Relationship Between Union and State:

#Legislative relation:
Doctrine of Territorial Nexus –

Article 245(1)- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the
whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the
whole or any part of the State.

According to this doctrine the state laws would be avoid if it has extra territorial jurisdiction. thereby
meaning that the law made by state legislature beyond its territory are not permissible. however, if
the parliament beyond territorial operation such law cannot be declared as invalid just on the
grounds of extra territorial jurisdiction.

This doctrine has 2 aspects in it and sometime even the state made the law beyond its territory, two
following principles must be fulfilled.

1. There must be sufficient relocation or Nexus between the state making the law and the object of
the law.

2. The liability imposed must be achieved. for example, Punjab want to make law regarding drugs.

Case Law: State of Bombay V. R.M.D.C

In this case, the state of Bombay enacted Bombay lotteries and prize competition Act, 1948. There
was the provision in the Act that the tax will be levied on shot of lotteries & prize competitions later
on the tax on prize competition containing in newspaper. Ans there was a plan plate between the
winners and the tax imposer, the supreme court therefore held that there exists sufficient territorial
nexus so as to enable the Bombay’s. state to impose taxes on respondence.

Case Law: A.H Wadia V. Income Tax Commission

It was held that in the case of sovereign legislation the question of extra territoriality of any law can
never be raised as a ground for challenging its validity.

Article 246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States

(1)Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 1 in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution
referred to as the "Union List").

(2)Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any
State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the
Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List").

(3)Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for
such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh
Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the 'State List').

(4)Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of
India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State
List.
Article 246: Subject matter of laws made by parliament & state legislature

Union List State List Concurrent List

(Parliament) (State Legislature) (Parliament +Legislature)

(97)subjects (66)Subjects (47)Subjects

7th Schedule

Subject matter of law made by parliament & by the legislature of the state- 246

Clause (1) – Union List- (Parliament)

Clause (2) – Concurrent list – (Parliament + Legislature)

Clause (3) – State list – (Legislature)

Clause (4) – Union territory (Parliament)

#General Doctrines: (Various Principles of Interpretation)

A. Presumption of constitutionality:

Any law which is made & already presumed to be constitutional. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation
that there shall be presumption of constitutionality in favor of statue. The court will also pressure its
validity unless & until it is challenged, and the burden of proof will be on the party who challenges its
validity.

Ex- ABC Act, 2020- Govt A. has passed the law

Govt B. Burden of proof will be on who challenge its validity. Means Govt. B

B. Each entry to be interpreted broadly:

Various entries in the 3 lists are legislature heads defining the fields of legislation & would be literally
& widely interpreted.

Case Law: State of west Bengal V. Committee for protection of democratic right
The court held that constitution is living document and the provisions contained in it should be given
broader & liberal interpretation.

C. Doctrine of Pith & Substances:

A Situation might occur when a law pass by a legislature were to any matter, its legislative
competency, encroached any matter outside its competency. In such situation the law should not be
read as a collection of sections neither the true nature & character of law [Pith & substance of law]
should be determined. If after such enquiry it is found that the pith & substance of law within the
legislative competency of legislature, it will be constitutional event though & it encroaches upon the
matter which the legislature is not competent to legislature.

Case Law: Profulla Kumar Mukherjee V. Bank of Commerce

 Case Law: State of Bombay V. F.N Balsora
Ex- State list agricultural education /checked true nature of character/ Union list agriculture land of
research

D. Doctrine of Colorable Legislature:

Colorable legislature means you cannot do indirectly what you can do directly. It implies that if any
matter on which the law made is outside the competency of legislature then such legislature cannot
make law on that regard either directly or indirectly.

Case Law: S.S Bola V. B.D Sardana

It was held by the supreme court that doctrine of colorable legislature pertains only to legislation
competency because any law made beyond the competency will be declared as unconstitutional.

E. Doctrine of Incidental & Ancillary Powers:

Whenever the legislature makes a law at any matter, it has the power to makes the laws on the
subject which are Incidental or Ancillary to it. It means that some subject which are not coarsely
mentioned, laws can be made on them if the subject is incidental or ancillary to the main subject.

F. Rule of harmonious construction:

Interpretation when there is found some ambiguity in provision of statue & that of constitution, or
the provision seems to be in consistent with each other.

