You are on page 1of 24




Course Instructors:

Amit Bindal,
Alexander Fischer, John Sebastian, Sarbani Sen.


The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information
contains the official record of the details of the course.

Part I

Course Title: Constitutional Law I

Course Code: LW1608

Course Duration: One Semester

No. of Credit Units: Four


Medium of Instruction: English

Pre-requisites: Nil

Pre-cursors: Nil

Equivalent Courses: Nil

Exclusive Courses: Nil

The above information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to
the KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst other students.

Part II


Constitutional law provides an overarching framework that governs the relationship

(horizontally) between the three branches of government, (vertically) between the federal and
state governments and also between citizens and the state. In the Indian context, constitutional
law is embodied in a written text that forms the supreme law of the land since “the people of
India” are presumed to have given the constitution to themselves in exercise of their sovereign
authority. Consequently, all government actions and laws passed by parliament and the state
legislatures are subordinate to and must conform to constitutional provisions. The Indian
Constitution in Part III contains (like the American Constitution but unlike the British) a written
bill of rights.

The Fundamental Rights were drafted with a view to transforming the structure of Indian society
and thus the topics of positive rights and affirmative action become important. These rights also
provide limits on state action. All the Fundamental Rights can be enforced against the state.
However, the standards by which they are enforced differ depending on which right is sought to
be enforced. The topics will thus include a discussion on the types of standards by which the
rights are enforced against the state. Overall, the course will attempt to create an understanding
of the textual structure and linkages between the rights, to critically investigate several leading
Supreme Court decisions with a view to identifying the rules of constitutional law laid down and
also to understand the processes of argumentation and judicial reasoning with respect to these

The course also examines the importance of Part IV of the Constitution in the context of the
commitment of the Constitution towards social justice. The course will constantly explore that
which constitutional interpretations helped in the attainment of Justice which is the cardinal
aspiration of the constitution.


This course deals with different aspects of rights under Part III and Part IV and aims to foster an
understanding of the:

 the significance of a written bill of rights

 theoretical concepts involved in defining the nature and scope of the rights and their
interrelationship with one another
 how the rights circumscribe the powers of the state to secure the liberties of individuals
on the one hand and how they empower the state to create conditions for realizing
positive rights on the other
 application of principles such as equality and liberty through case law analysis
 appreciation of the strategies of constitutional interpretation to develop the rights in the
context of contemporary social problems
 the regime of judicial protection and the reliefs available for their infringement under the


Course Intended Learning Teaching and Learning Assessment

Outcomes Activities Tasks/Activities

By the end of the course students

should be able to:
1. Analytically and 50% Reading of cases and End-of-course examination
critically describe weight other material, and (50% marks)
and explain the research
substantive principles
 Students will acquire Class attendance (10%)
and concepts of Part
knowledge of the
Three pertaining to
substantive Mid term assessments
the topics to be
principles and (40%)
covered in the
concepts of Part
Three pertaining to
the topics to be End-of-course examination
covered in the  Students’ ability to
syllabus. understand the
 Preparation outside concepts and apply
the class the principles of Part
Lectures Three to given
 Students will be situations and resolve
given guidance on problems will be
their reading and tested.
research for their Mid term assessments
lectures and  The format for these
tutorials. assessments will be
 Students will, by determined
responding to individually by each
questions and instructor and
performing communicated in
exercises, develop detail to the students
their analytical and in class.
critical capabilities  Students’ ability to
for discussing research, analyze and
important concepts resolve problems,
and principles of and communicate
Part Three solutions will be
pertaining to topics tested.
covered in the  Students’ ability to
syllabus. describe and explain
the main substantive
concepts and
principles relating to
Part Three on topics
covered in the
syllabus and to apply
them to given
situations will be
tested by all of these

