Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

(Established by Punjab Act No. 12 of 2006)

Bhadson Road, Sidhuwal, Punjab
(Accredited ‘A’ Grade by NAAC)

Teaching Schedule
of

Constitutional Law-I

for
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
III Semester
Session 2020-2021

Compiled By :
Dr. Lakhwinder Singh
&
Mr. Siddhartha Fuller

1
 Table of Contents
Sr. No. Contents Page No.

1. Detailed Course Content 3-29

2. Tentative Teaching Schedule 30-31

3. Teaching Pedagogy 32

4. List of Assignments 33-34

5. Important Points : Instructions to 35

Students

2
 Constitutional Law-I

B.A.LL.B. (Hons) Third Semester

Module-I
 Preamble and Features of the Indian Constitution
Recommended Readings:
o Book titled “Indian Legal Syatem” by Joseph Minattur, (2006) published by
Indian Law Institute- Relevant pages 22-111.
o Book titled “Constitutional And Administrative Law” by Hilaire Barnett,
Fourth Edition, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, (2002)- Chapter 1
“Scope of Constitutional Law” relevant pages 3-42
o Book titled “Constitutional and Administrative Law,” by John Alder, Eight
Edition, (2011). Relevant pages 1-68.
o Article by Maru Bazezew, “Constitutionalism,” 3 Mizan L. Rev. 358 2009
(Available at Heinonline)
o Article entitled “Kar Seva of the Indian Constitution? Reflections on Proposals
for Review of the Constitution” by Upendra Baxi, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 11 (Mar. 11-17, 2000), pp. 891-895, available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4409018.pdf?refreqid=search%3Af683fec95c1
796fa902274251d2979d5
o Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976
o Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, re, AIR 1960 SC 845- Supreme
Court observed that “Preamble is not part of the Constitution.” But in
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Supreme
Court held that preamble of the Constitution is part of the Indian Constitution.
Preamble is also the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
o S.R. Bommai v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1- ‘Secularism’ is a part of the
basic structure of the Constitution.

3
  Union and its Territory, and Citizenship (Articles 1-4 and 5-11)
Recommended Readings:
o The question of acquisition of Pondicherry was challenged in the case of
N.Masthan Sahib v Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry.1 The Supreme Court
held that mere having administrative control over the territory of Pondicherry
did not mean that the territory had been transferred to India. It is not a transfer
of territory. The court said that for the legal transfer of the territory it was
necessary to ratify the treaty of cession between France and India.
o The Supreme Court in K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar v The Chief Commissioner,
Pondicherry & Anr2 held that a writ under Art. 32 cannot be issued against a
quasi-judicial authority outside the territory of India even though that authority
was under the control of the Government of India.
o In S. R. Bhansali v. Union of India3 it was held that mere physical possession
of territory by force of arms did not amount to “acquisition” within the
meaning of Article 1(3) (c ) and 2 till the territory was annexed; the territory
conquered during the India-Pakistan War of December 1971, had not become
part of the territory of India.4
o In R.C. Poudyal v Union of India5 the Supreme Court held that terms and
conditions of admission of a new State are subject to judicial review.
o In Babulal Parate v State of Bombay6 the Court held that Parliament is not
bound by the recommendations made by the state legislature on the Bill to
amend the boundaries of the State. This view has again been reiterated in
Pradeep Chaudhary v Union of India.7 In this case too, the apex court held
that the Parliament is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the
State Legislature. The Court said that forming a new State is within the
legislative sphere of the Indian Parliament only. And any of the reference

1
AIR 1962 SC 797.
2
AIR 1963 SC 1464.
3
AIR 1973 Raj HC 49.
4
ibid. 50-51.
5
AIR 1993 SC 1804.
6
AIR 1960 SC 51.
7
(2009) 12 SCC 248.

4
 made by the concerned state legislature would not be binding upon the
Parliament even if these were sent in time.
o In Re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves8 the Supreme Court said that
Article 3 of the Indian Constitution does not apply in case of the Union
territories. The court held that Union Territories are outside the sphere of
Article 3(b), (c), (d) and (e). The court said that alteration of Union
Territories’ boundaries or names cannot be done under Article 3 of the Indian
Constitution.
o Supreme Court in Union of India v Sukumar Sengupta9 held that where a
territory was leased to the State of Bangladesh, it was not necessary to amend
the Constitution of India. It was held that there was no cession of territory.
There was no abandonment of sovereignty and, therefore, no constitutional
amendment was necessary.
o Supreme Court said in Louis Raedt v Union of India10, that the person should
show his appropriate state of mind required for acquisition of domicile by
choice.
o In Pradeep Jain v Union of India11, the Supreme Court held that there is only
one domicile in India. The court said that the domicile does not change with
the change of residence within India.
o In Hari Shankar Jain v Sonia Gandhi,12 the Supreme Court opined that a
petition to challenge one’s citizenship can be filed before the High Court or
election judge.
o The Supreme Court in State Trading Corporation v Commercial Tax Officer 13
held that company or corporation is not a citizen of India and cannot claim
fundamental rights. The court said that citizenship is concerned with natural
persons only. The court said that citizenship cannot be conferred upon the
juristic persons. However, the Supreme Court in Cooper v Union of India14,
also known as Bank Nationalization case, held that a shareholder of a
company should be considered as an Indian citizen and is entitled to the

8
AIR 1960 SC 860.
9
AIR 1990 SC 1692.
10
AIR 1991 SC1886.
11
AIR 1984 SC 142.
12
AIR 2001 SC 3689.
13
AIR 1963 SC184.
14
AIR 1970 SC 564.

