Name............................................... Roll No:....................................

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

IV TRIMESTER B. A. LL. B [HONS]
END ETRM EXAMINATION, SEPTEMBER 2018
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II

Maximum Marks: One Hundred [100] Time: Three [3] hours

Instructions:
[1] Answer five Questions including Questions 1 & 2.
[2] Each question carries marks stated against it.
[3] A copy of Part III, IV & IVA of the Constitution of India will be provided by the
Examination Department.
[4] The student may seek clarification regarding the questions in the first thirty (30) minutes
of the beginning of the examination and no request in this regard will be entertained
thereafter.
[5] You may work on your exam paper until the time allotted for the examination expires.
[6] In this exam you will demonstrate your ability to produce coherent, clear and compelling
writing.

Question 1
Multiple Choice Types
For Questions No-1(a)-(0) you are to match the correct answers from the boxes provided below:-

1. M.R.Balaji vs State of Mysore(AIR1962) 2.Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka(AIR1992)

3.Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority(AIR1979) 4.Radhe Shyam vs
Chhabi Nath(AIR2015) 5.Sakal Papers Limited vs Union of India(AIR1961) 6.State of Kerala vs
N.M.Thomas(AIR1975) 7.State of Gujarat vs Shri Ambica Mills Limited(AIR1974) 8.Shri ram
Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendulkar(AIR1958) 9.Ridge vs Baldwin(HL1964) 10.Walter
Alfred Bait vs Union of India(AIR1976)

(a) Judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdictions under Article 226 of the
Constitution. (1 mark)

(b) The attempt to do away with the earlier law based on the dichotomy between administrative and
judicial functions and to construct a new concept of fairness which would apply to all administrative
functions. (1 mark)

(c) Sex and what it implies cannot be severed. Therefore the sex plus theory will still attract the
protected grounds of discrimination. (1 mark)

(d) Capitation fees are violative of the principle of equality under the Constitution. (1 mark)

(e) The public function test with reference to the concept of state action was first adopted by the Indian
Judiciary. (1 mark)

(f) Freedom of the press was acknowledged for the first time in India as a derivative right under free
speech and expression. (1 mark)

(g) The color blind theory which pervaded the history of the Constitution from 1950 t0 1975 was
discarded. (1 mark)
(h) 50% is the benchmark for state affirmative action. (1 mark)
(i) The doctrine of eclipse applies to post constitutional laws as well. (1 mark)

(j) Class legislation which aims to achieve a particular objective is not violative of the principle of
equality. (1 mark)

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus 2.Writ of Mandamus 3.Writ of Certiorari 4.Writ of Prohibition 5.Writ
of Quo Warranto.

(k) It is issued to secure the performance of public duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the
public authorities. (1 mark)

(l) It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. (1 mark)

(m) It is issued to direct a subordinate court to stop doing something which the law prohibits. (1 mark)

(n) It is issued with a view to restrain a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled.
(1 mark)

(o) It is issued to quash the order already passed by an inferior court. (1 mark)

True/False types

(p) The basic aim of the Directive Principles of State Policy envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution is
to establish India as a social welfare state in which social and economic justice should be achieved by
evolution and not revolution. This concept of socialism coined by Sir Ivor Jennings is known as the
Fabian Socialism. (1 mark)

(q) In 1954, the Government of India introduced decorations in the form of medals of 4 categories
namely, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri which is violative of Article
18 of the Constitution. (1 mark)

(r) Flying of National Flag is a symbol of expression coming within the purview of Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution. (1 mark)

(s) Decency or morality is not confined to sexual morality alone. (1 mark)

(t) The right to propagate one’s religion include the right to convert the other. (1 mark)

