MEWAR UNIVERSITY

QUESTION BANK

COURSE: LL.M
SEMESTER: 4th, YEAR: 2nd
PAPER NAME:
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
INDIA AND U.K.
PAPER CODE: LW- 403
PART A
Q.1. Explain the Right to Equality with special references to emerging judicial response to the
problems of group inequalities.

Introduction:

The Right to Equality is enshrined under Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India. It forms
the cornerstone of the Fundamental Rights and aims to promote fairness, prevent
discrimination, and ensure equal treatment for all individuals before the law.

Scope of the Right to Equality:

1. Article 14 – Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Laws:

Every person is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection by laws within the
territory of India. It allows reasonable classification but prohibits arbitrary
discrimination.

2. Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination:

Prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth but permits
special provisions for women, children, socially and educationally backward classes,
Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST).

3. Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:

Guarantees equal opportunities in matters related to public employment with provisions
for reservation for the backward classes, SCs, STs, and economically weaker sections
(EWS).

4. Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability:

Declares untouchability a punishable offence, ensuring social inclusion.
 5. Article 18 – Abolition of Titles:
Prohibits the state from conferring titles that create artificial distinctions among citizens
(except military and academic distinctions).

Judicial Interpretation & Emerging Responses to Group Inequalities:

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and expanding the meaning of the
Right to Equality to address the challenges of group inequalities:

1. Affirmative Action & Reservations:

 Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case):

The Supreme Court upheld reservations for OBCs but capped total reservation at 50%,
recognizing the need for affirmative action to address historical disadvantages.

 Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):

The Court ruled that the 'creamy layer' principle applies to SC/ST promotions to ensure
that benefits reach the truly disadvantaged.

 EWS Reservation (2019):

Through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the court upheld 10% reservation for the
Economically Weaker Sections, reflecting a shift towards economic criteria along with
social backwardness.

2. Gender Equality:

 Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India (2008):

The Court struck down provisions that prohibited women from working in
establishments serving liquor, holding them as unconstitutional and based on
stereotypes.

 Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) (Adultery case):

The Court decriminalized adultery, emphasizing gender equality and autonomy.

3. LGBTQ+ Rights:

 Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018):

The Court decriminalized homosexuality under Section 377 IPC, marking a progressive
step for the rights of sexual minorities.
4. Disability Rights:

 Vikash Kumar vs. UPSC (2021):

The Court emphasized reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in public
employment and education.

5. Transgender Rights:

 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India (2014):

The Court recognized the third gender status, ensuring equality, dignity, and non-
discrimination for transgender persons.

Conclusion:

The judiciary in India has evolved its interpretation of the Right to Equality beyond mere formal
equality to substantive equality, where unequal groups are treated differently to ensure
fairness and justice. Emerging judicial responses reflect an effort to balance individual rights
with group-based affirmative measures, addressing deep-rooted structural inequalities in
Indian society.

Q.2 Explain the Comparative Study of the American Expression “Liberty” and Indian
Constitution Expression “Personal Liberty”.

Introduction:

The concept of "Liberty" is central to both the American Constitution and the Indian
Constitution, but their scope, meaning, and judicial interpretations differ based on historical,
social, and constitutional contexts.

I. Liberty under the American Constitution:

1. Source:

o 5th Amendment: No person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law."

o 14th Amendment: Extends this protection against state action.

 2. Meaning:

o "Liberty" is broad and covers both personal freedoms and economic rights.

o It includes the right to privacy, freedom of contract (historically), bodily

autonomy, and freedom of movement.

3. Due Process Clause:

o Protects against arbitrary government action.

o Recognized Substantive Due Process, allowing courts to protect fundamental

rights (e.g., right to marry, contraception, abortion — as seen in Roe v. Wade,
although partly reversed later).

4. Judicial Activism:

o U.S. courts, especially the Supreme Court, have actively expanded the scope of
"liberty" through judicial interpretation.

II. Personal Liberty under the Indian Constitution:

1. Source:

o Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law."

2. Meaning:

o Initially, "personal liberty" was narrowly interpreted (A.K. Gopalan case, 1950).

o Later, the Supreme Court widened its scope (Maneka Gandhi case, 1978),
aligning it closer to the U.S. "due process" concept.

o Now includes rights such as privacy, travel, livelihood, dignity, and education.

3. Procedure Established by Law:

o Originally allowed any law depriving liberty if validly passed.

o Post Maneka Gandhi, the procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, similar to
American substantive due process.

4. Judicial Expansion:

o Right to Privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, 2017), Right to Clean

Environment, Right to Livelihood (Olga Tellis case) are part of "personal liberty".
III. Key Differences Between the Two:

Aspect USA (Liberty) India (Personal Liberty)

Term Used Liberty Personal Liberty

Constitutional 5th & 14th Amendments (Due

Article 21 (Procedure Established by Law)
Basis Process)

Original Broad, covers personal &

Narrow (initially limited to physical freedom)
Interpretation economic rights

Includes privacy, dignity, Includes privacy, livelihood, dignity,

Current Scope
marriage, autonomy environment, travel, shelter

Substantive Due Process; Shifted from procedural formality to

Judicial Approach
proactive expansion substantive fairness post Maneka Gandhi

Historically covered (Lochner Mainly social welfare focus; less emphasis

Economic Rights
Era) but later limited on freedom of contract

IV. Convergence of Doctrines:

 Indian courts have gradually adopted a "due process" like interpretation to ensure
fairness, bridging the gap with the American model.

 However, socio-economic rights (like education, environment) are emphasized more in

India, reflecting different developmental priorities.

Conclusion:

While "liberty" in the USA has traditionally emphasized individual autonomy and limited state
interference, India’s expression of "personal liberty" has evolved to balance individual rights
with the needs of social justice and welfare. Over time, Indian constitutional jurisprudence has
moved closer to the American "due process" doctrine, showing a blend of procedural fairness
and substantive rights protection.