5
 protection given under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Fundamental
rights of the shareholders as citizens should not be violated by any state action.
o Committee For C.R. Of C.A.P. & Ors. v State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.,
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2007, decided on SEPTEMBER 17,
2015 by the Supreme Court of India (Division Bench decision)- Supreme
Court orders to grant Indian citizenship rights to Chakmas and Hajongs in the
State of Arunachal Prdesh within 3 months.
o “SC Constitution Bench Begins Hearing On Assam Migrants Issue” by
LIVELAW RESEARCH TEAM, available at http://www.livelaw.in/sc-
constitution-bench-begins-hearing-assam-migrants-issue/
o “Passport alone no proof of citizenship: Bombay HC” by Shibu Thomas, The
Times of India, September 3, 2013, available at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Passport-alone-no-proof-of-
citizenship-Bombay-HC/articleshow/22244467.cms
o Article by Niraja Gopal Jayal “Citizenship” in Sujit Choudhry et. al. (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook Of The Indian Constitution, (2016) Oxford University
Press.
 The Definition of State under Art. 12 of the Indian Constitution and the
Emerging Issues (Article 12)
Recommended Readings:
o Henry C. Strickland, The State Action Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court’
(1991) 18 Hastings Constitutional Law Quaterly 587, (Pages 591-627 are
important to understand state action doctrine in United States) available at
http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V18/I3/Strickland.pdf
o Article titled “Holding non-state actors to account for constitutional economic
and social rights violations: Experiences and lessons from South Africa and
Ireland” by Aoife Nolan Int J Const Law (2014) 12 (1): 61-93. Available at
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/icon/mot066
Cases:
o United States v Cruikshank,15
o Civil Rights cases.16
o Smith v Allwright.17

15
92 U.S. 542 (1876).
16
109 U.S. 3 (1883).

6
 o Shelley v Kraemer.18
o Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority,19
o Moose Lodge v Irvis,20
o Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association v Donoghue.21
o Callin, Heather and Ward v. Leonard Cheshire22 (the Leonard Cheshire case)
o R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd.23
o University of Madras v Shanta Bai,24
o Rajasthan Electricity Board v Mohan Lal,25
o Sukdev Singh v Bhagat Ram,26
o R.D.Shetty v International Airport Authority,27
o Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib,28
o M.C. Mehta v Sri Ram Fertilizers Ltd
o Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors.,29
o Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Union of India,30
o Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corporation v J.D. Pharmaceuticals31
o Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 281
Report:
o The National Commission to Review The Working Of The Constitution
2002, had recommended that in article 12 of the Constitution, the
following explanation should be added; ‘Explanation: – In this Article, the
expression “other authorities” shall include any person in relation to such
as it functions which are of a public nature.’

17
321 U.S. 649 (1944).
18
334 U.S. 1 (1948).
19
365 U.S. 715 (1961).
20
407 U.S. 163 (1972).
21
[2001] EWCA Civ 595.
22
[2002] EWCA Civ 366.
23
[2002] 1 WLR 2610.
24
AIR 1954 Mad. 67.
25
AIR 1967 SC 1857.
26
AIR 1975 SC 1331.
27
1979 SCR (3)1014.
28
AIR 1981 SC 487.
29
(2002) 5 SCC 111.
30
(2005) 4 SCC 649.
31
AIR 2006 SC 131.

7
 Consistency and Interpretation of Laws vis-à-vis the Indian Constitution (Article
13)
Recommended Readings:
Cases
o Doctrine of Eclipse: K.K. Poonacha v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 9 SCC
671- it was held that doctrine of eclipse will apply to pre-Constitution laws
governed by Art. 13(1) but not to post-Constitution laws governed by Art.
13(2); Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955
SC 781
o Doctrine of Severability- State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, AIR 1951 SC
318; RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
o Constitutional Amendment made under Art. 368 is ‘law’ or not? :I.C.
Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643-It was held that
the constitutional amendment is ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13 of
the Constitution and, therefore, if it takes away or abridges the rights
conferred by Part III thereof, it is void. It was declared that the Parliament
will have no power from the date of the decision (27th February, 1967) to
amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so as to take
away or abridge the fundamental rights enshrined therein. Soon after
Golak Nath’s case, the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, the
Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, Act, 1971, the Constitution (26th
Amendment) Act, 1971 and the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972
were passed. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC
225)- The decision was rendered on 24th April, 1973 by a 13 Judges
Bench and by majority of seven to six Golak Nath’s case was overruled.
The majority opinion held that Article 368 did not enable the Parliament to
alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
o I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2007) 2 SCC 1] – The Supreme Court
held that a law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of
the Constitution may violate the basic structure doctrine or it may not. If
former is the consequence of law, whether by amendment of any Article of
Part III or by an insertion in the Ninth Schedule, such law will have to be
invalidated in exercise of judicial review power of the Court. The validity
or invalidity would be tested on the principles laid down in this judgment.

8
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
Recommended Readings:
o World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index , 2016 available at
https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/RoLI_Final-
Digital_0.pdf

Cases
o E.P Royappa v State of T.N, AIR 1974 SC 555- Equality is a dynamic concept.
o Union of India & Ors. v. Atul. Shukla & Ors, (2014) 10 SCC 432- The Indian
Constitution does not expressly prohibit discrimination based on ‘age’ under
Articles 15 and 16. The case challenged the terms of service for officers in the
Indian Air Force, prescribing different ages of retirement for different officers.
The Court held that classification only on the basis of age resulting from a
deliberate decision to create a younger workforce was a violation of Article 14
guaranteeing equality. Though the Court did not recognise age to be a
prohibited ground of discrimination under Articles 15 and 16, this case will
intensify the Court’s scrutiny of age-related discrimination.
o Charu Khurana v. Union of India, 2015 (1) SCC 192- The Supreme Court
held that the rule prohibiting women make-up artists and hair dressers from
becoming members of registered make-up artists’ and hair dressers’
association is violative of Articles 14 and 15 as it discriminates based on sex
and is opposed to gender justice. The Court held that the Petitioner could not
be denied membership, as discrimination on grounds of gender was a clear
violation of her right to equality and a denial of “her capacity to earn her
livelihood which affects her individual dignity.” Interestingly, the Court
applied this requirement of non-discrimination on the Association, a
private entity, and held that any clause in the bylaws of a trade union
calling itself an Association cannot violate Articles 14 and 21. This opinion
allows for the horizontal application of fundamental rights.