2. Analyse and 35% Lectures End-of-course examination

critically evaluate: Weight  Students will be  Students’ ability to
 issues and introduced to understand the
concerns under concepts, issues, concepts and apply
Part Three and substantive the principles of Part
 the operation of principles of Three to given
the substantive Part Three and situations and resolve
rules and the operation of problems will be
principles of Part these principles tested.
Three in terms of in the current Mid term assessments
the objectives of social and  The format for these
Part Three, the economic assessments will be
underlying context. determined
values of the individually by each
constitution and instructor and
the social and communicated in
economic detail to the students
contexts in which in class.
they operate.  Students’ ability to
research, analyze and
resolve problems,
and communicate
solutions will be

 Apply the principles 15% Lectures End-of-course examination

under Part Three to weight  Students will be  Students’ ability to
solve legal problems shown how legal understand the
by: problems are solved concepts and apply
 researching
relevant issues by applying the the principles of Part
 analyzing and substantive Three to given
resolving principles and rules situations and resolve
problems on under Part Three problems will be
issues arising tested.
under Part Three Mid term assessments
 effectively  The format for these
communicating assessments will be
their solutions determined
orally and in individually by each
writing. instructor and
communicated in
detail to the students
in class.
 Students’ ability to
research, analyze and
resolve problems,
and communicate
solutions will be


To pass this course, students must obtain a minimum of 50% in each of the coursework and the
examination elements of the assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in
which students are assessed otherwise than by the end of session examination. End of semester
exam will be in the form of a traditional 3 hours written exam and will carry 50 marks. Mid-term
assessments (other than final examinations) will carry 50% of the marks. The format for the mid-
term assessments will be determined individually by each instructor and communicated in detail
in class.


The course has a final examination based on the reading assigned to each topic by the course
instructor. The examinations will have hypothetical fact patterns and the students are expected to
identify the constitutional issues that they give rise to, analyze the issues and apply correct
principles of law to resolve them. The examination can also have questions based on theoretical
aspects of constitutional law.


All students are required to have a minimum of 75% attendance. Any student falling short of
75% will not be permitted to take the final end of term examination (except in exceptional


Individual course instructors will announce their office hours in advance to the respective
sections preferably in the first session with them and latest by the end of first week.


Serious consequences will ensue for any student involved in plagiarism. All submissions must be
original. Any idea, sentence or paragraph that is taken from any published material must be
credited with the original source and should be duly referenced.

Non-compliance with the university’s policy on plagiarism will be severely dealt with and the
student involved will be awarded a “F” grade.

Please note the grades and their values below

Percentage Grade Grade Value Grade Definitions

of Marks
80 and O 8 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, excellent
above organizational capacity, ability to synthesize ideas,
rules and principles, critically analyse existing
materials and originality in thinking and presentation.

75 to 79 A+ 7.5 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, thorough

understanding of issues; ability to synthesize ideas,
rules and principles and critical and analytical ability.
70 to 74 A 7 Good understanding of the subject matter, ability to
identify issues and provide balanced solutions to
problems and good critical and analytical skills.
65 to 69 A- 6 Adequate knowledge of the subject matter to go to the
next level of study and reasonable critical and
analytical skills.

60 to 64 B+ 5 Descent Knowledge of the subject matter but average
critical and analytical skills.
55 to 59 B 4 Limited knowledge of the subject matter and
irrelevant use of materials and, poor critical and
analytical skills.
50 to 54 B- 5 Poor comprehension of the subject matter; poor
critical and analytical skills and marginal use of the
relevant materials. Will require repeating the course.
Below 50 F 0 None of the Above


The class format will combine lecture and discussion, with a primary focus on the latter.
Students are expected to prepare for and participate in class discussion on a regular basis.
Students are expected to review the delineated course materials in advance of each class and to
raise questions and present their thoughts on the material during the course of class discussions.

Part III


Concept of a “right”; state; law; constitutionalism; equality; due process; freedom of speech;
freedom of religion; positive rights; affirmative action; reasonable restrictions; right to life and
personal liberty; judicial review; directive principles; public interest litigation; basic structure.