Case Law: M.S.M Sharma V. Shri Krishna Sinha

In such case the rule requires the court interpreting the provisions of the statue to an interpret their
provision that all the provision service in harmony with each other.

Article 247: Establishment of additional courts (Union parliament to make laws)

247. Power of Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of
any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing
laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List.

*Power of parliament to make laws on matter in state list

Article 249 Article 250 Article 252

(National interest) (Emergency) (Consent of 2 or more state)

[Article 251] (Inconsistency b/w law made by parliament & law made by legislature)

1. Article 249- Power of parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the state list in the
national interest-
(i) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has
declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting
that it is necessary or expedient in national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect
to [goods and services tax provided under article 246A or] any matter enumerated in the Stale List
specified in the resolution, it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of
the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains in force.

(ii) A resolution passed under clause (1) shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year
as may be specified therein: Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance
in force of any such resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause (1), such resolution shall
continue in force for a further period of one year from the date on which under this clause it would
otherwise have ceased to be in force.

(iii) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the passing of are solution under
clause (1) have been competent to make shall, to the extent of the in competency, cease to have
effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in force,
except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period.

Laws under Article 249

a) The supply & prices of goods Act,1952

b) The evidence interest separation Act, 1951

2. Article 250- Power of parliament to legislate with respect to any matter in the state lest if a
proclamation of emergency is in operation: -

(i) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament shall, while a Proclamation of Emergency is
in operation, have, power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with
respect to [goods and services tax] any of the matters enumerated in the State List.

(ii) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the issue of a Proclamation of
Emergency have been competent to make shall, to the extent of the in competency, cease to have
effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate,
except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period.

3. Article 251- Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under articles 249 and 250 and
laws made by the Legislatures of States

Nothing in articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law
which under this Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of a law made by the
legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament
has under either of the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed
before or after the law made by the legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the
Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by
Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.

4. Article 252- Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of
such legislation by any other State

(i) If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States to be desirable that any of the matters with
respect to which Parliament has no power to make laws for the States except as provided in articles
249 and 250 should be regulated in such States by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that effect
are passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of those States, it shall be lawful for Parliament to
pass an Act for regulating that matter accordingly, and any Act so passed shall apply to such States
and to any other State by which it is adopted afterwards by resolution passed in that behalf by the
House or, where there are two Houses, by each of the Houses of the Legislature of that State.

(ii) Any Act so passed by Parliament may be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or
adopted in like manner but shall not, as respects any State to which it applies, be amended or
repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that State.

Laws made U/A 252-

A) The state duty Act, 1952

B) The prize competition Act, 1955

C) The urban land [Selling & regulation] Act, 1976

D) The transplantation of Human’s organ Act, 1994

5. Article 253- Legislation for giving effect to international agreements

Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make
any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or
convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international
conference, association or other body.

6. Article 254- Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures
of States

(i) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law
made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law
with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions
of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the
Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by
the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

(ii) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in
the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by
Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature
of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his
assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from
enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending,
varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

Case Laws: U/A 252-

i.

Deechand V. State of U.P

ii.

Kaiser-I Hind Private Ltd V. National textile company

The court held that there should be active application of mind by the president to the repugnancy
pointed out & are next considered, the necessity of having such law in facts & circumstances of the
matter.

iii.

State of A.P V. K.Pushotam Reddy

iv.

Ranjiv sarim V. State of Uttarakhand

7. Article 255- Requirements as to recommendations and previous sanctions to be regarded as

matters of procedure only

No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid
by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was
not given, if assent to that Act was given-

(a)where the recommendation required was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the
President;

(b)where the recommendation required was that of the Rajpramukh, either by the Rajpramukh or by
the President

;(c)where the recommendation or previous sanction required was that of the President, by the
President.

Case Laws: Deepchand V. State of U.P

The Supreme court lay down following cases in order to determine the repugnancy between the
union law and the state law.

1. There must be inconsistency on actual term

2. Both the state & the union makes the law over the subject matter

3. Even though there is no direct conflict still in case inconsistency union law will prevail
#Administration Relations: (256-257-258-262-263) Articles
Administration Relation- The administrative relations between the union & state is mainly for the
following purpose-

1) Administration of law
2) To achieve coordination between the center & the state
3) To settle the dispute between center & the state
4) To settle the dispute between state intersects.
5) For the purpose states against external aggression & internal disturbances.