9
 o “India Supreme Court: Hindu temple ban on some women is unacceptable”
available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-women-religion-
idUSKCN0X91Q1
Module-II
 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth (Article 15)
Recommended Readings:
o Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006
Cases
o M.R. Balaji v State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
o Indra Sawhney v Union of India, (Mandal Commission Case), AIR 1993 SC
477
o Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1- 93rd constitutional
amendment introduced Art 15(5) held constitutional.
o Ram Singh v Union of India, decided on March 17, 2015. Available at
http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Supreme%20Court%20Judgement-
2015%20Jat%20Caste635647145288159656.pdf
o National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438-
Affirmative action for third gender.
 Equality of Opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16)
Recommended Readings:
o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article titled “Affirmative
action” by Robert J Cottrol and Megan Davis
o “Government pushes ahead with plan for SC/ST quota in promotions” by
Mahendra K Singh available at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/government-pushes-ahead-with-plan-
for-sc/st-quota-in-promotions/articleshow/58523750.cms
Cases
o M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71- 77th
Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B), 85th Constitutional
amendment inserting Art 16 (4)(A) (Consequential Seniority) and 82nd

10
 Amendment Act inserting a proviso at the end of Art 335 were held
constitutional.
 Abolition of Untouchability and Titles (Articles 17& 18)
Recommended Readings:
o Article entitled “Manual Scavenging: A Case Of Denied Rights,” by Abhishek
Gupta, Summer Issue 2016, ILI Law Review, available at
http://ili.ac.in/pdf/paper3.pdf
o Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of
Sewerage& Allied Workers, 2011 (8) SCC 568
o Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, 2014 (4) SCALE 165
 Right to Freedom (Article 19)
Recommended Readings:
o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article entitled “Freedom of
expression and association” by Iain Currie
o Book titled “Constitutional and Administrative Law,” by John Alder, Eight
Edition, (2011). Relevant pages 437-548.
o Article by Lawrence Liang, “Free Speech and Expression,” in Sujit Choudhry
et. al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook Of The Indian Constitution, (2016) Oxford
University Press.
o Dragan Golubovic (2013) “Freedom of association in the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights,” The International Journal of Human
Rights, 17:7-8, 758-771, available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2013.835307
o Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 Of 2012,
decided on March 24, 2015- section 66A of the Information Technology
Act, relating to the online offensive speech, unconstitutional since it gives
unguided and uncontrolled powers to the law enforcement agencies in tackling
offensive speeches online.
o Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, decided on May 13, 2016- Supreme
Court upheld the constitutional validity of the law on criminal defamation.
The court said that Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The

11
 concept of social interest has to be kept in mind when considering
reasonableness of a restriction.
 Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences (Article 20)
Recommended Readings:
o Ex post facto: Latin meaning “from a thing done afterward.” Ex post facto is
most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby
criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses
in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.
Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto.
o Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections
v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995). “The definition of an ex post facto law as one
that (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent
when done, (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its
commission, or (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available
according to law at the time when the act was committed”
o Gerard Coffey “The Constitutional Status of the Double Jeopardy Principle,”
30 Dublin U. L.J. 138 (2008). Available at
https://ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/4630/Coffey_2008_constitutional.pdf
?sequence=1
o State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600- s. 302 IPC and s.
3(2) and s.3(3) of POTA 2002-two different offences- no double jeopardy.
o Selvi v State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974- involuntary administration of
lie-detection tests amounts to violation of protection against self-
incrimination.
Module-III
 Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and Right to Free and
Compulsory Education (Article 21A)
Recommended Readings:
o Book titled “Constitutional And Administrative Law” by Hilaire Barnett,
Fourth Edition, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, (2002)- Part VI
“Individual & the State: Protection of Human Rights” relevant pages 591-716.
o Book titled “Constitutional and Administrative Law,” by John Alder, Eight
Edition, (2011). Relevant pages 437-548.

12
 o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article titled “Procedural
fairness generally” by Sophie Boyron and Wendy Lacey
o S.P. Sathe, ‘Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience’ (2001) Vol. 6:29
Journal of Law & Policy 29, 40 available at
http://law.wustl.edu/journal/6/p_29_sathe.pdf
o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article titled “‘Human dignity’
as a constitutional doctrine” by Margit Cohn and Dieter Grimm
o Neomi Rao, Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law, 86 Notre Dame
L. Rev. 183 (2013). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol86/iss1/4
o Book entitled “Making Constitutional Law: Thurgood Marshall and the
Supreme Court, 1961-1991” by Mark V. Tushnet--Chapter 4 “Unless Our
Children Begins to Learn Together”: Desegregating the Schools, pp. 68-93
Cases:
Right to life and Personal liberty
o The State is obliged to protect fundamental right to life and personal liberty of every
person including a non-citizen. Chairman, Railway Board v Chandrima Das 32
o The term ‘life’, as Mr. Justice Field explained in Munn v Illinois,33 is very wide and,
is more than mere animal existence. In Allgeyer v Louisiana,34 the United States
Supreme Court observed that the term ‘liberty’ in the Fourteenth Amendment means
not only freedom from mere physical restraint….
o In Meyer v Nebraska, 35 the United States Supreme Court ‘liberty’ …to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.
o The Supreme Court of India in Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi36
observed that Right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and right to
enjoy other basic necessities of life

32
AIR 2000 SC 988
33
94 U.S. 113 (1876).
34
165 U.S. 578 (1897).
35
262 U.S. 390 (1923) (McReynolds, J.).
36
AIR 1981 SC 746.