V.N. Shukla, “Constitution of India,” [Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2012]

M.P.Jain, “Indian constitutional law” [Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company, 2006]

Durga Das Basu, “Commentary on the constitution of India” [New Delhi: Wadhwa and

Granville Austin, “The Indian constitution: cornerstone of a nation,” [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007]

B. Shiva Rao, “The framing of India’s constitution” [New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public
Administration, 1966]

Granville Austin, “Working a democratic constitution: a history of the Indian experience” [New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010)

S.P. Sathe, “Judicial activism in India,” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006]

As per the Appendix to the Course Manual, relevant chapters from Shukla or Jain are required
reading for each topic. Apart from these commentaries, articles or texts (if any) pertaining to
each topic will be announced by the instructors before the topic is discussed at least a week
before the class. A suggested list of supplementary readings for some of the topics has been
included in the Appendix but can be modified by the instructors.

Case law (the full list of relevant judicial decisions pertaining to each topic) will be announced at
least a week before each topic is discussed in class. A list of important judicial decisions for each
topic is mentioned in the Appendix to the Course Manual but may be supplemented by the
course instructor.


Constitution of India
Relevant Constitutional Amendment acts

Part IV


This syllabus should be viewed as a general guide. The syllabus may be revised during the
course of the semester. Students will be informed of changes made.

The following programme is intended to be only indicative and is subject to variation as and when
circumstances may render it necessary:

Teaching Lecture Topic

1 Introduction

2 Concept of “State” under Article 12.

3 Definition of “Law” under Art. 13 and concept of judicial review (Article32)
4 The right to Equality under Art. 14.
5 Affirmative action & substantive quality: Gender & caste as analytical categories
(Arts. 15-16-17)
6-7 Right to freedom with a focus on the right to freedom of speech and expression

(Article 19)
8 Safeguards to persons accused of crimes (Articles 20 and 22)
9-10 Right to life and personal liberty (Articles 21- 21A)
11 Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28)
12 Cultural and Minority Rights (Articles 29-30)
13 The “Basic Structure” doctrine
14 Public Interest Litigation and Social Rights Jurisprudence
15 Review week



Questions: What is the relationship between a Constitution and constitutionalism? What is the
significance of a written bill of rights (comparison with the American and British Constitutions)?
What were the discussions in the Constituent Assembly debates about the rights and their spheres
of protection under the Constitution? What fundamental values and principles are embodied in
the Constitution and what is the structure and interrelationship between Parts III and IV? What is
the enforcement mechanism for these rights? What is the relevance of preamble and its
aspirations which set the constitutional goals to be attained in future?


Fundamental Rights can be enforced against the ‘State’ by approaching the High Court of a state
under Article 226 or directly the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is
therefore important to understand what exactly is comprised of ‘State’ constitutionally.
Questions:. What is the constitutional definition of “state” under Article 12? What are the tests to
decide whether “other authorities” could be considered as agencies or instrumentalities of the
state? Can the Fundamental Rights be claimed against non-state actors/private persons? Does the
concept of state need expansion in the wake of privatization/globalization?


The Constitution envisages two types of judicial review. One is Legislative Competence
Review, which is a subject of study in Constitutional Law II. This type of review focuses on the
legislative competence of the State Legislatures and the Parliament to enact a law based on the
division of legislative powers between the two. The other is Fundamental Rights Compliance
Review, which is the focus of this Course. We will focus primarily on article 13 and 32 to
understand the concept of Fundamental Rights Compliance Review.
There are two other forms of judicial review – Administrative Law Review (which is a subject of
study in a separate course) and Basic Structure Review (on which we will spend some time in
later parts of this course
Questions: What is the definition of “law” under Article 13? How are ordinary “laws” reviewed
under Part III and how are the rights enforced under Art. 32? What is the effect of Article 13 on
laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights -- what are the consequences of existing and
future laws which are in contravention of fundamental rights? What principles of interpretation
are used under Article 13 ---- such as “no retrospective effect” rule, rule of severability and the
doctrine of colorable legislation? Does the doctrine of colorable legislation apply to post-
constitutional laws?


