mod 12-20

Question 1

sakal papers v uoi 1962

Answer 1

art 19(1) a
the govt sought to regulate the numbers of pages in the newspapers with prices and in order to increase pages- the newspaper would have to pay more- which would lead to a rise in cost of news and reduction in the print ads - less revenue etc
The Act and order challenged on grounds of it being violative of the right guaranteed underArt. 19(1)(a)of the Constitution.
It was argued by the petitioners if they continue to give in their newspaper the same number of pages as at present, they would have to increase its selling price and that this will adversely affect its circulation.
\
HELD: The right of freedom of speech cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business activities of a citizen. Freedom of speech can be restricted only in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign State, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Question 2

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India,

Answer 2

India faced a shortage of indigenous newsprint. Therefore, newsprint had to be imported from foreign countries. Because of the shortage of foreign exchange, quantity of newsprint imported was not adequate to meet all requirements. Some restrictions, therefore, became necessary on the consumption of newsprint. Accordingly, a system of newsprint quota for newspapers was evolved.
India faced a shortage of indigenous newsprint. Therefore, newsprint had to be imported from foreign countries. Because of the shortage of foreign exchange, quantity of newsprint imported was not adequate to meet all requirements. Some restrictions, therefore, became necessary on the consumption of newsprint. Accordingly, a system of newsprint quota for newspapers was evolved.

similarly- Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Question 3

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar

Answer 3

Sec 124A-sedition was challenged to be violative of Art 19.
The Court ruled that a mere criticism of government action, however strongly worded, would be allowed within the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. Only the words having the pernicious tendency, or intended to create disturbance of law and order would be penal in the interests of public order.

Question 4

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Answer 4

Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will.
Although the police later released the women and dismissed their prosecution, the incident invoked substantial media attention and criticism. Shreya Singhal a law student filed a writ petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it violates the right to freedom of expresion
The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutional because its intended protection fall outside the purview of Article 19(2). They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague as it fails to specifically define its prohibitions. In addition, they contended that the law has a “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of expression

Question 5

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 3 S.C.R. 294,

Answer 5

the Supreme Court of India recognized that the right to know about electoral candidates falls within the right to information available under the right to freedom of speech and expression described in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The Court concluded that Section 33B of the Representation of People Act, 1951, was unconstitutional
- since it is a fundamental right to know abt the ppl ur voting for

Question 6

In Bombay Hawkers’ Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1985 SC 1206

Answer 6

the Supreme Court ruled, in answer to the claim of the hawkers that under Art. 19(1)(g) they have a Fundamental Right to carry on their trade on public streets, that no one has a right to do business so as to cause annoyance or inconvenience to members of the public.
Public streets are meant for use by the general public; they are not meant to facilitate the carrying on of private trade or business. But the hawkers ought not to be completely deprived of their right to carry on trade. So, the Court directed that there should be hawking zones in the city where licenses should not be refused to the hawkers except for good reasons.

Question 7

Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipality, AIR 1989 SC 1988,

Answer 7

the Supreme Court again considered the question: how far the hawkers have a right to ply their trade on pavements meant for pedestrians? In the instant case, the Court has come to the conclusion that the right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Art. 19(1)(g) on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the street pavements are meant exclusively for pedestrian

Question 8

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & ors

Answer 8

, a seven-judge Supreme Court constitution bench heard a challenge of a complete ban of the slaughter of cow progeny in Gujarat.
cow progeny is needed in the interest of the nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the general public. The former must yield to the latter.”- upheld the beef ban

Striking down the newly enforced Maharashtra beef ban provision, the Bombay High Court in 2016 held that: “consumption of food which is not injurious to health is a part of an individual’s autonomy or his right to be let alone. Hence, it is an infringement of his right to privacy” (Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Ors)– READ MORE ON THIS

Question 9

SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY V. UNION OF INDIA

Answer 9

The court by its ruling on 30.11.2016, had passed interim orders which the court ordered should be followed conscientiously, that, there should be no commercial usage of the National Anthem, no dramatization of the Anthem as would amount to disrespect, it should not be printed or displayed on any object on any such place as it is associated with national identity roots, it should be played before the start of the film and all would be under obligation to show respect, in the cinema while the song is played, the doors should be closed so that no creates any hindrance and once the motion has been moved, the doors should be opened, (the court clarified in this view that it does not mean to bolt the doors as was held in MCD V. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn.[11] but only for regulation of entry and exit while it is played) there should be National Flag on the screen when the Anthem is played and no abridged version should be played.
The court also referred to the Fundamental Duty as enlisted in Article 51- A, it becomes obligatory and mandatory for everyone to respect the National Anthem and the National Flag. The court further clarified that if any specially disabled person and physically handicapped person (referring to the persons defined under sections 2(i) and 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) visits the cinema hall, he must not stand up but “must show such conduct which is commensurate with respect for the National Anthem.”

