CLAT PG Exam > CLAT PG Notes > Constitutional Law > Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL
Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL
1. Supreme Court of India
1.1 Constitutional Provisions
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 124 | Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court - 1 CJI + max 33 other judges (amended by Constitution 99th Amendment Act, 2014) |
| Art. 124(2) | Appointment by President after consultation with judges of SC and HC as President deems necessary |
| Art. 124(3) | Qualifications: (a) citizen of India (b) judge of HC for 5 years or (c) advocate of HC for 10 years or (d) distinguished jurist in opinion of President |
| Art. 124(4) | Removal by President on address by both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity |
| Art. 124(7) | Retirement age: 65 years |
| Art. 125 | Salaries and allowances - cannot be varied to disadvantage during continuance in office |
| Art. 126 | Appointment of Acting Chief Justice |
| Art. 127 | Appointment of ad-hoc judges |
| Art. 128 | Attendance of retired judges at sittings of Supreme Court |
| Art. 129 | Supreme Court as court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself |
| Art. 130 | Seat of Supreme Court at Delhi |
| Art. 131 | Original jurisdiction - disputes between Government of India and States |
| Art. 131A | Omitted by 7th Amendment Act, 1956 |
| Art. 132 | Appellate jurisdiction - constitutional matters involving substantial question of law |
| Art. 133 | Appellate jurisdiction - civil matters where HC certifies case involves substantial question of law of general importance |
| Art. 134 | Appellate jurisdiction - criminal matters where HC has reversed acquittal and sentenced to death or withdrawn case from subordinate court and convicted with death sentence or certified case as fit for appeal |
| Art. 134A | Certificate for appeal or grant of leave to appeal by Supreme Court |
| Art. 135 | Jurisdiction and powers with respect to existing law until provided otherwise |
| Art. 136 | Special Leave Petition - discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order by any court or tribunal except Armed Forces tribunals |
| Art. 137 | Review of its own judgments or orders |
| Art. 138 | Enlargement of Supreme Court jurisdiction |
| Art. 139 | Power to issue certain writs for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III |
| Art. 139A | Transfer of cases from one High Court to another or from High Court to Supreme Court |
| Art. 140 | Ancillary powers of Supreme Court |
| Art. 141 | Law declared by Supreme Court binding on all courts within territory of India |
| Art. 142 | Enforcement of decrees and orders and power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice |
| Art. 143 | Advisory jurisdiction - President may seek opinion on question of law or fact of public importance |
| Art. 144 | Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of Supreme Court |
| Art. 145 | Rules of Court and minimum number of judges for deciding cases |
| Art. 146 | Officers and servants and expenses of Supreme Court |
| Art. 147 | Interpretation of provisions relating to Supreme Court |
1.2 Appointment of Judges - Key Cases
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) | Consultation does not mean concurrence; primacy of executive in judicial appointments; CJI's opinion has greatest weight but not binding |
| Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993) | Established Collegium system; primacy of CJI; consultation means concurrence; CJI must consult 2 senior-most judges |
| Third Judges Case (In Re Presidential Reference, 1998) | Expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges; recommendation must have majority agreement |
| Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015) | Struck down National Judicial Appointments Commission (99th Amendment and NJAC Act) as violating basic structure; reaffirmed Collegium system with need for reforms |
1.3 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
1.3.1 Original Jurisdiction (Art. 131)
- Exclusive jurisdiction in disputes between: (a) Government of India and one or more States (b) Government of India and State(s) on one side and State(s) on other side (c) Two or more States
- Exclusions: disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, sanads or similar instruments
- Cannot involve questions of private law or matters remediable under other laws
1.3.2 Appellate Jurisdiction
| Type | Provision |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Matters (Art. 132) | Appeal lies if HC certifies case involves substantial question of law of general importance as to interpretation of Constitution and such question needs SC determination |
| Civil Matters (Art. 133) | Appeal lies if HC certifies: (a) case involves substantial question of law of general importance (b) in opinion of HC, question needs SC decision |
| Criminal Matters (Art. 134) | Appeal lies if HC: (a) reversed acquittal and sentenced to death (b) withdrawn case from subordinate court and convicted with death (c) certified case as fit for appeal |
1.3.3 Special Leave Petition (Art. 136)
- Discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
- Applies to any court or tribunal in territory of India except Armed Forces tribunals
- Not a matter of right but discretion exercised to advance justice
- Granted in cases involving: substantial questions of law, gross miscarriage of justice, exceptional circumstances
1.3.4 Advisory Jurisdiction (Art. 143)
- President may refer question of law or fact of public importance for opinion
- Opinion not binding on President or courts
- SC not bound to give opinion but has always done so
- Reference must be on real issue, not abstract or hypothetical