Q.3 Discuss the Freedom of Speech and Expression with special attention to the Liberty of
Press as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and the interpretation of the Freedom
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
I. Freedom of Speech and Expression in India (Article 19(1)(a)):

1. Scope:

o Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to
freedom of speech and expression.

o It includes the freedom of the press, right to information, right to silence, right to
criticize, etc.

2. Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)):

Unlike the absolute American guarantee, India's freedom is subject to reasonable
restrictions in the interests of:

o Sovereignty and integrity of India,

o Security of the state,

o Friendly relations with foreign states,

o Public order,

o Decency or morality,

o Contempt of court,

o Defamation,

o Incitement to offence.

3. Judicial Interpretation on Liberty of Press:

o Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973):

The Supreme Court held that freedom of press is implicit in Article 19(1)(a). Price
and page restrictions on newspapers were struck down as violating press
freedom.

o Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985):

The Court emphasized the importance of the press in a democratic society and
held that the government should avoid acts that could curtail press freedom.

o Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962):

Any law that directly affects the circulation of a newspaper violates Article 19(1)
(a).
 o Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):
The Court stated that freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation
of all democratic organizations.

4. Right to Information:
Recognized as part of freedom of speech (e.g., in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975)),
leading to the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005.

II. Freedom of Speech under the American Constitution (First Amendment):

1. First Amendment Text:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

2. Scope:

o The U.S. Constitution provides an absolute protection against governmental

restrictions, barring certain narrow exceptions (e.g., obscenity, defamation,
incitement to violence).

o The guarantee applies to both speech and press equally.

3. Judicial Interpretation:

o New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Pentagon Papers Case):
Government's attempt to suppress publication of classified documents was held
unconstitutional; strong protection against prior restraint was upheld.

o Near v. Minnesota (1931):

The Court ruled against prior restraint, establishing a near-absolute bar against
government censorship.

o Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969):

Speech advocating violence or law violation is protected unless it incites
imminent lawless action.

o New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964):

Public officials cannot sue for defamation without proving actual malice,
ensuring robust press freedom to criticize government.

III. Comparative Analysis:

Aspect India (Article 19(1)(a)) USA (First Amendment)

Nature of Not absolute; subject to reasonable Nearly absolute, with few specific
Freedom restrictions exceptions

Not separately mentioned but derived Explicitly covered as part of the First
Press Freedom
from speech freedom Amendment

Strictly prohibited except in

Generally prohibited but possible
Prior Restraint exceptional cases (e.g., national
under reasonable restrictions
security)

Criminal defamation laws valid (e.g., Defamation allowed only if actual

Defamation Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India malice for public figures (NY Times v.
(2016)) Sullivan)

Restrictions Broad (sovereignty, decency, public Narrow (incitement to violence,

Grounds order, etc.) obscenity, defamation)

No explicit constitutional guarantee;

Right to
Recognized as part of Article 19(1)(a) transparency ensured through laws like
Information
FOIA

IV. Conclusion:

While both India and the USA value freedom of speech and the press, the American approach
is more absolute, limiting state interference even when national interests are involved. India's
approach reflects a balance between individual rights and societal/public interests, allowing
the government greater room to impose restrictions when necessary.
The Supreme Court of India has carefully expanded the interpretation of this freedom but
within the constitutional framework of reasonable restrictions, unlike the First Amendment,
which offers near-complete protection against governmental encroachment.

If you want this answer in bullet points, short notes, or with recent case references, feel free to
ask!

You said:

What is the freedom of religion? Explain the judicial interpretation of the freedom under the
constitution of India and of the United States.
ChatGPT said:

Q.4 What is Freedom of Religion? Explain the Judicial Interpretation of the Freedom under the
Constitution of India and of the United States.

I. Meaning of Freedom of Religion:

Freedom of Religion means the right of individuals or groups to profess, practice, and
propagate their religion or belief without interference or coercion from the state or others.

It ensures:

 Belief and Faith (Inner freedom)

 Practice and Propagation (External freedom)

 Protection from forced conversion or religious discrimination.

II. Freedom of Religion under the Indian Constitution:

Constitutional Provisions:

1. Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice, and propagate
religion.

2. Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs.

3. Article 27 – No person shall be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion of any
particular religion.

4. Article 28 – Freedom from religious instruction in state-funded institutions.

Reasonable Restrictions:

 Public order,

 Morality,

 Health,

 Other Fundamental Rights.

Judicial Interpretation in India:

 1. The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952):
The Court held that religious practices are protected but social practices are subject to
reform.

2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar

(1954):
The term "religion" includes beliefs, rituals, and practices considered essential by the
followers.

3. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The state must not favor any religion.

4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (Sabarimala Case):

The right to worship cannot be denied to women on the basis of age or menstruation
under the garb of 'essential religious practices'.

5. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) (Triple Talaq Case):

The Court struck down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, holding it is not an
essential practice in Islam.

6. Recent Developments:
Debates on religious conversions, hijab ban, and CAA-NRC show the judiciary balancing
religious freedom with state interests.

III. Freedom of Religion under the United States Constitution:

Constitutional Provisions:

1. First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."

 Two key doctrines:

o Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from establishing an official

religion or favoring one religion over another.

o Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice religion freely.

Judicial Interpretation in the U.S.:

 1. Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
The Establishment Clause applies to state governments as well (through the 14th
Amendment).

2. Engel v. Vitale (1962):

School-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.

3. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

Introduced the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause:

o Secular purpose,

o Neither advances nor inhibits religion,

o No excessive government entanglement with religion.

