module 25-30 Flashcards
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat,
he Court emphasized that the right under Article 30(1) is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of maintaining educational standards, preventing maladministration, and preserving national integration. However, the Court found that the State’s interference, in this case, was not reasonable and went beyond the permissible limits, as it sought to control the college’s administration and finances directly.
The Court further clarified that granting financial aid to educational institutions did not give the State the right to control the administration and internal management of the college. The right to administer, in essence, meant the right to manage the institution efficiently and to appoint staff as per the institution’s choice.
article 32
remedies for enforcement of rights conferrred- basically writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo waranto, and certiorari
- further the parliament has rights to empower other courts to excersise these powers of sc within their respective local limit
32 vs 226 article
32- SC
- remedy under fundamental right so court cannot refuse a writ - only for fundamental right
226- High court
- descritionary power so court may refuse to hear the petition- can issue writs for enforce of FR but also other purpose- so a bit wider
habeas corpu
art 32-
let us have the body - basically can be used against public authority- u get arrested but not shown infront of magistrate within 24 hrs so can file for habeas corpus to find out the situation
habeas corpus does not apply in 4 cases=
1. lawful detention
2. detained for contempt of court.legislature
3. detained by competent court
4. if outside territorial jursidiction of court
mandamus
we command- art 32
descritionary power of court to issue this
basically is an order from higher court to lower court
which falls within its duty to make a public official to do a thing but he has failed to do so
quo warranto q
s32- by what authority
issues w a view to restrain a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled- illegal assumption of public office
prohibition
stay order - by superior court to lower court or tribunal to forbid it from performing outside its jurisdiction (preventative)
tate of Uttarakhand v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010)
a PIL in Uttarakhand HC challenging appointment of an Advocate general for the state – AG had allegedly crossed 62 years of age. The HC asked St govt to decide within 15 days and inform the HC. The State govt filed a SLP to SC that stayed the HC order.
SC ruled that legal issue about age is already settled – that age bar is not applicable to Adv gen.
These cases not checked by the petitioner at the time of filing – costs of Rs 1 lakh imposed for frivolous PIL.
Certiorari
to be certified
- while a case is ongoing a writ of certiorari can be issued by SC to inferior court to transfer the matter to a superior authority for proper consideraton
article 36-51
Diresctive Principles of State policy - non justiciable - just guidelines for nation
welfare state
art 38 and 39 embody principles of welfare state
art 38= state to strive to secure social order for promotion of welfare of the people - social order w justice
and the state shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and facilities and opportunities
art39= operation of economic system should not lead to concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment and equal pay for equal work of men and women
DPSP vs FR
Madras v champakan dorairajan -
il. DPSPs were regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. SC also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendment act to implement DPSPs.
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging v State of Mysore
(1970) – hotel owners challenged a legislation introduced by the State of Mysore imposing minimum wages for hotel and restaurant employees in the State, arguing that such a restriction violated their FR under 19(1)(g).The Court upheld the legislation, stressing the importance of social welfare and calling “FR and DPSP as complementary and supplementary to each other.”
Ashok Thakur v UOI (2008)
– SC said there can be no distinction between the 2 sets of rights (FR and DPSP) – while FR represent civil and political rights, DPSP represent socio, economic and cultural rights.
Sarla Mudgal v UOI (1995)
– a Hindu husband who was married under Hindu law, embraced Islam and solmnised second marriage. SC had to decide whether the 2nd marriage is valid with the 1st marriage still not dissolved and also decide the rights of the 1st wife. In the context that there is no uniform matrimonial law in India encompassing all religions to deal with such situations, the SC held the 2nd marriage is invalid and to attract S494 IPC (bigamy) – SC also urged for a UCC for “protection of the oppressed and promotion of national unity and solidarity.”
