Case List

st
For LLB 1
Semester

C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
a
w

Case Reference Case Details Topic

FundametlRighsJudcaeviw

P DShamdsni vs.Central Bank of India Bank cofisated proety n loa efdut. SC held tafundamental rights ae vilb aginst he sta nd ot agins private indvuasl becusa ther adly re nough afsegudr under ordinay lws for such disputes. Fundamtel rights are aginst State.
SC AIR 1952

Rajsthn Electriy Board vs. Mohan Lal Definto of Stae sinot arw. Itincludes alsuch enti hat are constiued bythe Sat. Elecrity Board n a Uiversty are States. Overuld Univ. of Madrs vs.Sant Bai. Art 12
SC AIR 1967 What is State.
ONGC,
Sukhdev s.Bhagatram LI
SC AIR 1975 C
,I
Marbuy vs.Madison UnSdust C hedl ta he judicary has et powr t reviw actions f the legisatur. The conpt ofJudical Reviw stared fomr here. Art 13
US C 1800 Judical Review
L Chandr Kumar vs. Unio of The powr f judical revw of legisatv action as vetd inSC by art Art 13
India 32 and i HC by art 26 siabc fateur of the consiu and canot be curtaild evn by constiual amendment.
SC AIR 1997
AK Gopaln vs. Sate ofMadras OnylSectio 14 of Prevnti Detnio Act 1950 was held uncosti al. Whole act exp thsi econ sivalid. Art 13
SC AIR 1950 In Romesh Taper vs. Stae of Mdasr, SC held ta only if the uncosti al portins canot be rmovd then whole act wil be utra vies and thus unconstitutional. Doctrine of Severability.
Bhikaj vs. Stae of MP SC AIR 1954 Govt. fCenratl Povince monplized motr ansport byan ct. SC held ta hepr-costniual law th violaes fundametl rights is not vid ab into. I is meryl cipsed. When Art19 was mend to alow ste o mnplize any busie , the said ct became constiual again. Art 13
Doctrine of Eclipse

Dep Chand vs. Stae ofUP SC AIR 1959 Doctrine of Eclipse dos ntaply o Pst-Cniuoal law because such alw is vod ab initio. Art 13
Doctrine of Eclipse
Stae of Gujart vs. Ambica Mills Overuld Dep Chndas case nd hel ta Docrine of Eclipse is aplicbe to non-citizens. Art 13
SC AIR 1974 Doctrine of Eclipse
rd
Dulare Lodh vs. 3 Additional Hedl tha Docrinte of Eclipse to ps-cntiuoal law is aplcbe to citzens as well. Art 13
Distrc Judge Doctrine of Eclipse
SC AIR 1984
Bashe r Nath vs.ncoIme Tax The aplnt had rec asetlmn with IT dept. o pay 3lc per month for taxes hat e owd uner IT act. Howevr, laert h act was detrmin tobeuncstioal. So hecalngd theslmnt. IT dept agurd hat ehad wive hsi rgt byeaching asettlement. Art 13
Commissioner SC hedl ta, unlike USA, ndIia constiu does ntfolw Doctrine ofWaiver. Fundametl rights ae nobligat imposed upon the stae byh constiu. Itis he courst duy to enf rc them. Doctrine ofWaiver
SC AIR 1959

Keshavnd Bharti vs. Sate of SC hedl ta constiu al amend ts dont faluder laws as meant i art3.1 Ihedl ta Lw in art 13 means rules and regulations made unr odinay legisatv powers and not amend ts made un r costiunal powers. huT, Constitution Art 13
th th
Kerala (24 Amend t Act) 197 bywhic te 4 clause wasde to Meanig oflaw.
SC AIR 1973 art 13 was vlid. Art 13(4) say, Nothing i ths aricle sha ply to any med t of het consiut made un r at 368.

Equality ndClasifcton (SeomCpnsatry Discrimination)

oPtrecinfLadsoliberty
A KGopaln vs. Stae of Madras A comunist leadr ws detain under vPntie Detnio Act, Art 14/19/21
SC AIR 1950 1950.
1. Fundametl Rights are not absolute.
2. Rights in Part I e mutayl xcelusiv and th libery n Art 19

and 21 are difnt higs. (Overuld ni Meak Gandhi)

3. Hedl tha lw means tae md law nd ot jus naturale
(princles of naturl justice).
4. Rejctd tha procedu establihd bylaw is ame s due proces of law ofthe US constitution.
5. Hedl tha 21 protecs aginst los fpersonal physical iberty and
19 deals with unraseobl esrticon on specif freedoms.

Khark Singh vs. Stae of UP SC AIR 1963 UP olice prfomed domiclary vis t o make sur hat ews at home ni the nigs. Thi was chlengd. SC held t following. Art 21
1. Personal iberty is not cfied only t bodily restain or confiem t in prso butincldes althose tings hrtou which life s enjoyed.
2. Personal Libetyr mans much ore tha mer animl existence.
3. Art 19 gives om fthe rdoms requid to njey personal liberty, whil art21 oncstiue the rest.
4. Since thr wasnol hic uld jstifyomclar vist,they wer hld tobe an u thorized intruso into aperson lifeand wer hld tobe involat ofart21.