(ARTICLES 14-15)

Questions: How do we understand the meaning of constitutional equality? How can we define
and distinguish between the principles of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the
laws”? What is the difference between formal equality and substantive equality or positive
versus negative equality? What are the tests to determine the constitutional validity of laws under
Article 14? What is the test of reasonable classification? What principles emerge from Article 14
(“Reasonableness”; “non-arbitrariness”) for regulating the exercise of administrative discretion?
What are the grounds of prohibited discrimination under Article 15 (1) and (2)?


(ARTICLES 15, 16 & 17)
Articles 15 and 16 that provide for affirmative action in education and government jobs will be
the focus of study. We will closely read the leading Supreme Court opinions and constitutional
amendments to understand and analyze the constitutional position and the contemporary debates
on reservation. We will also discuss the relevance of Article 17 which created constitutional
criminal law for the first time in the history of constitution making. Lastly, using gender as an
analytical category, we will attempt to understand equality in terms of substantive equality in the

Questions: What are the instances of constitutional classifications under Articles 15-16 (clauses
(3) and (4) of Article 15 and clause (4) of Article 16 (special provisions for women and
children and of backward classes)? Under the “reservations” issue what principles have the
courts laid down to determine “backwardness” and “quantum of reservations under Articles
15 and 16? These two provisions have been the subject of great controversy within a
complex context of various Supreme Court decisions since Balaji (1963) and constitutional
amendments seeking to overturn these decisions. We will also examine the validity of
reservations for certain groups (“Other backward Classes”) in public employment,
reservations in promotions and admission to educational institutions by reference to key
judicial decisions and existing constitutional amendments and lastly the uniqueness of Article
17 as novel anti-discrimination provision in the constitution.



This module will delve upon analysis of Article 19 of the Constitution. The primary focus
will be on Article 19 (1) (a) but different course instructors would briefly cover other clauses
of Article 19 in their respective lectures. However, a detailed exploration of interpretation
and various aspects of freedom of ‘speech and expression’ are aimed to be studied in the
module. An attempt will be made to study how the conceptual issues of gender and national
security become relevant for constitutional law in order to understand meaning-making by
courts of categories such as obscenity, hate-speech, sedition etc.

Questions: Why this constitutional provision has been restricted only to citizens? What are
the grounds on which “reasonable restrictions” be imposed on the right and how the courts
have understood the meaning of ‘reasonable’ in different contexts? What has been the role of
the Supreme Court in protecting freedom of print and the electronic media?


Indian constitution guarantees some due process rights to the accused of crimes in the chapter
of fundamental rights. This module will briefly analyze the contours and scope of
constitutional provisions.

Questions: Article 20 incorporates three important safeguards to persons accused of crimes:

what are (a) Ex post facto laws (b) Double jeopardy (c) Self-incrimination. What standards
emerge from Article 22 for providing protection to arrested persons: such as the need to
inform a person of the grounds of arrest; the right of the accused to consult a lawyer;
production of the arrested person before a magistrate and prohibition of detention of a person
in custody beyond twenty four hours without authority of a magistrate. What is the role of the
Preventive Detention clauses in the context of the rise of global terrorism and the adequacy
of safeguards provided to detainees in these clauses? How do we find a balance between the
claims based on national security and due process model of criminal justice which recognize
rights for fair trial to the accused?



Article 21 is an article which is known to be immense interpretive potential. Despite its terse
and concise phraseology, it has seen an interpretive expansion. This module will attempt to
build the foundation on how and why this article became a site for so much litigation.
Further, mapping the historic trajectory in the interpretation of this article we will try to
understand whether the ever-expansive scope of this provision truly emancipatory or is
merely populist? We will study the interpretations and scope of this article as it has emerged
in the Indian constitutional history.