Question 10

Tata press v MDNL

Answer 10

• economic system focuses on reduction of prices for consumer but that will only happen if there is mass production and mass buying and that will only happen if theres mass advertisemtn so freedom of speech= on commercial ads

Question 11

right to carry on business includes right to close business?

Answer 11

Excel wear v UOI- no- you must give satisfactory reason before closing business

Question 12

Article 20

Answer 12

protection in respect to conviction for offences- protection from ex post facto laws - retrospective application of laws

CASES: Ratanlal v state, Mohanlal v state

20(2)- double jepardy
20(3)- self incrimination protection

Question 13

Ratan Lal v state and Mohan Lal v state

Answer 13

Ratan Lal v state - retrospective application of laws can be applied if it helps the accused

Mohanlal v state- Retrospective applicaton NOT for crimes and punishment and conviction but if it is a procedural change suppose in cpc and crpc- t is allowd

Question 14

section 20(2)

Answer 14

essentials
1. person must be accused of offence
2. proceedings or prosecution must take place in court or judiciall tribunal
(maqbool hussein v state)
3. person claiming doubl jeopardy should be prosecuted and punished in previous proceeding
4. Offence must be THE Same set of facts and the same persons in both the prosecutions

Question 15

makbool hussan v state

Answer 15

bros items were siezd by port authority and then he tryna claim in court that troubling him regardign this is double jeopardy- not correct as both proceedings or prosecution must take place in court or judiciall tribuna

Question 16

sec 20(3)

Answer 16

protection against self incrimination

MP SHARMA v Satish chandra -
1. right of person who is accused of an offense
2. protection against compulsion to be witness against urself
3. protection against compulsion to give evidence against oneself

Question 17

Kathi Kalu v bombay

Answer 17

so since we cant give evidence against oneself- then we cant gie dna blood sample or handwritng right? held not correct and the ambit was narrowed and now sec 20(3) protects people from being compelled to say something from his personal knowledge against himself

Question 18

Selvi v state of karnaktak

Answer 18

polygraph and brain mappin against a accused w/o consent held to be violative of s20(3) as it is against preservation of individual liberty

Question 19

article 21

Answer 19

no person shall be deprived of life and libery except according to procedure established by law

Question 20

AK gopalan v state

Answer 20

bro was detained under preventive detention act and stated dawg this violates my civil libertty and it is arbitrary - court said bae…. its through a procedure established by law…. idgaf if its arbitry bye - before maneka gandhi

// art 21

Question 21

maneka gandhi v uoi

Answer 21

passport impounded but without giveing reason - and then said since i cant travel withouth this - it violates art 21 my personal libery - 7 judge bench they said art 19, and 21 go hand in hand and this “procedure establishe dby law” has to pass the scrutiny of th eother provisions of the constiution as well, including art 14-
art 14,19,21- golden triangle of constitutuon thus overruled ak gopalan. in order to break past Art 21- it cant simply do so by a procedure established by law but this procudure cannot be an arbitrary legislative and shall be just, fair and reasonable. thus widens the scope of art 21 a LOT

Question 22

right to live w human dignity

Answer 22

1. occupational health and safety association v uoi - protection oof health and stregnth of workers and access to just and humane conditions of working= essential to life and human dignity
2. Navtej singh Johar- 377 held unconstitutional becase human dignity is not a straightjacket concept rather it includes all rights and freedoms which allow a person to live life w/o enrouchment upon their self resepct pricde and safety
3. Joseph Shine v uoi
   offence of aldutry violates human dignity because it keeps woman as property of wife

NLSA v india- right to self determination is part of human dignity

Question 23

Right to livlihood

and

right to health and medical assistance

Answer 23

Olga tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corp

• forcible eviction of slum dwellers- while the govt was justified in removing the slum dwellors as they were making use of public property for pvt purposes- they should still nit be considered as tresspassers since they occupied the areas due to sheer helplessness- further, any evictions are to be done only after monsoon season and people who were living there since before 1976 were entitled to resettlemt

right to health and med assistance
- Parmanand Kartara v UOI - Sc held that all doctors- pvt or govt are obliged to extend medical assistance to injuredimmediately without asking for legal formalities

Question 24

right to die

Answer 24

P. Rathiman v UOI
right to life also includes right to not live a forced life and thus decriminalised sec 309 of IPC- suicide

then we have aruna ramchandra shanbaugh case where court held that passive euthanasia can be allowed in some cases- such as removing a comatose patient from the ventilator

common Cause v UOI - right to life with dignity includes right to die w dignity

Question 25

Right to privacy under art 21

Answer 25

Peoples union for civil liberty v uoi - phone tappingis a violation of fundamental rights unless there is grounds for doing the same

