Polity

JUDGEMENTS
 IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT

STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12

Text of Article 12
State as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution has four components:
( a ) The Government and Parliament of India-
Government means any department or institution of department. Parliament shall consist of
the President, the House of People and Council of States
( b ) The Government and Legislature of each State
State Legislatures of each State consist of the Governor, Legislative Council and Legislative
Assembly or any of them.
( c ) Local Authorities within the territory of India
Authority means
( i ) Power to make rules, bye- laws, regulations, notifications and statutory orders.
( ii ) Power to enforce them.
Local Authority means Municipal Boards, Panchayats, Body of Port Commissioners and others
legally entitled to or entrusted by the government, municipal or local fund.
( d ) Other Authorities
Authorities other than local authorities working
( i ) Within the territory of India or;
( ii ) Outside the territory of India.

Rupa Ashok Judiciary is under the meaning of state only when performing administrative
Hurra vs Ashok functions not judicial Function.
Hurra (2002)

Zee tele-flims BCCI does not come under the definition of state under article 12. BCCI is not
vs UOI (BCCI financially, functionally and administratively controlled by the government
case) (2015) cumulatively and so it cannot be held as a State.

R. D. Shety’s This case enumerated the following five factors, which would determine
case whether a body comes under the definition of State as defined in Article 12
of the Constitution:

1. Financial assistance given by the State and magnitude of such any other
forms of assistance whether of the usual kind or extraordinary.
2. Control of management and policies of the corporation by the State,
nature and extent of control.
3. State conferred or State protected monopoly status.
4. Functions carried out by the corporation closely related to governmental
functions (reaffirmed by court in Zee Telefilms v Union of India).

University of The Madras High Court evolved the principle of ejusdem generis i.e. of the
Madras v/s like nature. It means that those authorities are covered under the expression
Santa Bai 'other authorities which perform governmental or sovereign functions.

Union of India to be a local authority, an authority must fulfill the following tests-
v/s [Link] ( i ) Separate legal existence.

01
 ( ii ) Function in a defined area.
( iii ) Has power to raise funds.
( iv ) Enjoys autonomy.
( v ) Entrusted by a statute with functions which are usually entrusted to
municipalities.

Rati Lal v/s It was held that the judiciary is not State for the purpose of Article12.
State of
Bombay,

[Link] v/s it has been observed that when rule making power of judiciary is concerned
[Link] and it is State but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not State
[Link]
v/s State of
Maharashtra

RELATED TO AMENDMENT AND BASIC STRUCTURE

- Shankari parliament can amend FR

Prasad Vs Uoi
( 1952 )

-Sajjan Singh
Vs State Of
Rajasthan

I.C. legislature does not enjoy the power to amend part III of the constitution
Golaknath Vs
State Of
Punjab (1967)

Kesavananda parliament could amend any part of the constitution , so long it did not
Bharati Vs alter the basic or essential feature of the cons.
State Of
Kerala(1973)
# Supremacy of the Constitution
# Republican and democratic form of government
# Secular character of the Constitution
# Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the
judiciary
# Federal character of the Constitution
# The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive
Principles of State Policy
# Unity and integrity of the nation
# Sovereignty of the country.
# Sovereignty of India
# Democratic character of the polity

02
 # Unity of the country
# Essential features of the individual freedoms secured
to the citizens # Mandate to build a welfare state
# Sovereign democratic republic
# Justice - social, economic and political
# Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith
and worship # Equality of status and
opportunity.

Minerva Mills Vs Judicial review and balance b/w FR and DPSP as part of basic
Uoi (1980) structure

It was ruled by the court that a limited amending power itself

is a basic feature of the Constitution.

Election case Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed four basic features which he
verdict considered unamendable:
# Sovereign democratic republic status
# Equality of status and opportunity of
an individual # Secularism and freedom
of conscience and religion
# 'government of laws and not of men' i.e. the rule of law

L Chandra the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in

Kumar case the High Courts under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and
essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its
basic structure".

9TH SCHEDULE
The Schedule contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in
courts and was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
o The first Amendment added 13 laws to the Schedule. Subsequent
amendments in various years have taken the number of protected laws to
284 currently.
It was created by the new Article 31B, which along with Article 31A was brought
in by the government to protect laws related to agrarian reform and for
abolishing the Zamindari system.
o While Article 31A extends protection to ‘classes’ of laws, Article 31B shields
specific laws or enactments.
o While most of the laws protected under the Schedule concern
agriculture/land issues, the list includes other subjects.
Article 31B also has a retrospective operation which means that if laws are inserted in
the Ninth Schedule after they are declared unconstitutional, they are considered to
have been in the Schedule since their commencement, and thus valid.
Although Article 31B excludes judicial review, the apex court has said in the past that
even laws under the Ninth Schedule would be open to scrutiny if they violated
Fundamental Rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.