Questions: What is the concept of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21? What is
meant by ‘procedure established by law?’ and how is it different from ‘due process of law’?
What has been the impact of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (A.I.R. 1978 SC 597) on
expanding the right to personal liberty? What is the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and
21 after the Maneka Gandhi case? How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to
incorporate the American concept of “due process” in Article 21 and what consequent
standards has the court created over time to impose restrictions on state action to protect
personal liberty? How has the judiciary expanded the scope of Article 21 by reading positive
rights that are enforceable against the state into the article?


(ARTICLES 25-28)

Religion has been a site of controversy right from the inception of the Constitution. However,
secularism, which is erroneously seen as some kind of anti-dote to religious worldview, has
been equally contested as a doctrine in 20th century political science discourses. This module
will analyze how the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom and what are the
issues and problems that exist by way of interpretation of the constitutional provisions. The
aim of this module is to understand the constitutional spectrum of religious freedom and
operationalization of keywords such as ‘secularism’, ‘denomination’ and limits which
constitution puts on freedom of religion.

Questions: What is the nature and scope of freedom of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practice and propagate religion? Do atheists have a Fundamental Right under Article
25? What could constitute “reasonable restrictions” on that right? What concept of
secularism underlies these provisions of the constitution and what has been the approach of
the Supreme Court towards protecting the value of secularism in the text? What are the
implications of the judicially evolved distinction between essential and non-essential
religious practices and between religious and secular, commercial and political activity for
understanding the scope of this right?


(ARTICLES 29-30)

This module to provide a brief description to the amorphous category ‘minority’. It will
discuss which minorities find recognition by the constitution and to what extent such
protection has helped to further the cause of justice. We will discuss whether minority
protection and its judicial interpretation has led to strengthening of democracy or has served
mere populist agendas.

Questions: What is the regime of special rights created by the constitution for cultural,
religious and even linguistic minorities? How is a “minority” community defined and what
is meant by their right to “establish and administer” educational institutions? What are the
exemptions that have been claimed by the minority institutions from regulations that apply to
state run or state aided institutions of the majority community in order to gain “autonomy” in
managing their institutions of professional or higher education? Article 29 uses the
expression ‘minorities’ in its marginal note but does not employ it in the text of the
provision, which uses the expression ‘all section of citizens’. What interpretive tools have
been employed by the courts to resolve this contradiction?



The basic structure doctrine has been a subject matter of rigorous academic discussion. Some
jurists have viewed it as high point of judicial activism while others have questioned its
interpretive legitimacy. It has become a constant reference point in academic writings on
Indian constitutional history as well as in juridical opinions. This module will look into the
origins of this doctrine in the context of controversies surrounding the notion of right to
property. Further, we will situate the doctrine as an aspect of judicial review which was not
present in the original text of the Constitution.

Questions: What is the doctrine of the “basic structure” that was judicially developed in 1973
to identify and protect certain seminal values and the core of Indian constitutional identity?
By its very nature the doctrine is vague and has to be fleshed out from case to case. How can
one determine what are the basic constitutional values that need to be included in this
doctrine and what are the standards for judging the constitutional validity of a constitutional
amendment by reference to this doctrine?



This module will study the role played by public interest litigation in enforcing the rights
under Part IV of the Constitution of India. This will be done by examining the relationship
between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy – which one of these
two is more important than the other when they come in direct conflict. And to what extent
can the DPSPs can be used to interpret Fundamental Rights. In the leading Minerva Mills
case, the majority opinion declared several provisions of the 42nd Amendment as
unconstitutional as violative of the ‘harmony’ between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

Questions: Social rights have been incorporated in the Indian constitution under “Directive
Principles of State policy” in Part IV. Part IV is not judicially enforceable but by expanding
the concept of “life” in Article 21 and using “human dignity” as an intrinsic value in
understanding this right, the Supreme Court has recognized various social and economic
rights as enforceable fundamental rights. What are the leading cases through which the
Supreme Court has understood and designed the relationship between Parts III and IV and
used the Directive Principles as an interpretive tool to read social and economic rights into
Part III? How have judicial decisions, constitutional amendments and current legislation
impacted on the constitutional status and scope of the right to education and the right to

Case List for Constitutional Law I (Jindal Global Law School, Spring 2018)

This is a basic list of landmark cases that shape the topics taught in Constitutional Law I under
the various themes. The list can be expanded as per the individual instructor’s choice and
different readings can be chosen by different professors to frame the debates contextually. The
list of cases and reading materials below serves as a common core for this course – at the same
time other reading materials and cases can be chosen by the instructor in class and this is only an
indicative list.