Mr x v Hospital Z - hiv case where dude who was soon to be married had HIV + and then doctor divulged the info to the fiance- violation of privacy? but doctor claimed that keeping this secret violates the girls right to life.
court held that if 2 fundamental rights such as right to ptivacy and right to life clash- the one which would advance public morality would be enforced by court

Justice KS Puttaswamy case- the sections of aadhar act violated some fundamental rights including privacy and thus were struck down.The nine Judge Bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India

Question 26

right to education

Answer 26

mohini Jain v state- right to educaton at all levels held to be fundamental right

unni krishnan v state- right to education is a fundamental right flowing from art 21 but free eductation only till age 14 yrs after that the states obligation depends on eceonomic capacity and development

Question 27

joginder kumar v state

Answer 27

advocate was arresred and police told family that he stayed voluntarily un relation to a case
HELD:
person arrested has right to inform his family or welfare person
police must inform him of his rights
entry of arrest is required in diary
these are protections from art 21

Question 28

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary,

Answer 28

human rights of Indian inmates
An accused cannot be denied a speedy trial simply on the ground that they failed to claim it
A speedy trial is a fundamental right of every citizen. HELD THAT ART 21 right to life includes right to speedy trial

Question 29

Khatri v. State of Bihar,

Answer 29

first in which the Supreme Court ordered compensation for violation of basic human rights. The court also declared that it is a constitutional mandate of the state to provide free legal aid to the accused at all stages of trial if an accused suffers from poverty or destitution.

acid poured into 33 trial prisoners by bihar police

Question 30

M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra

Answer 30

M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra was a landmark case that established the right of prisoners to free legal assistance in India. The case was the first to discuss the right to free legal aid and concluded that it is important to make poor people aware of their constitutional and statutory rights.

Question 31

Dastagir v. State of Madras

Answer 31

The accused gave the Deputy Superintendent of Police an envelope containing money to bribe him. The money was seized and it was held that the accused presented the envelope voluntarily and was not compelled to do so.
The case involved Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which gives a right against self-incrimination. This article can be used to seek protection if an accused is beaten, starved, tortured, or harassed to extract a confession

Question 32

Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad.

Answer 32

ARTICLE 22

preventative detention
“Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand, and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on other hand.

Question 33

article 22

Answer 33

Article 22 grants protection to persons arrested or detained
Any person who is in custody has to be informed as to why he has been arrested. Further, he cannot be denied the right to consult an advocate.
Article 22(2) – The arrested individual should be produced before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
Article 22(3) –none of these protections apply to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention so like POTA TADA etc

Question 34

so what are the conditions regarding preventative detention in Art 22 subclause 4,5,6

Answer 34

ARTICLE 22(4)
- no law of preventative detention shall authorise a detention for longer than 3 months (unless and advisory board deems it necessary)
22(5) grounds of detention to be provided to the detained and there will be an opportuntiy of representation against the order
22(6) UNLESS it is facts against public order- then the grounds of detention will not be revealed

Question 35

Icchu Devi v. Union of India

Answer 35

, a smuggler detained under COFEPOSA challenged his detention on several grounds, of which one proved to be fatal, viz. the detaining authority had not served on the detenu copies of several documents on which the authority had relied in the grounds of detention. The high water of this case is the deep concern expressed by the Supreme Court for the upholding of personal liberty.
The Court ruled that, in the instant case, continued detention of the petitioner became illegal because of non-compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements particulars as possible
ARTICLE 22

Question 36

Jaynarayan Sukul v west bengal

Answer 36

1. the appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation and to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible.
2. the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the Advisory Board.
3. there should not be any delay in the matter of consideration. It in true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen’s right raises a correlative duty of the State.
4. , ‘the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu’s representation to the Advisory Board. \

if the boards report is not given within 3 months- detention would be illegal

Question 37

right against exploitation

Answer 37

farticle 23 - prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour
- begars included
- state can do compulsory service- like madatory military but it cannot discriminate based on religion race caste class etc so it will not be forced labour

article 24- prohibition of employment in factories of hazardous activity for children= such as mine and factory also

Question 38

Peoples Union for democratic rights v uoi (ASIAD worker construction case)

Answer 38

Article 23 - workers were givien less than minimum wage and unequal income given to men and women-
so SC held that “forced labour” doesnt mean that you physically force and kidnap someine to work but also includes exploitation of economic factors of a person to force them to work below minimum wage by abusing their economic situation