Satwn Singh vs. A t Passport Right o avrel abroad. Art 21

Officer
SC AIR 1967
Govind s. Stae ofMP SC AIR 1975 Domiclary vist wer hdl vai becaus ther was lw and sohad the forc law. Art 21

Menak Gandhi vs. Unio f India Pasport was confiaedt withou povridng anyreason. Art 14,21.
SC AIR 1978
Prio t hsi cae, Art 21 guanrted protecin aginst arbiy action onyl f excutiv and otfrm legisatv action. After his case:

A pesorn ca be dpriv of lie and perso l iberty onl if

1. Ther sia law.
2. The law must povride a procedure.
3. The procdue sijut, far nd reasonable.
4. The procdue must aify Art 14. Importan Points

1. Fundametl rights epr nt he valus cheris d bypeople since Vdci ages nd are cluated toprvide gnity to human beigs nda to cear ondits hat enbl ahuman being todevlp his peronality o fulest xent. (J Bhagvati)
2. Provisn of Part Ishoudl begivn wdest possible interpretation.
3. Rights in Part I e not mualy exclusiv but form asingle scheme.
4. Laws under At 21 must aify the s of reasbnilty under
Art 14 and lso tand he ts of Art 19.
5. SC has ceptd hat lw should be arson l law nd not just an ectd law. To befair nd just,i hould fow the princles of naturl jstice. Thus, evn if due procs of
law is not explicy mentiod, the fc is same.

Althoug Art21 use ngative words, ithas poitve dimenso as wel. Thus, itdoes nt jus mean right omer xistenc buta righ to live wth uman dignity.

Compensati forvilatn ofArt 21.

th
4 amend t, Emegnrcy, and Art21. 1 canot be suspended on pesrid tal orde un r at359.

MH oskt v.Stae of Mah. SC AIR 1978 Right ofre lga aid. Art 21

Husainr Khatun vs.Stae of Right o spedy trial. Art 21

Bihar
SC AIR 1979
Olga Teis v. BMC (Pavemnt Dwelrs case) SC AIR 1986 Right o livelihood. Art 21

Parmnd Katr vs.U of I SC AIR 1989 Right o healt nd meical assistance. Art 21

Subhas Kumar vs. Stae ofBih Right o plutin fre ai nd water. Art 21
SC AIR 1991
Mohin Ja vs. Stae of Kar. (Capiton fe case) Right o education Art 21
SC AIR 1992

Chameli Sngh vs. Stae of UP SC AIR 1996 Right o shelter. Art 21

PUCL vs. Unio f India (Telphon Taping case) SC AIR 1997 Right o privacy. Art 21
 Murli Deoa vs. Unio f India Ban o smking in publc places. Art 21
SC AIR 2002
re Nois Pollution Right ofredm fro noise. Art 21
SC AIR 2005

Fredom fSpech and Expression

Romesh Thaper vs. Stae of Romesh Thaper was the publisr of Crs Roads, left leaning paper,crital of Gvt. Sae ofMadrs baned itsenry ad circulation in Madsr on the grundos of public safety. Art 19 ()(a) Art 19 (2)
Madras SC hedl from f cuirlaton is coverd under f dom fspeech and ht public safety iout fscope fArt 19 (2). Fredom fSpech and
st
SC AIR 1959 After his, n Costiu n 1 menAd t, Art19 (2) was mend to Expression
include pubcli oder, scurity ofstae, inctem of enc as grounds foresticng thefrdom fspech and expression.

Prabhu Dut vs.UofI SC AIR 1982 Peopl have rigt o knw es and fuctiong ofthe govt. Art 19 (1)

Asociatn for Democratic Peopl have rigt o knw about he ast, liabes, wealth, edcaution of thecandit befor voting. Art 19 (1)
Reforms vs. UofI SC AIR 2002

LIC vs. Manubhi D Shah Manubhi wrote an rticle n LICs' magzine about he problms with Art 19 (1)
AIR SC 1992 LIC tha f ecdt policy holders.
LIC published aresonp toha bu di not gve achne topublish a rejoind. SC hedl ta LIC being a Ste as per At12, must publish his respon. Italso hed ta ideso nt mea vry bod has right to publish in amgzine and this rg should bedtrmin on a
case bycase basis.

