🔆Kesavananda Bharti Case 1973
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.
✅It was challenged under Article 26, regarding the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅ Article 368 & Article 32: Whether the Indian Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights?
✅Upto which extent parliament can amend constitution?
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅Preamble is a part of Constitution
✅Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitations.
✅ Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues and interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.
✅Parliament in the exercise of constituent power can amend any provision of the Constitution. There are no express limitations to the power of amendment. The power to amend is wide and unlimited. The power to amend means the power to add, alter or repeal any provision of the Constitution.
✅Neither the Constitution nor an amendment of the Constitution can be or is law within the meaning of Article 13.
✅Supreme Court deduced the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ - It implies that though Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot in any manner interfere with the features so fundamental to the Constitution without which the Constitution would be spiritless.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅Kesavananda Bharati case overruled Golaknath case judgment with regard to the power to amend the Constitution.
✅ All the amendments to the Constitution were subjected to the test of ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine.
✅The government to undo the implications of Kesavananda Bharati case. The government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, giving ‘unlimited power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution.’ It also provided that ‘validity of no constitutional amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground’.
✅The Supreme Court held that the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of grand and novel vision expressed in the preamble. In fact, the Preamble was relied on in imposing the implied limitations on amendment under the Article 368. Further, in S R Bommai Case the Supreme Court reiterated that Preamble indicates basic structure of the Constitution.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.
✅It was challenged under Article 26, regarding the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅ Article 368 & Article 32: Whether the Indian Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights?
✅Upto which extent parliament can amend constitution?
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅Preamble is a part of Constitution
✅Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitations.
✅ Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues and interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.
✅Parliament in the exercise of constituent power can amend any provision of the Constitution. There are no express limitations to the power of amendment. The power to amend is wide and unlimited. The power to amend means the power to add, alter or repeal any provision of the Constitution.
✅Neither the Constitution nor an amendment of the Constitution can be or is law within the meaning of Article 13.
✅Supreme Court deduced the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ - It implies that though Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot in any manner interfere with the features so fundamental to the Constitution without which the Constitution would be spiritless.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅Kesavananda Bharati case overruled Golaknath case judgment with regard to the power to amend the Constitution.
✅ All the amendments to the Constitution were subjected to the test of ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine.
✅The government to undo the implications of Kesavananda Bharati case. The government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, giving ‘unlimited power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution.’ It also provided that ‘validity of no constitutional amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground’.
✅The Supreme Court held that the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of grand and novel vision expressed in the preamble. In fact, the Preamble was relied on in imposing the implied limitations on amendment under the Article 368. Further, in S R Bommai Case the Supreme Court reiterated that Preamble indicates basic structure of the Constitution.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍1
🔆Berubari Union case (1960):
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Conflict arose regarding the power of the Parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan, as per the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Whether the implementation of the Agreement in relation to the Berubari Union and the exchange of Enclaves require any legislative action either by way of the law of Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution or a suitable amendment of the Constitution under the provisions of Article 368 or both?
▪️Judgment delivered:
The Supreme Court in Berubari Union case concluded that:
✅The preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
✅The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, including Article 1.
✅ Article 1 (3) (c) does not confer power or authority on India to acquire territories.
✅A cession of a part of the territory of India would lead to the diminution of the territory of the Union of India. Such an amendment can be made only under Article 368.
✅A legislative action necessary for the implementation of the Agreement relating to the Berubari Union.
✅A law of Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution would be incompetent and a law relatable to Article 368 of the Constitution is competent and necessary, for exchange of the enclaves too, the same procedure is to be followed.
✅SC recognised that the Preamble could be used as a guiding principle if a term in any article of the Constitution is ambiguous or has more than one meaning.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅The Parliament of India enacted the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960, to give effect to the Nehru-Noor agreement of 1958. The Berubari Union was divided and enclaves were exchanged on the basis of enclaves for enclaves without any consideration of territorial loss or gain.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Conflict arose regarding the power of the Parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan, as per the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Whether the implementation of the Agreement in relation to the Berubari Union and the exchange of Enclaves require any legislative action either by way of the law of Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution or a suitable amendment of the Constitution under the provisions of Article 368 or both?