4. Employment Division v. Smith (1990):

The state can prohibit religious practices (e.g., peyote use) if the law is neutral and
generally applicable.

5. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014):

Recognized corporate religious rights, allowing refusal to cover contraceptives on
religious grounds.

6. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018):

Held that a baker could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on
religious beliefs.

IV. Comparative Analysis:

Aspect India USA

Right to profess, practice, Right to free exercise & prohibition on

Scope
propagate religion (Art. 25-28) state establishment (1st Amendment)

Secular State; State may regulate Secular State; Absolute separation of

State Religion
non-essential religious practices Church and State

Propagation of Not expressly mentioned but covered by

Explicitly allowed (Art. 25)
Religion Free Exercise Clause

Reasonable restrictions (public Laws must be neutral and generally

Restrictions
order, morality, health) applicable
Aspect India USA

Balances individual rights with Strict separation (e.g., no prayer in public

Judicial
social reform (e.g., Triple Talaq, schools), strong protection of personal
Approach
Sabarimala) belief

V. Conclusion:

While both India and the U.S. constitutionally guarantee freedom of religion, their approaches
differ:

 India allows state intervention to reform religious practices and ensure equality and
social welfare.

 U.S. courts prioritize individual religious autonomy but maintain a strict wall between
religion and state (Establishment Clause).

Thus, both systems strive to balance individual freedoms with constitutional principles, but in
contextually distinct ways.

Q.5 What are Civil and Political Rights? Explain with special reference to the Indian
Constitution and the American Constitution.

I. Meaning of Civil and Political Rights:

1. Civil Rights:

o Protect individual freedom from state intrusion.

o Include the right to life, liberty, equality, privacy, and freedom from
discrimination.

2. Political Rights:

o Allow individuals to participate in the political process.

o Include the right to vote, contest elections, form political parties, and express
political opinions.

These rights are fundamental to ensure dignity, freedom, and active participation in
governance.
II. Civil and Political Rights under the Indian Constitution:

1. Civil Rights:

o Article 14: Right to Equality before law and equal protection of laws.

o Article 15 & 16: Prohibition of discrimination and equality in public employment.

o Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability.

o Article 19: Protection of freedoms – speech, movement, residence, association,

etc.

o Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.

o Article 20 & 22: Protection in criminal proceedings and preventive detention

safeguards.

2. Political Rights:

o Article 326: Universal adult suffrage (Right to vote).

o Article 19(1)(c): Freedom to form associations, unions, political parties.

o Right to contest elections: Though not a fundamental right, this is a statutory

political right under Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. Judicial Interpretation in India:

o Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded Article 21 to include the

right to travel abroad.

o PUCL v. Union of India (2003): Right to know criminal antecedents of election

candidates is part of voter’s rights.

o Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act,
protecting online free speech.

III. Civil and Political Rights under the American Constitution:

1. Civil Rights:

o 14th Amendment: Equal protection of laws, due process.

o 5th Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

o 4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 o 1st Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly.

2. Political Rights:

o 15th Amendment: Right to vote cannot be denied on race, color.

o 19th Amendment: Right to vote for women.

o Voting Rights Act, 1965: Eliminates racial discrimination in voting.

o 1st Amendment: Right to petition the government, form political associations.

3. Judicial Interpretation in USA:

o Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Ended racial segregation in schools.

o Roe v. Wade (1973): Recognized right to privacy (abortion rights).

o Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Recognized corporate political speech rights.

o Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Rights of accused under custody clarified.

IV. Comparative Analysis:

Aspect India USA

Bill of Rights (1st–

Part III – 10th
Source of Rights Fundamental Amendments),
Rights (Art. 12-35) other
Amendments

Equality, due
Equality, non-
process, privacy,
Civil Rights Emphasis discrimination,
protection from
personal liberty
state

Universal adult Strong voting

suffrage, right to rights protections,
form parties, free political speech,
Q.6 Explain the Power and Procedure for Amendments speech association
of Fundamental Rights under the American and Indian
Constitutions.
Aspect India USA

I. Meaning of Constitutional Amendment:

A constitutional amendment refers to the formal

change, addition, or deletion of provisions in a
Constitution, including provisions relating to
fundamental rights.
This power ensures that the Constitution remains
dynamic and adaptable to societal needs.

II. Power and Procedure of Amendment under the

Indian Constitution:

1. Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 368 of the Indian Constitution governs

the amendment process.

2. Types of Amendments:

Type Procedure

Passed by simple majority in

By Simple Majority Parliament (Not under Article
368).

By Special Majority
Requires:
(Most amendments)

 Majority of total membership of each House,

and

 2/3 majority of members present and voting. |

| By Special Majority + Ratification | In addition
to the special majority:

 Requires ratification by at least half of the State

Legislatures.

 Used for matters affecting federal structure

(e.g., High Court jurisdiction, representation of
Aspect India USA

states in Parliament). |

3. Fundamental Rights Amendment:

 Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights by

following the procedure under Article 368.

 However, the "Basic Structure" doctrine (laid

down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
(1973)) restricts Parliament from altering the
basic features of the Constitution (e.g., Rule of
Law, Judicial Review, Secularism, Federalism,
etc.).

Important Cases:

 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):

Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

 Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):

Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

Parliament can amend any part, but not the
Basic Structure.

 Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):

Reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine.

III. Power and Procedure of Amendment under the

American Constitution:

1. Constitutional Provisions:

 Article V of the U.S. Constitution governs the

amendment process.

2. Procedure for Amendment:

Method Requirement

Proposal - 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress

Aspect India USA

Method Requirement

Stage (Senate & House of Representatives), or

 By a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of

State Legislatures. (Convention method never
used so far). |
| Ratification Stage | - Approval by 3/4 of State
Legislatures, or

 Ratification by 3/4 of State Conventions. (Used

only once for the 21st Amendment). |

3. Amendment of Bill of Rights (Fundamental Rights):

 The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights)

guarantee fundamental rights.