1.4 Powers of Supreme Court
| Power | Description |
|---|---|
| Court of Record (Art. 129) | Proceedings recorded for perpetual memory and testimony; records have evidentiary value; power to punish for contempt |
| Review (Art. 137) | Power to review any judgment or order; grounds: error apparent on face of record, new evidence, violation of principles of natural justice |
| Writs (Art. 32 & 139) | Power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; can issue directions, orders, writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari |
| Complete Justice (Art. 142) | Power to pass such decree or order as necessary for doing complete justice; not confined to jurisdiction under substantive law; cannot violate statutory provisions or constitutional mandates |
| Contempt (Art. 129) | Power to punish for contempt of itself; civil contempt (willful disobedience) and criminal contempt (scandalizing court, interference with judicial process) |
| Transfer (Art. 139A) | Power to transfer cases from one HC to another or from HC to SC if substantial question of law of general importance arises |
1.5 Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions
- Art. 141: Law declared by SC binding on all courts within territory of India
- Ratio decidendi (reasoning) is binding, not obiter dicta (observations)
- SC bound by its own decisions but can depart in exceptional cases
- Larger bench can overrule smaller bench decision
- Per incuriam doctrine: decision given in ignorance of relevant statute or binding precedent need not be followed
2. High Courts
2.1 Constitutional Provisions
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 214 | High Court for each State (Parliament may establish common HC for two or more States or State and UT) |
| Art. 215 | Every High Court is court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself |
| Art. 216 | Constitution of High Courts - consists of Chief Justice and such other judges as President prescribes |
| Art. 217 | Appointment and conditions of office of HC judge |
| Art. 217(1) | Appointment by President after consultation with CJI, Governor of State, and Chief Justice of HC |
| Art. 217(2) | Retirement age: 62 years |
| Art. 217(3) | Qualifications: (a) citizen of India (b) held judicial office in India for 10 years or (c) advocate of HC for 10 years |
| Art. 218 | Application of certain provisions relating to SC judges to HC judges |
| Art. 219 | HC judge to take oath before Governor or person designated by Governor |
| Art. 220 | Restriction on practice after being permanent judge |
| Art. 221 | Salaries of HC judges - cannot be varied to disadvantage during continuance in office |
| Art. 222 | Transfer of HC judge from one HC to another by President after consultation with CJI |
| Art. 223 | Appointment of Acting Chief Justice |
| Art. 224 | Appointment of additional and acting judges |
| Art. 224A | Appointment of retired judges at sittings of High Courts |
| Art. 225 | Jurisdiction of existing High Courts |
| Art. 226 | Power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose |
| Art. 226A | Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be considered by HC consisting of less than Division Bench |
| Art. 227 | Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in territory |
| Art. 228 | Transfer of certain cases to High Court (repealed by Constitution 42nd Amendment, 1976) |
| Art. 229 | Officers and servants and expenses of High Courts |
| Art. 230 | Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to Union Territories |
| Art. 231 | Establishment of common High Court for two or more States |
2.2 Jurisdiction and Powers
2.2.1 Writ Jurisdiction (Art. 226)
- Power to issue writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari
- Can be issued for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III) and for any other purpose
- Territorial jurisdiction: person or authority must be within territorial jurisdiction or cause of action must arise within jurisdiction
- Not confined to statutory remedies unlike Art. 32
- Discretionary jurisdiction but must be exercised on judicial principles
2.2.2 Comparison: Art. 32 vs Art. 226
| Aspect | Art. 32 (Supreme Court) |
|---|---|
| Scope | Only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights |
| Nature | Guaranteed Fundamental Right itself |
| Alternative Remedy | Not a bar to Art. 32 petition |
| Appealability | No appeal from SC order |
| Aspect | Art. 226 (High Court) |
|---|---|
| Scope | For Fundamental Rights and any other purpose |
| Nature | Constitutional power but not Fundamental Right |
| Alternative Remedy | HC may refuse if adequate alternative remedy available |
| Appealability | Appeal lies to Supreme Court |
2.2.3 Superintendence Power (Art. 227)
- Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within territorial jurisdiction
- Power to call for returns, make general rules, prescribe forms, issue directions
- Does not confer power of appeal or revision; cannot correct errors of subordinate courts unless jurisdictional error
- Cannot interfere with discretion of subordinate courts unless perversity or jurisdictional error
- More extensive than judicial review under Art. 226
2.3 Types of Writs
| Writ | Purpose & Key Features |
|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | Produce the body; challenges unlawful detention; most important writ for personal liberty; burden on detaining authority to justify detention |
| Mandamus | Command to do; issued against public authority to perform public duty; not available against private persons or President/Governor |
| Prohibition | Issued by superior court to inferior court or tribunal to prevent excess of jurisdiction or acting contrary to law; issued during pendency of proceedings |
| Certiorari | To be certified; issued to quash order of inferior court or tribunal; issued after order passed; grounds: excess of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, error of law apparent on face of record |
| Quo Warranto | By what authority; challenges person's right to hold public office; must be substantive public office, not ministerial position |
2.4 Limitations on Writ Jurisdiction
- Discretionary remedy: court may refuse on grounds of delay, laches, alternative remedy, conduct of petitioner
- Cannot be issued against private persons (except habeas corpus)
- Cannot interfere with legislative functions or question wisdom of legislation
- Cannot interfere with policy decisions unless irrational or violative of constitutional provisions
- Bar of alternative remedy more stringent under Art. 226 than Art. 32
- Locus standi required unless public interest litigation
3. Judicial Review
3.1 Concept and Constitutional Basis
- Power of courts to examine validity of legislative enactments and executive actions
- Part of basic structure of Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
- Constitutional basis: Art. 13 (laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void), Art. 32 & 226 (writ jurisdiction), Art. 372 (adaptation of pre-Constitution laws)
- Doctrine of ultra vires: law beyond legislative competence or violating constitutional provisions is void
- Not expressly conferred but implied from constitutional scheme
3.2 Types of Judicial Review
| Type | Scope |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments | Parliament's constituent power subject to basic structure doctrine; amendment violating basic structure can be struck down |
| Judicial Review of Legislation | Examination of validity on grounds of: (a) legislative competence (b) violation of Fundamental Rights (c) violation of other constitutional provisions |
| Judicial Review of Administrative Action | Examination on grounds of: (a) violation of Fundamental Rights (b) ultra vires (c) unreasonableness (d) procedural impropriety (e) irrationality (f) proportionality |
3.3 Grounds for Judicial Review of Legislation
| Ground | Description |
|---|---|
| Legislative Competence | Whether legislature had power to enact law under distribution of powers (VII Schedule); doctrine of pith and substance, occupied field, repugnancy, colorable legislation applied |
| Fundamental Rights Violation | Whether law violates Part III; Art. 13 declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void to extent of inconsistency |
| Constitutional Mandate Violation | Whether law violates other constitutional provisions including DPSP where expressly made enforceable |
| Manifest Arbitrariness | After Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), manifest arbitrariness is ground for striking down legislation under Art. 14 |
3.4 Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action
| Ground | Description |
|---|---|
| Illegality | Action beyond powers conferred by statute or Constitution; ultra vires parent statute |
| Irrationality | Wednesbury unreasonableness; decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have arrived at it |
| Procedural Impropriety | Violation of principles of natural justice; failure to follow prescribed procedure; bias or reasonable apprehension of bias |
| Proportionality | Action must be proportionate to object sought; excessive or unnecessary action can be struck down |
| Legitimate Expectation | If policy or practice creates legitimate expectation, cannot be changed arbitrarily without giving opportunity of hearing |
| Malafides | Action taken in bad faith or for extraneous considerations |
3.5 Doctrines in Judicial Review
| Doctrine | Description |
|---|---|
| Pith and Substance | Examines true character and nature of legislation; if pith falls within competence, incidental encroachment on another list permissible |
| Colorable Legislation | Legislature cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly; form may be within competence but substance beyond competence |
| Occupied Field | If Parliament exhaustively legislates on Concurrent List subject, State cannot legislate on same matter |
| Repugnancy (Art. 254) | If State law on Concurrent List repugnant to Central law, Central law prevails unless State law reserved for President's assent |
| Severability | Invalid part of statute can be severed if separable from valid part and remaining part self-sustaining |
| Eclipse | Pre-Constitution law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights not void but eclipsed; revives if inconsistency removed by constitutional amendment |
| Harmonious Construction | Constitutional provisions should be interpreted to avoid conflict; each provision given effect |
| Reading Down | Narrow interpretation of statute to save it from constitutional invalidity |
3.6 Basic Structure Doctrine
- Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Parliament's amending power under Art. 368 cannot destroy basic structure of Constitution
- Overruled Golaknath (1967) which held Fundamental Rights cannot be amended
- Confirmed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Elements of basic structure (non-exhaustive): supremacy of Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, rule of law, judicial review, independence of judiciary, Fundamental Rights, parliamentary system, harmony and balance between Parts III and IV
3.7 Limitations on Judicial Review
| Limitation | Description |
|---|---|
| No Review of Legislative Wisdom | Courts cannot question wisdom, policy or propriety of legislation; only examine constitutional validity |
| Presumption of Constitutionality | Every law presumed constitutional until proved otherwise; burden on challenger |
| Political Questions | Courts generally avoid deciding political questions but no absolute bar in India |
| Judicial Restraint | Courts exercise self-restraint in reviewing policy matters unless clear constitutional violation |
| Limitation Periods | Delay and laches may bar relief under Art. 226; no limitation for Art. 32 |
3.8 Important Cases on Judicial Review
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) | Narrow interpretation of Art. 21; each Article in Part III mutually exclusive; preventive detention law upheld |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) | Parliament cannot abridge Fundamental Rights even by constitutional amendment; Art. 368 only procedural; overruled in Kesavananda Bharati |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) | Basic structure doctrine established; Parliament can amend any part including Fundamental Rights but cannot destroy basic structure |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) | Reaffirmed basic structure; struck down Cls. (4) & (5) of Art. 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment giving unlimited amending power |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) | Expanded Art. 21; procedure must be just, fair and reasonable; interconnection between Arts. 14, 19 & 21 recognized |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) | Upheld 27% OBC reservation; total reservation cannot exceed 50%; creamy layer to be excluded; reservation in promotions not Fundamental Right |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) | Laws in IX Schedule not immune from judicial review if violate basic structure; test of post-Kesavananda validity applied |
4. Public Interest Litigation
4.1 Concept and Evolution
- Judicial innovation to provide access to justice for marginalized and disadvantaged sections
- Relaxation of traditional locus standi requirement
- Pioneered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1980s
- Any public-spirited person can move court for protection of public interest
- Can be initiated by letter (epistolary jurisdiction)
- Court can take suo motu cognizance of newspaper reports or other material
4.2 Locus Standi in PIL
| Traditional Rule | PIL Exception |
|---|---|
| Only aggrieved person with personal interest can file writ petition | Any member of public acting bonafide can maintain action for public injury |
| Legal injury to petitioner required | Sufficient if public interest or rights of disadvantaged class affected |
| Strict requirement of personal harm | Representative standing allowed for those unable to approach court due to poverty, disability, socially or economically disadvantaged position |
4.3 Scope and Subject Matter of PIL
- Bonded labor and exploitation of labor
- Rights of prisoners and custodial violence
- Protection of environment and pollution control
- Rights of women and children
- Rights of tribals and scheduled castes
- Public health and medical facilities
- Corruption in public office
- Illegal detention and human rights violations
- Consumer protection and public safety
- Educational rights and mid-day meal schemes
- Right to information and transparency in governance
4.4 Landmark PIL Cases
| Case | Significance |
|---|---|
| Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) | Undertrials in Bihar jails; right to speedy trial under Art. 21; epistolary jurisdiction accepted |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) | Relaxed locus standi rule; any public-spirited person can invoke writ jurisdiction for redress of public wrong or public injury |
| Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) | Bonded labor in stone quarries; Art. 21 includes right to live with human dignity; State's duty to ensure minimum wages and working conditions |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986) | Absolute liability for hazardous industries; no exceptions; polluter pays principle; environment protection as Art. 21 right |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) | Sexual harassment at workplace; laid down Vishaka Guidelines until legislation enacted; judicial legislation justified in absence of statutory law |
| PUCL v. Union of India (2003) | Right to food; directed universalization of mid-day meal scheme; continuing mandamus issued for monitoring implementation |
| Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) | Rights of women prisoners; directed separation of women prisoners from men; women police to guard women prisoners |
| Upendra Baxi v. State of UP (1983) | Inhuman conditions in protective homes; Art. 21 guarantees decent conditions for persons in custody |
4.5 Judicial Activism through PIL
- Expansion of Art. 21 to include various unenumerated rights: right to livelihood, shelter, speedy trial, food, clean environment, education, health
- Continuing mandamus: court retains jurisdiction and monitors implementation
- Appointment of commissions and committees to investigate and report
- Interim directions and measures to protect rights pending final adjudication
- Compensatory jurisprudence: award of compensation for rights violation
- Socio-economic rights enforcement despite DPSP being non-justiciable
4.6 Limitations and Criticism of PIL
| Concern | Description |
|---|---|
| Misuse and Abuse | Busybodies and meddlesome interlopers filing frivolous PILs; private vendetta disguised as public interest; publicity interest litigation |
| Judicial Overreach | Courts making policy decisions invading executive and legislative domain; separation of powers concerns |
| Lack of Expertise | Courts lack expertise in complex policy matters like economic policy, environment, urban planning |
| Pendency and Delay | Regular cases delayed due to PILs; court resources diverted |
| Selective Application | PIL entertained selectively; lack of consistent criteria |
| Implementation Challenges | Court orders not implemented; lack of monitoring mechanism; continuing mandamus burden on courts |
4.7 Safeguards Against Abuse of PIL
- Court to scrutinize bonafides of petitioner
- Costs imposed on frivolous petitioners
- In Re: Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020): Limitation on entertainment of PILs by individuals; prefer PILs by organizations with expertise
- Notice requirement before entertaining PIL against private parties
- Preliminary hearing to determine if genuine PIL
- Rejection at threshold if motivated by personal gain or publicity
4.8 PIL: Key Principles
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Bonafides | Petitioner must act in good faith for public interest; not for personal gain or publicity or settling scores |
| Public Interest | Must involve genuine public interest; not private grievance dressed as PIL |
| Disadvantaged Sections | Primary purpose to help those unable to approach court themselves due to poverty, ignorance, socio-economic disadvantage |
| Court's Discretion | PIL is discretionary remedy; court may refuse if more appropriate forum available or matter requires detailed evidence |
| Adversarial Process | Though relaxed procedure, basic principles of fair hearing and natural justice apply; respondents must have opportunity to contest |
| Alternative Remedy | Bar of alternative remedy less stringent in genuine PIL but court may direct petitioner to statutory remedy if more appropriate |
4.9 Recent Developments in PIL
- Increasing strictness in entertaining PILs due to misuse
- Preference for institutional PILs over individual PILs
- Emphasis on implementation of court orders rather than fresh PILs
- Use of technology: video conferencing, e-filing, virtual courts for PIL hearings
- Suo motu cognizance of media reports on COVID-19 related issues (In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies, 2021)
- PIL on climate change and environmental protection gaining prominence
- Concerns about PIL being used to stall government projects without proper examination
5. Contempt of Court
5.1 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
- Art. 129: SC as court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself
- Art. 215: Every HC is court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: comprehensive legislation defining and regulating contempt
- Inherent power of superior courts to punish contempt for maintaining dignity and authority
5.2 Types of Contempt
| Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| Civil Contempt (Sec. 2(b)) | Willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of court; willful breach of undertaking given to court |
| Criminal Contempt (Sec. 2(c)) | Publication of any matter or doing of any act which: (i) scandalizes or lowers authority of court (ii) prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings (iii) interferes or obstructs administration of justice in any other manner |
5.3 Defenses and Exceptions
| Defense/Exception | Provision |
|---|---|
| Truth as Defense (Sec. 13) | Truth can be pleaded as valid defense if made in public interest and court satisfied it was for public interest |
| Fair and Accurate Report (Sec. 4) | Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings not contempt unless court prohibits publication |
| Fair Comment on Merits (Sec. 5) | Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt; but scandalizing or lowering authority is contempt |
| Innocent Publication (Sec. 3) | Publication of matter without knowledge that proceedings pending not contempt if prejudices matter |
| Apology | Unconditional apology may be accepted; discretion of court; does not bar punishment |
5.4 Punishment
- Maximum: Simple imprisonment for 6 months or fine up to Rs. 2,000 or both (Sec. 12)
- Court may discharge accused instead of punishing if satisfied no interference with administration of justice
- Limitation: proceedings must be initiated within one year from date of contempt (Sec. 20); SC/HC may condone delay for sufficient cause (Sec. 14)
5.5 Key Cases on Contempt
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970) | Article criticizing judiciary can be contempt; real injury is to public interest; fair criticism allowed but scandalizing court not permitted |
| Prashant Bhushan v. Supreme Court (2020) | Two tweets about judiciary held contempt; nominal fine of Re. 1 imposed; wide discretion in imposing punishment |
| Arundhati Roy v. Union of India (2002) | Held guilty of contempt for statements lowering dignity of court; symbolic sentence imposed |
| C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971) | Statement that judge showed favoritism is contempt; attack on individual judge is attack on entire judiciary |
The document Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL is a part of the CLAT PG Course Constitutional Law.
All you need of CLAT PG at this link: CLAT PG
About this Document
4.92/5 Rating
Apr 20, 2026 Last updated
Related Exams
Document Description: Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL for CLAT PG 2026 is part of Constitutional Law preparation. The notes and questions for Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL have been prepared according to the CLAT PG exam syllabus. Information about Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL covers topics like and Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL Example, for CLAT PG 2026 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL.
Introduction of Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL in English is available as part of our Constitutional Law for CLAT PG & