Case Laws

Question 1

• conflict arose regarding the power of the parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan.
• Judgement: The detailed examination of article 3 was done by the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament of India is not competent to make a law under article 3 for the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement
• Power of parliament Under Art.3 discussed and interpreted. Resulted in 9th Amendment Act of the Constitution.

Answer 1

** Re. The Beruberi Union case**

Question 2

• The validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution in so far as they affect the fundamental rights was again challenged is this case. The fourth amendment was also challenged
• Court held: that law made by the Parliament shall not be such that infringes and takes away the fundamental rights of the citizen which are provided by the Constitution of India
• 1967
• Doctrine of ______. Parliament made law is recognized under Article 13 as law. Constitution can be amended but not the Fundamental Rights

Answer 2

Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab.

• prospective overruling

Question 3

• The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. The state of Punjab and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendment.
• Court held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution of India except the Fundamental Rights. Basic Structure of the Constitution cannot be amended.
• 1973
• Doctrine of Basic structure introduced and elaborated. Also known as the “Fundamental 1973 Rights Case ”An extension of principles under Golaknath case.

Answer 3

Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala

Question 4

• The amendment was made to the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India.
• Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause (4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the _____ Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution
• 1975

Answer 4

Indira Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain

• 39th
• Re-affirmed doctrine of basic structure and applied it to strike down a provision of 39th Amendment

Question 5

• A writ petition was filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court. The main issues of this case were whether the right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and whether the Passport Act prescribes a “procedure‟ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person of the right guaranteed under the said article.
• Court held: that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Also widened freedom of speech and expression
• Doctrine of ______ evolved. Landmark case as gave new and highly varied interpretation to “life and personal liberty‟ under Art 21 of the Constitution. Article ___, ___ and ___ are inter-connected (golden triangle). 13 judge bench, longest till date

Answer 5

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India

• post-decision theory
• 14, 19 and 21

1978

Question 6

• In this case, the validity of the ____ amendment act was challenged on the ground that they are violative of the “basic structure‟ of the Constitution
• Court held: Social welfare laws should not infringe fundamental rights. Few changes made by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void
• Judicial review under _____ of the Constitution, this case laid foundation of judicial review of laws and judgments in the country

Answer 6

Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India

• 42nd
• Art 13(2)

1980

Question 7

• Slum-dwellers staying on pavements and in slums were allowed to stay there against order of eviction by BMC
• Court held: Protected the Fundamental right to livelihood of slum-dwellers
• Fundamental rights cannot be waived. Right to livelihood recognized as a part of Art 21 of the Constitution.
• 1985

Answer 7

Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Question 8

• This case raised a serious question of law relating to the Proclamation of President’s Rule and dissolution of Legislative assemblies according to Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
• Court: curtailed power of President under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
• This verdict stopped misuse of Art 356 of the Constitution. Has huge impact on Centre-State Elections. Secularism is basic structure of the Constitution

Answer 8

S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India.

1993

Question 9

• In this PIL questions were raised on the increase in custodial deaths and violence taking place and arbitrariness of police personnel in exercising powers of arrest
• Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies. It related all cases dealing with arrest and detention.
• Any form of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment. Even it occurs during interrogation, investigation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21. Rights of an arrestee recognized under Art 21, 22 and 20(3).

Answer 9

D.K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal.

1997