ARTICLE 24-
had employed children in construction and said it is not illegal because in Employemnt iof children act - construction industry is not explicitly considered as hazardous industry
HELD: construction is OBVIOYSLY hazardous for kids. illegal

Question 39

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v uoi

Answer 39

release of bonded labourar - bonded labur= one person is bound to provide labour to another for years and years until an alleged debt is wiped out and this is “totally incompatible with the new egalitarian socio economic order which the nation has promised to build and is an affront to human dignity as well as contributes to gross and revolting violation of constitutional values”
linked article 21, and 23 - fundamental right of everyone to live with human dignity free from exploitation

Question 40

MC MEHTA v tamil nadu

Answer 40

children were emplyed in firecracker industry in sivakasi which was known for firecrackers and court held that it is obviously hazardous involving chemicals and gunpowder and you cannot employ kids under age 14
further 20k compensation per child employed and this hsould go to a child rehabilitaton fund

Question 41

article 25

Answer 41

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
all people have freedom of consience and right to freely profess practise and propgate religion SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ORDER AND MORALITY
- the state may make law or operate existing laws regulating or restricting economic financial or other secular activity and throwing open of hindu institutions of public character to all classes and sections of hindus (untouchability etc)

Question 42

bijoe emmanual v state -

Answer 42

national anthem jehova witness case- singing not allowed due to religion- so article 21, 25 etc

Question 43

Article 26-

Answer 43

freedom to manage religious affairs-
establish and maintian institution, acquire movable and immovable property, etc

Question 44

article 27

Answer 44

freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any partcular relgiion
- basically if u promote a religion then u wont have to pay tax??

Question 45

article 28

Answer 45

freedom of religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions -
1. no religious instruction in any educational instute maintained WHOLLY out of state funds
2. if established under a religious endowmnet or trust requiring religioys instruction and it is administered by state- it is allowed - not to be against public morality, security etc
3. if recieving partial aid from state- then the religious instruction can be allowed but the attendance should be OPTIONAL

Question 46

article 29-

Answer 46

protection of interest of mnorities
- any citizens group having distinct language script culture shall have right to conserve it
no citizen to be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by state/recieving state funds on basis of only religion,, caste race , language etc

Question 47

Article 30

Answer 47

right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
- 30(1A)so when right to propertty was removed from fundamental rights to provide protection to educational institute - so if govt acquires tghe property on which an educational institution of minority is made on, then enough monetary compensation will be given.

Question 48

Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Answer 48

The word ‘propagate’ underArticle 25 (1), does not grant the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered thatArticle 25 (1)guarantees “freedom of conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, compared to simply spreading the word of their religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” of the other party

Question 49

Church of god v KKR majestic colony

Answer 49

basically- there was a church that used musical instruments and loudspeakers during their prayers- and the colony was getting disturbed- citing noise pollution. the church bascally said they are a religious minoruty and should be allowed to pursue the religious activities.
HELD: useof loudspeakers byaparticular community atthe time ofprayers is subject to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are to be performed through loudspeakers.
and also no right is absolute, must find balance between own rights and rights of others.

Question 50

Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore

Answer 50

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958), the petitioners had claimed that the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act which allowed the entry of Harijans into the temple, was against the Article 26 of the Constitution and the temple was a denominational one having been founded exclusively for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. However, the Supreme Court held that not merely temples dedicated to the public as a whole but also those founded for the benefit of some sections are contemplated in Article 25 (2) which provides for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus

Question 51

Aruna ROy v UOI

Answer 51

basically NCERT bascally had in their curriculum education abt different religions and basic tenets andphilospy of practices in religion.
contended that this violates art 28 and offends secularism.
HELD: totally wrong presumption and contention that knowledge of different religions would bring disharmony in the society. On the contrary, knowledge of various religious philosophies is material for bringing communal harmony as ignorance breeds hatred because of wrong notions, assumption and that to provide academic study of lige and philosophy and culture is not “making provisions for religious instructions”

Question 52

Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N. Sangam and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Answer 52

“The rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26, are circumscribed and are to be enjoyed within constitutionally permissible parameters. A just balance can always be made by holding that the exercise of judicial power to determine essential religious practices, though always available being an inherent power to protect the guarantees under Articles 25 and 26, the exercise thereof must always be restricted and restrained.

Question 53

Safai Karamchari Andolan v/s Union of India, (2014) 11 S

Answer 53

ARTICLE 17-18

Sewer deaths – entering sewer lines without safety gears should be made a crime even in emergency situations
The court also recommended a compensation of ₹10 lakh for people who died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks.
The court ruled that manual scavenging violates Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolished untouchability