Tat Pesr Ltd. vs MTNL SC 1995 Comercial adverts ae protced under f om f speech. Art 19(1)

Minstry of I& B vs. CAB SC AIR 1995 SC has del tha one sh et righ to pblicuze hsi exprsion as well. A game ofcriket s anexprsio and the orgnizas have right to proagte it evry wh in the world. So Ddarshn must provide its up lnkig faciltes to CAB fr tnsmaig the signal outof country.Art 19 (2) does nt alow resticon on19 () a onthe grounds ofcreating monply of thegovt. Art 19(1)

CPI (M)vs. Bhart Kumar Bundhs are illegal. Art 19 (1)

SC AIR 1998
Ranjit Udeshi v. Stae ofMah. SC AIR 1965 Bokselr baned forseling obscen books. Art 19 (1)

Hamdr Dawkhn vs. UofI SC AIR 1960 Obnoxius and Frulent advertisng is not protected. Art 19 (1)

Secularism/Mnoty Rights
SR Bomai vs.Unio fIndia SC hedl ta seculrim is abc fateur of the consiu . Indian secularim is df enrt fom eArican secularism. Art 25-28
SC AIR 1994

Santosh Kumar vs.Mintry ofHRD SC AIR 1995 Teaching of Sanskrit langue sinot ai-seculr becaus its the mother of alAryn languages.

Churc ofGd vs. KRMC Welfare assoc. Noise plution i the nam ofrelign ot allowed.
SC AIR 1999

Aruna Roy vs. Unio f India Study base on alreigons in scohl inota-seculr. Must keeps
SC AIR 2002 savr dham sambhv and ot savr dhma abhav.
Rev Stainslu vs.Stae ofMP SC AIR 1977 Forcibel conversi not allowed.

29(1) 30(1)
Gives ghrt o alcitizens Gives rght o minrtes to
having adistnc language, script, orculte, o preserve the same. establih and administer educationl institutions.

Provides right o alcitizens. Provides right o minorities.

Deals only with langue, script, and culture. Deals with langu e and religion.

Concerd with rg to conserv langue, script, and culture. Gives rght oestablih and mange ducationl institutions of their coe t minorities.

Does nt ecsarily mean educationl institutes. Deals onyl with establishment and mistraon of educationl institutions.

Javed s. Stae ofHaryana Two children orm nta violn ofart 25.
SC AIR 2003
Md Hanif Quareshi vs.Sate of Ban o cw slaughter does nt violae rt25 becaus cow slaughter is nota esntil part of Islam.
Bihar
SC AIR 1958
Ashuto Lahir vs. Stae ofWB SC AIR 1995 Exemption on cw slaughter on Bakdri ayinvdl becaus it not an es til o the religion.

Stae of Bmbay vs. Varasu An act h baned igamy held vai becus bigamy s not an esntial prt of Hinduism.
Bapamali
SC AIR 1953
DAV Coleg, Julndher vs. State of Punjab Gur Nank Univ drect thesa to make provisn forsudty and resach on life and techigs of Gur Nank. This wa chleng on the ground tha ivoltes Art28. Art 28.
SC AIR 1971 SC hedl ta id not vilae bcusae thesudy wa only academic anddi not amu toreligus instucro orpmtin ofany religion.

St. Xaviesr Coleg vs. Stae of Relation betwn Art 29(1) and 30(1). SC held t folwing four distinctions: Art 29,30
Gujarat
SC AIR 1974

nI this landmrk case, om section f Gujart Univ. Act imposed sevral esticon hat
af
fectd its mangerl rights on thecollege.

SC hedl ta provisn hat

ef
ectivly take contrl f the mange t ofan eductioaln istuon are notaplicbe to minorty institutions.

Judiciary
Unio f ndIia vs.Sankalchand Sanklch Art 222
Sheth d Indep c ofthe
SC 1977 Se Judiciary
h
wa
s
transf
S PGupta vs. Unio f India (Judges Tranfe Case I) AIR SC 1982 SreCd unaimoslyfrom newithHC toeanmhaneirg without
of het rm consultai as detrmin ni Saklchnds case nd hel ta onylgrud on which the dcison ofthe gv. arding apointme and rtsfe o a Art 124(2) Indep c ofthe Judiciar
Judge can be chalngd is tha f its baed on mal fide orirrelevant consideration.
Thsi ugely afecdt he indp ce of het judicary becus the
contrl ve apoindt of the judgs went compley to heexecutive branch.

SC Advocate on Recrd Asoc. vs. Unio f India Overuld SPGupta cse and hel t following: Art 124(2) Indep c ofthe Judiciar
SC 1993 Judges of SC and HCs mut be apointd in cosulta n with CJI. The conultasi must
b
e
re Psidntal Refnrc 1999 Thef Prsidnt requsdt theopin ofthe SC when t CJI gave his recomndati withou csnltig other judgs of the SC. Art 124(2) Indep c ofthe Judiciar
SC hedl ta ecormndati given wthou cnsltig other judgs is notbidg on het President.

