Consti cases Flashcards
The case in which the President to intervene in State governance, including dissolving the Legislative Assembly, when the Assembly fails to function in accordance with the Constitution. Also Article 131 gives supreme court original jurisdiction to adjudicate issues related to states and center
State of Rajasthan v Union of India
Principles laid down were consistent with sarkaria commission . Cooperative federalism.
State emergency can be reviewd
SR Bommai V Union of India
Limitations by regulation on trade and commerce in Article 301 are valid.
GK krishnan V Tamil Nadu
Atiabari case
Doctrine of direct and immediate effect
States are certainly free to exercise the power to levy taxes on goods imported but not to the extent that it brings distinction between the imported goods and similar goods manufactured in that state. Discriminatory state tax policy.
State of Mahavir Oil Mills V state of Jammu n kashmir
Free in Article 301 , free from taxation, taxes that are not discriminatory in nature are only valid.
Jindal stainless ltd and anr v state of Haryana and ors
Principle of territorial nexus and inter state taxation.
Tata iron and steel company v state of bihar
Betting and gambling nor trade and commerce hence not a fundamental right.
State of Bombay v RMDC
Nature of public and private trust. Public trust exempted from tax.Article 245
State of bihar v charusila dasi
Parliament has power to legislate on extra territorial matters, distinction between acts and functions of making laws. Making of law and operation of law.
GVK industries limited V income tax officers
Education in exclusive medium. Entry 66 list 1 and entry 11 list 2
Gujarat University v krishna ranganath mudholkar
Bengal money lenders act was valid as it was in pith and substance with money lending as it was a subject of provincial legislative list under schedule 7 of government of India act
Prafulla Kumar v state of commerce.
The court decided that amplifier did not fall under entry 31 of list I even though the amplifier is an apparatus for broadcasting and communication the legislation in its pith and substance was on state matter and it was not held invalid even if it incidentally encroached upon the subject of broadcasting and communication.
State of Rajsthan v G Chawla
As long as in pith and substance, the levy satisfies the character of levy i.e. entertainment , it is wholly immaterial in what name and form it is imposed. Once it is found that there is a nexus between the legislative competence and subject of taxation, the levy is justified and valid
State of Karnataka v drive in enterprises
Doctrine of colorable legislation , Article 31A, land reform
KC gajapati narayn deo v state of orrisa
Parliament can legislate on matters not explicitly mentioned in union list - residuary power. Distinction between wealth tax and direct property tax. Union laws under residuary powers do not unjustly infringe on state competencies.
Union of India v HS Dhillon
Doctrine of repugnancy, when two laws covers the same subject , central law prevails., transporting essential commodity without permit.
Zaverbhai v state of Bombay.
Test of doctrine of repugnancy
Direct conflict, exhaustive code and occupied field
State can levy surcharge. For repugnancy ,orders to be made in concurrent list , in present case both orders were distinct in union list and state list.
Hoechst pharmaceuticals Ltd v state of Bihar
When repugnancy exists, then the state law which is invalid to the extent of it’s inconsistency with union law. Discussed inconsistency.. contract carriages act
Vijay kumar sharma v state of karnataka
Point of time when repugnancy arises, SC noted that repuganancy arises in the date of enactment and not when it comes into force
State of kerela v mar appraem kuri co. Ltd
SC and High court can review tribunals judgment
L chandra Kumar v Union of india
Validity of national tax tribunal act and 42 constitutional amendment- act against basic structure
Madras bar association v Union of india
Procedural fairness in death penalty cases
Mohd. Arif v the reg. SC
To prevent abuse of power and gross miscarriage of justice SC can re-consider it’s judgment in exercise of its inherent power.- curative petition
Rupa ashok hurra v ashok hurra
To file curative petition when SC has already given decision . Cannot file writ petition against SC previous decision
Zakarious lakra v Union of india
Res judicata will apply on writ petition of Article 32 who h were already heard by HC under Article 226
Daryao v state of UP
Is there any limitation to file petition under article 32. And doctrine of laches
Trilokchand motichand v HB Munshi
SC empowered to appoint investigating commision under article 32
Bandhua mukti morcha v uoi
Power of SC to award compensation
Rudul sah v state of bihar
Oleum gas leak, the Taj Mahal case, PIL can be filed under Article 32 and court established the principle of absolute liability.
MC mehta v Union of India
The SC emphasized that power to issue ordinance is an emergency measure intended for situations requiring immediate action when the legislature is not in action. Continuous repromulgation is unconstitutional.
DC Wadhwa V State of Bihar
When both houses of parliament are not in session then ordinance making power can be delegated to executive , national security ordinance valid.
AK Roy V Union of India
Power of ordinance can be judicially reviewd, reissuing ordinance without limit is unconstitutional.
Krishna kumar Singh v state of bihar
A case which established essential guidelines for harmonious independence of judiciary and held that HC judges cannot be transferred without their consent.
Union of India v sankalchand himatlal seth
Locus standing and PIL, first judges case, chief justice of India does not enjoy primacy of opinion in matters relating to judicial appointment.
SP Gupta V President
Second judges case, held that chief justice has primacy of opinion, led to the establishment of collegium system
Supreme court advocate on record association and ors. V uoi. 1993
Affirmed 3rd judges case and affirmed appointment by collegium system.
In re special reference no. 1
National judicial appointment system as unconstitutional and uphled appointment by collegium system
Supreme court advocate on record association and ors v Union of india 2015
Affirmed that CJI has authority to allocate cases to benches
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India
President can make a person as PM even when he is not a member of any of the house , but he has to become member within 6 months of appointment
SP Anand V HP deve gowda
If a member is disqualified from contesting election cannot be appointed as chief minister
BR kapur v state of tamil nadu
The supreme court ruled that a convicted legislature who carries a sentence of two years and more will automatically be disqualified
Lily thomas v Union of india
The supreme court clarified that a legislature will not be disqualified if there conviction is stayed.
Lok prahari v election commission of india
A legislature cannot be appointed as a member of he is holding an office of profit which is capable of yeilding pecuniary profits
Jaya Lalitha v Union of india
Parliament exempted some offices from offices of profit and SC held that parliament has power to make retrospective laws.
Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India & Ors.
Court can review legislature exercise of privilege to ensure that they are not used to violate fundamental rights
In re keshav singh
SC can review any illegality and irregularity in the exercise of parliamentary privileges
Raja Ram pal v sc
Interpreted doctrine of pleasure
BP singhal v UOI
Principle of joint responsibility, the judgment affirmed that the president is the nominal head of the state and cannot exercise and cannot exercise the executive functions of the government alone, as the true power lies in the hands of council of ministers
UNR Rao v Indira Gandhi
Dismissal at pleasure and dismissal at pleasure but with liability to be dismissed for misconduct. It also established that in cases of dismissal at pleasure the governor or the executive must act in fair and executive manner
Shamsher Singh v state of punjab
The governor can grant sanctions to prosecute ministers under article 163(2), doctrine of necessity
MP special police establishment v state of MP
The power of the executive to grant pardon is in the hands of executive and it can be judicially reviewed.
Epuru sudhakar v gov of AP