I) Article 256- Obligation of States and the Union

The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws
made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the
Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of
India to be necessary for that purpose.

Case Law- Rameshwar Oraon vs. State of Bihar

It was held that the central law’s should be properly executed in the states. It is incumbent on the
state government to act in accordance with the directions given by the central government.

II) Article 257- Control of the Union over States in certain cases

(1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the
exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to
the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for
that purpose.

(2) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the
construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to be of
national or military importance:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be taken as restricting the power of Parliament to declare
highways or waterways to be national highways or national waterways so declared or the power of
the Union to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to
naval, military and air force works.

(3) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the
measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the State.

(4) Where in carrying out any direction given to a State under clause (2) as to the construction or
maintenance of any means of communication or under clause (3) as to the measures to be taken for
the protection of any railway, costs have been incurred in excess of those which would have been
incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State if such direction had not been given,
there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in
default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India,
in respect of the extra costs so incurred by the State.
III) Article 258 - Power of the Union to confer powers, etc., on States in certain cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may, with the consent of the
Governor of a Slate, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its
officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.

(2) A law made by Parliament which applies in any State may, notwithstanding that it relates to a
matter with respect to which the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws, confer powers
and impose duties, or authorise the conferring of powers and the imposition of duties, upon the
State or officers and authorities thereof.

(3) Where by virtue of this article powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a State
or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such
sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator
appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred by the
State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties.

IV) Article 258- Power of the States to entrust functions to the Union

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor of a State may, with the consent of the
Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its
officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

V) Article 260- Jurisdiction of the Union in relation to territories outside India

The Government of India may by agreement with the Government of any territory not being part of
the territory of India undertake any executive, legislative or judicial functions vested in the
Government of such territory, but every such agreement shall be subject to, and governed by, any
law relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction for the time being in force.

VI) Article 261- Public acts, records and judicial proceedings

(1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and
judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.

(2) The manner in which and the conditions under which the acts, records and proceedings referred
to in clause (1) shall be proved and the effect thereof determined shall be as provided by law made
by Parliament.

(3) Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India
shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.

VII) Article 262- Adjudication of disputes relating to waters, of inter-State rivers or river valleys
Disputes relating to Waters
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to
the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State River or river valley.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or
complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
 Case Law- T. N Couvery Sangam V. Union of India

The supreme court held that if central government failed to make the reference of the disputes, the
court u/a 32 by an application made an aggrieved party issue the unit to the central government to
carry out its statutory obligation.

Case Law- M.E.P Forum V. UOI

VIII) Article 263- Provisions with respect to an inter- State Council

Co-ordination between States

If at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the
establishment of a Council charged with the duty of--

(a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States.

(b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the Slates, or the Union and one or
more of the States, have a common interest; or

(c) making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the
better co-ordination of policy and action with respect to that subject,

it shall be lawful for the President by order to establish such a Council, and to define the nature of
the duties to be performed by it and its organisation and procedure.

The president issued interstate council orders 1990 for setting a cause interstate council.

The president has also constituted it the central council of health & central council of local self-
government u/a 263. There are 5 Zonal council set up under the state recognised Act, 1951.

1) Northern council
2) Southern council
3) Eastern council
4) Western council
5) Central council
Also there is establishment of National Development council (NDC) with the following aims-

a) To strength the efforts & sources of nation

b) To promote common economic policies
c) To ensure balance & rapid development
Fundamental Rights-
Article 13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

(1)All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Pan, shall, to the extent of
such inconsistency, be void.

(2)The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part
and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

(3)In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-(a)"law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-
law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of
law;(b)"laws in force" includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in
the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or
in particular areas.

(4)Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.

Doctrine of Article 13-

1. Doctrine of viod-ab-initio

2. Doctrine of eclipse

3. Doctrine of Separability

4. Doctrine of waiver

1. Doctrine of viod-ab-initio:

This doctrine implies that something which is void null & unconstitutional since the beginning. This
doctrine relates to Article 13(1) i.e., The fundamental rights under part III are perspective in nature
and retrospective. It means that the article will be in effect from 26 Jan 1950 & if any law which was
previously existing was unconstitutional, only part of its inconsistency shall be declared void.

This doctrine also relates to article 13(2) because if the state makes any law violating fundamental
rights, it will be declared as void since the beginning.