(I) Case Law on Art. 12 (‘State’ and ‘Other Authorities’)

(1) Electricity Board, Rajasthan v Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857

(2) Sukhdev v Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331
(3) R.D. Shetty v Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628
(4) Som Prakash v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212
(5) Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487
(6) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111
(7) Zee Telefims v UOI (2005) 4 SCC 649
(8) Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002) 3 SCC 388
(9) Board of Cricket Control of India v Cricket Association of Bihar and others [2015] 3
SCC 251
(10) Janet Jeyapal v SRM University 2015

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain

Supplementary: (1) Sudhir Krishnaswamy,“Horizontal application of Fundamental Rights

and state action in India,” in “Human Rights, Justice and constitutional empowerment” eds.
C. Raj Kumar and K. Chockalingam [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007]

(II) Case Law on Art. 13

(1) Retrospective Effect:

Keshava Madhav Menon v State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128
(2) The rule of severability
State of Bombay v F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318

(3) The rule of eclipse

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v State of M.P. AIR 1955 SC 781

(4) Future Laws

State of Gujarat v Shri Ambika Mills (1974) 4 SCC 656

(5) Waiver of Fundamental Rights

Basheshar Nath v CIT AIR 1959 SC 149

(6) Are constitutional amendments law?

Shankari Prasad v UOI AIR 1951 SC 458

Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845

Golaknath v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Readings: Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain

(III) Art. 14, 15 and 16 : The right to equality

Case law: (A)Enunciation of 2 principles of a “reasonable” classification and application of

those principles to different fact situations.

(1)State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)

(2)Kathi Raning Rawat v Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123)

(3)Northern India Caterers v Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1591)

(4)Maganlal Chhaganlal Ltd. V Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1974) 2 SCC


(5)Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 404)

(6)Subramanium Swamy v Central Bureau of Investigation (2014) 8 SCC 682

(B)Creation of special courts and procedural inequality

(1)State of West Bengal V Anwar Ali Sarkar

(2)Kathi Raning Rawat v Saurashtra

(3)Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal

(4)Northern India Caterers v State of Punjab

(5)Maganlal Chhanganlal v Municipal Corporation

(C) Art. 14 and the principles of reasonableness and non arbitrariness

Anwar Ali Sarkar -

Maneka Gandhi v UOI (AIR 1978 SC 597)

(IV)Affirmative Action (Reservations)

(1)Pradeep Jain v UOI (1984) 3 SCC 654

(2)State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310

(3)Indra Sawhney v UOI AIR 1993 SC 477

(4)M. Nagaraj v UOI (2006) 8 SCC 212

(5)Ashoka Kumar Thakur v UOI (2008) 6 SCC 1

(6) E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors AIR 2005 SC 162

(8) U.P Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar (2012) 7 SCC 1

(9) Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663

Readings: (1)Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain


(1) B, Errabi: “Protective Discrimination: Constitutional prescriptions and judicial

perception,” 10 and 11 Delhi L. Rev. 66 ff (1981-1982)
(2) P.K. Tripathi, “Some insights into Fundamental Rights,” [Bombay: Bombay University
Press, 1972)
(3) M.P. Singh “Jurisprudential foundations of affirmative action: some aspects of equality
and social justice,” 10 and 11 Delhi L.Rev. 39 ff (1981-82)

(4) M. Galanter, “Competing equalities: the law and the backward classes in India,” (OUP:

(V) Art. 19(1)(a) --- Freedom of speech and expression

Case Law: (1) Bennet Coleman v UOI (AIR 1973 SC 106)

(2) Secy., Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v Cricket

Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161

(3) Virendra v State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896.

