Constitutional Law | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Re Berubari Case

Issue: Whether the Preamble forms part of the Constitution.

Held: The Court held that the preamble to the Constitution containing the declaration made by the citizens of India in the exercise of their sovereign will is undoubtedly 'a key to opening the minds of constitutional framers' which may demonstrate the general purposes for which the various provisions in the Constitution were made, but nevertheless the preamble is not part of the Constitution.

Golaknath vs State of Punjab 

Issue: Whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution could be limited by an amendment to the constitution.

Held: In 1967, a bench of eleven judges (such a broad bench constituted for the first time) of the Supreme Court debated over the above mentioned issue and decided that Parliament could not curb any of the Fundamental Rights as they occupy a transcendental place in the Constitution and hence, amendments which 'take away or abridge' the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.

Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

Issue: Whether the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case was correct.

Held: The court held that the power of amendment is plenary and can be used to amend all the articles of the constitution (including the Fundamental Rights). Seven out of thirteen judges held (six judges dissented on this point) that the power to amend does not include the power to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution so as to change its identity. The judges indicated a list of what may be considered forming part of the basic structure; sovereign, republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, separation of powers, welfare state etc. In extremely simple words, basic structure of the constitution would be those parts of the constitution, which, if amended to alter, would destabilize the whole constitution.

Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India

Issue: Validity of Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment which gave the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution and such amendment could not be questioned in a court of law.

Held: This case expanded on the Basic Structure doctrine propounded in the Kesavananda Bharati case and the court held that ‘judicial review’, that is the power of the judiciary to review and decide on the constitutionality of any amendment or law passed by the Parliament, is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by the Parliament. Therefore, clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368 were struck down.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum and others  (The Shah Bano case)

Issue: This case pitted the rights of a religious minority to follow their personal law against the right of a woman to receive alimony. Muslim law entitles a woman to receive maintenance from her husband for a limited period called the ‘iddat period’ observed right after the divorce. It does not entitle the woman to claim ongoing maintenance.

Held: On an application filed under for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone and provides for a quick remedy to a class of persons who are unable to maintain themselves, the court ruled that the despite Muslim personal law, a woman would be entitled to ongoing maintenance from her husband after divorce. However, subsequently this led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which gave a Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce only, thus discriminating between Muslim women and women of other religions for the right to claim basic maintenance.

Vishakha and others vs State of Rajasthan 

Issue: Sexual harassment at workplace and increasing number of crimes against women.

Held: The immediate cause for the filing of this writ petition was an incident of alleged brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village of Rajasthan. For the first time, the court explicitly defined sexual harassment to mean ‘such unwelcome sexually determined behavior (whether directly or by implication) as:

(a) physical contact and advances; 

(b) a demand or request for sexual favours; 

(c) sexually–coloured remarks; 

(d) showing pornography; 

(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.’

The court also laid down guidelines for prevention of sexual harassment at workplace; some of which include; that the employer has to include a rule in the company code of conduct for preventing sexual harassment and every organization must establish complaint committees to address complaints of sexual harassment that are headed by women and on investigation, disciplinary action must be initiated against offenders.

Naz Foundation vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi  (The Naz Foundation case) 

Issue: Constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’.

Held: The Court held that consensual homosexual sex between adults cannot be considered a crime as that would be a violation of fundamental rights protected by India’s Constitution. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, encompasses the right to dignity and privacy as also the right to good health and criminalization of homosexual sex would impede the efforts to combat HIV. Furthermore, the court also held that by treating homosexuals differently as a class would be unreasonable and violative of Article 14, which guarantees equality to all.

The court did not declare the whole section invalid; it only decriminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private.

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India 

Issue: The justiciability and extent of the power of the President to issue proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution (President’s rule in a State).

Held: Although holding that a presidential decree is justifiable, the court also noted that this power is not unfettered and absolute, it is conditional, and if the constitutional machinery in a state has failed or there is a deadlock, as a last resort, the President may issue proclamations. This action, however, would not be immune from judicial review (i.e. the court will decide on the legality of the proclamation so issued and it may strike down the proclamation if the court finds it to be a mala fide (in bad faith) exercise of authority.