▪️Judgment delivered:
The Supreme Court in Berubari Union case concluded that:
✅The preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
✅The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, including Article 1.
✅ Article 1 (3) (c) does not confer power or authority on India to acquire territories.
✅A cession of a part of the territory of India would lead to the diminution of the territory of the Union of India. Such an amendment can be made only under Article 368.
✅A legislative action necessary for the implementation of the Agreement relating to the Berubari Union.
✅A law of Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution would be incompetent and a law relatable to Article 368 of the Constitution is competent and necessary, for exchange of the enclaves too, the same procedure is to be followed.
✅SC recognised that the Preamble could be used as a guiding principle if a term in any article of the Constitution is ambiguous or has more than one meaning.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅The Parliament of India enacted the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960, to give effect to the Nehru-Noor agreement of 1958. The Berubari Union was divided and enclaves were exchanged on the basis of enclaves for enclaves without any consideration of territorial loss or gain.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍3
🔆Basic Features of the Constitution
▪️Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
✅In this case, the SC held that the amending power of the Parliament is subject to
the basic features of the Constitution.
▪️ Shankari Prasad case
(1951)
✅The Supreme Court said that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✅ Word ‘law’ under Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts.
✅The Parliament can abridge any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.
▪️ I.R. Coelho case (2007):
✅Supreme Court said that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule.
✅The court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the constitution and it cannot be taken away by putting a law under the Ninth Schedule.
✅ The judgment put an end to the politico-legal controversy by holding the Parliament’s amending power subject to Judicial Review in line with
Kesavananda Bharti’s case judgement that the violation of Doctrine of Basic Structure will never be tolerated.
▪️ Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
✅Rule of Law was added to the list of basic features of the constitution.
▪️ Waman Rao Case (1981)
✅The SC reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine.
✅It drew a line of demarcation (April 24th, 1973 date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to the date.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
✅In this case, the SC held that the amending power of the Parliament is subject to
the basic features of the Constitution.
▪️ Shankari Prasad case
(1951)
✅The Supreme Court said that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✅ Word ‘law’ under Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts.
✅The Parliament can abridge any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.
▪️ I.R. Coelho case (2007):
✅Supreme Court said that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule.
✅The court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the constitution and it cannot be taken away by putting a law under the Ninth Schedule.
✅ The judgment put an end to the politico-legal controversy by holding the Parliament’s amending power subject to Judicial Review in line with
Kesavananda Bharti’s case judgement that the violation of Doctrine of Basic Structure will never be tolerated.
▪️ Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
✅Rule of Law was added to the list of basic features of the constitution.
▪️ Waman Rao Case (1981)
✅The SC reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine.
✅It drew a line of demarcation (April 24th, 1973 date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to the date.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍3
🔆Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950):
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Romesh Thappar challenged order issued by the State of Madras under the Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which contravenes the fundamental right of speech and expression conferred on him by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Restriction on Freedom of press and violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article 19(2).
✅The Court also had to determine whether the impugned provision was void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being in violation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression.
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅The Supreme Court said that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
✅Freedom of speech and press laid at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion there is no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.
✅It held that the liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Romesh Thappar challenged order issued by the State of Madras under the Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which contravenes the fundamental right of speech and expression conferred on him by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Restriction on Freedom of press and violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article 19(2).
✅The Court also had to determine whether the impugned provision was void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being in violation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression.
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅The Supreme Court said that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
✅Freedom of speech and press laid at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion there is no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.
✅It held that the liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
🔆M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1986): Environment Law
✅Issue/dispute at the core:
🔸Industrial accidents and their liabilities. This judgment came on incident of Oleum gas (fuming sulfuric acid) leaked from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi, causing damages to several people.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Whether hazardous industries are allowed to operate in densely populated areas? Hazardous industries regulating mechanisms? How is the liability and amount of compensation determined? What is the scope of Article 32 (Constitutional Remedies) & Article 21(no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty) of the Constitution?
✅Judgment delivered:
🔸Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks.
🔸SC found strict liability principle inadequate to protect citizens’ rights and replaced it with the absolute liability principle.