V Ramswy Impeachment V Ramswy was in facl irregularities. Art 124(4)

1990 Procedings wer stad butdi no suced becaus congress abstined from voting. Removal of a Jdgue of
SC orHC

C Ravi hndra Iyer vs. AM Bhattacharjee Bar Asoc. rietd opresuiz het judg toesrign foralegd financial misbehavor. SC held ta ny schu oercin is nvald, fects the indep c ofthe judicary nd amuots ocntemp court. Only procedu to remv ajudge is gven i 124() and (5). Art 124(4)
SC 1995 Itfurhe ld tha if et miscondut of ajudge fals hort of impeachnt, an ctio uld beaktn i-house withn te judiciary. Furthe, onylthe CJI, being th firs among the judgs can be the prime ovr f such anaction. Removal of a Jdgue of
SC orHC

Delhi Judcal Servics Asoc. vs. Stae ofGujarat 5 policemn wer hld guity of crimnal contemp ofcurt for harsing and hcuf ing theCif Judcial Mgistrae ni Nadiad, Gujarat. Art 129
SC 1991 SC hedl ta ihs power t unpish forcntemp ofitsel aswel as anysubordite court nde art129. Court f Record

Ayodha Case UP CM Kalyn Sigh was convited of cntemp of curt fo ailng to kep his prome of nt leig any Art 129
Mohd. Aslam vs.Unio fIndia constr Court f Record
SC 1994 uction on dispute land.

Stae of Karntk vs. Unio of Centr apointed acomis n of inqury der Comisn of Inquiry Act 1952 to invesgat hecagrs of cruptin, nepotism, etc.agins the CM ofKarntk. Stae ofKanrkt filed a suite in SC under oignal jurisdcton chargin hat Cenr does nt have the power t apoin such a omis n becaus its n he spr of Stae lgisatve and excutiv powers and th ivolates thefederal charte of the constitution. Art 131
India Centr conted tha since th comisn is agnt he CM personaly and ot agins the Sa ofKar, the sui canot be brought under At13, whic probits personal suites. Orignal Jurisdcton of
SCJ 1978 SC hedl ta hesuit manible becaus the Sa cts through itsminster and yaction agist he minstr afects heSta . So Stae hs SC
sufice
n
ti
net
rest inhe cas to file h suite.
Itfurhe ld tha e comisn does nt violae th federal charte of the cnr-sate relations.
Unio f ndIia vs.Stae of Raj. SC 1984 SC hedl ta Ses uit agns Uion fIndai to ecrv damages under ailw ys act 1890 sinota dispue faling uder 13 and Art 131
thefro not mainble. Such odinray comerial dispute are not under SCs jurisdiction. Orignal Jurisdcton of
SC

Krishnawmy vs. Go General-in- Council Ifther is dfernc of pin among HCs and ther sino direct decison of SC n tha poin, ts a ubntil question of lawto permit apel in SC. Art 132
AIR 1947 Apelat Juris Const

Madn Gopal vs. Stae ofOrrisa The pcuniary(moet ) value ofthe subjct maer ofthe cas iof no imptarce. Ther may be matrs whic anot be masurd in terms of mney but he dcison may stilhave fr eaching impact. Art 132
AIR 1956 Apelat Juris Civil

Kiranml vs. Dynanoba High Court disme the apl by one wrd oer Dismal. SC Art 132
AIR 1983 held ta o be invald n remitd toHC fr dpoisal n merits. Apelat Juris Civil
Sidheswar Ganguly vs. Stae of In case SC has given udlis to be flwd byHC to give certifas. HC canot isue acrtif e under 134-A on mere qusteion ofact. The as mtu invole asubntil question of law. Art 134
W.B. Apelat Juris Crim.
AIR 1958
Ramknt Rai vs.M dan Rai Private party cnfeil ap under At136 chalengi acquitl. SC canot refain rom ding tsduy jstbecau aprivte pary nd not the sa h notapeld aginst heacquitl byHC. Art 136
AIR 2004 Special Lve to Appeal

Pritam Singh vs. State SC explaind how te discrtonay power und Art 136 wil be used bySC in ths case: Art 136
AIR 1950 Since th power is excptonal and verywi, tmus be used sparingly and i excptonal cirumsante. Beyond this not posibel to fer ht exrcis of thsi power by an set formula orrule. Special Lve to Appeal

Unio Carbide Corp. vs Unio of SC hedl ta under At136, he curot has inert power t transfer the cas from Distrc out fBhopal nd ispoe f het sam. SC has wide po rs under 142 and the cour an do s if t necessary to d cmplet justice. Art 136
India Special Lve to Appeal
SC 1991

Unio f ndIia vs.Shiromani Gudwra Pabrndhk Committee SC 1986 SC maytrnsfe thecas from ne HC to an her if t els hat the case not be dalt wih farly ni oe HC due to exceptional circumstances. Art 139 A

Bengal Imunity Co. vs Stae of SC hedl ta her is nothg in the consiut tha prevnts SC from departing from its pevrou decison. If SC inds tha previous judgment made roneus, itshould amit and ot per uat it. Art 141
Bihar Decison ofSC is binding on alcourts.
AIR 1955
re Kal Education Bill SC interp d the word "may ni clause 1 as it no bud to give its opin . If ithas god reason, itmay refus to exprs itsopinion. Art 143
1953 Advisory Juris
re Spcial Courts Bill SC hedl ta opins given byit under this jurdction are bindg on alcourts in the country. Art 143
1979 Advisory Juris
re Cauvy Dispute Tribunal SC hedl ta heordinac pased bythe Sat of Kar. to n follow the ord fthe ribunal to relas water o TN, is unconstitutional. Art 143
Advisory Juris
Ayodha Dispute and advisory opinion SC refusd toexprs its opn on whetr a templ existd on the dispute locatin becaus itwas uperflos, unecsary, and favors aprticul religion. Art 143
1994 Advisory Juris