2. Doctrine of Eclipse:

According to this doctrine if some laws are violating the fundamental rights, they will not be
declared as void-ab-initio rather they will become unenforceable for the time being later after
demanding such provision such law can be made valid, such law which over shadows the
fundamental rights needs the applicability of doctrine of eclipse.

3. Doctrine of separability:

Doctrine of separability implies that if some part of the statutes is against Part III then the whole
section or the status will not be declare void but only that particular section will be declare void
under the ambit of doctrine of separability.
4. Doctrine of waiver:

Under this doctrine no one can waiver the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution
part III.

Case Laws-

1. Keshav Madhava Menon V. State of Bombay

This case relates to article 13(1) where an the supreme court held that article 13(1) will not be
applicable in the current care because the offence was committed before the commencement of the
constitution & proceeding against the practitioner were filed in 1949 therefore the petition was
exempted.

2. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala V. Union of India

In this case start constitutionality of the price Competition Act was challenged where in it was stated
that some provisions of said are violating the fundamental rights under article 19(1)(g)
Article 14- Equality before law

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India.

Case law- National Human Right Commission V. Arunachal Pradesh

It was held that the word person includes natural as well as artificial persons whether he is citizen or
an alien.

National Legal Services Authority V. UOI

It was held that the word person under article 14 includes transgenders also.

Equality before law Equal protection of law

It means that among equals the law should be It means equality of treatment to all under
equal i.e the likes should be treated alike equal circumstances. i.e. there should be no
discrimination under same circumstances
It is a negative concept It is a positive concept
It means absence of any special privilege for Persons have right to equal treatment both in
any particular person privilege conferred & liabilities imposed
It is the concept of rule of law given by dicey It has been taken from article 7 of universal
declaration of human rights 1948.

Exception to Article 14- i.e. rule of equality- Article 14 is not absolute in nature exceptions are given
under it.

● Article 361 of the constitution- Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs

● Article 14- Permits reasonable classification & Prohibits class legislation

Reasonable classification mean a systematic arrangement of things into group or classes with some
definite scheme & which is not arbitrary or artificial.

Case Law- R.K Dalmia V. Justice Tendulkar

The supreme court laid down the 2 tests to determine the reasonable of the classification.

1. Classification must be based on intelligible differentia.

2. The differentia must have rational relation to the object sort to be achieved by the
statue.
→Principles determining reasonable classification

1) A law may be made even for a single individual

2) There is always a presumption regarding constitutionality of a statue
3) The presumption can be rebutted on the ground that there is no reasonable classification
4) It is presumed that the legislature understands the need of the people
5) In order to determine the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into
 consideration the common report, history, old legislations etc.

Ref. case- Special Corts Bill, 1978

E.P Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu

It was held that article 14 strikes at arbitrariness

→ Basis of classification

1) Geographical basis
2) Historical consideration
3) Nature of business
4) Nature of person (Javed V. State of Haryana)
5) Time
6) Nature of offences (Suresh Kumar Koshal V. Naz Foundation)
7) On the basis of educational qualification
8) In favor of state
9) In favor of single individual (Chiranjeet lal choudhary V. UOI)
10) Procedural Classification (Meenaka Gandhi V. UOI)

●Article 14- Wednesbury Test Doctrine of proportionality

This test is applicable in case of administrative discretion.

Case law- Centre for public litigation V. UOI

This case is also known as 29 cases

● Article 14- Prohibits class legislation-

The word class legislation means legislation differentiating between as “similarly situated test” (SST)

Case Law- D.S Nakara V. UOI

The Supreme court struck down the pension rules which differentiated the government
employees/pensioners retiring before 31 March,1979.

He court held it as a class legislation and as violative of article 14

Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be
subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-

a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or
partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and
children.

Case Law- State of Rajasthan V. Thakur Pratap Singh

John Vallamattan V. UOI

Exception- With respect to clause 3 of article 15 of the constitution 73rd amendment Act, 1992, the
constitution 74th amendment Act, 1992 added article 243(d) & 243 (t) in the constitution thereby
making a provision for reservation of not less than 1/3rd of the total seats for women in the
constitution of panchayats & municipalities.

The constitution 84th amendment bill, 1998 contains a provision for reservation of 33% of seats for
woman in the Lok Sabha & the legislative assembly of the state.