03
Keshavananda The court upheld the judgement in Golaknath and introduced a new concept
Bharati v. of “Basic structure of the Indian Constitution” and stated that, “all provisions
State of of the constitution can be amended but those amendments which will
Kerala (1973) abrogate or take away the essence or basic structure of constitution which
included Fundamental Rights are fit to be struck down by the court”.

Waman Rao The decision drew a line of difference between Acts placed under
Case (1981) the Ninth Schedule prior to the Kesavananda decision and Acts
placed under the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda decision.

The court decided that all laws placed under the Ninth Schedule
prior to the Kesavananda judgement cannot be called into question
for violating Fundamental Rights, but laws enacted after the
judgement can be brought before a court of law. It is also known as
the 'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling,'

I.R Coelho and This judgement said that even though a law is listed in the 9th Schedule, it
State of Tamil can still be scrutinised and challenged in court. The 9th Schedule contains a
Nadu (2007) list of acts and legislation that cannot be challenged in court

SEPERATION OF POWER [SOP]

Separation of powers divides the mechanism of governance into three branches i.e.
Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Although different authors give different definitions, in
general, we can frame three features of this doctrine.
1. Each organ should have different persons in capacity, i.e., a person with a function in
one organ should not be a part of another organ.
2. One organ should not interfere in the functioning of the other organs.
3. One organ should not exercise a function of another organ (they should stick to their
mandate only).

Some of Articles of the constitution:

Article 50: This article puts an obligation over the State to separate the judiciary from the
executive. But, since this falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is not
enforceable.

Articles 53 and 154: It provide that the executive power of the Union and the State shall be
vested with the President and the Governor and they enjoy immunity from civil and criminal
liability.

Articles 121 and 211: These provide that the legislatures cannot discuss the conduct of a judge
of the Supreme Court or High Court. They can do so only in case of impeachment.

Article 123: The President, being the executive head of the country, is empowered to exercise
legislative powers (Promulgate ordinances) in certain conditions.

04
Article 361: The President and Governors enjoy immunity from court proceedings, they shall
not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of
his office.

Kesavananda In this case, the SC held that the amending power of the Parliament is
Bharati vs subject to the basic features of the Constitution. So, any amendment
State of violating the basic features will be declared unconstitutional.
Kerala
(1973)

RAM an encroachment on SOP upsets the delicate balance of the Indian cons.
JAWAYA VS
PUNJAB
1955

Indira gandhi In the Indian constitution , there is SOP in a broad sense only . A rigid SOP as
nehru vs raj under american cons does not apply to india
narain 1975

CENTRE STATE
"The Indian Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it established what may be
called a dual polity which will consist of the Union at the Centre and the States at the periphery
each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively
by the Constitution.".- D.R. Ambedkar

K.C. Wheare, father of contemporary federal theories, defined federalism as "the method of
dividing power so that general and regional governments are each within a sphere co-ordinate
and independent." He called the Indian Constitution as quasi-federal in nature i.e., 'federation
sui generis' or federation of its own kind.

SR BOMMAI 1. power of the prez to dismiss a state govt is subject to JR

CASE 1994 2. Test of majority - only floor of the house
3. should exercise the power only after his proclamation is approved
by both the houses of parliament .

05
 H. Wadia vs Court has held that “the legality of any extra-territorial law can only be
ITC, Bombay decided in India’s domestic courts”

State of The Court held that Central enactments could be only challenged as writ
Madhya petitions under Article 32 and 262 of the Constitution and not under the
Pradesh v original jurisdiction of the Court under Article 131.
Union of
India

NCT of Delhi 1. Lt governor should act on aid and advice of COM.

vs UOI Case
2018:
2. The phrase "Refer any matter" by the LT Governor to the
President" does not mean" .Every matter" to the President.

3. Lt governor is bound to act on aid and advice of COM except in

case of Land, Public Order and Police.