L Chandr Kumar vs. Uno f India Power fHC over lgisate action s baci fetur of het constitution and cot be curtaild byconstiu al amendment. Art 226
SC AIR 1997 Writ Jus. of HC.
ABSK angh(Rly) vs. Unio of Unregist d unio has right ofeil a wrt peion for apublic grievance. Art 226
India Locus Standi
AIR 1991
Chairmn, Rlwy Board vs. Chandrim Das An advocte of Calcut HC has Art 226
AIR 2000 su Locus Standi
ficent iesrt ni demanding compensati for Bangldshei woman raped in a rlwy station, whic s a public pace, byrailw employees.
Basp vs. Nagappa SC hedl ta scope f 26 sivery wd an c be usd to remedy injustce wherv its found. Art 226
AIR SC 1954 Scope
Unio f ndIia vs.RK Sharma Procedings under sc 18 of India Army ct ano be arity and can ome under jical review. Art 226
AIR 2001 Scope
Mohan Pdey Vs. Uha Rani Private comerial dispute do nt faluder 26 ifthey do ntallege violatn of stau ry ights by Art 226
Rajgaria stau Scope
SC 1992 tory authorities.
Election Comisn vs.Venkata Madsr HC canot isue wrt agins ECI becaus ECI is beda in Art 226
Rao New Dlhi, wch siout f jurisdcton of Madrs HC. Teritoal Scope
th
AIR 1975 Later 51 amend t 1963 amend 26 to alw HC to isue writs aginst
cent
ral gencis if the caus of actin, whole rinpat, les is
ONGC vs. Utpal Kumr Basu
SC 1994
Velaswmy vs.IG Police Madras
AIR 1982
Shankri Pasd v. Unio fIndia
AIR 1951
Sajn Sigh vs. Stae ofRaj. AIR 1965
Golak Nth vs. Stae of Pun. AIR 1971
Keshavnd Bharti vs. Unio of
India
AIR 1973
Petion di not discle tha wole rpat of cuse of actin les in Art 226
Calcut HC jurisdcton so HC canot isue writ agns ONGC. Teritoal Scope
HC disme the pion citng hat lern remdy is available under polic rules of Madras. Art 226
SC hedl ta he rmdy was not ufsicent and HC shoudl not have Discretonay Remedy
disme the petition.
AmendtofhCsiun
st
1 amend t tha inserd of Art 31- and 31-B bywas challenged. SC held ta Lw in Art13 efrs to rdinay lw made under legisatv power and oes tniclude amend t of het constitution. Art 368/13
Art 368 gives complet power t he parlimnt o amend the Amend t ofthe constitution
constiu includg fundametl rights.
th
17 amend t was chlengd. SC folwed het judgmn in Art 368/13
Shankri Pasd case nd hel ta mend t of the constitution Amend t ofthe constitution
means amend t of althe provisn ofthe constitution.
th th
17 amend t tha insertd cerain stae c in the 9 schedule was gin challenged. Art 368/13
SC overuld theprvious jdgment and hel at he parlimnt does not have t power amnd part I so a to ke awy fundamental rights. Ield tha r368 melyr dscribe the procdue of amend t nda the acul power f amend t comes from at 245 and etry 97 of List 1.Amend t is a lw ith n art 13 (1). Amend t ofthe constitution
th
nI orde t ovrcme dif cultes posed bySC decison in Golak Nath case, prliament ade clus 13() by24 amend t, whic says tha r 13 wilnot aply o any mednts made un r at368. Furthe, i ade anew cluse to ar368 sying othing art 13shall Art 368/13
aply to amend t made unr this article. Amend t ofthe constitution
In this cae, this amend t was challenged.
SC overuld oGlak Nth case nd hel t folwing
Law ni art 13 means ordinay lw made unr legisatv power.
th
24 amend t is only carifng tha poin ad so itvalid. Parliment has wide po r famendig the consiut but iis
not unlimited.
The usag of the word amend t in theconsiut means thathet basic frmewok ofthe constiu mstu rvie aftr the amend t. Itdoes nt alow desruction of het basci truce of the constitution.
Power t amend het consiut does nt icludg abrogating the constitution.
CJ Sikr sad th basic feturs ofthe cnsiuto include
o Supremacy of the judiciary
o Repubcli and emocrati character
 o Secular character
o Divson f powers among judicary, legisatv, executive
o Fedral chrate ofthe constitution

Emergency
Minerva Mils v.Unio fIndia Proclamtin ofemrgncy by the prsidnt fasl under judicial previw. Howevr, court's power is lmted onyl t examing whether the limaons cnfoerd bytheconsiu have bn observd or Art 352
AIR 1980 not. Ica hek ifthe saifcon of het psridnt isvadl ornt. Ifthe
satifcon sibaed on mal-fide orabsud orielvant grounds, itis no satifcon atall.