Hussainara Khatoon vs Union of India 

Issue: Rights of under-trial prisoners. The precursor to this case was a shocking number of people who were in prison awaiting trial. Some of them were charged with minor offences, which would entail punishment of imprisonment for a few months, but they remained in jail for years without having their case even considered.

Held: The court held that right to a speedy trial was implicit under Article 21 even though it was not specifically listed, and that the state cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State does not have the adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure required for improving the administrative and judicial machinery in order to provide a speedy trial to the accused.

D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal 

Issue: Death in police custody and instances of custodial violence.

Held: In this case, the court gave instructions that must be followed by law enforcement authorities when arresting, detaining and interrogating them. These include: the accused must be told of the reasons for the arrest and the warrant must be displayed, the accused must be given dignity and the use of force should be avoided unless the accused refuses arrest, the accused must be made aware of his rights, including the right to legal assistance at the expense of the state, the methods of questioning must be consistent with the recognised rights to life, dignity and freedom.

Indira Sawhney vs Union of India 

Issue: Constitutionality of Reservation for backward classes.

Held: The Court specifically laid down that affirmative action or conferring benefits in the form of reservations was not wrong. However, the state while conferring such benefits must keep in mind various factors and indices to decide & determine and reasonably classify the class of individuals that genuinely needed differential treatment. The Constitution itself provides for special treatment to be given to the backward classes. Therefore, reservations were validated for Backward Classes; however a 50% cap was imposed to ensure equality of opportunity and maintenance of efficiency and standards. The court also identified the concepts of ‘creamy layer’ and ‘means test’. While the former excludes the better half of the backward classes; which are socially and economically advanced and as such do not need reservation and the latter imposes an income limit and people with means beyond that limit are also precluded from claiming the benefits of reservation.

T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka 

Issue: This case decided on constitutional rights of the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. In this case, various minority educational institutions filed a number of petitions challenging the unnecessary control exercised by the government in the functioning of the institution thereby hampering their progress.

Held: The Court held that the admission policy of unaided educational institutions run by linguistic and religious minorities cannot be governed by state governments and universities, but that they can define academic qualifications for students and make rules and regulations for the preservation of academic standards accordingly. However, a fair number of students from non-minority communities will have to be accepted by minority educational institutions receiving state funding and cannot refuse entry to a person solely on the basis of religion, race, caste or language.

Unnikrishnan and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh 

Issue: The court considered the conditions and regulations, if any, which the state could impose in the functioning of private unaided/ aided, recognized or affiliated educational institutions, the fees that could be charged by such an institution, and the admission procedure.

Held: In the case of Unnikrishnan, it was observed that Article 21 is the cornerstone of fundamental rights and expanded the scope of Article 21 by noting that life requires education and that the right to education stems from the right to life. The Court further held that a fee greater than that paid by government agencies could be charged by private unaided institutions, but that such a fee could not surpass the overall cap set by the State. The court declared that educational commercialization was not acceptable and was contrary to public policy and Indian custom, so it was unconstitutional to charge capitation fees.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 

Issue: Whether the right to travel abroad was a part of right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and whether the passport act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said Article.

Held: The Court in this case expanded on the meaning of ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 and took it to engulf a variety of rights within itself. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The court held that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and that a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ has to fulfill the litmus test of reasonableness and fairness.

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India 

Issue: Regarding measuring the liability of an enterprise, which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry or activity.

Held: The court held that if a company is engaged in a dangerous or inherently dangerous operation and results in harm to someone due to an accident in the execution of such dangerous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in the escape of toxic gas, the company is strictly and absolutely liable for compensating all those harmed by the accident and that liability is not subject to such liability. The court also held that the 'deepest pocket theory' should apply as far as compensation to the injured individuals is concerned, which suggests that the degree of compensation should be specifically associated with the size of the company. The larger and more profitable the corporation, the greater the amount of compensation owed to it for the damage caused by an accident.