 Amendments affecting rights require the same

rigorous process.

 Example:

o 13th Amendment (1865): Abolished

slavery.

o 19th Amendment (1920): Granted

women the right to vote.

4. Rigidity of Procedure:

 Only 27 amendments in over 230 years.

 Very difficult to amend compared to India.

 Supreme Court has power to interpret but

cannot amend the Constitution.

IV. Comparative Analysis:

Aspect India USA

Power to Parliament (under Congress

Aspect India USA

Aspect India USA

Article 368) can proposes, states

Amend
amend, but not ratify; rights may
Fundamental
violate the Basic be amended but
Rights
Structure very difficult

Very rigid and

Three types;
Amendment complex; requires
flexible compared
Procedure federal and state
to the US
approval

No such doctrine;
Basic Structure
amendments
Judicial Role Doctrine limits
must follow
Parliament’s power
Article V only

Over 100
Only 27
Frequency of constitutional
amendments
Amendments amendments since
since 1789
1950

Ease of Comparatively Very difficult

Amendment easier (flexible) (rigid)

V. Conclusion:

 The Indian Constitution provides a flexible and

graded procedure, allowing Parliament to
amend Fundamental Rights but subject to the
Basic Structure limitation.

 The American Constitution follows a strict and

rigid process, making amendment of
fundamental rights extremely rare and difficult,
ensuring stability but also reducing adaptability.

is

Nature of Rights Some rights limited Most rights

Aspect India USA

to citizens (e.g.,
speech, assembly); extend to all
some for all "persons"
persons (e.g., life, (citizens + aliens)
liberty)

Strict scrutiny
Reasonable
against state
Restrictions restrictions (public
restrictions (esp.
order, morality)
speech, religion)

Privacy,
Right to privacy,
reproductive
clean environment,
Judicial Expansion rights, political
education included
spending as
in Article 21
speech recognized

V. Conclusion:

Both India and the USA guarantee civil and political rights but their nature, scope, and judicial
development differ:

 The Indian Constitution provides for social justice-oriented rights with scope for
reasonable restrictions in public interest.

 The American Constitution strongly protects individual liberty with minimal state
interference, particularly regarding free speech and political participation.

However, both countries ensure that these rights remain the backbone of their democratic and
constitutional governance structures.

Q.7 What is Judicial Supervision of Election? Explain it.

I. Meaning of Judicial Supervision of Election:

Judicial Supervision of Elections refers to the power of courts to oversee, review, and
adjudicate matters related to the conduct of elections, ensuring that elections are free, fair,
and conducted according to law. This is a crucial feature in democratic systems to prevent
electoral fraud, malpractice, or violation of electoral laws.
Judicial supervision generally covers:

 Disputes relating to election conduct.

 Scrutiny of electoral rolls.

 Validation or invalidation of election results.

 Ensuring adherence to the constitutional and statutory provisions during elections.

II. Judicial Supervision in India:

1. Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 324:
Vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election
Commission of India (ECI).

 Article 329:
Bars courts from interfering in electoral matters except through election petitions as
provided by law.

2. Judicial Role:

 After elections, High Courts and the Supreme Court can adjudicate disputes through
election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

 Pre-election disputes (e.g., disqualification of candidates, electoral roll issues) can be

entertained in certain cases.

3. Important Cases:

 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

The Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi's election for electoral malpractices,
leading to the declaration of Emergency.

 PUCL v. Union of India (2003):

Supreme Court held that voters have a right to know the background of candidates,
enhancing transparency.

 Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013):

Convicted legislators and MPs were disqualified immediately upon conviction.

4. Limitations:
  Courts do not intervene in the actual conduct of elections (like polling or counting),
which is under ECI's domain, unless there are proven illegalities.

 Election Petitions can only be filed after declaration of results (except in pre-election
disputes like nomination rejection).

III. Judicial Supervision in the United States:

1. Constitutional Basis:

 Article I, Section 4:
Allows states to regulate the "times, places and manner" of elections, but subject to
congressional oversight.

2. Judicial Role:

 Federal and State Courts oversee disputes regarding:

o Voter suppression,

o Gerrymandering,

o Counting procedures,

o Candidate eligibility,

o Violations of voting rights.

3. Important Cases:

 Bush v. Gore (2000):

Supreme Court intervened to stop the Florida recount, effectively deciding the outcome
of the Presidential election.

 Shelby County v. Holder (2013):

Struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, 1965, limiting federal oversight on changes
to state voting laws.

 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021):

Upheld Arizona’s restrictions on ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting, limiting
claims under the Voting Rights Act.

4. Limitations:

 Courts avoid direct involvement in political questions.

  Federalism gives states primary control over election procedures, subject to
constitutional limits.

IV. Comparative View:

Aspect India USA

Primary State Election Authorities + Federal

Election Commission of India (ECI)
Supervision oversight

Post-election disputes via election Can hear pre-election and post-election

Judicial Role petitions; limited pre-election disputes; often involved in voting rights
interference issues

Scope of Disqualification, corrupt practices, Voter suppression, gerrymandering, vote

Supervision electoral roll issues counting procedures

Important
Indira Gandhi Case, Lily Thomas Case Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder
Cases

Cannot interfere during election Reluctant to interfere in "political

Limitation
process (except in exceptional cases) questions"

V. Conclusion:

Judicial supervision ensures free and fair elections by:

 Upholding constitutional and statutory provisions,

 Adjudicating electoral disputes,

 Protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

In both India and the USA, courts balance non-interference in electoral processes with
protection of voter rights and fair practices, reflecting their democratic commitments.