Stae of Raj. vs Unio fIndia Disolutn of 9 stae asembli in 197 was held valid. SC held that it Art 356
AIR 1977 i
s
S RBomai vs. Unio f India Secularism sia bc featur nd a govt. may be dism on this ground. Itgave dtil guidelns on ivcaton of art356. Art 356
AIR 1994
Makhn Sigh vs. Sate ofPunjab In this cae SC identf the dif ncr betwn art583 and rt 359. Art 358/359
AIR 1964 Art 358 Art 359
Fredoms given byart 19 are suspended. Fundametl rights are not supend. Only tha courts canot be movd toenforce fundametl rights.
 Anyactios done rmited to bedon ca t bechallenged evn aftr emergency. Anyactio done by the legisatur orexcutiv can be chalengd after h suspension siover.

Art19 is upend forthe period femergency. Right o mve courts is supend for the priod of emrgncy or until the proclamtin of the prsidnt to remov suspension.

Efectiv alover th country. Maybe confid toan area.

M Pathk vs. Unio f India LIC entdr into asetlmn with s employ befor emergency. During emrgncy thsi elmnt was crped bya lw. This was defn on the ground tha since fudamntl rights were supend during emrgncy itcano bechalngd onthe ground tha ivolates fundametl rights n het courts. Art 359
AIR 1978 SC hedl ta rights iven uder at 14 o 9 are not suped under emrgncy. Onyltheir opatin is uendp . Therfo as on as emrgncy ends, hote rights are vid agin. Also, liabilities incured fbore mergncy anot be quashd byalw mde in emrgncy. They ar evid after emergency.

CompensartyDic on

Case Reference Case Details Topic

Equality/Classification

Plesy v. Ferguson 8192 Homer Psly v. Stae of Luisan Judgment byJustice Ferguson held ta spert railwy cars fo blacks nd whites satife ht princle ofequality. Equality
US C 1896 1896 US Cupheld the dcison ad thus e doctrin f Separate Separt but equal.
but qael cme intoexsc. Disentr was Jutice John Harlan.

Lindsley v. Nationl Carbolic Gas Meanig of Equal Proectin of Laws :Stae cn lasify. Equal laws forequal circumstances. Equality
Company
US C 1911
Brown vs.Board of Educatin, City ofTpeka, Kansas. aCnot have Equality
US C 1954 separ Separt can evr be equal.
te schol forblacks nd white bcause it violates equality.
Charnjit Lal vs. Unio f India Mismange t in Sholapur Spin g and weving company. Stae cn doearsnbl classification. Art 14
SC AIR 1951 One idvual cn be tard s aclass. Doctrine of reasonable
classification.
Anwar AliSark vs. Sate ofWB SC AIR 1952 SC held ta since thr was no clear guidlne forwhic ase will Art 14
b
e
efr
Kathi Rn g vs. Stae of SerC hld ta since thr we pro guidelns fordetermining whic ase houdl berf d to he spcial ourt, idoes not violate art 14. Art 14
Saurashtra
SC AIR 1952
EP Royap vs. Stae ofTN SC AIR 1974 New Concept of equality: Lack of arbitnes. J Bhagwti - Equality s adynmic conept wih many spect and dimensions and itcano becrid, cabined, orcnfied with radonl and docrinate limts.Equa y and rbitanes are swon enemies. Art 14
Lack ofarbitrariness.

Randhir Sngh vs.Unio fIndia Held tha uneql scale of paybsed on iratl classification invald. Equal py for euaql work ash ince bcome afundamental right. Art 14, 6 39
SC AIR 1982

Air Inda vs. Nagir Meerza An airhoste would be rtid upon: 35 yrs of gea, mrige if withn first4 y of servic, orfist pegnacy, whicevr occurs earli. MD has tedicronay power t alow service. Art 14
SC AIR 1981 SC held ta he claus of irstpegnacy was toyl unreasonable becusa itforce th AH to n have cildrn atl. Discretionary powers to he MDalso viate r 14.

D SNakr vs. Unio f India JDesai mlated the docrints of clasi ton and octrie of arbitrariness. Art 14
SC AIR 1983 SC srutck down rule 34 of
Cne
tral sevic pensio ruel 1972 on the ground tah clsif aton made byit ewn pensio r retiring befor and fter ac tni date is arbty and sovilate art14.
Krishna Singh vs. Stae of Raj. SC AIR 1955 SC held ta seprt rules foand revu forMaw region is valid. Art 14
Basi of Classification
Geographical
Sagir Ahmed vs. Stae ofUP SC AIR 1955 Creating a monply in favor Stae isvld becaus Stae s a person ia cls ni tself whic s difernt from het person. Art 14
Basi of Classification
In favor fState
Venkat Taxslb wer cadt fordient kids ofheatrs uch asair- condite, air-coled, orinay. SCheld tsicaf on tbe valid. Art 14
shwar Theatrs v.State ofAP Basi of Classification
SC AIR 1993 Taxation
Anwar AliSarks case nd s (se above.) Art 14
Kathi Rng case Basi of Classification Special Courts &Speci
Procedures