✅Impact of the Judgment:
🔸 It also changed the scope of Environment Law in India for the first time, an industry was held responsible for an accident and forced to pay compensation.
🔸 It sought to address and rectify the miscarriage of justice and reinstate faith in the judiciary.
🔸The Supreme Court performed an extra-judicial role. The verdict was decided on taking into account the need for industrialization and the fact that accidents are an unavoidable consequence of it.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
✅Issue/dispute at the core:
🔸Industrial accidents and their liabilities. This judgment came on incident of Oleum gas (fuming sulfuric acid) leaked from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi, causing damages to several people.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Whether hazardous industries are allowed to operate in densely populated areas? Hazardous industries regulating mechanisms? How is the liability and amount of compensation determined? What is the scope of Article 32 (Constitutional Remedies) & Article 21(no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty) of the Constitution?
✅Judgment delivered:
🔸Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks.
🔸SC found strict liability principle inadequate to protect citizens’ rights and replaced it with the absolute liability principle.
✅Impact of the Judgment:
🔸 It also changed the scope of Environment Law in India for the first time, an industry was held responsible for an accident and forced to pay compensation.
🔸 It sought to address and rectify the miscarriage of justice and reinstate faith in the judiciary.
🔸The Supreme Court performed an extra-judicial role. The verdict was decided on taking into account the need for industrialization and the fact that accidents are an unavoidable consequence of it.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Judicial interventions on Sedition law:
✅ In 1951, the Punjab High Court had ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech.
✅Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962:
🔸The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that this power was required by the state to protect itself.
🔸However, it said that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government by way of criticism or comment. A citizen can criticise the government to the extent it does not incite people into violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
✅P.Alavi vs State of Kerala,1982:
The Supreme Court held that sloganeering, criticising of Parliament or Judicial setup does not amount to sedition.
✅Balwant Singh v State of Punjab,1995:
🔸The Supreme Court acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”.
🔸The court held that mere raising of slogans by two individuals alone cannot be sid as sedition. Further, it is also not considered as an attempt aimed to excite hatred or disaffection against the government.
#prelims
#mains
#polity
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
✅ In 1951, the Punjab High Court had ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech.
✅Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962:
🔸The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that this power was required by the state to protect itself.
🔸However, it said that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government by way of criticism or comment. A citizen can criticise the government to the extent it does not incite people into violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
✅P.Alavi vs State of Kerala,1982:
The Supreme Court held that sloganeering, criticising of Parliament or Judicial setup does not amount to sedition.
✅Balwant Singh v State of Punjab,1995:
🔸The Supreme Court acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”.
🔸The court held that mere raising of slogans by two individuals alone cannot be sid as sedition. Further, it is also not considered as an attempt aimed to excite hatred or disaffection against the government.
#prelims
#mains
#polity
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
🔆Amit Sahani v Commissioner of Police & Others. (2020)
[ Right to Assemble/Protest ]
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Advocate Amit Sahani seeking to remove the protests against CAA-NRC at Shaheen Bagh, alleging that the protests were blocking the roads, affecting the right of free movement of the public.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅ Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights,i.e., the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
✅Right to protest vs Right to commute
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅ Supreme Court has found the indefinite “occupation” of a public road by the Shaheen Bagh protestors unacceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.
✅The judgment upheld the right to peaceful protest against the law but made it clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied, and that too indefinitely.
✅ Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case, each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was made to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.
✅The Court held that democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
[ Right to Assemble/Protest ]
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅Advocate Amit Sahani seeking to remove the protests against CAA-NRC at Shaheen Bagh, alleging that the protests were blocking the roads, affecting the right of free movement of the public.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅ Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights,i.e., the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
✅Right to protest vs Right to commute
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅ Supreme Court has found the indefinite “occupation” of a public road by the Shaheen Bagh protestors unacceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.
✅The judgment upheld the right to peaceful protest against the law but made it clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied, and that too indefinitely.
✅ Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case, each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was made to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.
✅The Court held that democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍1
🔆Sabarimala temple case/ Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. the State of Kerala (2018):
( Freedom of Religion)
Supreme Court Allows Women Entry into Sabarimala Temple, which it termed as a violation of women’s right to practice religion.