Let me know if you'd like this in short notes, point-wise, or in a diagrammatic format!

Q.8 Doctrine of basic feature is a limit on the amending power of the Parliament.
Discuss the doctrine and amenability.
I. Introduction:

The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial principle evolved by the Supreme Court of India,
which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or
destroyed by amendments under Article 368. This doctrine acts as a check on the amending
power of Parliament, ensuring that the core philosophy of the Constitution remains intact.

II. Meaning of Doctrine of Basic Structure:

 The doctrine implies that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the
Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its "basic structure" or essential features.

 This ensures that the Constitution remains consistent with its foundational principles,
such as democracy, rule of law, and secularism.

III. Origin and Development of the Doctrine:

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):

Supreme Court held that Parliament's power under Article 368 is absolute, even to
amend Fundamental Rights.

2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):

Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

Landmark case establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Court held:

o Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.

o But it cannot alter the Basic Structure — this is beyond its amending power.

4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

Applied the doctrine to invalidate clauses that sought to immunize the election of the
Prime Minister from judicial review.

5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):

Reaffirmed that limited amending power is itself part of the Basic Structure.

IV. Elements of Basic Structure (Indicative List by the Supreme Court):

  Supremacy of the Constitution

 Sovereign, Democratic, and Republic character

 Secularism

 Separation of Powers

 Federalism

 Judicial Review

 Rule of Law

 Independence of Judiciary

 Free and Fair Elections

 Unity and Integrity of the Nation

 Parliamentary system of government

Note: The list is not exhaustive; the Supreme Court decides on a case-by-case basis.

V. Amenability of Fundamental Rights:

 Fundamental Rights are subject to amendment by Parliament under Article 368.

 However, if an amendment damages or destroys the Basic Structure, it will be declared

unconstitutional.

 Thus, Fundamental Rights form a part of the Basic Structure, especially rights like:

o Article 14 (Right to Equality)

o Article 19 (Freedoms)

o Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

Example:

 Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Amendments curtailing fundamental rights cannot violate the Basic Structure.

 Minerva Mills Case:

Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) is
part of the Basic Structure.
VI. Significance of the Doctrine:

1. Limits Parliament's Power:

Parliament cannot use Article 368 to damage the core principles of the Constitution.

2. Preserves Constitutional Identity:

Protects India’s identity as a democratic, secular, socialist republic.

3. Ensures Judicial Review:

The judiciary retains the power to review constitutional amendments.

4. Protects Fundamental Rights:

Prevents the dilution or removal of essential rights like equality and liberty.

VII. Criticism of the Doctrine:

 Not explicitly stated in the Constitution — evolved by judicial interpretation.

 Critics argue it gives excessive power to the judiciary over Parliament.

 However, it is widely accepted as a necessary safeguard for constitutional democracy.

VIII. Conclusion:

The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a constitutional limitation on the amending power of
Parliament, ensuring that amendments do not destroy the essential features of the
Constitution. It has become a cornerstone in maintaining the balance between constitutional
flexibility and stability, safeguarding democracy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms in
India.

Q.9: Right to Life under Article 21 includes all that goes along with it. Discuss the different
facets of this right along with Judicial Pronouncements.

I. Introduction to Article 21:

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law."

This simple yet powerful provision has been interpreted by the judiciary to include a wide range
of rights essential for a dignified human existence — beyond mere animal survival.

II. Expansive Interpretation by the Judiciary:

The Supreme Court of India has expanded the meaning of "life and personal liberty" over the
decades to include various rights and facets necessary to lead a meaningful, dignified life.

III. Important Facets of Article 21:

1. Right to Live with Human Dignity:

o Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

Expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, not mere physical
survival.

o Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981):

Right to life includes the right to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and
clothing.

2. Right to Livelihood:

o Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):

Right to livelihood is part of the right to life as deprivation of livelihood would
strip a person of the means to live.

3. Right to Privacy:

o K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):

Recognized privacy as a fundamental right, integral to Article 21, encompassing
bodily autonomy, personal data, and choice.

4. Right to Clean Environment:

 o M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987, 1991):
Right to life includes the right to a pollution-free environment, safe drinking
water, and proper sanitation.

5. Right to Health and Medical Care:

o Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996):

The government is duty-bound to provide basic health services as part of Article
21.

6. Right to Education:

o Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra

Pradesh (1993):
Right to education up to the age of 14 recognized as a fundamental part of life
and dignity.

7. Right against Sexual Harassment:

o Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):

Protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace linked to the
right to live with dignity under Article 21.

8. Right to Die with Dignity (Euthanasia):

o Common Cause v. Union of India (2018):

Recognized the legality of passive euthanasia and a person’s right to die with
dignity under Article 21.

9. Right against Custodial Violence:

o D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):

Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture, linking them to Article 21
protections.
 10. Right to Shelter:

 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996):

Shelter is a basic need and part of the right to life, as it enables a person to live with
dignity.

11. Right to Speedy Trial:

 Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979):

Speedy trial is an essential part of life and liberty, ensuring fair justice.

12. Right to Travel Abroad:

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

The right to travel abroad also falls under the umbrella of personal liberty.

IV. Conclusion:

Article 21 is not confined to protection against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty but
extends to ensure a dignified, quality life encompassing various social, economic, and personal
rights. The judicial pronouncements have transformed Article 21 into the most progressive and
dynamic provision in the Indian Constitution.

Q.10 Article 19 lays down the freedoms but they are not absolute. Comment.
Q.10: Article 19 lays down the freedoms but they are not absolute. Comment.

I. Introduction:

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedoms to citizens to

ensure the development of personality, free thought, and expression in a democratic society.
However, these freedoms are not absolute — they are subject to reasonable restrictions to
maintain public order, morality, and the interests of the State.

