All questions of Leading Case Laws & Supreme Court Judgements for CLAT Exam

Understanding the Directive Principles of State Policy
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are a set of guidelines outlined in the Indian Constitution, aimed at establishing a just society. The phrase “Directive Principle of State Policy is the conscience of the Constitution which embodies the social philosophy of the constitution” highlights the significance of these principles in shaping the governance of the country.

Who Said It?
- The quote is attributed to **Granville Austin**, a prominent scholar of Indian constitutional law. His work extensively analyzed the Indian Constitution, particularly its foundational principles and objectives.

Importance of Directive Principles
- The Directive Principles serve as a framework for the government to formulate policies that promote social and economic justice.
- They guide the state in ensuring the welfare of citizens and address inequalities, thereby embodying the social philosophy of the Constitution.

Role in Governance
- Although the DPSP is not justiciable (i.e., they cannot be enforced by the courts), they are fundamental in the governance of the country.
- They reflect the aspirations of the people and aim to create a balanced society.

Conclusion
- Granville Austin’s characterization of the DPSP as the conscience of the Constitution underscores their vital role in guiding the state toward achieving the goals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
This reflection on the DPSP showcases their importance in the Indian constitutional framework, emphasizing their role in promoting social welfare.

Shankari Prasad vs Union of India

In the landmark legal case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the right to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. This case is of significant importance as it established the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

Background
The case originated in the context of the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which was passed in 1951. The Amendment introduced several changes, including the addition of Article 31A and Article 31B, which provided for the acquisition of estates and the validation of certain laws. The Amendment also sought to nullify the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan and State of Bombay vs Balsara, which had struck down laws providing for reservation based on religion and race.

Key Arguments
The main argument put forward by the petitioner in this case was that the First Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the right to equality and the right to property. It was contended that the Fundamental Rights were sacrosanct and could not be amended by the Parliament.

Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by a 6-1 majority, rejected the petitioner's argument and upheld the validity of the First Amendment. The Court held that the power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was wide and comprehensive, and included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights. It stated that the Constitution was a living document that needed to adapt to the changing needs of society, and therefore, the Parliament had the authority to amend it.

Impact and Significance
The decision in the Shankari Prasad case marked a significant shift in the interpretation of the Constitution. It established the doctrine of Parliament's power of amendment, which has been further upheld and elaborated upon in subsequent cases. This case laid the foundation for the Parliament's authority to amend the Fundamental Rights, subject to certain limitations imposed by the basic structure doctrine.

It is worth noting that the decision in Shankari Prasad case was later affirmed and expanded upon in the case of Golaknath vs State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights. However, this position was overruled by a larger bench in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case.

Overall, the Shankari Prasad case is a significant milestone in the constitutional history of India, as it established the Parliament's power to amend the Fundamental Rights and contributed to the ongoing dialogue on the balance between the power of amendment and the protection of individual rights.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India
In the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act was struck down by the Supreme Court of India. This section allowed for the arrest of individuals for posting allegedly offensive content online.

Background
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Shreya Singhal, a law student, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A. She argued that the provision was vague and broad, leading to arbitrary and excessive censorship of online speech.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in March 2015, declared Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional. The court held that the provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Impact
The striking down of Section 66A was a significant victory for freedom of speech and expression in India. It set a precedent for protecting online speech from arbitrary government censorship and overreach. The ruling also highlighted the importance of upholding constitutional rights in the digital age.

Conclusion
The case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India marked a crucial moment in the legal landscape of online speech in India. The striking down of Section 66A by the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of protecting fundamental rights in the digital realm.

The case that laid the guidelines for sexual harassment at the workplace is Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan.

In 1997, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan. The case involved the gang rape of a social worker, Bhanwari Devi, in Rajasthan. The court recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Background:
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped by upper-caste men in 1992 when she tried to stop a child marriage. The incident brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace, particularly in rural areas. Bhanwari Devi filed a case against her attackers, but the trial court acquitted them due to lack of evidence, leading to widespread protests.

Key Points of the Judgment:
1. Definition of Sexual Harassment: The Supreme Court defined sexual harassment broadly, stating that it includes any unwelcome sexually determined behavior, such as physical contact and advances, demand or request for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, or any other conduct of a sexual nature that interferes with a woman's work or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

2. Employer's Duty: The court held that it is the duty of the employer or other responsible persons in the workplace to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment. They must also provide a mechanism for redressal of complaints and set up an appropriate complaint committee.

3. Complaint Committee: The court directed all workplaces to set up a complaint committee to receive and investigate complaints of sexual harassment. The committee should be headed by a woman and consist of at least half of its members as women. The committee should also include a member from a women's organization.

4. Guidelines for the Committee: The court provided detailed guidelines for the functioning of the complaint committee. It should provide a fair and impartial inquiry, maintain confidentiality, and complete the inquiry within a time frame of 90 days. The committee's recommendations should be implemented by the employer.

Impact and Significance:
The Vishakha judgment laid down the foundation for addressing sexual harassment at the workplace in India. It provided a clear definition of sexual harassment and established the employer's responsibility to prevent and address such incidents. The judgment also highlighted the importance of setting up complaint committees and provided guidelines for their functioning.

The guidelines laid down in the Vishakha case served as the basis for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. This legislation further strengthened the legal framework for addressing sexual harassment at the workplace and provided more comprehensive protections for women.

Overall, the Vishakha case was a significant step towards ensuring a safe and harassment-free work environment for women in India. It recognized the rights of women and established guidelines to prevent and address incidents of sexual harassment, setting a precedent for future cases and legislation in this area.

1. Regulate Law and order: This is not related to the freedom of religion; it pertains to the state's duty to maintain public order and safety.
2. Conversion with money: The right to freedom of religion does not include the right to convert others using monetary incentives or any form of coercion, as it undermines the voluntary nature of religious conversion and can lead to exploitation and abuse. This is restricted to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions.
3. Health: The freedom of religion is subject to restrictions in the interest of public health, meaning religious practices cannot jeopardize public health.
4. Morality: The freedom of religion is also subject to restrictions in the interest of public morality, meaning religious practices must not violate societal moral standards.