t.
me/shrimeesrivastava
instagram.com/shrimeesrivastava
SUNIL BATRA VS.DELHI
ADMINISTRATION
• FACT’S
• In the instant case, a petition was admitted by the
Court arising out of a letter written by Sunil Batra,
a convict in the Tihar Jail to one of the judges
alleging that a warden had caused a brutal
bleeding injury to another convict
named Prem Chand
• QUESTION OF LAW
• The question before the Court was related
to the human rights of prisoners in jail and
the continued extension of fundamental
rights to prisoners despite conviction.
• HELD
• On the role of the Court:
• The Court liberalised the procedural limitations
of the writ of Habeas Corpus by recognising
right of the prisoner against excesses
committed by jail authorities.
• Directives:
• Holding that the prisoner Prem Chand was illegally
tortured, the Court gave the following clear and
binding directives to the State and prison staff in order
to ensure the humanistic of jail administration.
• Supervisory Judicial Role: Lawyers nominated by the
District Magistrate, Sessions Judge High Court and the
Supreme Court to be given all facilities for interviews,
visits an confidential communication with prisoners
subject to discipline and security considerations.
• The lawyers so designated are bound to make
periodical visits and recon and report to the concerned
Court results which have relevance to legal grievances.
• Grievance Recording:
• Grievance Deposit Boxes to be maintained
with access granted to all prisoners: These
boxes are to be opened often and
appropriate action for redress to be taken.
• Judicial Intervention:
• Magistrates and sessions judges to personally
visit jails, make expeditious enquiries and
take suitable remedial action. In appropriate
cases, reports shall be made to the High
Court and if required, Habeas action to be
taken
• Judicial Appraisal: No solitary or punitive
cell, no hard labour or dietary change as
painful additive, no other punishment or
denial of privileges and amenities, no
transfer to other prisons with penal
consequences, shall be imposed without
appraisal from the Sessions judge.
• In addition to these, the Court also gave
certain recommendations:
• The State to prepare and circulate in Hindi a
Prisoner's Handbook to bring about legal
awareness of the prisoner's rights. Periodic
bulletin band updates regarding improvements
programmes and a wall paper for grievance
redressal. (Section 61 of Prisoner's Act)
• The State shall take steps to keep up to the Standard
Minimum Rules for Treatment Prisoners
recommended by the United Nations, especially
those relating to work a wages, treatment with
dignity community contact and correctional
strategies.
• A correctional-cum orientation course for the prison
stall inculcating the Constitutional values,
therapeutic approaches and tension - free
management
• Free legal services to the prisoner programmes shall
be promoted by professional organizations
recognised by the Court such as for e.g. Free Legal
Aid (Supreme Court) Society.
Minerva Mills VS. Union of India
• Minerva Mills Ltd. was a private textile company. In
August 1970, the Government of India ordered an
investigation of the company for low production
under the Industries(Development Regulation) Act,
1951.
• On 19 October1971, the Government authorized
the National Textile Corporation Lid., to take over
the management of Minerva Mills on the ground
that its affairs were being managed in a manner
highly detrimental to public interest.
• The company was then nationalized under the Sick
Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974.
• The petitioner challenged the
constitutional validity of Sick Textile
Undertakings(Nationalization) Act. They
also challenged the constitutionality of
Sections 4 and 55 of
the 42nd Amendment.
• QUESTIONS OF LAW
• Whether the amendments introduced by
Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution
(42ndAmendment)Act,1976 damage the
basic structure of the Constitution?
• Held
• Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution
Amendment Act, 1976 introduced a number of
changes.
• Section 4 amended Article 31C while Section 55
inserted Clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 of the
Constitution.
• Clause 5 purports to remove all limitations on
the amending power while clause (4) deprives
the Courts of their power to call in question any
amendment of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court held both the newly inserted clauses
(4) and (5) of Article 368 (inserted vide Section 55 of the
42nd Constitutional Amendment) as unconstitutional and
invalid.
• They were found to transgress the limitations imposed on
the parliament's power to amend by the decision of this
Court in Keshvanand Bharati case.
• It held that the Parliament could not extend its amending
powers in order to destroy the basic and essential
features of the Constitution.
• The Court, held "Three Articles of our
Constitution, and only three, stand
between the heaven of freedom into
which Tagore wanted his country to
awake and the abyss of unrestrained
power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21"
• Part IlI and IV stand on the same pedestal.
None can be prioritized over the other.
• The harmony and balance between
fundamental rights and directive principles
is an essential feature of the Basic Structure
of the Constitution.
• "The Indian Constitution is founded on the
bedrock of the balance between Parts Ill and
IV.
• To give absolute primacy to one over the other
is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
This harmony and balance between
fundamental rights and directive principles is
essential feature of the Basic Structure of
the Constitution.
Bachan Singh VS. State of Punjab
• Bachan Singh was convicted and sentenced to death
for the murder of three persons.
• The death penalty was upheld by the High Court.
Appealing by special leave, he challenged the
Constitutional validity of the death penalty provided
in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
• Whether the imposition of death penalty under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 354(3) CrPC
was arbitrary, unreasonable and
unconstitutional and whether the facts found by
the lower courts would be considered "special
reasons" for awarding the death sentence as is
required under Section354(3) CrPC.
• HELD
• The Court in the said case dismissed
the challenge to the constitutionality
of Section 302 of the IPC.
• The Court held that "The six fundamental
freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1) are
not absolute rights. Firstly, they are subject to
inherent restraints stemming from the
reciprocal obligation of one member of a civil
society to so use his rights as not to infringe or
injure similar rights of another.
• Secondly, under Cls. (2) to (6) these rights
have been expressly made subject to the
power of the State to impose reasonable
restrictions, which may even extend to
prohibition, on the exercise of those rights.
• "The expression "special reasons" in the
context of this provision, obviously means
"exceptional reasons" founded on the
exceptionally grave circumstances of, the
particular case relating to the crime as well
as the criminal.“
• The Apex Court, however, laid down the
principle of "rarest of rare cases" in
awarding of the death penalty.
• The Court said that it was to give
sufficient weight to the mitigating
circumstances pertaining to the
criminal along with the aggravating
circumstances relating to the crime.
S.P. GUPTA V UNION OF INDIA
• Facts
• In this Case the Supreme Court took up
questions affecting the principle of
independence of judiciary, a basic feature
of the Constitution of india
• Question Of Law
• One of the issues raised was regarding the
validity of Central Government orders on the
non-appointment of two judges and the
disclosure of correspondence between the
Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court and the Chief Justice of India
• Held
• The Court held that there were two main
grounds upon which the Central
Government's decision regarding
appointment and transfer could be
challenged.
• The Court reasoned that an open and
effective participatory democracy requires
accountability and access to information by
the public about the functioning of the
government.
• At the very outset, the Court elaborated on the
concept of independence of judiciary saying:
• "It is necessary to remind ourselves that the
concept of independence of the judiciary is not
limited only to independence from executive
pressure or influence but it is a much wider
concepts which takes within its sweep
independence from many other pressures and
prejudices. It has many dimensions, namely,
fearlessness of other power centers, economic
or political, and freedom from prejudices
acquired and nourished by the class to which
the Judges belong."
• Article 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India deal with the
appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the various
High Courts.
• They were discussed at length by the Court while deciding
who has the final voice in the appointment of judges to the
higher judiciary.
• The Court held that there were only two grounds on the
basis of which the Central Government's decision regarding
appointment and transfer can be challenged:
• (1) when there was no full and effective consultation
between the Central Government and the appropriate
authorities and,
• (2) the decision was based on irrelevant grounds.
• Under these considerations, the Court has to decide whether
disclosure of a particular document would be contrary to
public interest.
• In the present case, it was held that the
correspondence in question was not
protected.
• Since it dealt with the appointment and
transfer of judges it was held to be one
of great importance to public interest.
The Court recognized that a democratic
society cannot keep the activities of the
government hidden from the public in
order to avoid accountability and
criticism.
• "The Court also defined open government
from the right to know which is implicit in
the right to free speech and expression
under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS
UNION OF INDIA
• FACTS
• The Honorable Supreme Court treated a letter
addressed by the petitioner to Hon'ble Justice Bhagwati
as a writ petition underArticle32oftheConstitution.
• In the letter the petitioner alleged that a large number
of bonded " labourers worked in inhuman and
intolerable conditions in stone quarries and mines
situated in Faridabad, Haryana.
• It prayed for the proper implementation of the Mines
act 1952, Bonded Labour System Abolition
Act1976,MinimumWagesAct, among others.
• QUESTIONS OF LAW
• Whether any fundamental right of the workmen
referred to in the petition is infringed so as to
attract Article 32 of the Constitution?
• Can a letter addressed by a party to this Court be
treated as a writ petition?
• Whether the Bonded Labour System Abolition
Act, 1976, covers forced labour?
• HELD
• Article 21 of the Constitution confers
upon every individual the right to live
with human dignity.
• It derives its life and breath from the
Directive Principles of State Policy and
particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article
39 and Articles 41 and42.
• These rights are fundamental to human
existence and make a man's life
meaningful and worth living.
• On account of social and economic disability, of an
individual or group any member of the public can
move the Court under Clause (1) Article 32 of
the Constitution
• Public Interest litigation is an opportunity for the
Government and its officers to make basic human
rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community and to assure them
social and economic justice.
• The Court further held that the Bonded Labour
System(Abolition)Act1976recognizes forced labour as a form
of bonded labour.
• The thrust of the Act is against the continuance of any form of
forced labor.
• Whenever a labourer is made to provide forced labour, the
Court would raise a presumption that he is required to do so
in consideration of an advance or other economic
consideration received by him and he is therefore a
bonded labourer.'
• Moreover the Court held that the Central
and State Governments were
constitutionally obligated to ensure the
implementation of provisions of acts such
as Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of
Wages Act 1948, Maternity Benefits Act
1961, Bonded Labour Abolition Act etc.
• The law prescribing procedure for
deprivation of personal liberty of a
person will have to stand the test of both
Article 19 and 21.
t.me/shrimeesrivastava
instagram.com/shrimeesrivastava