Naynsukh Das v. Separt Electora ls baed on relig was held invalid. Art 15(1)
Sat
teSa of UP SC AIR 1953
Rajstnh vs. Pratp Singh Aditonal txes forplice protecin forevybd in a colony excpt Muslim and Hrijas was held invalid. Art 15(1)
SC AIR 1960
DP Joshi v. Stae of MP SC AIR 1960 Place of esridnc valid groun forclasi ton. Notprhibed by Art 15(1)
15(). Coleg charged caption fe rom n -p students.

Sanjev Coke Mfg. Co vs. Bharat W her at 31C come in, art 14 goes out. Art 14, Art3C, Art39
Coking Coal Ltd. SC 1983 Laws made bystae o implent Directv Princples ni 39b)( and
(c) anot be chalngd onhet grounds tha eyviolat art14.

BALCO Employes Unio vs.Union of India No judical reviw of the conmi polic y f the gov. SC held that divestmn in publc setor unis adecison based on complex ecomni facorts nd coutsr have frind to cmen onsuch econmi matters. Art 14
SC AIR 2002

Reservation

Champk Doraijn vs. Stae of Prompted het adion of 15(4) tha lows tae o mkea special provisn forSCs, T and other backwd classes. Art 15(4)
Madras
SC AIR 1951
Balji vs. Stae of Mysore eRsratvion canot exc d 0%.5 Caste hould notbe h only criterion. Art 15(4)
SC AIR 1963 Clasifcton of backwrd and more backwrd is invalid. Art 16(4) isan excption to Ar16(1).
Clase mnteiod ni 16(4) are sm as in 15(4).

Stae of MPvs.Niedta Jain oCmplet relaxtion of qualiyng maksr fo SCs/T foradmission to medical ourse is vadl n does ntviolae ither Aticle 14, Art 15(4)
SC AIR 1981 15(), 2 or15(4).

Devdasn vs. Unio f India Cary foward ule invalid. Art 16(4)
SC AIR 1964
Triloknath vs. Stae ofJ&K SC AIR 1967 laCsifcton requi two conditions: Art 16(4)
1. Clas mutbe backward.
2. Clas i not adequly repsntd ingovt. services. Second condit alone is not sufficient.

NM Thomas v. Sate of Kerala eRsratvion in promtns valid. Art 16(4)

SC AIR 1976 Relaxtion of time orpasing ates for SC/T sivalid.
16(4) is otn a excption to16() and resvation can bedone under 16() itself.

ABSK Unio vs.Unio fIndia aCry foward ule valid. Art 16(4)
SC AIR 1981 50% sia gudeln and esrvtio mayexc d 50% but shodl not be xcsive. 64.% was notcsider excessive.
nIdra Swhney vs. Unio f India Caste cn be acriton foridentca ofbackwrd classes. Econmi condit ned otbe h onlycriterion. Art 15 (4)and 16(4)
SC AIR 1993 16(4) is not a excption to16(). Resrvation sivald under
16() itself bcause of the docrin of reasnbl classification adopte byArt. 14 6() is tju an istce of classification. Clase mnteiod ni 16(4) are NOT same in 15(4) but muchwider. 15(4) = Socialy nd eco mialy backward clase and SCs, .T16(4) = ANYbackwrd clas tha isnot adeuqtly repsntd ni
gov
t. services.
Creamy l er must be excluded. Backwrd nda more backwrd valid. Only eco mi critea notvalid. Resratvion canot exc d 50%.
Any ew crita must be discu only i SC.
th
Resrvation in promtns not valid. Ths wa nulifed by77 amend t in 195 tha de clause 16 (4A), tha allows resvation ni promotions.

Women

Air Inda vs. Nagir Meerza Se dtails n Costiual Law. Art 14

SC AIR 1981
Randhir Sngh vs.Unio fIndia Equal Pyforequal work. SChedl ta equliy n wages inde a constiu al goal nd is capble of being forced through constiual remdis given udr At32. Art. 14,39(d)
SC AIR 1982

Muler vs. Stae ofOregon uMler was conviedt ofvilatng Oregons labor ws restricting working hours f women. Art 15(3)
US C 1908 SC uphedl t convit onhet grounds tha women deserve pefrntial treamn (+ive xs discrimination).