II. Six Fundamental Freedoms under Article 19(1):

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression

 2. Freedom to Assemble Peacefully and without Arms

3. Freedom to Form Associations or Unions

4. Freedom to Move Freely throughout the Territory of India

5. Freedom to Reside and Settle in any part of India

6. Freedom to Practice any Profession or Carry on any Occupation, Trade or Business

III. Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2) to 19(6)):

These freedoms can be restricted in the interest of the following considerations:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article 19(2)]:

Subject to:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Security of the State,

 Friendly relations with foreign States,

 Public order,

 Decency or morality,

 Contempt of court,

 Defamation,

 Incitement to an offense.

Example:

 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):

Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and restricting free speech
excessively.

2. Freedom of Assembly [Article 19(3)]:

Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interests of:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Public order.
3. Freedom of Association [Article 19(4)]:

Reasonable restrictions in the interests of:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Public order,

 Morality.

4 & 5. Freedom of Movement and Residence [Article 19(5)]:

Restrictions for:

 The interests of the general public,

 Protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.

6. Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business [Article 19(6)]:

Subject to:

 Reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public,

 State monopoly in any trade or business.

IV. Key Judicial Pronouncements:

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

Initially, freedoms were interpreted narrowly.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

Expanded interpretation — restrictions must also satisfy Article 14 (equality) and Article
21 (life and liberty).

3. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):

Public order added as a ground for restricting freedom of speech.

4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985):

Recognized the importance of a free press, but also justified restrictions in the larger
public interest.
V. Why Not Absolute?

 To balance individual liberty with societal needs.

 To prevent misuse of freedoms leading to disorder or harm to others.

 Ensures the protection of state security, public order, morality, and decency.

VI. Conclusion:

Though Article 19 provides essential freedoms for personal development and democracy,
these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the interests of society as a whole.
The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring these restrictions are neither excessive nor
arbitrary, thereby maintaining a balance between individual rights and collective welfare.

Q.10: Article 19 lays down the freedoms but they are not absolute. Comment.

I. Introduction:

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedoms to citizens to

ensure the development of personality, free thought, and expression in a democratic society.
However, these freedoms are not absolute — they are subject to reasonable restrictions to
maintain public order, morality, and the interests of the State.

II. Six Fundamental Freedoms under Article 19(1):

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression

2. Freedom to Assemble Peacefully and without Arms

3. Freedom to Form Associations or Unions

4. Freedom to Move Freely throughout the Territory of India

5. Freedom to Reside and Settle in any part of India

6. Freedom to Practice any Profession or Carry on any Occupation, Trade or Business

III. Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2) to 19(6)):

These freedoms can be restricted in the interest of the following considerations:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article 19(2)]:

Subject to:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Security of the State,

 Friendly relations with foreign States,

 Public order,

 Decency or morality,

 Contempt of court,

 Defamation,

 Incitement to an offense.

Example:

 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):

Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and restricting free speech
excessively.

2. Freedom of Assembly [Article 19(3)]:

Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interests of:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Public order.

3. Freedom of Association [Article 19(4)]:

Reasonable restrictions in the interests of:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India,

 Public order,

 Morality.
4 & 5. Freedom of Movement and Residence [Article 19(5)]:

Restrictions for:

 The interests of the general public,

 Protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.

6. Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business [Article 19(6)]:

Subject to:

 Reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public,

 State monopoly in any trade or business.

IV. Key Judicial Pronouncements:

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

Initially, freedoms were interpreted narrowly.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

Expanded interpretation — restrictions must also satisfy Article 14 (equality) and Article
21 (life and liberty).

3. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):

Public order added as a ground for restricting freedom of speech.

4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985):

Recognized the importance of a free press, but also justified restrictions in the larger
public interest.

V. Why Not Absolute?

 To balance individual liberty with societal needs.

 To prevent misuse of freedoms leading to disorder or harm to others.

 Ensures the protection of state security, public order, morality, and decency.

VI. Conclusion:
Though Article 19 provides essential freedoms for personal development and democracy,
these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the interests of society as a whole.
The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring these restrictions are neither excessive nor
arbitrary, thereby maintaining a balance between individual rights and collective welfare.

Q.11 Protective discrimination with special references to emerging judicial

response to the problems of group inequalities. Explain?
I. Introduction:

Protective Discrimination (also called Positive Discrimination or Affirmative Action) refers to

special measures taken by the State to uplift disadvantaged and backward groups in society,
such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), women,
and minorities.

It is based on the principle that true equality requires treating unequals unequally to bring
them to the same platform.

II. Constitutional Provisions Supporting Protective Discrimination:

1. Article 15(4) & 15(5):

Allow special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward
classes, SCs, STs, and women.

2. Article 16(4):
Provides for reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately
represented.

3. Article 46:
Directive Principle encouraging the State to promote the interests of weaker sections.

4. Article 335:
Recognizes claims of SCs/STs in services and posts.

III. Purpose of Protective Discrimination:

 To correct historical injustices and centuries of social exclusion.

 To provide equal opportunity in education, employment, and public life.

 To remove social and economic inequalities and ensure inclusive growth.

IV. Emerging Judicial Response:

1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):

Initially, caste-based reservations were struck down; led to First Constitutional Amendment
(1951) adding Article 15(4).

2. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963):

Declared 50% ceiling limit on reservations, emphasizing merit.

3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — Mandal Commission Case:

 Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs.

 Prohibited reservation in promotions (later reversed for SC/ST in certain cases).

 Introduced the ‘creamy layer’ concept to exclude the well-off among OBCs.

4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):

 Upheld reservation in promotions for SC/ST, but with conditions:

o Evidence of backwardness,

o Inadequate representation,

o No compromise on administrative efficiency.

5. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):

 Removed the requirement to collect quantifiable data on backwardness for SC/STs in

promotions.