(4) Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305)

(5) Romesh Thapar v UOI AIR 1950 SC 124.

(6) S. Rangarajan vs. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574

(7) (8) Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620

(9) Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

(10)Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain


(1) P.K. Tripathi, “Spotlights on constitutional interpretation” India Quarterly: A Journal of

International Affairs, 1974, vol. 30 issue 2 172

(2) Vikram Raghavan,”Reflections on free speech and broadcasting in India,” in K.

Chockalingam and C. Raj Kumar eds. “Human Rights, Justice and constitutional
empowerment,” (2006)

(3) N. Ravi, “Freedom of press and human rights: managing the tension” in K. Chockalingam
and C. Raj Kumar eds. (2006)

(4) Virendra Kumar, “Free press and the independent judiciary: their juxtaposition in the law
of contempt of court,” 47 JILI 447 (2005)

(VI) Arts. 20 and 22 --- Rights of the accused

Case Law:
(1) A.K. Roy v UOI AIR 1982 SC 710
(2) D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
(3) PUCR v UOI 2003 (10) SCALE 967
(4) Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

Readings: Relevant chapters from Shukla and M.P. Jain

(VII) Art. 21 --- Right to life and personal liberty

(1) Maneka Gandhi v UOI AIR 1978 SC 5

(2) A.K. Roy v UOI AIR 1982 SC 710
(3) Mithu v State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
(4) Kharak Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295
(5) Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (7) SC 384
(5)Suresh Kaushal v Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1
(6) Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC
(7) Pramati Educational & Cultural trust vs Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1
(8) Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996, decided on

Readings: Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain

(VIII) Access to justice, democratization of the judicial process and social rights
jurisprudence under Art. 21
Case law:

(1) Kharak Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295

(2) Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
(3) Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180).
(4) Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746)
(5) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v UOI (AIR 1984 SC 802)
(6) Paschim Banga Khet Majdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37.

Readings: (1)Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain


(1) Upendra Baxi, “Taking suffering seriously: judicial activism in the Supreme Court of
India,” (1985) Third World Legal Studies, Vol. 4, Art. 6

(2) Sandra Fredman, “Restructuring the courts: Public Interest Litigation in the Indian
Courts” in Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive
Duties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
(3) Nick Robinson, “Expanding judiciaries: India and the rise of the good governance court,”
Washington University Global Studies Law Review, (2009) Vol. 8, 52-53.

[I have also referred to a number of case law on various social and economic rights under
Art. 21 including legislation and case law on the right to education and the right to food].

(IX) Arts. 25- 28 Right to freedom of religion

(1) Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 11

(2) N. Adithayan v Travancore Devasvom Board (2002) 8 SCC 106
(3) Commr. Of Police v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770
(4) Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
(5) Rev. Stanislaus v State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 908
(6) S.R. Bommai v UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918
(7) Ismail Faruqui v UOI AIR 1995 SC 605
(8) Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 707
(9) Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 963, decided on 22.08.2017]

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain


(1)S.P. Sathe, “Secularism and judicial activism” in “Judicial activism in India:

Transgressing borders, enforcing limits” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002]

(2) Gary Jacobson, “The Wheel of Law”

(3)Ronojoy Sen, “Articles of Faith” and “Indian Supreme Court and Secularism”

(X) Arts. 29- 30 Cultural and Educational Rights

(1) Islamic Academy of Education v State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 3724

(2) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355
(3) P.A. Inamdar v State of Maharastra AIR 2005 SC 3236
Readings: relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain

(XI) The Basic Structure Doctrine

Case Law:

(1)Shankari Prasad v UOI AIR 1951 SC 458

(2)Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845

(3)Golaknath v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643

(4)Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

5) Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case (1975)

(5)I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861/Nagaraj case

Readings: (1) Relevant chapters from Shukla and Jain


(1)Sudhir Krishnaswamy, “Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: a study of the Basic

Structure Doctrine” [New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009]