13
 o In Kharak Singh v State of UP,37 the Supreme Court of India held that the term
‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution included not only mere
freedom from physical restraint but all other aspects of liberty not covered by Article
19 of the Indian Constitution.
o Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India38 said that any ‘procedure
established by law’ for limiting life and personal liberty under Article 21 should be
reasonable, fair and just.
o The Supreme Court of India in Kartar Singh v State of Punjab,39 held that such
procedure under Article 21 should fulfill the requirements of the principles of natural
justice which is ‘fair play in action’.40

Right to Food, Clothing and Housing

o In Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame,41 the Supreme Court held that
basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three –food, clothing and
shelter.
o In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India,42 writ Petition (Civil) No. 196
of 2001 the court passed number of interim orders directing the government to
provide food to the needy persons including aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women,
children, etc.
Rights of the Accused Persons/prisoners’ rights
o D.K Basu v State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416- Rights of the arrested persons
o Selvi v State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974- Recognition to Mental Privacy
o Nilabati Bahera v State of Orissa (1993) Cri. LJ 2899- Compensation to victims of
abuse of process
o Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494
o Prem Shanker Shukla v Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535- Handcuffing is
unreasonable
o Sunil Batra (I) v Delhi administration AIR 1978 SC 1675- Solitary confinement is
unjust, unfair and unreasonable

37
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
38
AIR 1978 SC 597.
39
(1994) 3 SCC 569.
40
ibid. 671.
41
(1990) 1 SCC 520
42
(2004) 12 SCC 108)

14
 o M.H.Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548- Legal representation to the
prisoners
o The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu43 held that an individual
has a right to publish facts about a prisoner’s life insofar as they appear from the
public records. And this can be done even without the prisoner’s consent. But if
someone publishes beyond the public records, he or she violates the prisoner’s right to
privacy.
o Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1344/2006- fair trial.
o In order to reduce the population of prisons in India, the Supreme Court of India in
Bhim Singh v. Union of India,44 has directed jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Sessions Judge to identify the under-trial prisoners who have completed
half period of the maximum sentence and release them immediately.
o Re - Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons, In The Supreme Court Of India, Civil
Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No.406/2013, decided on February 5, 2016,
available at <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-02-
05_1454655606.pdf>-Living in over-crowding prisons is a serious violation of
prisoner’s right to life and personal liberty.
o Brown v. Plata45- The United States Supreme Court held that overcrowding in prisons
is cruel and unusual punishment and hence, violation of the Eight Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
o The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela Rules) 2015
Death Sentence and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
o The Law Commission of India received a reference from the Supreme Court in
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. Maharashtra [(2009) 6 SCC 498] and
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 546], to study the issue of
the death penalty in India to “allow for an up-to-date and informed discussion and
debate on the subject.” The recommendation of the Commission came in the form of
the Commission’s Report No.262 titled “The Death Penalty”.
o ‘Death Penalty India Report’ 2016 prepared by the Centre on the Death Penalty at
National Law University, Delhi.

43
(1994) 6 SCC 632.
44
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 310 of 2005, Ordered on 05.09.2014, Supreme Court of India, available at
http://cja.gov.in/TJO/Writ%20Petition%20(Crl.)%20310%20of%202005%20%20IMP%20Judgment.PDF.
45
563 U.S. (2011).

15
 o Jagmohan v State of U.P, AIR 1973 SC 947- The provisions relating to Death
sentence are not unconstitutional per se in India.
o Mithu v State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473- the Supreme Court of India declared
mandatory death sentence provision as violative of Article 21 i.e. right to life and
personal liberty.
o Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684- The Supreme Court of India said
that the death sentence should be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases.
o Shatrughan Chauhan v Union Of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1- An Inordinate delay in the
process of execution of death sentence is a mental torture for the death row convicts
and violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
o Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 737- the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down that the review petition in a
case of death sentence shall be heard in the open court by giving an opportunity to the
review petitioner to make oral submissions, unlike other review petitions which are
decided by the Court by circulation in Chambers. Not only this, such a review petition
is to be heard by a Bench consisting of minimum three Judges.
o Shabnam v. Union of India, decided on May 27, 2015- The Supreme Court held that
death row convicts also have a right to dignity and execution of death sentence cannot
be carried out in a arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing the convicts
to exhaust all legal remedies.

Environment Jurisprudence and Article 21

o The apex court of India applied the doctrine of ‘Sustainable Development’ in Vellore
Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India.46
o In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh,47 the
Supreme Court ordered to pay the compensation to the victims of environment
degradation.
o In Arjun Gopal v Union of India,48 the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that the
grim situation of air quality adversely affected the right to education, work, health and
ultimately, the right to life of the citizens. Considering the firecrackers responsible for
the rise in pollution to extreme levels, the Supreme Court directed the Central

46
AIR 1996 SC 2715.
47
AIR 1989 SC 594.
48
(2017) 1 SCC 412.

16
 Government to suspend all licences permitting sale of fireworks, wholesale or retail,
within territory of NCR till further orders.
Road safety measures saves life of the people.
o The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department v K.Balu49 concluded that there is no justification
to allow liquor vends on state highways (while prohibiting them on national
highways) having due regard to drunken driving being one of the significant causes of
road accidents in India. Hence, the court directed the governments to stop the grant of
licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and over a distance of
500 metres from the outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside.
o The Supreme Court clarified on March 31, 2017 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu
represented by Secretary v K. Balu50 that the ban extends not just to retail liquor
outlets but also to bars, pubs and restaurants located on highways.
Right to Education
o Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India,51 - right to life under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution includes right to education.
o Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka52- fundamental right to education should be
enforced at all levels of the education system- right to education helps an individual to
live a dignified life.53
o J.P. Unnikrishnan v State of A.P54 - Right to education under Articles 45 and 41
means every child up to the age of fourteen years has a right to free education. But
after completing the age of 14 years, his right to education becomes subject to the
economic capacity of the State.
o In 2002, 86th Constitutional Amendment Act inserted three new provisions i.e. Article
21A, new Article 45 and 51-A(k) into the Indian Constitution. Article 21A provides
right to free and compulsory education to those citizens who are in the age group of 6
to 14 years. New Article 45 is for the children below the age of 6 years. In pursuance
of Article 21A, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was

49
(2017) 2 SCC 281
50
Civil Appeal Nos 12164-12166 OF 2016, in the Supreme Court Of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction,
decided on March 31, 2017, available at < http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2017-03-
31_1490967488.pdf > accessed 01 April 2017
51
AIR 1984 SC 802.
52
AIR 1992 SC 1858.
53
ibid. 1864.
54
AIR 1993 SC 2178.