 ‘Creamy layer’ exclusion extended to SC/ST reservations in promotions.

6. EWS Reservation Case — Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):

  Upheld 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under 103rd
Constitutional Amendment.

 Allowed economic criteria-based reservation (outside the 50% ceiling for SC/ST/OBC).

7. Recent Trends:

 The judiciary now balances social justice with merit and efficiency.

 It has clarified boundaries: No unlimited reservations, focus on quantifiable data, and

exclusion of the advanced (creamy layer).

 Introduced new categories like EWS reservation, recognizing changing socio-economic

realities.

V. Challenges and Criticisms:

 Risk of reverse discrimination.

 Perceived as political appeasement in some cases.

 Debate on whether economic criteria should replace caste-based reservations.

 Ineffective implementation at grassroots levels.

VI. Conclusion:

Protective discrimination is a necessary tool to achieve substantive equality in a society

burdened with historical injustices and caste hierarchies. However, the Supreme Court has
carefully shaped and limited its scope to ensure that such measures do not undermine
meritocracy or the broader constitutional goal of equality for all citizens.

The Court’s evolving response reflects an attempt to balance social justice with fairness and
efficiency, ensuring that reservation policies remain just, necessary, and constitutionally valid.

Let me know if you want this as short notes, a flowchart, or comparative chart format for quick
understanding!

A. Right to Life (Article 21):

 Guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

  States: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law."

 The term "life" means more than mere existence; it includes:

o Right to live with dignity

o Right to livelihood

o Right to health and clean environment

o Right to education

o Right to privacy

o Right to shelter

 Expanded by judicial interpretation in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy case).

B. Right to Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)):

 Guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) to all citizens.

 Includes the freedom to express thoughts and opinions freely through speech, writing,
printing, or other means.

 Essential for democracy and personal development.

 Subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds of:

o Security of the state

o Public order

o Decency or morality

o Sovereignty and integrity of India

o Contempt of court

o Defamation

 Important cases: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman v. Union of India.

C. Right to Equality (Articles 14–18):

  Enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution.

 Ensures:

o Equality before law (Article 14)

o Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of

birth (Article 15)

o Equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16)

o Abolition of untouchability (Article 17)

o Abolition of titles (Article 18)

 Allows special provisions (protective discrimination) for backward classes to promote

real equality.

 Important cases: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
(Mandal case).

 Q.13 Describe judicial determination of the scope of the "personal liberty",

"procedure established by law" and the American expressions "liberty' and
'due process".Radical changes in judicial thinking in this area.
Here is a comprehensive yet clear explanation of Q.13:

Judicial Determination of the Scope of "Personal Liberty", "Procedure Established by Law"

and the American Expressions "Liberty" and "Due Process" — Radical Changes in Judicial
Thinking

I. "Personal Liberty" under the Indian Constitution (Article 21):

 Article 21 guarantees:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law."

 The term "personal liberty" has been widely interpreted by the judiciary to include:

o Right to privacy (Puttaswamy case)

o Right to shelter

o Right to livelihood (Olga Tellis case)

 o Right to clean environment

o Right to education (Unnikrishnan case)

o Right to die with dignity (Common Cause case)

 Earlier, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court gave a narrow
interpretation, holding that personal liberty could be restricted by any law enacted by
Parliament.

II. "Procedure Established by Law" (India) vs. "Due Process of Law" (USA):

India:

 "Procedure established by law" literally means any procedure laid down by law passed
by legislature — even if the law is unfair or unreasonable (A.K. Gopalan).

 Radical Change in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

o Court ruled that procedure must be "just, fair and reasonable", thus introducing
an element of substantive due process into Indian law.

o Article 21 must now be read in harmony with Articles 14 and 19 — ensuring that
laws are neither arbitrary nor oppressive.

USA:

 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of
"life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 "Due Process" includes two aspects:

1. Procedural Due Process:

Fair, proper, and unbiased procedure (e.g., right to notice, hearing).

2. Substantive Due Process:

Protection against unjust laws themselves, not just unfair procedures.

 Used to strike down laws violating fundamental rights (e.g., Roe v. Wade — right to
abortion).

III. American "Liberty":

  In the U.S., "liberty" under Due Process Clause includes:

o Freedom of speech

o Freedom of religion

o Privacy rights (Griswold v. Connecticut)

o Right to marry, abortion, bodily autonomy.

 Thus, liberty is a broad, evolving concept, protected against both State action and
unjust laws.

IV. Radical Changes in Judicial Thinking (India):

1. From Formal to Substantive Interpretation:

o A.K. Gopalan (1950): Narrow, literal interpretation.

o Maneka Gandhi (1978): Broader, fair, reasonable and just interpretation — shift
towards American 'due process' model.

2. Expansion of Article 21 Rights:

o Includes right to environment, health, education, privacy, shelter, livelihood —

similar to the broad scope of liberty in the U.S.

3. Judicial Activism:

o Indian courts actively interpret "personal liberty" to encompass socio-economic

rights unlike the U.S. where "liberty" focuses more on civil-political rights.

V. Conclusion:

 India's “procedure established by law” is no longer mere formality; courts require the
law and procedure to be just, fair, and non-arbitrary, similar to the "due process of law"
in the U.S..

 This transformation reflects a radical change in judicial philosophy, promoting a deeper

protection of fundamental rights and moving towards a rights-based constitutional
democracy.

Q.14 Freedom of Religion Judicial interpretation of the freedom under the Constitution of India
and of the United States. Elaborate
ChatGPT said:

Here is an elaborated answer to your question on Freedom of Religion under Indian and
American Constitutions with Judicial Interpretations:

Freedom of Religion: Judicial Interpretation under the Constitution of India and the United
States

I. Introduction:

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of constitutional democracies like India and the United
States. Both nations provide constitutional protection to religious freedom but their judicial
interpretations have developed differently due to unique socio-political contexts.