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Essential religious practice, Right to Freedom of Religion vs. constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved
✅Article 14,15, 21 &25, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 (restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple)
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅SC stated that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
✅It overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that personal law is not 'law' or 'law in force' under Article 13 and held that immunizing customs takes away the primacy of the constitution.
✅ It takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution and curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
✅Preventing women’s entry in the temple with the irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution
✅SC held that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are "polluted and impure" is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and the notions stigmatized women.
✅No customs can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity,
liberty, and equality and customs and personal law have a significant impact on the civil status of individuals.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
( Freedom of Religion)
Supreme Court Allows Women Entry into Sabarimala Temple, which it termed as a violation of women’s right to practice religion.
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Essential religious practice, Right to Freedom of Religion vs. constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved
✅Article 14,15, 21 &25, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 (restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple)
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅SC stated that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
✅It overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that personal law is not 'law' or 'law in force' under Article 13 and held that immunizing customs takes away the primacy of the constitution.
✅ It takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution and curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
✅Preventing women’s entry in the temple with the irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution
✅SC held that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are "polluted and impure" is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and the notions stigmatized women.
✅No customs can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity,
liberty, and equality and customs and personal law have a significant impact on the civil status of individuals.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
🔆State of Mizoram vs. Dr. C. Sangnghina case (2019):
[ Double jeopardy- Article 20 ]
✅SC has held that the bar of double jeopardy will not apply if the person was discharged due to lack of evidence.
✅Issue/dispute at the core: It was in review of order passed by the Guwahati High Court in August 2015, upholding a Special Court decision to decline to entertain a second charge sheet filed in corruption case against the accused on the ground of double jeopardy.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code say that no
person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
✅Judgment delivered: Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of “double jeopardy” cannot be invoked at all. SC said, the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest.
In another judgment SC has said that directing a person to part with his voice sample to police was not a violation of his fundamental right to privacy and self-incrimination.
✅Impact of the Judgment: SC invalidate earlier judgment in which, there is no bar for the competent authority to issue a proper order of sanction for prosecution.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
[ Double jeopardy- Article 20 ]
✅SC has held that the bar of double jeopardy will not apply if the person was discharged due to lack of evidence.
✅Issue/dispute at the core: It was in review of order passed by the Guwahati High Court in August 2015, upholding a Special Court decision to decline to entertain a second charge sheet filed in corruption case against the accused on the ground of double jeopardy.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code say that no
person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
✅Judgment delivered: Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of “double jeopardy” cannot be invoked at all. SC said, the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest.
In another judgment SC has said that directing a person to part with his voice sample to police was not a violation of his fundamental right to privacy and self-incrimination.
✅Impact of the Judgment: SC invalidate earlier judgment in which, there is no bar for the competent authority to issue a proper order of sanction for prosecution.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
🔆Fundamental rights vs Directive Principle :
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
🔆Role of Governor
▪️S. R Bommai case of 1994:
✅ The court gave primacy to a floor test as a check of majority.
✅It also said that the power under Article 356 is extraordinary and must be used wisely and not for political gain.
✅SC held secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution of India.
▪️Rameshwar Prasad case (2006):
✅Governor cannot shut out post poll alliances altogether as one of the ways in which a popular government may be formed.
✅ It said unsubstantiated claims of horse-trading or corruption in efforts at government formation cannot be cited as reasons to dissolve the Assembly
▪️Nabam Rebia judgment (2016):
✅SC ruled that Governor’s discretion Article 163 is limited and his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, actuated by good faith & tempered by caution.
▪️ Hargovind Pant v. Raghukul Tilak (1979) :
✅Supreme Court affirmed that the office of the Governor was not subordinate/subservient to the Government of India
▪️Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India, 2005 :
✅ SC struck the imposition of governor's rule after an inconclusive election and
non- conveying of assembly even once. Since as per Bommai case no floor test was done the court struck down the president rule.