17
 passed. The new legislation enforces fundamental right to education to children in the
age group of 6 to 14 years in India. The Act provides that every child who is of the
age of six to fourteen years will be entitled to get free and compulsory elementary
education.
o Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & anr., (2012) 6 SCC 102
o Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors., (2014) 8 SCC
1
Right to Privacy
o Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Memo on F.R. (Mar. 1947), “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
sezures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things seized.” Available at
http://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/2012/R2Privacy-Venkatesh.pdf
o Book entitled, Privacy and Freedom, by Alan F. Westin (whole book is relevant to
understand the concept and significance of privacy) (1967). Relevant pages 7-10 and
32-42. According to Alan F. Westin , the functions of privacy in democratic societies
can be grouped under the following headings: (a) personal autonomy (b) Emotional
release (c) Self-evaluation and (d) Limited and Protected communication. Alan F.
Westin defines Privacy as the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine
for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is
communicated to others.
o Book entitled, The Digital Person, by Daniel J. Solove (2004). P.177- government’s
extensive collection of personal information interferes with an individual’s freedom of
association, right to speak freely, right to speak anonymously, etc.
o Article Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard
Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Dec. 15, 1890), pp. 193-220, at 196. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321160
o Article entitled “The Dangers Of Surveillance” by Neil M. Richards, Harvard Law
Review, Vol. 126, No. 7 (MAY 2013), pp. 1934-1965- Blackmail, Persuasion,
Sorting/Discrimination are the dangers of surveillance.
o Article entitled, “A Litmus Test: Supreme Court must interpret Constitution in a
manner that ensures right to privacy,” Prof. Faizan Mustafa, The Indian Express, July

18
 24, 2017, available at http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-litmus-test-
constitution-right-to-privacy-4764072/
o Olmstead v. U.S.,55 - Dissenting opinion of Justice Louis Brandeis is important- said
that the Constitution makers intended to provide valuable protection to the right to be
let alone- Justice Brandeis said that the Framers of the Constitution ‘conferred, as
against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized men.’56
o In Katz v. United States,57 the United States Supreme Court adopted Brandeis’s
dissenting view, and overruled its earlier judgment delivered in Olmstead v. United
States. The court refused to rely on the trespass doctrine of Olmstead. An intangible
intrusion is also a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
o Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 47 (1965)- U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the
Connecticut law barring the use of any drug or instrument for contraceptive purposes.
o In Roe v. Wade58, the court struck down a Texas statute which prohibited almost all
abortions. The court’s decision was based on the assumption that the right to abortion
was part of a right of personal privacy.
o Loving v. Virginia59 recognized the fundamental right to marriage in the United
States. It invalidated the laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages. The court said, “The
Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted
by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or
not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be
infringed by the State.”60
o Stanley v. Georgia61 ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution prohibit the government from criminalizing the mere possession of
obscene material if the material is held privately. The Court said, “the States retain
broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere
possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home.”62

55
277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928).
56
Id., at 478
57
389 U.S. 347 (1967).
58
410 U.S. 113 (1973).
59
388 U.S. 1 (1967).
60
Id., at 13.
61
394 U.S. 557 (1969).
62
Id., at 568.

19
 o Riley v California63 ruled that a warrantless search of a cell phone violates the Fourth
Amendment, even when it occurs during a lawful arrest. The court said that the
mobile phone is a private document which possesses an individual’s sensitive
personal information.
o People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India,64 - the Supreme Court recognized
an individual’s right to privacy against illegal wiretapping.
o Selvi v State of Karnataka65- the Supreme Court held that involuntary administration
of the psychological tests amounts to violation of one’s mental privacy.
o Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 v Home Secretary, Union of India and
others, decided on 23 February, 2012,- declared the police brutal action of beating the
sleeping protesters in the middle of night as violation of the protesters’ sleeping
privacy.
o “Supreme Court counters push for Aadhaar: Cannot make it mandatory for availing
welfare schemes’.” The Hindu, March 27, 2017, available at
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aadhaar-cannot-be-mandatory-for-welfare-
schemes-supreme-court/article17671381.ece- the Supreme Court said obtaining the
12-digit Unique Identification number, which requires the holder to part with his
personal bio-metric data, and using it to avail himself of government subsidy was a
voluntary exercise.
o Binoy Viswam v Union Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 247 OF 2017, decided on
June 09, 2017 (Division Bench)- Section 139AA is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution insofar as it mandates giving of Aadhaar enrollment number for
applying PAN cards in the income tax returns or notified Aadhaar enrollment
number to the designated authorities.
o Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 is pending- whether right to privacy if
fundamental right or not?
Right to Die and Passive Euthanasia
o P. Rathinam v Union of India,66 for the first time, declared Section 309 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 as unconstitutional. The court said that suicide or attempt to commit
it causes no harm to others.

63
573 U.S. 1 (2014).
64
AIR 1997 SC 568.
65
2010(4) SCALE 690.
66
AIR 1994 SC 1844.

20
 o The larger bench of the Supreme Court in Smt Gian Kaur v State of Punjab,67
overruled P.Rathinam’s case and established that the ‘right to life’ does not include
‘right to die’.
o Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India, decided on 7 March, 2011- the
Supreme Court legalized passive euthanasia
Right to Marry
o Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh,68 - the right to marry comes within the ambit of
fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
o Arumugam Servai v State of Tamil Nadu,69 - the institutions encouraging honour
killings are illegal.
o Bhagwan Dass v State (NCT of Delhi),70 - the perpetrators of so called ‘honour
killings’ deserve death punishment.
o S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal71 also, the court recognized the Live-in relationship which
is again a right of decisional privacy.
o Suresh Kumar Koushal v NAZ Foundation and others,72 - Section 377 IPC is not
unconstitutional. However, the court said that the competent legislature is free to
discuss on the deletion of Section 377.
Access to Justice is a Fundamental Right
o Imtiyaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR SC 2012 642- access to justice is a
fundamental right.
o Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494 - epistolary jurisdiction-taken
suo motto actions on mere postal letters disclosing the human rights violations in
society.
o People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India73- public interest litigation is
intended to promote public interest- Public interest litigation has been invented to
bring justice to poor and socially or economically disadvantaged sections of the
society.

