co. v.
State of Assam, AIR 1964 SC 925.
In the case of Presidential assent, The Later law could not cure the infirmity of
the earlier law. That infirmity could be cured only by Presidential assent and not
by any legislative fiat. Even the Presidential assent to the later law cannot cure
the defect of the earlier law.
See Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 764. See also 8 JILI, 637.

Page | 3
6. The State legislature of Kerala passed Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition of Sale
and Consumption) Act, 2016 which prohibits the possession, use and sale of
intoxicating liquors or alcohol absolutely whether indigenous or foreign.
Kesavan, a liquor shop owner challenged the state policy on alcohol ban before
the High Court on the ground that, the state could not prohibit the possession and
sale of intoxicating liquors as that amounts to prohibit their import into the
country. He contends that the import is a subject matter belonged to the Union
under the Constitution therefore the above said Act of the State is an
encroachment on the Union subject matter and it is Unconstitutional. Decide
Ans:
The State Act is valid - Entry 41, List I & Entry 8, List II - Rule of Harmonious
Interpretation - The Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC
318 gave a limited meaning to the word import in the Central entry in order to
give effect to the State entry.

A State Legislature has power to prohibit the possession, use and sale of
intoxicating liquors absolutely whether indigenous or foreign. This power
includes the power to impose total or partial prohibition in the State.
See N.K. Doongaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 M.P. 1
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574
Sunny Markose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 Ker 379

7. The Property of a citizen of India seized by the police authorities of a state, on

suspicion of being stolen property, is lost while in police custody. The owner
claims damages from the State for the loss of his property and is rejected. What
remedies are available to the owner against the state?
Ans: The state is liable to pay damages. The distinction between sovereign and non-
sovereign functions, which the Supreme Court perpetuated through the Kasturi Lal
Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1039 ruling, was irrational in
the modern context. The Supreme Court had suggested in Kasturilal, the situation
could be redeemed by a legislative enactment and not by judicial process. Non-
enactment of a law defining the scope of tortious liability of the state has proved to
be a blessing in disguise in the long run. But absence of legislation, on the other
hand, gave an opportunity for the full play of judicial creativity and the Supreme
Court has thus been able to transform an archaic law concerning state tortious
liability in to a very liberal law favouring the citizen vis--vis the state.
In Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663, the SC held that,
No civilised system can permit an executive to play with the people of its country
and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign: No legal or
Page | 4
 political system today can place the state above law as it is unjust and unfair for a
citizen to be deprived of his property illegally by negligent act of officers of the State
without any remedy
8. The State of Karnataka amended the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1970 [KMVT Act] in 2014, which made it mandatory for the owners of non-
Karnataka registered vehicles to pay a lifetime tax in Karnataka if the vehicle is
used continuously for more than a month in any part of the State. The KMVT
(Amendment) Act, 2014 got the assent of the Governor of the State and came
into force on August 2015. On March 2016, the motor vehicle of Abinandan with
Tamil Nadu registration, while plying in Karnataka was said to have been
intercepted and the documents pertaining to the vehicle have been impounded,
demanding payment of life time tax. Abinandan is an Advocate by profession
who established law offices at Bangalore, Chennai and New Delhi. He
challenged the said action of the Karnataka State before the High Court of
Karnataka and contends that the KMVT (Amendment) Act, 2014 is repugnant to
the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which states that the owners of vehicles
registered in one state are supposed to pay a lifetime tax when they shift to a state
that is not their domicile. He further contends that the constitution guarantees its
citizens the right to move freely anywhere in India and the freedom to do trade or
profession. Therefore, restriction imposed by KMVT (Amendment) Act, 2014 is
Unconstitutional. It is submitted before the High Court that the State Act is
enacted under List II whereas the Central Act is enacted under List III. Decide

Ans:
The KMVT (Amendment) Act, 2014 is unconstitutional and ultra vires
Art.19(1)(d), Art.301 & Art.304(b)
Entry 57 of List II v. Entry 35 of List III of Schedule VII
Doctrine of Repugnancy The State Amendment Act is inconsistent with
and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament Thus Amendment Act
is ultra vires and repugnant under Art. 254(1) of the Constitution as the
Central Act shall prevail over the State Act and to the extent of the
repugnancy be void It is also liable to be struck down as it has admittedly
not received the assent of the president as contemplated under Art. 254(2)

See M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431

Jagadev Biradar v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 455, decided on
10/03/2016
____________

Page | 5