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Case Law- State of Madras V. Champakam Dorairajan

Champakam dorairajan was a brahmin candidate who could not get the seat in the state medical &
engineering college. This was because he madras government issues a communal governmental
order (GO) providing for the reservation of the seats on the grounds of religion and caste. It was
argued that the reserved seats were violative of article 15 clause(1). The state defended that the
order directive principles of the state policy. It was the sate policy cannot have overriding effect on
the fundamental rights & the order was quashed.
 Case Law- Indra Sahni V. UOI

M.R Balaji V. State of mysore

(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from
making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such
special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational
institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions
referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

Case Law- Ashok Kumar Thakur V. UOI

Pramati educational & cultural trust V. UOI

(6) Maximum of 10% of total seats in each category.

Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall
prevent the State from making,—

a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens
other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens
other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions
relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions
referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to
the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each
category.
Article 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State,

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or
any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under
the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or
other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State
or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State,
is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in
matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services
under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State
are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Case Law for Article 16(1)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat V. Subhash baloda

It was held that article 16(1) doesn’t prevent state from prescribing requisite qualification and
selection procedure for the recruitment or appointment

Case Law for Article 16(2)

C.B Muthamma V. UOI

It was held by the supreme court that rule 8 sub rule 1 of Indian foreign service (conduct and
discipline) rules, 1961 rule 18 sub rule 4 of Indian foreign service (recruitment, cadre, seniority and
promotions) rules 1961 are discriminatory against women. Therefore it stated that women may be
barred from the particular employment if the discrimination is based not solely on the ground of sex
on the account of non-suitability.

Case Law for Article 16(3)

Narsima Rao V. state of Andhra Pradesh 1970

In this case supreme court struck down section 3 of the public employment ( recruitment as to the
resident) Act, 1957 which related to Telangana part of Andhra Pradesh as ultra biased the
parliament Article 16(3) are the word state which signifies as a single unit and not the parts of the
states as districts or cities etc. therefore parliamentary law can be made for the whole of Andhra
Pradesh & not a pat of it which is now known as Telangana.

Case Law for Article 16 (4)

M.R Balaji V State of Mysore, 1963

The court was of the opinion that any resolution exceeding 50% in a single year would be
unconditional.

Facts- 26th July 1958 the Mysore government passed an order which placed all the communities
except the brahmin community in the category of educationally & socially backward class, SC & ST.
This order reserved 75% of total seats in educational institutions for there reserved communities.
Thereafter various other orders with various reservation percentages were passed in the following
years. However there orders were challenged & accordingly set aside.

Still the Mysore government once again issued an order in 1962 which were in support of previous
orders that were issued under the domain of article 16(4) accordingly the state classified, in this
order of 1962, the backward class of citizens into two categories i.e backward class & more
backward class.

Further it reserved 68% of the seats for socially & educationally backward class of citizens, SC and ST
in the state engineering & medical colleges & leaving only 32% of the seats for the merit. Accordingly
writ petition under article 32 was filed & the court issued the following orders.
a) The court held that reservation exceeding 50% is invalid.

b) The court held that article 15(4) talk about the word ‘classes’ & not the castes. Therefore, there
words cannot be used as Synonyms.

c) The court stated that backwardness of the classes should be both social & educational & either
social or educational.

d) The court said that the caste can be the basis for determining backwardness, but it cannot be the
sole basis for the determination.

f) The sub classification of backward class into backward class & more backward class is unjustified.

g) The court ruled that for the purpose of reservation each year should be taken by itself & therefore
there should be no carry forward of the unfilled reserved vacancies.

T. Devadasan V. Union of India, 1964

It is also known as carry forward rule case. In this case the constitutional validity of carry forward
rule was issue. This rule states that in case sufficient member of candidates belonging to SC’s & ST’s
are not available for appointment to reserved quota, then the vacancies that remained unfilled
would be treated as unreserved & would be filled by fresh available candidates, however a
corresponding number of posts would be reserved in the next year for SC’s & ST’s in addition to then
reserved quota for the next year. The result was to carry forward the unutilised balance & unfilled
vacancies in the 2nd & the 3rd year at one time. In actual 68% of vacancies were reserved for SC’s and
ST’s.