67
AIR 1996 SC 946.
68
AIR 2006 SC 2522.
69
2011 STPL(Web) 403 SC 1.
70
(2011) 6 SCC 396.
71
Decided on 30.04.2008, available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/761199/ accessed on March 12, 2013, at
2:00 p.m. IST.
72
Civil Appeal No.10972 Of 2013, decided on December 11, 2013
<http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070.> accessed 21 December 2013
73
(1982) 3 SCC 235

21
 o Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India,74- public interest litigation is
part of the participative justice.
o Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India75 - the court has justified the public interest
litigation on the basis of “vast areas in our population of illiteracy and poverty, of
social and economic backwardness, and of an insufficient awareness and appreciation
of individual and collective rights.”
o Sheela Barse v Union of India 76- “The compulsions for the judicial innovation of
the technique of a public interest action is the constitutional promise of a social
and economic transformation to usher-in an egalitarian social-order and a welfare-
State.”
o NALSA v Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863- Transgender rights were recognised
Rights of the Victims
o Rudul Shah v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086
o Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa,77 the Supreme Court awarded compensation to
the mother of a young man who was beaten to death in police custody.
o D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal,78
o Bhim Singh v State of J&K, AIR 1986 SC 494
o Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India79- Supreme Court
directed the National Commission for Women to make an effective scheme in order to
rehabilitate the victims of rape.

 Protection of the Rights of the Arrested Persons under the Indian Constitution
(Article 22)
Recommended Readings:
o Derek P. Jinks, The Anatomy of an Institutionalized Emergency: Preventive
Detention and Personal Liberty in India, 22 Mich. J. Int'l L. 311 (2001).
Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol22/iss2/3
o Manoj Mate, “The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in
Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases,” 28 Berkeley J. Int’l Law.
216 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjil/vol28/iss1/7
74
AIR 1981 SC 344
75
AIR 1984 SC 802
76
(1988) 4 SCC 226
77
1993 SCR (2) 581.
78
AIR 1997 SC 610.
79
(1995) 1 SCC 14.

22
 o “Notify law to check the excess of ‘preventive detention’” by Hemant Kumar-
The Morarji Desai government got dethroned before it could notify an
amendment to eliminate the provision of indefinite preventive detentions in
Article 22, much exploited during the Emergency. No subsequent govt. has
cared to notify it.- The Tribune, July 4, 2016, available at
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/notify-law-to-check-the-excess-
of-preventive-detention/260610.html
o “SC lays guidelines for preventive detention in custody” The Indian Express,
May 20 2012, available at http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/sc-lays-
guidelines-for-preventive-detention-in-custody/951621/
 Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23 and 24)
Recommended Readings:
o “Landmark Rulings of the Courts in India on Combating Human Trafficking”
By NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH DESK - October 15, 2013, available at
http://nlrd.org/landmark-rulings-of-the-courts-in-india-on-combatting-human-
trafficking-trafficking/
o People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235-
Forced Labour defined- Supreme Court said, “What Article 23 prohibits is
“forced labour” that is labour or service which a person is forced to provide
and “force” which would make such labour or service “forced labour” may
arise in several ways. It may be physical force which may compel a person to
provide labour or service to another or it may be force exerted through a legal
provision such as a provision for imprisonment or fine in case the employee
fails to provide labour or service or it may even be compulsion arising from
hunger and poverty, want and destitution. Any factor which deprives a person
of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of
action may properly be regarded as “force” and if labour or service is
compelled as a result of such “force”, it would be “forced labour”……”
o Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 318- Formation of Advisory
Committee ordered for all States and Union Government to Combat
Trafficking.
o Supreme Court appoints a Panel to monitor and Suggest Rehabilitation scheme
for Trafficked Sex Workers and Trafficked Victims. Budhadev Karmaskar v.
State of West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 538

23
 o Guidelines for Inter Country adoptions laid down to check trafficking through
adoption rackets- Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244
o Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 2011 SCC (5) 1- Government
was directed by the Supreme Court to rehabilitate the children working in
circuses.
o Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 801- Constitution of
Juvenile Justice Board and Child Welfare Committees.
 Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
Recommended Readings:
o Article entitled “The Freedom Of Religion Under The Indian Constitution,” by
J. Patrocinio de Souza, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 13, No.
3/4 (July-September & October-December,1952), pp. 62-78, available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42743402.pdf?refreqid=search%3Af683fec95c
1796fa902274251d2979d5
o Ronojoy Sen, ‘Secularism and Religious Freedom’, in Sujit Choudhry,
Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (ed) Oxford Handbook of the Indian
Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016) 885
o Rajeev Bhargava, ‘India’s Secular Constitution’ in Zoya Hasan, E Sridharan
and R Sudarshan (eds) India’s Living Constitution: Idea, Practices and
Controversies (Permanent Black 2002) 117
o Shefali Jha, ‘Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates: 1946-50’
(2002) 37 (30) Economic and Political Weekly 3175
o Rajeev Dhavan and Fali Nariman, ‘The Supreme Court and Group Life:
Religious Freedom, Minority Groups and Disadvantaged Communities’ in BN
Kirpal and others (eds) Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in the Honour of
the Supreme Court of India (Oxford University Press 2000)
 Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 & 30)
Recommended Readings:
o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article entitled “Minority
rights” by Solomon Dersso and Francesco Palermo
o Article entitled “Minority Rights in Education: Reflections on Article 30 of
the Indian Constitution” by Ranu Jain, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.