4. “The exercise of establishing a democratic and representative

form of government for NCT of Delhi by insertion of Articles
239AA and 239AB would turn futile if the Government of Delhi
that enjoys the confidence of the people of Delhi is not able to
usher in policies and laws over which the Delhi Legislative
Assembly has powers to legislate for the NCT of Delhi.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that, all citizens shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression. The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of
the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought
and expression. The exercise of this right is, however, subject t o reasonable restrictions for
certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

The main elements of right to freedom of speech and expression are as under:
1. This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals.
2. The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express one's views
and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing,
printing, picture, film, movie etc.
3. This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose
reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of

06
 the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and
contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
4. This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by
an action of the State as by its inaction. Thus, failure on the part of the State to
guarantee to all its citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression would also constitute a violation of Article 19(1)(a)

Kedar Nath Expressing disapprobation of the actions of the government without causing
Singh case public disorder by acts of violence would not be penal.
vs So Bihar
1962:

Romesh SC held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
Thapar Case propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation
(1950):

S. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his opinion on any issues of general
Rangarajan concern. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground
v.P. Jagjivan for restricting expression.
Ram

Maneka the Supreme Court considered whether Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution
Gandhi vs was confined to Indian territory and held that the freedom of speech and
Union of expression is not confined to National boundaries
India,

People's Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and

Union for expression, in the interest of the security of the State. The term security of state
Civil has to be distinguished from public order. For security of state refers to serious
Liberties and aggravated forms of public disorder, example rebellion, waging war against
(PUCL) v. the state
Union of
India

Anuradha : SC stated that the right to trade over the internet was a fundamental right
Bhasin v under the right to freedom of speech and expression. SC further held that the
Union of internet cannot be suspended for an indefinite period + Section 144 cannot be
India case used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion

In this case SC propounded “doctrine of Proportionally test":

1. Legitimate action: It requires the state to show the Court that the basic
aim that the restriction seeks to achieve is legitimate.

2. Least restrictive: The state must demonstrate that it has chosen the least
restrictive measure possible to achieve its purported objective.

07
 3. A rational nexus: The state must establish that there exists a rational nexus
between the limitation imposed and its purported aim.

PRESS CENSORSHIP
Indian Express v. It has been held that the Press plays a very significant role in the
Union of democratic machinery. The courts have the duty to uphold the freedom
India,(1985) of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge
that freedom.

BRIJ BHUSHAN struck down statutes which imposed restrictions on free speech
VS STATE OF
DELHI 1950

Odyssey the Supreme Court held that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the
Communications State channel Doordarshan is part of the fundamental right guaranteed
(P) Ltd .v. under Article 19(1)(a)
Lokvidayan
Sanghatana

STRIKE AND PROTEST

TK Rangarajan vs : SC held that govt employees have no fundamental right to resort to

government of strike. Fundamental right to strike is qualified right, means it can be taken
TN by state through enactment of law

Ramlila Maidan The Supreme Court had stated that citizens have a fundamental right to
Incident vs Home assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an
Secretary, Union arbitrary executive or legislative action.
of India (2012):

Mazdoor Kisan SC upheld the fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest but
Shakti Sangathan ordered it to be regulated in such a way that they do not cause
(MKSS) vs Union inconvenience to residents from Jantar Mantar road or the offices located
of India(2018): there

Shaheen Bagh : 1. The court upheld the right to peaceful protest against a law but made
Judgement it clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied and that
too indefinitely.

2. The right to protest in a public place should be balanced with the right
of the general public to move freely without hindrance.

08
 3. Fundamental rights do not live in isolation. The right of the protester
has to be balanced with the right of the commuter and has to co-exist in
mutual respect.

Devangana Kalita The bench commented that “the right to protest is not outlawed and
vs State) cannot be termed as a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of the UAPA”.
(Natasha Narwal
vs State

JUDGEMENT RELATED TO LIFE AND LIBERTY

Everyone in the world has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. This is the
universal truth in the world and the right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all
rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life
itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the
right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the other rights would not have
any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth
mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the
right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien.
Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to
reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19

Ak Gopalan personal liberty can be taken by the state in accordance with the
Vs State Of procedure established by law
Madras
(1950)

Maneka Due process of law

Gandhi Vs Uoi right to go abroad
( 1978 )

Kharak Singh By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal
v. State of existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs
Utar Pradesh and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out
of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which
the soul communicates with the outer world.

09
Vishakha v. , the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman
State of at her work as amounting to the violation of rights of gender equality and
Rajasthan[x] rights to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21
of the Constitution.