Th"at womns' physical truce and the prfomance of maternal functios place hr at disvntage in the srugl forsubsistence is obvu. This espcialy true whn te burdns of motherhood are upon her. Evn whe ty are not, byaund t estimony of the medical fraetniy contiuae foralng time on herfta work, repating hsi from dayt , tends to injurs ef cts upon the body, an s healty mothers ae sntial o
vigoru
s
of
spr
ing, the physical we-bing of wman becoms anobject f public interest and cre in orde t psrev the srngth nda vigor f the race."
208 U.S at412

Yusf Abul zi vs. Stae of Bombay Section 497 of IPC tha pnisue onlya m for adultey vn if women is gulty of abeting thecrim, s valid becaus itdoes not discrmnate only the basi ofsex, whic s prohibted by Art 15. Art 15(3) alows pecial provisn for women. Art 15(3)
SC AIR 1954

Stae of AP vs. B Vijayakumar SC held ta he rul 2A intodruce byAP govt. ha resv posts forwmen sivald. Itheld at r 15(3) is aecrognit of het fact thatwomen f this counry have bn forcentuis ocialy and ecomnialy backwrd and sothey ar unble to paicre in the soci-enm proges of het counry an equl foting. Thus, the making secpial rovisn forwmen i employnt is an integralaspect of 15(3) and hetr is no ed for its explc mention Art 16 (4)
SC AIR 1995 in at16r. The powr inhet niart 15(3) sinot whiled by art 16. Does nt prohibit resvation of pst for women

Stae of Mharst vs.Tukaram A16yr old triba gl was rped bytwo cnsable in apolce chowki Art 21
(ak M thura Rpe Case) SC AIR 1974 ni Chadrpu, Mahrst, while r paents wer aitng outside, unknowingly.
SC acquited the causd becaus of lack ofevidnc and proper
laws. Itheld ta since th girld not raise ny alrm no wer there anyijur maks, it was not rape.

hTis promedt achnge in thescion 14(a) of Evidenc Act in

1983 tha se tha if woman say th se di notcse for intercous then court salh ume tha se di notconsent.

Bodhisatv Gautm vs. Subhra nIterim copensati to rape victims. Art 21

Chakravarty SC orde 10-P/M to apre vicmt as interm copensati until hercags of rape deci in tral court. Compensati for violatn ofArt 21.
SC AIR 1996
Vishak vs.Stae of Raj. SC AIR 1997 PIL bysocial wrke. Right owrk ith dgny. Prevntio of sexual harsment at workplce. SC isued vral guidelines. Art 21

Sha Bno vs.Mohd Amed Khan uHsband ivorced wife undr pesonal w. SC ordered Art 44
SC AIR 1986 mainte c to be paid uner sction 125 of CrP, whic aples to al irespctv orreligion. SC urges implementation of UCC
Howevr, Rajiv Gndhi govt. enacd Muslim W omen (Protecin of Rights ofDivrce) Act, 1986 tha lows a mgistre to direc her relativs who uld inhert proety o pay fr he maintenance after 3 monhst of idat. If woman has no relativs, W AQF board woudl pay.

Sarl Mudalg vs.Unio f India uHsband changed religon ly for secnd marriage. Art 44
SC AIR 1995 SC held ta under HMA, 195 marige sivod f a person has a spoue aliv the im of marige. Thus, cangi ones religion wil not chage aplicton of law. Musmi law i aply on if the first ma ge was perfomd uner Musmli law. SC urges implementation of UCC

SC/Tand Other Cases

Devarjh vs. Padmanna Untouchabily is not beconsidr in a lter sne buto be understo as prctie tha s evold historcaly due to castism. Art 17
Mysore AIR 1958 Abolitn of
Untouchability.
Asiad Project Workes Case Peopls Unio fr Democratic Rights v.Unio fIndia Rights under at. 17 re avilb aginst prvae indvual s well and its he duty ofhe sta oensur tha es right ae not violated. Art 17
SC AIR 1983 Abolitn of
Untouchability.

Stae of Karntk vs. Apa Balu Respondt wer tid forencs under sction 4and 7of Protecin of Civl Rghts Act, 195. They prvntd a person from filng water fom abre wl becaus he was untochable. SC upheld th conviction. Art 17
Ingle Abolitn of
SC AIR 1993 Untouchability.

V Gir vs. DS Dora cAording toar 325, hetr is only e lctora roland o persn is inelgb only the grounds fCaste, Rac eligon, orSex. Art 325/330/332
SC AIR 1959 Ther sino epart elctoar for SC and ST. o an SC orT can contes in ge ral ctegory ven thoug seat r esvd for them. Resvartion of seat in
Legislatur for SC/ST.

Bhaiy Lal vs. Hari Krishan To detrmin whetr a prticul tribe longs to ST, ne must see the onifcat isued bythe prsidnt uder at340(1). Art 340
SC AIR 1965
St. Xavier Colge vs. Stae of Se dtails n Costiual Law. Art 29-30
Gujarat. Minorty Rights
DAV Coleg, Bhatind vs. Punjab Universty mandte hat e mdiu ofeducatin iall afilted colegs mut be Punjai. SC held it o be invadl because the rig ofminrty o establih and mister the educational instuo includes mediu of educatin as well. Art 28
Sat
te of
Punjab.
Uni Krshan vs. Stae of AP SC AIR 1993 igRht o educatin flows rm Art 21
r
ight o life. Rght o educatin for children up to 14 yrs of age si fundametl right.