24
 40, No. 24 (Jun. 11-17, 2005), pp. 2430-2437, available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4416749.pdf?refreqid=search%3Af683fec95c1
796fa902274251d2979d5
o LIST OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON
RIGHTS OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS is available at
http://www.dmipune.org/downloads/Minority%20Cases%20-
%20Important%20Judgements.pdf
o Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & anr., (2012) 6
SCC 102
o Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors., (2014)
8 SCC 1

Module-IV
 Constitutional Remedies for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Article 32)
Recommended Readings:
o Baxi, Upendra (1985) “Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in
the Supreme Court of India,” Third World Legal Studies: Vol. 4, Article 6.
Available at: http://scholar.valpo.edu/twls/vol4/iss1/6
o Burt Neuborne, ‘The Supreme Court of India’ [2003] 1 International Journal
of Constitutional Law 476, available at https://oup.silverchair-
cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/icon/1/3/10.1093/icon/1.3.476/2
/010476.pdf?Expires=1501135953&Signature=RerNh5tIot1eENdBvwkyrOW
4DNrgNakaaOTR~xR1j2fo7PGCHJyLey3P8uQRdCR9n0kZLII0qGOagF-
QLqGSSj4KgQP1z8sTKN6mhmgPQHcRAcNutUVf4jy0O~onCb9DpCJKGXyi
Vo0ViIVPx2bGilYGXmvhgDSD9TP9mXhT3024xiCzU-
lfVIDWjltC3REKygdv8K8~NHp2lzcAwFjeFTxq6yIT-
cRacV8eFhuo~WgM4c9lPo5vsxKyU6skaM1ECNYy-
QsTIFWsWuNMsPBGhbvg-unVrEfRcdhW9Et9t-
u6QNfYb1oVkSVe115Pa9wUcyBkotcDtX2XdyovDj9LkA__&Key-Pair-
Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article entitled “The judiciary
and constitutional review” by Albert HY Chen and Miguel Poiares Maduro

25
 o Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders includes article titled “Justiciability” by
Mark Tushnet and Juan F González-Bertomeu
 Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties (Articles 36-51 and 51-A)
Recommended Readings:
o Article by Gautam Bhatia, “Directive Principles of State Policy,” in Sujit
Choudhry et. al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook Of The Indian Constitution,
(2016) Oxford University Press.
o State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors., decided on
26/10/2005. (2005) 8 SCC 534 (Judges: CJI R.C. LAHOTI,B.N.
AGRAWAL,ARUN KUMAR G.P. MATHUR C.K. THAKKER P.K.
BALASUBRAMANYAN)- The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
validity of a Gujarat law imposing a complete ban on slaughtering of bulls and
bullocks.
o “India Supreme Court suspends cattle slaughter ban”- India’s Supreme Court
has suspended a law that would have banned the sale of cattle for slaughter
nationwide. Available at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-
40565457
o Shyam Narayan Chouskey v Union of India, Supreme Court Order dated
November 30, 2016- the Supreme Court ordered cinema halls to mandatorily
play the anthem and had directed all those present there to stand up to show
respect…. “Time has come for people to realise that the national anthem is a
symbol of constitutional patriotism…people must feel they live in a nation and
this individually perceived notion of freedom must go…people must feel this
is my country, my motherland” SC bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra-----
On December 9, 2016, the Supreme Court first modified its November 30
order by exempting physically challenged or handicapped persons from
standing up when the National Anthem is played before film screenings.-- The
Supreme Court issued second clarification on February 14, 2017, directing all
to mandatorily stand up when the National Anthem is sung or played in a
cinema theatre.

26
  Judicial Appointments and Removal of Judges in Higher Judiciary (Articles 124
and 217)
Recommended Readings:
o Article entitled “Judicial Independence” at p. 15 by Judith Resnik in Vikram
David Amar and Mark V. Tushnet (eds.) Global Perspectives On
Constitutional Law
o Article by Prof. Upendra Baxi, “Judge Not Too Harshly,” in Outlook
Magazine 19 September, 2016 available at
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/judge-not-too-harshly/297830
Cases
o S. P. Gupta v Union of India,80 also known as First Judges case
o Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India81 (‘The
Second Judges’ Case) overruled The First Judges’ Case and evolved a
collegiums system for the purpose of judicial appointments.
o In Re: Presidential Reference82 or the Third Judges Case, the Supreme Court
laid down a process in which it was said that the CJI should consult with a
plurality of four senior-most Supreme Court judges to form his opinion on
judicial appointments and transfers.
o On October 16, 2015 the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record-Association v Union of India,83 in a majority of
4:1 declared the NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment
unconstitutional as violating judicial independence. Justice J.S. Khehar, the
presiding judge on the five-judge Constitution Bench, explained in his
individual judgment, “It is difficult to hold that the wisdom of appointment of
judges can be shared with the political-executive. In India, the organic
development of civil society, has not as yet sufficiently evolved. The
expectation from the judiciary, to safeguard the rights of the citizens of this
country, can only be ensured, by keeping it absolutely insulated and
independent, from the other organs of governance.”

80
AIR 1982 SC 149.
81
(1993) 4 SCC 441.
82
AIR 1999 SC 1.
83
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO. 13 OF 2015, <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-10-16_1444997560.pdf>

27
 o In March 2017, a newspaper named as Times of India reported that the
collegium, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprising Justices Dipak
Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur agreed to the
contentious national security clause i.e. “national security” ought to be part of
the criteria to determine eligibility for appointment as judges. The collegium
agreed with the Centre on the national security clause on the condition that
specific reasons for application of the clause were recorded. In another
breakthrough, as the newspaper reported, the apex court collegium dropped its
reservation about setting up secretariats in the Supreme Court and each high
court to maintain databases on judges and assist the collegiums in the Supreme
Court and the high courts in selection of judges.
o Currently, the government has no role in the cases of complaints related to
corruption or misbehaviour as such complaints are referred to the Chief Justice
of India. Supreme Court or High Court does not have any formal system to
investigate allegations of corruption or impropriety against a judge.
Intelligence Bureau tracks credentials of a person who is to be appointed a
judge. As of now, a judge cannot be investigated by any agency of the
government.84
o However, the court follows “in-house procedure” in this regard. Recently, the
Supreme Court has re-notified the Report of the committee on in-House
procedure that had been developed in 1999 in order to deal with allegations of
misdemeanor against Judges, including accusations of sexual harassment
against Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts. According to this In-house
procedure, when a complaint is received against a Judge of the High Court, by
the Chief Justice of the High Court, he shall first examine it himself. If it is
found by him that it is frivolous or directly related to the merits of a
substantive decision in a judicial matter or does not involve any serious
complaint of misconduct or impropriety, he shall file the complaint and inform
the CJI accordingly. If however, it is found by him that that the complaint is of
a serious nature, involving misconduct or impropriety, he shall ask for the
response thereto of the concerned Judge. If on a consideration of the
allegations in the complaint, in the light of the response of the concerned

84
Pradeep Thakur, “Judicial accountability bill hits National Judicial Appointments Commission roadblock,”
The Times of India, Feb 21, 2015.