VISHAKA GUIDELINES
1. All employers or persons in charge of workplace whether in the
public or private sector should take appropriate steps to prevent
sexual harassment. Without prejudice to the generality of this
obligation they should take the following steps:
2. Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the
workplace should be notified, published and circulated in
appropriate ways.
3. The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies
relating to conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations
prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate
penalties in such rules against the offender.
4. As regards private employers, steps should be taken to include the
aforesaid prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
5. Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of
work, leisure, health, and hygiene to further ensure that there is
no hostile environment towards women at workplaces and no
employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that
she is

Mc Mehta Vs In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988), the Supreme Court

Uoi ordered the closure of tanneries that were polluting water

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court issued

several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj
Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation

Mohini Jain The Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to
vs. the State education also.
of Karnataka,
1992 SC

Unni Krishnan The Supreme court held the right to education is a fundamental right, as
Vs State Of decided in Mohini Jain Case. But in such cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Andhra ( 1993 fixed the age that it is a fundamental right to the children for the age of 6 -
) 14 years.
In the light of two above judgements, the parliament enacted the Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

10
Chameli Singh A Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court had considered and held
v. State of U.P that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen and
it was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as encompassing
within its ambit, the right to shelter to make the right to life more
meaningful.

Hussainara RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

Khatoon v. The Court held that detention of under-trial prisoners, in jail for a period
Home longer than what they would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal
Secretary, as being in violation of Article 21. The Court, thus, ordered the release from
State of Bihar jail of all those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail for a longer
period than what they could have been sentenced had they been convicted

Olega Tellis In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is included
vs. Bombay in Article 21.
Municipal
Corporation
(B.M.C)

Justice K. S. right to privacy under Article 21

Putaswamy
Vs Uoi 2017

Faheema kerala HC declared the right to internet access as a FR

Shirin Vs
State Of
Kerala
( 2019 )

RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY

Arun right to die with dignity and SC recognised passive euthanasia
Ramachandra
Shanbaug Vs
Uoi 2011

Common allowed individuals the right to draft a living will

Cause Vs Uoi (
2018 )

HUMAN RIGHTS / GENDER JUSTICE

NAVTEJ SINGH Decriminalising homosexuality
JOHAR VS UOI
2018

11
NALSA VS UOI eunuchs as third gender
2014

SHAH BANO Grant of maintenance , provisions are essentially of a prophylactic

CASE 1985 character and cut across the barriers of religion

VISHAKHA VS Issued guidelines on the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace

RAJ 1997

shayra bano vs Instant triple talaq illegal

UOI 2017

joseph sine vs struck down section 497 of the IPC and decriminalised adultery in india
UOI 2018

legal sovereignty of one sex over the other is wrong

Naz : Decriminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same

Foundation sex
case

Suman Surpur : SC held that daughters have equal share in the property of [Link], it
vs Amar 2018 helps eliminate this inequality and prejudice against Hindu women.

Arun Kumar The SC not only acknowledged the contribution of the housewives as
Agarwal vs invaluable , but also observed that it cannot be computed in terms of
National money. Her services rendered with true love and affection cannot be
insurance equated with services rendered by others.
company:

RESERVATIONS

Dr Ambedkar stated that "the report of the Minorities Committee provided that all minorities
should have two benefits or privileges, namely representation in the legislatures and
representation in the services."

12
 STATE OF caste based reservation to be unconstitutional
MADRAS VS
CHAMPAKAM
DORAIRAJAN
1951

MR BALAJI VS 50% CAP

STATE OF
MYSORE
1963

INDRA - 50% cap

SAWHNEY VS -creamy layer in backward classes
UOI ( THE -no reservation in promotion
MANDAL -reservation can be made by executive order
CASE OF 1992 -economic backwardness alone could not be a criteria
)

M NAGRAJ VS three constitutional requirement -

UOI 2006 1. quantifiable data on backwardness of sc / st
2. inadequacy of their representation
3. overall efficiency of admin

ASHOK CREAMY LAYER doctrine has no relevance in sc/ st reservation

KUMAR
THAKUR 2008

JARNAIL allowed for grant of quota for promotion to sc/st without need to collect
SINGH VS quantifiable data .
LACHHMI
NARAIN
GUPTA 2018

ORDINANCE :
The constitution under article 123 and 213 gives the president as well as the governor the
authority to pass laws in case of emergencies/cases requiring immediate effect while the
parliament isn't in session, these laws passed are known as ordinances or in other words
ordinances are the laws which are promulgated by the executive authority when the houses are
not in sessions.

Governor President

13
1. An ordinance issued by the governor as the 1. The ordinance passed by the president of the
same effect and force as an law/act passed by nation will be treated with the same effect and
the state legislature force as such of an act passed by the center
2. The ordinance issuing power of the governor 2. The president's ordinance issuing power is co
is coextensive of the legislative power of the extensive the legislative power of the
state legislature, thus he can only issue parliament, he can issue ordinance only on
ordinances on subjects with the state legislature subjects on which parliament can pass a law
can pass laws
The governor can't promulgate an ordinance [Link] from the exception that the president
without instructions from the president under can't pass a ordinance amending the
these 3 circumstances: constitution, the president generally doesn't
If a bill contains the same provisions require any instruction to promulgate an
that had required the previous sanction ordinance.
of the President for its introduction into
the state legislature.
If it would be deemed necessary to
reserve a bill containing the same
provisions for the consideration of the
President.
If an act of the state legislature
containing the same provisions would
have been invalid without receiving the
President's assent.