The SC therefore by 4:1 majority struck down the carry forward rule declaring it as unconstitutional
on the ground that the powers vested in the government under Article 16(4) cannot be exercised in
order to deny equality of opportunity. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of M.R Balaji Case &
stated that reservation should be less than 50%.

Indra Sawhney V. Union of India

This case also known as Mandal commission case.

Facts-

On 1st Jan, 1979 the government appointed second backward class commission under article 340
under the chairmanship of B.P Mandal. The commission was charged with investigating the socially
& educationally backward class within Indian territory & making the recommendation to the
government for reservation of their seats. The commission submitted its report in Dec 1980 thereby
identifying 3743 castes as socially & educationally backward class. Castes should grant 27%
reservation.

With the passage of time Janta Dal Government collapsed due to internal disturbance & the
congress came into power. As a result the congress did not implement the recommendations made
by Mandal Commission until 1989.

Again in 1989 Janta Dal Government came into power & decided to implement the
recommendations made by Mandal commission. Accordingly the government issued office
memorandum (OM) on 13 Aug, 1990 thereby reserving 27% of seats for backward classes in the
government services, Resulting their came lor of agitation & violence in the country for anti
reservation movement. Subsequently the supreme court bar association filed a writ petition in the
supreme court challenging the validity of OM. Thereafter the government issues another office
memorandum & made these changes in the previous office memorandum.

1) Making economic criteria for granting reservation by giving preference to poor sections of
socially & economically backward classes in 27% quota.
2) Reserving additional 10% for other socially & economically backward classes of higher
castes. Again this second office memorandum was placed before the supreme court & the
court gave its decision in 6:3 majority.

Decision of Supreme court

1) Under Article 16(4) a backward class of citizens can be identifies on the basis of caste rather
on economic but caste cannot be the sole basis for consideration.
2) Article 16(4) is an independent clause & not an exception to article 16(1).
3) Socially & educationally backward class of citizen u/a 15(4) is not same as backward class
u/a 16(4).
4) The court allowed the classification of backward class into backward class of more backward
class. Accordingly the court overruled the M.R Balaji case.
5) Reservation shall not exceed 50%. Accordingly the court affirmed the decision of T.
Devadasan & M.R Balaji case.
6) A provision u/a 16(4) can be only made by executing order and approved by parliament.
7) The court stated that there will be no reservation in promotion

Article 17- Abolition of untouchability

In order to give effect to article 17 of the constitution for enacted untouchability (offence) Act, 1955
later on this Act was amended in 1976 and it was renamed as protection of civil rights Act, 1955

Changes made in the new Act

1.The word civil rights was defined as any right accused to the person by reason of untouchability

2. All the offences are related to untouchability

There are two types of offences i.e compoundable and Non compoundable

3. Punishment regarding untouchability were increase

4. It become the duty of public servant to relating untouchability if any public servant wilfully
negligence his duty then he shall be deemed as abettor.

5. Privately on the place of worship were bound under the preview of untouchability.

6. State government were empowered to impose collective fines on area and inhabitants that
promotes untouchability.

7. The Act also provides for different setup machinery for an effective and better implementation of
the Act.
8. The word untouchability is no more define either in the constitution of india or in the 1955 Act.
However the word untouchability can be understood as treating the person as untouchable for any
reasons, such as suffering from infection any contacted disease because of social observance due to
his birth or death or because of social boycott as for caste, religion or any other matter.

Case Law-

State of Karnataka V. Appa Balu Ingak

It was held by the supreme court that untouchability has a indirect form of slavery and extension
caste system, the court also stated that in India, untouchability and caste system they go hand in
hand which is an offence.

People union for democratic rights V. UOI

It was held whenever there is violation article 17,23 and 24 it become the duty state to take
necessary step for eradication of such an offence even though the aggrieved person has a right to
approach the judiciary.

Article 18- Abolition of title

During the debate of the constituent assembly it was observed that conferring any title either in the
executive or legislative power will lead to the violation of right of equality. Accordingly Sir Ivor
Jennings specifically pin pointed that article 18 is not granting right to any person rather it is
imposing restriction so as not to allowing the government to impose any title.

Case Law-

Bala Ji Raghaven V. Union Of India

It was five judges of bench that national word will not come under the preview of article 18 and
those award shall not be use as suffix or prefix to the name be holder.

Nallu Indrasana Reddy V. UOI

It was held that the use of the award Padma Shri as the prefix to his name was held improper