Question 2
Niramaya who is a citizen of India was employed in Messrs Shearn Delamore & Company in the
year 2017 in the State of Maharashtra. Recently the said company has terminated her contract of
employment. She lodged a complaint with the Watch Committee of the said company which is
responsible for administrating the affairs of the company. She alleged that the ground of her dismissal
was as a result of her belonging to the LGBT Community. The said Watch Committee deliberated on the
said complaint without giving her an opportunity to be heard and subsequently affirmed the dismissal
order. Establish if there is a legal duty imposed by the Constitution on the said Company and/or the
Watch Committee to protect the fundamental rights of the aggrieved. Decide if discrimination which is
based on Niramaya’s sexual orientation is a sex-based discrimination and therefore violative of the
principle of equality under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy for her grievances.
(20 marks)
Question 3
Recently Viraat was arrested under the National Security Act 1980 for planning to stage an
attack at the Circuit House in Amritsar. Section 9 of the 1980 Act punishes repeat offenders for a
maximum period of life imprisonment where else first time offenders for a period of maximum ten
years. Viraat was arrested earlier in the year 2016 under the said law but was released for want of
evidence. The detaining authority administered the Narco-Analysis test on him. Viraat impugned the
technique as an intrusion into his bodily integrity and self incriminating. Establish if his detention is in
accordance to procedures established by the law and if state interference is justified. Also establish if the
1980 Act violates his fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional
remedy for his grievances. (20 marks)

Question 4
Recently Ridzuan pronounced triple talaq on his wife Fatmagul. Triple talaq is part of the
Muslim Personal Law and an established practice to dissolve the marriage among the Sunni Muslims in
India belonging to the Hanafi school of Islam. Fatmagul alleged that the practice of triple talaq violates
her fundamental rights under the Constitution of India where else Ridzuan claimed that it has a
constitutional protection. Establish the same. Subsequently the Parliament of India enacted the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2018 and Section 4 of the enactment makes the
pronouncement of triple talaq a penal offence which is punishable for a term which may extend to 3
years and a fine. Ridzuan was arrested under the said Act. Establish if his detention is in accordance to
procedures established by law. (20 marks)

Question 5
Asheville Christian Academy is an unaided professional educational institution established and
maintained by the Christians in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It provides legal education and is
recognized and affiliated with the state university. The said Institution is built on a government land
which is leased to the institution for 99 years. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh
Professional Colleges (Prevention of Capitation Fees) & Regulation of Admission Act 2018. Regulation
9 under the Act provides for admission procedures which are controlled by a common entrance test, a
fee structure and an admission policy which provides for reservation of 40% seats to the Christians, 40%
for the weaker section & 20% for the non-Christians. Mayoora, who is a meritorious candidate from the
non-Christian group, was denied an admission into the college for want of a seat in the next academic
year. Establish if Asheville Christian Academy can claim a minority status in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. The Institution alleged that Regulation 9 of the said Act is nothing but absolute state
interference impinging on their choice and therefore violative of their fundamental rights under the
Constitution. Establish if Mayoora’s denial of admission into the said institution is violative of her
fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy for her grievances.
(20 marks)

Question 6
Meesha is a controversial Malayalam novel written by Harish. It was published in Mathrubhumi
Weekly. A few sections of the novel were published in social media. In those sections it was mentioned
that Hindu women take bath and wear the good dresses before going to temple because they are
interested in sex. This resulted in widespread criticism about the novel by Hindu Fundamentalists. A
complaint was registered against Harish under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which
restricts the writing, publishing and circulation of such materials. Harish was made to sign the Heckler’s
Veto (government suppress speech to prevent disorder/provocation of violence) with the Law
Enforcement Agency. The Complaint was withdrawn as a result of an unconditional apology given by
Harish. He agreed to remove the novel from all the bookstores in India and from the social website.
Subsequently the Government of India ban the novel. PIL was initiated by a social activist, Tarangini
who challenged the validity of the Heckler’s veto and the ban as violative of the constitutional
principles. Establish the same. Also establish the maintainability of the PIL and whether Harish can
waive his fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy. (20
marks)
Question 7
Write short notes on any two of the following:-
(A)A covenant was signed by a Builders Association with the owners of the land situated in Koregaon
Park, Pune that prohibited the property from being occupied by any person not of the Brahmin
Community. Decide if the restrictive covenant raises constitutional issues. (10 marks)
(B)The theory of derivative rights under Article 21 of the Constitution (10 marks)
(C)The relationship between the socialist principles in the Directive Principles of State Policy and right
to education (10 marks)
Name............................................... Roll No:....................................

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

IV TRIMESTER B. A. LL. B [HONS]
END ETRM EXAMINATION, SEPTEMBER 2018
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II

Maximum Marks: One Hundred [100] Time: Three [3] hours

Instructions:
[1] Answer five Questions including Questions 1 & 2.
[2] Each question carries marks stated against it.
[3] A copy of Part III, IV & IVA of the Constitution of India will be provided by the
Examination Department.
[4] The student may seek clarification regarding the questions in the first thirty (30) minutes
of the beginning of the examination and no request in this regard will be entertained
thereafter.
[5] You may work on your exam paper until the time allotted for the examination expires.
[6] In this exam you will demonstrate your ability to produce coherent, clear and compelling
writing.

Question 1
Multiple Choice Types
For Questions No-1(a)-(0) you are to match the correct answers from the boxes provided below:-

1. M.R.Balaji vs State of Mysore(AIR1962) 2.Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka(AIR1992)

3.Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority(AIR1979) 4.Radhe Shyam vs
Chhabi Nath(AIR2015) 5.Sakal Papers Limited vs Union of India(AIR1961) 6.State of Kerala vs
N.M.Thomas(AIR1975) 7.State of Gujarat vs Shri Ambica Mills Limited(AIR1974) 8.Shri ram
Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendulkar(AIR1958) 9.Ridge vs Baldwin(HL1964) 10.Walter
Alfred Bait vs Union of India(AIR1976)

(a) Judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdictions under Article 226 of the
Constitution. (1 mark) 4. Radhe Shyam vs Chhabi Nath (AIR2015)

(b) The attempt to do away with the earlier law based on the dichotomy between administrative and
judicial functions and to construct a new concept of fairness which would apply to all administrative
functions. (1 mark) 9. Ridge vs Baldwin (HL1964)

(c) Sex and what it implies cannot be severed. Therefore the sex plus theory will still attract the
protected grounds of discrimination. (1 mark) 10.Walter Alfred Bait vs Union of India (AIR1976)

(d) Capitation fees are violative of the principle of equality under the Constitution. (1 mark) 2. Mohini
Jain vs State of Karnataka (AIR1992)

(e) The public function test with reference to the concept of state action was first adopted by the Indian
Judiciary. (1 mark) 3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority (AIR1979)

(f) Freedom of the press was acknowledged for the first time in India as a derivative right under free
speech and expression. (1 mark) 5. Sakal Papers Limited vs Union of India (AIR1961)
(g) The color blind theory which pervaded the history of the Constitution from 1950 t0 1975 was
discarded. (1 mark) 6. State of Kerala vs N.M.Thomas (AIR1975)

(h) 50% is the benchmark for state affirmative action. (1 mark) 1. M.R.Balaji vs State of Mysore
(AIR1962)

(i) The doctrine of eclipse applies to post constitutional laws as well. (1 mark) 7. State of Gujarat vs
Shri Ambica Mills Limited (AIR1974)

(j) Class legislation which aims to achieve a particular objective is not violative of the principle of
equality. (1 mark) 8. Shri ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendulkar (AIR1958)

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus 2.Writ of Mandamus 3.Writ of Certiorari 4.Writ of Prohibition 5.Writ
of Quo Warranto.

(k) It is issued to secure the performance of public duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the
public authorities. (1 mark) 2. Writ of Mandamus

(l) It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. (1 mark) 1. Writ of Habeas Corpus

(m) It is issued to direct a subordinate court to stop doing something which the law prohibits. (1 mark)
4. Writ of Prohibition

(n) It is issued with a view to restrain a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled.
(1 mark) 5. Writ of Quo Warranto.

(o) It is issued to quash the order already passed by an inferior court. (1 mark) 3. Writ of Certiorari

True/False types

(p) The basic aim of the Directive Principles of State Policy envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution is
to establish India as a social welfare state in which social and economic justice should be achieved by
evolution and not revolution. This concept of socialism coined by Sir Ivor Jennings is known as the
Fabian Socialism. (1 mark) TRUE

(q) In 1954, the Government of India introduced decorations in the form of medals of 4 categories
namely, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri which is violative of Article
18 of the Constitution. (1 mark) FALSE

(r) Flying of National Flag is a symbol of expression coming within the purview of Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution. (1 mark) TRUE

(s) Decency or morality is not confined to sexual morality alone. (1 mark) TRUE

(t) The right to propagate one’s religion include the right to convert the other. (1 mark) FALSE

Question 2
Niramaya who is a citizen of India was employed in Messrs Shearn Delamore & Company in the
year 2017 in the State of Maharashtra. Recently the said company has terminated her contract of
employment. She lodged a complaint with the Watch Committee of the said company which is
responsible for administrating the affairs of the company. She alleged that the ground of her dismissal
was as a result of her belonging to the LGBT Community. The said Watch Committee deliberated on the
said complaint without giving her an opportunity to be heard and subsequently affirmed the dismissal
order. Establish if there is a legal duty imposed by the Constitution on the said Company and/or the
Watch Committee to protect the fundamental rights of the aggrieved. Decide if discrimination which is
based on Niramaya’s sexual orientation is a sex-based discrimination and therefore violative of the
principle of equality under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy for her grievances.
(20 marks)

KEY ANSWER

Whether there is a legal duty imposed by the Constitution on Messrs Shearn Delamore &
Company and the Watch Committee to protect the fundamental rights of Niramaya
 Article 226 (High Court)/Article 32 (Supreme Court) for judicial review of violation of
fundamental rights under the Constitution against Messrs Shearn Delamore & Company.
 Horizontal application of fundamental rights against the State of Maharashtra.
 Principles of law enunciated by Supreme Court in Vaishaka vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997).
 Theory of Radiating Effect.
Is the Watch Committee an administrative body/Quasi-judicial body against whom a Writ of
Certiorari can be issued to quash the Order
 Suitable alternative legal remedy under a statutory law for example the employment law.
 Principles of law enunciated by the House of Lords in Ridge vs Baldwin (1964) & A K.
Kraipak vs Union of India (AIR1969).
 Principles of natural justice-audi alterem partem.
 Can the duty to act judicially be superadded to the statutory law?
Whether a discrimination which is based on a sexual orientation of a person is a sex-based
discrimination
 Principles of law enunciated by the SC in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (AIR 2018)
 Sex plus theory.
 Establish how Articles 14, 15 (1), 19 (1) (a) & (g) are violated.
 Whether they are reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) & (6).
 Establish how Article 21-Right to Privacy and Right to mental health are violated by applying
principles of law enunciated by the SC in K.S. Puttuswamy vs Union of India (AIR 2017).
 Can state interfere with intimate choices made by the citizens under the distinct head of
decisional autonomy?
Whether action of state is arbitrary?
 Whether state action is arbitrary under the doctrine of arbitrariness and principles of law
enunciated by SC in E. P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu? (AIR1973). Doctrine of Direct &
Immediate effect-Bennett Coleman vs Union of India (AIR1973)
 Relationship of Articles 14,19 & 21-Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR1978)
Constitutional remedy
 Writ of certiorari to quash order &/or Mandamus to reinstate.

Question 3
Recently Viraat was arrested under the National Security Act 1980 for planning to stage an
attack at the Circuit House in Amritsar. Section 9 of the 1980 Act punishes repeat offenders for a
maximum period of life imprisonment where else first time offenders for a period of maximum ten
years. Viraat was arrested earlier in the year 2016 under the said law but was released for want of
evidence. The detaining authority administered the Narco-Analysis test on him. Viraat impugned the
technique as an intrusion into his bodily integrity and self incriminating. Establish if his detention is in
accordance to procedures established by the law and if state interference is justified. Also establish if the
1980 Act violates his fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional
remedy for his grievances. (20 marks)

KEY ANSWER

Constitutional protection of right against detention

  Article 32 (Supreme Court)/Article 226 (High Court)-judicial review of violation of
fundamental rights.
 Article 12-Law enforcement agency.
Procedures Established By Law
 Article 21-deprivation of personal liberty in accordance to procedures established by law.
 Principles of law enunciated by the SC in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR1978)-
Substantive due process of the law.
 Preventive Detention-compliance with Article 22 (4)-(7).
Narco-Analysis Test
 Article 20 (3) right against self incrimination Narco-analysis test is self incriminating under
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution provided consent of the accused is obtained-principles of law
enunciated by SC in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Onghad (AIR1961), magistrate and the
presence of medical practitioner and lawyer are required during administration of Narco
Analysis test-guidelines laid down by SC in Selvi vs State of Karnataka (AIR2010).
Right to bodily integrity
 Narco-analysis test-principles of law enunciated in K. S. Puttuswamy vs Union of India (AIR
2017) intrusion on bodily integrity by state-right to privacy & doctrine of compelling state
interest-existence of law, legitimate aim & proportionate & rational nexus to the object of the
legislation.
The Law makes a classification
 S9 of the Act makes a classification-Doctrine of Reasonable Classification in Article 14 and
principles of law established by SC in Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib (AIR1980).
Golden triangle test
 The law has to satisfy the test in Article 22, Article 19 (1) (d) & Article 14.
 Whether the law is a reasonable restriction in Article 19 (4) of the Constitution.
Whether state action is arbitrary
 Article 14 and Doctrine of Arbitrariness-principles of law enunciated by SC in E. P. Royappa vs
State of Tamil Nadu(AIR1973)
 Doctrine of Direct & Immediate effect-Bennett Coleman vs Union of India (AIR1973)
Constitutional Remedy
 Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Question 4
Recently Ridzuan pronounced triple talaq on his wife Fatmagul. Triple talaq is part of the
Muslim Personal Law and an established practice to dissolve the marriage among the Sunni Muslims in
India belonging to the Hanafi school of Islam. Fatmagul alleged that the practice of triple talaq violates
her fundamental rights under the Constitution of India where else Ridzuan claimed that it has a
constitutional protection. Establish the same. Subsequently the Parliament of India enacted the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2018 and Section 4 of the enactment makes the
pronouncement of triple talaq a penal offence which is punishable for a term which may extend to 3
years and a fine. Ridzuan was arrested under the said Act. Establish if his detention is in accordance to
procedures established by law. (20 marks)

KEY ANSWER

Whether Triple Talaq violates fundamental rights under the Constitution?

 Article 226 (High Court)/Article 32 (Supreme Court)-Judicial Review of violation of
Fundamental rights.
 Whether Triple Talaq which is a Muslim Personal Law is codified or not?
 Pre-Constitutional Laws are subjected to the test of Article 13 (1) & 13(3)(b) of the Constitution.
 Establish whether Triple talaq is violative of Article 14, 15 (1) & 19 (1) (a) & 21 of the
Constitution-principles of law enunciated by SC in Shayara Bano vs Union of India
(AIR2017).
  Optional discussion of horizontal application of fundamental under the theory of Radiating
Effects and Principles of law enunciated by SC in Vaishaka vs State of Rajasthan (AIR1997)
Triple talaq.
Whether Triple Talaq has constitutional protection
 Doctrine of Essential Religious Practice-principles of law enunciated by SC in Shirur Mutt case
(AIR1954).
 Freedom of religion under Article 25 & 26 (b) of the Constitution.
 Sunni Hanafi Muslims-religious denomination
 Restrictions under Article 25 (1) & (2)
 Whether secular matters can be protected as essential religious matters-principles of law
enunciated by SC in Sarla Mugdal vs Union of India (AIR1995).
 Article 25 is subjected to the test of Article 14 & 15 (1).
Whether the detention is lawful
 Ex-post facto laws under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution.
 Procedural safeguards for ordinary detention-Article 21 & 22 (1)-(2)
Golden triangle test
 The law has to satisfy the test in Articles 22 (1) & (2), 19 (1) (d) & (4) & 14
 Whether action of state is arbitrary-Doctrine of arbitrariness-principles of law enunciated by SC
in E. P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (AIR1973)
Constitutional Remedy
 Declaration that Triple Talaq is unconstitutional & Writ of Habeas Corpus for Ridzuan.

Question 5
Asheville Christian Academy is an unaided professional educational institution established and
maintained by the Christians in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It provides legal education and is
recognized and affiliated with the state university. The said Institution is built on a government land
which is leased to the institution for 99 years. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh
Professional Colleges (Prevention of Capitation Fees) & Regulation of Admission Act 2018. Regulation
9 under the Act provides for admission procedures which are controlled by a common entrance test, a
fee structure and an admission policy which provides for reservation of 40% seats to the Christians, 40%
for the weaker section & 20% for the non-Christians. Mayoora, who is a meritorious candidate from the
non-Christian group, was denied an admission into the college for want of a seat in the next academic
year. Establish if Asheville Christian Academy can claim a minority status in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. The Institution alleged that Regulation 9 of the said Act is nothing but absolute state
interference impinging on their choice and therefore violative of their fundamental rights under the
Constitution. Establish if Mayoora’s denial of admission into the said institution is violative of her
fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy for her grievances.
(20 marks)

KEY ANSWER

Whether Ashville Christian Academy can satisfy the test in Article 12?
 Judicial Review of violation of fundamental rights under Articles 226 (High Court)/Article 32
(Supreme Court).
 Article 12 & other authorities-principles of law enunciated by SC in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (AIR 2002). It also requires the discussion whether
Article 15 (2) can be enforced horizontally against the State of Madhya Pradesh by applying the
principles of law enunciated in Indian Medical Council vs Union of India (AIR 2011). The
word shop in Article 15 (2) will include private educational institution which are unaided.
 Minority status is established in accordance to state population-principles of law enunciated by
SC in Re Kerala Education Bill (AIR1958) & P. A. Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra
(AIR20o4).
 Minority rights under Article 29 (1) & 30 (1.)
Whether the regulations imposed are reasonable restrictions?
  Admission procedures on common entrance test and fee structure are reasonable restrictions to
maintain quality & standard of education under Article 19 (6).
 Establishment of educational institution-freedom of occupation under Article 19 (1) (g)-
principles of law established in T. M. Pai Foundations vs State of Karnataka (AIR1993).
 No reservations can be imposed on minorities-Article 15 (5)-principles of law established in
Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (AIR2008) & Pramati Educational & Cultural
Trust vs Union India (AIR2014).
 However 50% seats can be reserved for the minority under the principles of law established in St
Xaviers College vs State of Gujarat (AIR1974) & St Stephens College vs University of Delhi
(AIR19912) the rest of the 50% can go to the non-minority.
 Mayoora-denial of admission violates Articles 14 & 15 (1). Article 29 (2) applies to state funded
institutions and therefore not applicable here.
Constitutional Remedy
 Writ of Certiorari to quash Regulation 9 dealing with reservations against administrative
authority which has quasi judicial powers-principles of law in Ridge vs Baldwin.
 Writ of Mandamus to admit.

Question 6
Meesha is a controversial Malayalam novel written by Harish. It was published in Mathrubhumi
Weekly. A few sections of the novel were published in social media. In those sections it was mentioned
that Hindu women take bath and wear the good dresses before going to temple because they are
interested in sex. This resulted in widespread criticism about the novel by Hindu Fundamentalists. A
complaint was registered against Harish under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which
restricts the writing, publishing and circulation of such materials. Harish was made to sign the Heckler’s
Veto (government suppress speech to prevent disorder/provocation of violence) with the Law
Enforcement Agency. The Complaint was withdrawn as a result of an unconditional apology given by
Harish. He agreed to remove the novel from all the bookstores in India and from the social website.
Subsequently the Government of India ban the novel. PIL was initiated by a social activist, Tarangini
who challenged the validity of the Heckler’s veto and the ban as violative of the constitutional
principles. Establish the same. Also establish the maintainability of the PIL and whether Harish can
waive his fundamental rights under the Constitution. Suggest a suitable constitutional remedy. (20
marks)

KEY ANSWER

Whether the novel written by Harish has constitutional protection?

 Maintainability of PIL under Article 32 (Supreme Court)-bona fide citizen-epistolary
jurisdiction-principles of law enunciated by SC in S. P. Gupta vs Union of India (AIR1981).
 Articles 12.
 Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.
Can speech be restricted?
 Whether S292 of IPC1860 is a reasonable restriction under Article 19 (2)-decency/morality &
public order.
 Principles of law enunciated by the SC in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (AIR2015)-what
constitutes speech?
 Obscenity test-Hicklin Test in Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra (AIR1964) overruled
by SC in Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal (AIR2015)-ROTH VS US (1957) &
MILLER VS CALIFORNIA (1973)-3 PRONGED TEST.
 Principles of law enunciated by SC in Superintendent Central Prison vs Ram Manohar Lohia
(AIR 1960)-Proximity test on public disorder.
 Test of doctrine of reasonable restriction. Heckler’s veto & ban not a reasonable restriction-
PERUMAL MURUGAN CASE.
 Golden triangle test-Article 19 (1) (a) is an attribute of Article 21.
 Whether state action is arbitrary in banning the book under the doctrine of arbitrariness
(ARTICLE 14 & 21 VIOLATED) and principles of law enunciated by SC in E. P. Royappa vs
State of Tamil Nadu? (AIR1973).
 Doctrine of Direct & Immediate effect-Bennett Coleman vs Union of India (AIR1973)
Constitutional remedy
 Writ of mandamus

Question 7
Write short notes on any two of the following:-
(A) A covenant was signed by a Builders Association with the owners of the land situated in
Koregaon Park, Pune that prohibited the property from being occupied by any person not of the Brahmin
Community. Decide if the restrictive covenant raises constitutional issues. (10 marks)

KEY ANSWER
 Restrictive covenant against public policy is void under section 23 of Indian contract act.
Whether horizontal application of state action is justified under principles of law enunciated by
SC in Zorastrian Co-operative Society vs District Registrar of Society (AIR1997).
Judiciary is state under Article 12-in enforcing the restrictive covenant may violate the
principle of equality under the Constitution.

(B) The theory of derivative rights under Article 21 of the Constitution (10 marks)

KEY ANSWER
 Principles of law enunciated by SC IN MANEKA GANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA (AIR1978)
ON THEORY OF DERIVATIVE RIGHTS-SCOPE & AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21

(C) The relationship between the socialist principles in the Directive Principles of State Policy and
right to education (10 marks)

KEY ANSWER
Article 41 and right to education-article 21 & 21A-principles of law established in Mohini Jain
vs State of Karnataka (AIR1992) & Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR1993)&
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs Union India (AIR2014) Harmonious construction-
Minerva Mills vs Union of India (AIR1980)