D C Wadhwa This was the case in which the Supreme Court had pointed out the blatant
v state of increase of ordinances issued. There were 256 ordinances issued and all of
Bihar them were also kept in force for a period of 1-14 by frequently
promulgating them. The court had held that successive Re-promulgation of
the ordinances having the same texts and without attempting to pass the
bills will amount to a violation to the constitution of India; the court also
held that the exceptional power of the executive to pass laws must not be
treated as a substitute for the legislative power of the legislation.

RC COOPER The Supreme Court held that the President’s decision to promulgate
VS UOI 1970 ordinance could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was
not required, and the ordinance had been issued primarily to bypass debate
and discussion in the legislature.

AK ROY VS the Court argued that the President's Ordinance making power is not
UOI beyond the scope of judicial review

KRISHAN The Supreme Court held that the authority to issue ordinances is not an
KUMAR absolute entrustment, but is “conditional upon satisfaction that
SINGH VS circumstances exist rendering it necessary to take immediate action”.
BIHAR 2017 o It further stated that the re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud
on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative
processes.

14
 PIL
Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been interpreted by
judges to consider the intent of public at large. Although, the main and only focus of such
litigation is only Public Interest there are various areas where a Public interest litigation can be
filed. For e.g.
- Violation of basic human rights of the poor
- Content or conduct of government policy
- Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty.
- Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights

Hussainara These proceedings led to the release of more than 40,000 undertrial
Khatoon v. prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right
State of Bihar which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was
adopted in subsequent cases.

S.P. Gupta v. In this case it was held that any member of the public or social action group
Union of acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts or the
India. Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of a legal or
constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other
disability cannot approach the Court.

MUMBAI The seed of PIL was sown by justice krishna iyer through this landmark
KAMGAR judgement .
SABHA 1976

Citizen for the S. C. declared that the handcuffs and other fetters shall not be forced
Democracy v. upon a prisoner while lodged in jail or while in transport or transit from
State of one jail to another or to the court or back.
Assam

BANDHUA release of bonded labour

MUKTI
MORCHA VS
UOI 1984

GAMBLING

The Public Gambling Act, 1867 is a central law which clearly declared all gambling betting acts
illegal, still in the present times it has a far-reaching black market with millions of cash involved
which cannot be controlled by the government

15
The Seventh Schedule Entry 34 List II of the Indian constitution gives all the states the power
to decide the laws regarding gambling. The state governments within their authority have the
option to either adopt the Central Act or to device any amendments which may seem the best
fit for their region. Hence many state authorities have done just that. Government-run lotteries
are sanctioned in 13 states and in 5 Union territories while horse racing is legal in 6 states, and
casinos are legal in just 2 states (Goa and Sikkim). In 2010, Sikkim became the only state to
legalize Online Sports Betting.

State of Bombay SC held that in any game if “element of skill” is dominant over the
VS R.M.D “element of chance”, it can't be called as gambling. So today when the
Chamarbaugwala state govt is bringing a law to check online games, it is invalidated by
different HC on the basis of this case.

Dr K.R. The reason betting on horse racing is not prohibited while other types of
Lakshmanan vs. gambling are illegal was answered in this case, where the Supreme Court
State of Tamil recognised that Horse Racing was a game based on skill and did not come
Nadu, 1996 under the purview of gambling.

Format of Dream 11 where a format is to pick 11 players from a real life

Haryana HC, match is a game of skill and does not fall within the definition of Gambling.
2019:- It is supported by the Bombay High Court which says there is a difference
between game of skill and Gambling.

OFFICE OF PROFIT

Art.102 (1) (a) provides for the disqualification of the membership of either house of
parliament and read it as follows:
102. Disqualification for membership – A Person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and
for being, a member of either house of parliament –
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any
State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;

There is a similar provision in the constitution of in the Constitution for the disqualification of
members of the legislative assembly under Art.191 (1)

The expression office of profit has not been defined in the Constitution or in the
Representation of People Act 1951. Its ambit has to be inferred only from the pronouncement
of the courts and other competent authorities like the Election Commission and the president.
The object of the provision is to secure the independence of the members of Parliament and
do not contain persons who have received favours or benefits from the executive and who
consequently being under an obligation to the executive might be amenable to influence.

16
Kantha In the light of above mentioned discussion it becomes clear that the true test
kathuriya vs to be applied to determine whether a person holds an office of profit or not
Manakchand depends upon the extent of control the government exercises, whether the
Surana salary paid out of government has power to appoint or dismiss, whether the
salary paid out of government fund or not, the salary which the person entitled
to get must not be compensatory in nature to bear out day to day expenses but
it must confer some pecuniary gain to the person. One thing which must bear
in mind the objective of the disqualification is to avoid the conflict between the
functionaries of state.

Pradyut SC outlined the four broad principles for determining whether an office attracts
Bordoloi vs constitutional disqualification.
Swapan Roy
(2001) 1. First, whether the government exercises control over appointment, removal
and performance of the functions of the office

2. Second, whether the office has any remuneration attached to it

3. Third, whether the body in which the office is held has government powers
(releasing money, allotment of land, granting licences etc.).

4. Fourth, whether the office enables the holder to influence by way of

patronage.

SPEAKER
o The Office of the Speaker in India is a living and dynamic institution which deals with
the actual needs and problems of Parliament in the performance of its functions.
o Article 93 of the Constitution provides for the election of both the Speaker and the
Deputy Speaker.
o The Speaker is the constitutional and ceremonial head of the House.
o Each House of Parliament has its own presiding officer.

There is a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker for the Lok Sabha and a Chairman
and a Deputy Chairman for the Rajya Sabha.

KIHOTO Sc held the validity of anti defection law and had also made speaker’s
HOLLOHAN order subject to judicial review on limited grounds
CASE 1992

17
KEISHAM SC looked into the Speaker's inaction on the matter of disqualification in
MEGHCHANDRA this case. SC said the disqualification petition should be cleared by the
SINGH VS Speaker within 4 months.
SPEAKER OF
MANIPUR 2020

Nabam Rebia SC has said that the speaker ought not to have disqualified the defectors
and Bamang when the motion for his own removal was pending (the Speaker’s order
Felix vs Deputy was anyway stayed by the HC)
Speaker case

Keisham Megha SC held that Speaker should dispose the case of defection within four
chandra Singh weeks
vs The Speaker
Manipur:

GOVERNOR

The Governor’s appointment, his powers and everything related to the office of
Governor have been discussed under Article 153 to Article 162 of the Indian
Constitution.
The role of the Governor is quite similar to that of the President of India. The
Governor performs the same duties as the President, but for the State. The Governor
stands as executive head of a State and the working remains the same as of the office
of President of India. Under the Constitution of India, the governing machinery is the
same as that of the Central Government.
It is stated that the Governor has a dual role.

o He is the constitutional head of the state, bound by the advice of his council
of ministers.
o He functions as a vital link between the Union Government and the State
Government.

HARGOVIND the office of governor was not subordinate or subservient to GOI.

PANT VS
RAGHUKUL
TILAK 1979

18
 BP SINGHAL 1. Need for fixity of tenure
VS UOI 2010 2. decision to remove governor > JR
3. not remove arbitrarily

NEBAM The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of Governor’s

RABIA discretion Article 163 is limited and his choice of action should not
JUDGEMENT be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason,
2016 actuated by good faith and tempered by caution

L CHANDRA Tribunal can perform supplemental role with HC and SC and not
KUMAR CASE substitutional role
1997

SR Bommai Following the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations, the Supreme Court

case: underlined that the breakdown of constitutional machinery implied a
virtual impossibility, and not a mere difficulty, in carrying out governance in
a State.
o SC said that while the subjective satisfaction of the President
regarding such a breakdown was beyond judicial scrutiny, the
material on which such satisfaction was based could certainly be
analysed by the judiciary, including the Governor’s report.
o The Court reinstated the governments in Arunachal Pradesh and
Uttarakhand which were suspended after the arbitrary imposition
of the President’s Rule.

TRIBUNALS
The constitutional (42nd amendment) Act, 1976, inserted Article 323-A and 323-B, by which
parliament has been authorised to constitute administrative tribunals for settlement of
disputes and adjudication of matters specified therein.

In Durga shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh AIR 1954 SC 520.

The Supreme court defined Tribunal as:
The expression Tribunal as used in Article 136 does not mean the same thing as 'court' but
includes, within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state
and are invested with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions.

Rojer SC declared that the “Tribunal, appellate tribunal and other authorities rules
Mathew 2017”, as unconstitutional for being violative of principles of independence of
case 2019 judiciary. These rules depriving SC role in appointment

19
 In exercise of the power conferred by Article 323 -A of the constitution,
Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Sampath
Kumar V. Section 28 of the said Act excluded the power of judicial review in service
Union Of matters under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution.
India The constitutionality of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court
(1987) 1 in this leading case.
Scc 124 The constitutional bench upheld the validity of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.

L chandra SC held that Tribunals cannot and will not be a substitute for the power of judicial
Kumar review that the constitution bestows upon high courts.
case 1997

CONTEMPT OF COURT

The Indian legislature does not provide a concrete definition of contempt, however section 2(a)
of The Contempt of Courts,1971 says ‘contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal
contempt’. Section 2(b) & section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil and
criminal contempt. Although the legislature has not defined what amounts to contempt, it has
defined civil and criminal contempt. Thus contempt cannot be confined to four walls of a
definition. Therefore, what would offend the court’s dignity and what would lower the court’s
prestige is thus a matter which can be decided by the court itself and it’s for the court to deal
with each case of contempt under the facts and circumstances of that case.

PN DUA VS SHIV Mere criticism of the court does not amount to contempt of court . In a
SHANKAR AND free marketplace of ideas , criticism about the judicial system or judges
OTHERS 1988 should be welcomed so long it does not hamper the administration of
justice .

PRITAM LAL VS to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity .

HC OF MP 1992

ELECTORAL REFORMS :

Free and Fair elections constitute the foundation of Democracy which reflects the will of the
people. The nature of any particular system of law is a reflection of the spirit of people who
evolved it. The Constitution of India preserves the rights of every voter..

20
ADR VS UOI disclosure of info relating to criminal antecedents , educational
2002 qualification and personal assets of a candidate contesting elections

Dinesh SC dealt with N.N. Vohra Commitee report and its implementation which
Trivedi, M.P. addressed the problem of the growing nexus among politicians,
v. Union of bureaucrats and criminals and its effects on the civil society. The court
India further held that an independent body should be formulated to look into
the matter and it should also be given necessary powers to investigate into
these matters and if feasible establish special courts to take cognizance of
such matters with the consent of the Union government.

LILY convicted sitting MP and MLA will be immediately disqualified without

THOMAS VS being given three months time for appeal
UOI 2013

Common The Supreme Court addressing the blatant use of black money in
Cause v. organising election rallies held that in a democracy where rule of law
Union of prevails such open show black money cannot be permitted. Any
India expenditure incurred in an election campaign would be presumed to have
been incurred by the candidate.

CEC VS JAN Person in prison can not contest elections

CHOWKIDAR
2013

PUCL VS UOI NOTA was allowed in elections in India

2013

PUBLIC trial court to dispose the criminal cases involving MP AND MLA within 1
INTEREST year
FOUNDATION
VS UOI 2014

LOK PRAHARI source of their income and their spouses and dependants
VS UOI 2018

ANTI DEFECTION LAW

Main Features of the Anti-Defection Law:

Under Tenth Schedule, the provisions of Anti-Defections are:

21
Subject Provisions in the Tenth Schedule
Disqualification 1. If the member of the party:

o Voluntarily resigns from the party.

o Votes, or does not vote as per the directions of the party.
However, if the member has taken prior permission within
15 days about this then the member cannot be disqualified.
2. If an independent candidate, after the election joins a political party.
3. If a nominated candidate joins the party six months after becoming
the member of the legislature.
Power to 1. The sole power of deciding the disqualification of the member is
disqualify with the Chairman or the Speaker.
2. But if the complaint is about the defection of the Chairman or
Speaker, then the member of the House elected by th at House has
the power to decide on the disqualification.

Exception A member cannot be disqualified if his/her original party merges with

another and
He/She and other members of the old political party join the new
political party.
He/She and other members opt to function as a separate group
rather than merging.

Kihoto held that the law is valid in all respects. expect on the matter about judicial
Hollohon v. review, which was held to be unconstitutional.
Zachilhu and
Others

Ravi S Naik vs The Supreme Court in this case cleared that the phrase “voluntary gives up
Union of India membership of a political party” had wider connotations and was not
1994 synonymous with resignation.

Keshavananda judicial review was held to be a basic feature of the Constitution and the
Bharati and Constitution cannot be amended to violate its basic structure.
Others v. the
State of Kerala
and Another

Rajendra Singh The Supreme Court in this case stated that if the Speaker fails to act on a
Rana vs Swami complaint, or accepts claims of splits or mergers without making a finding,
Prasad Maurya he fails to act as per the Tenth Schedule. He is also considered to be in
Case of 2007 violation of his constitutional duties.

Srimanth Bala The speaker does not have any explicit power to specify the period of
Sahib Patil vs disqualification or bar a member from contesting elections after
The Speaker disqualification until the end of the term of the legislative assembly.

22
Karnataka [Note: Speakers said that MLAs do not contest by election to Seek re-
2019: election and resume the membership of the house]

DEATH PENALTY
All punishments are based on the same proposition i.e. there must be a penalty for
wrongdoing. There are two main reasons for inflicting the punishment. One i s the belief that it
is both right and just that a person who has done wrong should suffer for it; the other is the
belief that inflicting punishment on wrongdoers discourages other from doing wrong. The
capital punishment also rests on the same proposition as other punishments .

RAJENDRA it must be imposed where the peril to social security is to such an extent
PRASAD VS that extinction of such a person becomes essential for the survival of
STATE OF UP society .
1979

BACHAN RAREST OF RARE

SINGH VS The constitutional validity of death penalty was again challenged in the
PUNJAB 1980 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, in May 1980, and it was premised on
multiple new developments. Firstly, the re-enactment of CrPC 1973 had
made the death penalty as an exception with regards to the rule of
imposing life imprisonment for offences consist of choice between life
imprisonment and death sentence.

Santosh in death penalty sentencing, public opinion is neither an objective

Kumar circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal.
Satishbhushan
Bariyar v.
State of
Maharashtra

POLICE REFORMS
Commitees and Commissions:
In India, several committees and commissions have been established over the years to address
the need for police reforms. Some of the notable initiatives taken include:
1. The National Police Commission (1977-1981):
This commission recommended measures to improve the functioning of the police
and make it more accountable to the public.
2. The Padmanabhaiah Commitee (2000):
This committee was constituted to review the implementation of the
recommendations made by the National Police Commission and suggest further
reforms.

23
 3. The Soli Sorabjee Commitee (2000):
This committee was set up to review the Indian Police Act of 1861 and suggest
amendments to make it more effective.
4. The Malimath Commitee (2000):
This committee was constituted to suggest reforms in the criminal justice system,
including the police.
5. The Mukherjee Commitee (2006):
This committee was set up to recommend measures for modernizing the police force
in India and improve its effectiveness.

PRAKASH 1. Creation of a State Security Commission to ensure that the state

SINGH CASE government does not interfere in the functioning of the police.
2006 2. Appointment of a Director General of Police (DGP) through merit-
based selection and fixing of a minimum tenure for the DGP to
ensure independence.
3. Separation of investigation and law and order functions of the police
to prevent them from being influenced by political or other
pressures.
4. Constituting a Police Establishment Board to decide transfers,
postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police
officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and below.
5. Establishment of a National Security Commission at the union level
to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of Central
Police Organizations (CPOs).

ENVIRONMENT
The Indian Heritage and Culture has a special connection with the preservation and security of
the environment. The Indian State has also blessed it in the Constitution which needs both the
State and the Citizen to protect and enhance the environment. The Environment Act, 1986 is
one of those acts which spread to the whole of India without any limitation.

Subhash The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is a
Kumar v. fundamental right under Article 21.
State of
Bihar:

Indian the financial costs of checking or mitigating damage produced by pollution

Council for should lie with the hazards which cause the pollution by choosing the Polluter
Enviro-Legal Pays Principle.
Action vs.
Union of
India

24
Mc Mehta In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988), the Supreme Court ordered
Vs Uoi 1988 the closure of tanneries that were polluting water
In this judgement, it was mentioned that just like an industry which
cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be permitted to
exist, a tannery which cannot set up a central treatment plant
cannot be allowed to proceed to be in continuation.

M.C. Mehta the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the
v. Union of protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from
India 1997 environmental degradation

Samit Mehta Banning the use of coal and directing industries to use CNG. The Court
v. Union of reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also
India: recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21

SC on The court is not against any community , court is just giving importance to
Firecracking: Article 21(Right to life)

1. The court rejected arguments that bursting crackers was a fundamental

right.
2. It also ruled it out as being an essential practice during religious festivals like
Diwali.
3. It held that Article 25 (right to religion) is subject to Article 21 (right to life).
4. So a religious practice that threatens the health and lives of people is not
entitled to protection under Article 25.

MK I: SC asked Rajasthan and Gujarat government to do away with overhead

Ranjitsinh vs cables, that is the reason for death of endangered species The great indian
UO bustard. SC judgement emphasises the bio centric values of eco preservation.
Natural environment has its rights which should be free from exploitation

SCAN FOR MORE