II. Freedom of Religion under the Indian Constitution:

Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 25: Freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate
religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

 Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.

 Article 27: Freedom from compulsory payment of taxes for promotion of any particular
religion.

 Article 28: Freedom from religious instruction in certain educational institutions.

Judicial Interpretation:

1. Essential Religious Practices Doctrine:

o Developed in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri

Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954).

o The court determines what constitutes an “essential religious practice” protected

by the Constitution.

2. Limitations on Freedom:

o Religious freedom is not absolute. Subject to public order, morality, and health.
 o Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Children exempted from singing the
national anthem on religious grounds.

3. Social Reform:

o State can intervene in religious practices for social welfare and reform.

o Sabarimala Case (2018): The ban on women’s entry to the temple struck down
as unconstitutional discrimination.

4. Right to Propagate Religion:

o Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): The right to propagate does
not include the right to forcibly convert another person.

III. Freedom of Religion under the U.S. Constitution:

Constitutional Provisions:

 First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof…”

 Includes two main clauses:

1. Establishment Clause: Prevents the government from establishing an official

religion.

2. Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely.

Judicial Interpretation:

1. Establishment Clause:

o Everson v. Board of Education (1947): Introduced the concept of a “wall of

separation” between church and state.

o Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Introduced the Lemon Test to determine violation:

 Law must have a secular purpose.

 Must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

 Must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

2. Free Exercise Clause:

 o Sherbert v. Verner (1963): Laws burdening religious practice must pass the
"compelling state interest" test.

o Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Neutral laws of general applicability are

valid even if they incidentally burden religious practice.

3. Balancing Test:

o The court balances individual religious rights against state interests like public
order and welfare.

IV. Comparative Analysis:

Aspect India United States

Absolute separation of church and

Freedom subject to public order, morality,
Scope state; emphasis on individual
health; State can regulate for social reform.
liberty.

State Allowed, e.g., in temple entry, Restricted; government cannot

Intervention untouchability abolition. endorse or inhibit religion.

Lemon Test, Compelling Interest

Judicial Tests Essential Religious Practices Doctrine.
Test.

Propagation Right to propagate but no forced Full freedom to preach or propagate

Right conversion. beliefs.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Sherbert

Examples Sabarimala (2018), Shirur Mutt (1954)
v. Verner (1963)

V. Conclusion:

 In India, religious freedom is balanced with the State's duty to ensure social justice,
reform, and constitutional morality.

 In the United States, the judiciary emphasizes the strict separation of State and religion,
protecting both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

 Judicial interpretations in both countries have continuously evolved, reflecting their

respective constitutional philosophies and societal needs.

Q.15 Explain in detail Judicial supervision of Elections?

ChatGPT said:

Here is a detailed explanation of Judicial Supervision of Elections:

Judicial Supervision of Elections

I. Introduction:

Elections are the foundation of a democratic government. To ensure free, fair, and impartial
elections, judicial supervision plays an essential role. The judiciary acts as the guardian of
electoral rights, ensuring that elections are conducted according to constitutional and legal
provisions.

II. Judicial Supervision in India:

1. Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 324:
Vests the power of "superintendence, direction, and control" of elections in the Election
Commission of India (ECI).

 However, disputes relating to elections are subject to judicial review by the High Courts
and the Supreme Court under:

o Article 226 (High Court's Writ Jurisdiction).

o Article 136 (Special Leave Petition to Supreme Court).

2. Election Petitions:

 After the election process is over, disputes related to elections can be challenged by
filing election petitions.

 Article 329(b): Bars interference by courts in election matters before completion, except
through election petitions as per law.

 Governed by Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

3. Grounds for Challenging Elections:

 Corrupt Practices (e.g., bribery, undue influence, booth capturing).

 Improper acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.

  Non-compliance with constitutional and legal provisions.

4. Important Cases:

 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

The election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was set aside by Allahabad High Court, a
landmark in judicial control over elections.

 Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996):

Use of religion during elections declared as a corrupt practice.

5. Role of Judiciary:

 Ensures the Election Commission functions within its constitutional mandate.

 Settles disputes via Election Tribunals/High Courts.

 Protects the purity of the electoral process.

III. Judicial Supervision in the United States:

1. Constitutional Framework:

 Article I, Section 4:
Provides that the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections shall be prescribed by
State legislatures, subject to Congress' alteration.

 Federal courts ensure elections comply with:

o The U.S. Constitution.

o Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act, 1965.

2. Key Judicial Interventions:

 Bush v. Gore (2000):

Supreme Court intervened in the Florida vote recount, effectively deciding the
Presidential election.

 Shelby County v. Holder (2013):

Invalidated the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, affecting federal
oversight of State electoral laws.

3. Role of Judiciary:

 Protects voter rights (e.g., no racial discrimination).

  Determines the constitutionality of State electoral laws.

 Can order recounts, supervise voter roll purging, or prevent gerrymandering.

IV. Comparative Summary:

Aspect India United States

Election Commission of India +

Supervisory Body State Election Boards + Federal Judiciary
Judiciary

Post-election supervision via Pre- and post-election intervention in

Judicial Role
election petitions voting rights, counting

Landmark Cases Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder

Nature of Mainly after the electoral process Can intervene even during electoral
Intervention is over process

V. Conclusion:

Judicial supervision of elections ensures transparency, fairness, and legality in the electoral
process. While India’s judiciary primarily acts post-election through election petitions, the U.S.
judiciary plays a more proactive role, especially in protecting fundamental voting rights even
before the polls. In both nations, courts act as ultimate protectors of the democratic process.