28
 Judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court is satisfied that no further action is
necessary, he shall file the complaint and inform the CJI accordingly. Further,
if the Chief Justice of the High Court is of the opinion that the allegations
contained in the complaint need a deeper probe, he shall forward to the CJI,
the complaint and the response of the Judge concerned along with his
comments. In Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v Registrar General,
High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others,85 the apex Court directed the
Registry to upload the in-house mechanism in public domain on the website,
in order to reinstate the mechanism and bring in transparency into the entire
process.

 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts (Articles 131-143 and 226-
231)
Recommended Readings:
o Book entitled, The Judge In A Democracy, by Aharon Barak (2008) Princeton
University Press, Read Chapter 2 (Protecting the Constitution & Democracy
pp. 20-98), Chapter 13 (Relationship between the Judiciary and & the
Legislature pp. 226-236), Chapter 14 (Relationship between the judiciary &
executive pp. 241-254), and Chapter 15 (Activism & Self-Restraint pp. 263-
279)
o Book by S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India (Sixth Indian Impression, OUP
2010)

 Provisions Relating to Emergency (Articles 352-360)

Recommended Readings:
o “Emergency powers” by Victor V Ramraj and Menaka Guruswamy in
Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, (2013) Edited by Mark Tushnet,
Thomas Fleiner and Cheryl Saunders
o Article by Rahul Sagar, “Emergency Powers,” in Sujit Choudhry et. al. (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook Of The Indian Constitution, (2016) Oxford University
Press.

85
In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 792 OF 2014, decided on
December 18, 2014, < http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2014-12-18_1418904101.pdf>

29
 Tentative Schedule for Constitutional Law-I

Teaching Hours: 46

Module-I Lectures

Preamble and Features of the Indian Constitution 1

Union and its Territory, and Citizenship (Articles 1-4 and 5-11) 1

Definition of State under Art. 12 of the Indian Constitution and the Emerging 2
Issues (Article 12)

Consistency and Interpretation of Laws vis-à-vis the Indian Constitution (Article 1

13)

Right to Equality (Article 14) 3

Module-II

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of 3

birth (Article 15)

Equality of Opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16) 3

Abolition of Untouchability and Titles (Articles 17& 18) 1

Right to Freedom (Article 19) 3

Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences (Article 20) 2

MID SEMESTER BREAK
Module-III
Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and Right to Free and 5
Compulsory Education (Article 21A)

Protection of the Rights of the Arrested Persons under the Indian Constitution 2

30
(Article 22)

Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23 and 24) 2

Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) 2

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 & 30) 2

Module-IV

Constitutional Remedies for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Article 3

32)

Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties (Articles 36-51 and 51-A) 2

Judicial Appointments and Removal of Judges in Higher Judiciary (Articles 124 3

and 217)

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts (Articles 131-143 and 226- 3
231)

Provisions Relating to Emergency (Articles 352-360) 2

31
 Teaching Pedagogy

The teaching methodology that will be followed for this subject shall be classroom teaching
supplemented by class participation and discussion on the part of the students.

The teacher will discuss concepts and case laws based on the concepts which will be aimed at
making the class interactive and interesting. For this the students are supposed to read the
case laws which will be followed by discussion in the classroom on the same.

32
 List of Assignments

Project List for Constitutional Law-I; 2ND Year, 3rd Semester, B.A LL.B (Hons)

1. Preamble under the Indian Constitution

2. Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
3. Union and its Territory
4. Citizenship Provisions under the Indian Constitution (Articles 5-11)
5. The definition of State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution
6. Analysis of Article 13 under the Indian Constitution
7. Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
8. State’s Positive Measures for the Advancement of Women and Children (Article
15(3))
9. Reservation for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Article 15(4)).
10. Reservation in Private Educational Institutions (Article 15(5))
11. Reservation in appointments for socially and educationally backward class of citizens
12. Analysis of Article 17 [Abolition of Untouchability] under the Indian Constitution
13. Right to freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1) and reasonable restrictions
under Article 19(2)
14. Right to freedom of association or unions or co-operative unions under Article
19(1)(c)
15. Right to freedom of assembly Article 19(1)(b)
16. Right to freedom of residence and settle in any part of the territory of India under
Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India
17. Right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India
18. Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)
19. Analysis of Article 20(1) under the Indian Constitution
20. Analysis of Article 20(2) under the Indian Constitution; Right against double jeopardy
21. Analysis of Article 20(3); Right Against Self-Incrimination
22. Concept of Preventive Detention and the Constitutional Safeguards in Article 22
23. Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21

33
24. Right to Education under Article 21-A
25. Right Against Exploitation and Forced Labour
26. Prohibition of Child Labour
27. Right to freedom of religion
28. Protection of Minorities under Article 29 of the Constitution
29. Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article
30 of the Indian Constitution.
30. Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution
31. The relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy
32. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
33. Jurisdiction of the High Courts
34. Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32
35. Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226
36. Judicial Appointments
37. Doctrine of Precedent or Stare Decisis (Article 141)
38. Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Indian
Constitution
39. National Emergency under Article 352
40. Emergency on the grounds of breakdown of State Machinery (Article 356)

34
 Instructions for Students

The students are expected to cover the syllabus of the subject from the course material
provided to them, which shall not be exhaustive on the same. Concepts, case-laws and
issues discussed in the class too will form the core component of the syllabus on which the
students will be tested in the examination.

35