▪️ B.P. Singhal vs Union of India case (2010) :
✅Removal of Governor
✅In, SC observed that power to remove Governor cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. This power should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
▪️Harish Chandra Rawat v Union of India case (2016) :
✅ Supreme Court has ordered the floor test for the dismissed chief minister after the governor had assumed looks of the majority due to defections and the president dismissed the state government.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
▪️S. R Bommai case of 1994:
✅ The court gave primacy to a floor test as a check of majority.
✅It also said that the power under Article 356 is extraordinary and must be used wisely and not for political gain.
✅SC held secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution of India.
▪️Rameshwar Prasad case (2006):
✅Governor cannot shut out post poll alliances altogether as one of the ways in which a popular government may be formed.
✅ It said unsubstantiated claims of horse-trading or corruption in efforts at government formation cannot be cited as reasons to dissolve the Assembly
▪️Nabam Rebia judgment (2016):
✅SC ruled that Governor’s discretion Article 163 is limited and his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, actuated by good faith & tempered by caution.
▪️ Hargovind Pant v. Raghukul Tilak (1979) :
✅Supreme Court affirmed that the office of the Governor was not subordinate/subservient to the Government of India
▪️Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India, 2005 :
✅ SC struck the imposition of governor's rule after an inconclusive election and
non- conveying of assembly even once. Since as per Bommai case no floor test was done the court struck down the president rule.
▪️ B.P. Singhal vs Union of India case (2010) :
✅Removal of Governor
✅In, SC observed that power to remove Governor cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. This power should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
▪️Harish Chandra Rawat v Union of India case (2016) :
✅ Supreme Court has ordered the floor test for the dismissed chief minister after the governor had assumed looks of the majority due to defections and the president dismissed the state government.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
❤1
🔆RECOGNISING SEX WORK AS A PROFESSION
✅Issue : Recognising sex work as a “profession”, SC has observed that its practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Article 19 (6); Article 21; Article 23; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Judgment delivered:
✅Sex Work is a profession whose practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law.
✅Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’.
✅Sex workers should not be “arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised” whenever there is a raid on
any brothel.
✅ A child of a sex worker should not be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade, the court held.
✅ Further, if a minor is found living in a brothel or with sex workers, it should not be presumed that the child was trafficked.
✅The police to not discriminate against sex workers who lodge a criminal complaint of offence committed against them is of a sexual nature.
✅Media should play a responsible role and take “utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest, raid and rescue operations.
✅Basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅Sex workers will get equal legal protection.
✅The police will bound to take complaint from sex worker and act in accordance with the law.
✅ If a brothel is raided, the sex workers involved will not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.
✅Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault will be given all of the same services as a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical attention.
✅ Police will ensure the basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
✅Issue : Recognising sex work as a “profession”, SC has observed that its practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law.
▪️Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
✅Article 19 (6); Article 21; Article 23; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Judgment delivered:
✅Sex Work is a profession whose practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law.
✅Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’.
✅Sex workers should not be “arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised” whenever there is a raid on
any brothel.
✅ A child of a sex worker should not be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade, the court held.
✅ Further, if a minor is found living in a brothel or with sex workers, it should not be presumed that the child was trafficked.
✅The police to not discriminate against sex workers who lodge a criminal complaint of offence committed against them is of a sexual nature.
✅Media should play a responsible role and take “utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest, raid and rescue operations.
✅Basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅Sex workers will get equal legal protection.
✅The police will bound to take complaint from sex worker and act in accordance with the law.
✅ If a brothel is raided, the sex workers involved will not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.
✅Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault will be given all of the same services as a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical attention.
✅ Police will ensure the basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
👍15
🔆Fundamental rights vs Directive Principle :
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
👍14❤1
🔆M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1986): Environment Law
✅Issue/dispute at the core:
🔸Industrial accidents and their liabilities. This judgment came on incident of Oleum gas (fuming sulfuric acid) leaked from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi, causing damages to several people.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Whether hazardous industries are allowed to operate in densely populated areas? Hazardous industries regulating mechanisms? How is the liability and amount of compensation determined? What is the scope of Article 32 (Constitutional Remedies) & Article 21(no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty) of the Constitution?
✅Judgment delivered:
🔸Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks.
🔸SC found strict liability principle inadequate to protect citizens’ rights and replaced it with the absolute liability principle.
✅Impact of the Judgment:
🔸 It also changed the scope of Environment Law in India for the first time, an industry was held responsible for an accident and forced to pay compensation.
🔸 It sought to address and rectify the miscarriage of justice and reinstate faith in the judiciary.
🔸The Supreme Court performed an extra-judicial role. The verdict was decided on taking into account the need for industrialization and the fact that accidents are an unavoidable consequence of it.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
✅Issue/dispute at the core:
🔸Industrial accidents and their liabilities. This judgment came on incident of Oleum gas (fuming sulfuric acid) leaked from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi, causing damages to several people.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved: Whether hazardous industries are allowed to operate in densely populated areas? Hazardous industries regulating mechanisms? How is the liability and amount of compensation determined? What is the scope of Article 32 (Constitutional Remedies) & Article 21(no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty) of the Constitution?
✅Judgment delivered:
🔸Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks.
🔸SC found strict liability principle inadequate to protect citizens’ rights and replaced it with the absolute liability principle.
✅Impact of the Judgment:
🔸 It also changed the scope of Environment Law in India for the first time, an industry was held responsible for an accident and forced to pay compensation.
🔸 It sought to address and rectify the miscarriage of justice and reinstate faith in the judiciary.
🔸The Supreme Court performed an extra-judicial role. The verdict was decided on taking into account the need for industrialization and the fact that accidents are an unavoidable consequence of it.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍10❤1
🔆Sabarimala temple case/ Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. the State of Kerala (2018):
( Freedom of Religion)
Supreme Court Allows Women Entry into Sabarimala Temple, which it termed as a violation of women’s right to practice religion.
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Essential religious practice, Right to Freedom of Religion vs. constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved
✅Article 14,15, 21 &25, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 (restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple)
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅SC stated that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
✅It overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that personal law is not 'law' or 'law in force' under Article 13 and held that immunizing customs takes away the primacy of the constitution.
✅ It takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution and curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
✅Preventing women’s entry in the temple with the irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution
✅SC held that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are "polluted and impure" is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and the notions stigmatized women.
✅No customs can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity,
liberty, and equality and customs and personal law have a significant impact on the civil status of individuals.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
( Freedom of Religion)
Supreme Court Allows Women Entry into Sabarimala Temple, which it termed as a violation of women’s right to practice religion.
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
✅ Essential religious practice, Right to Freedom of Religion vs. constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
✅Constitutional and legislative provisions involved
✅Article 14,15, 21 &25, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 (restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple)
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅SC stated that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
✅It overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that personal law is not 'law' or 'law in force' under Article 13 and held that immunizing customs takes away the primacy of the constitution.
✅ It takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution and curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
✅Preventing women’s entry in the temple with the irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution
✅SC held that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are "polluted and impure" is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and the notions stigmatized women.
✅No customs can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity,
liberty, and equality and customs and personal law have a significant impact on the civil status of individuals.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @CSE_EXAM
👍17
Forwarded from CSE EXAM upsc prelims mains CAPF CDS NDA
🔆Fundamental rights vs Directive Principle :
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
▪️Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
✅Judgment delivered: Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. The SC further held that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guar anteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
✅Importance of case: It was a first major verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue of Reservation.
🔸 It led to the First amendment of Indian Constitution.
🔸 The SC held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court.
🔸Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.
🔸 This continued in other cases such as Qureshi v/s State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan cases court confirmed this stand.
▪️Golak Nath vs. The State
of Punjab (1967) :
✅SC said that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles.
✅It forced the government to amend the constitution
▪️Minerva Mills v/s Union of
India (1980) case :
✅Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment Act 1976 (further widened the scope of the Fundamental Rights), declaring it to be violative of the basic structure.
✅The supreme court viewed that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP and they were complimentary of each other.
✅The Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP).
✅Giving absolute priority to one over other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
▪️Note: Other related cases :
✅The Kerala Education Bill vs Unknown (1958)
✅Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
✅Waman Rao and Others vs Union of India and oth ers (1980) etc.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgment
Join @upsc_polity_governance
👍11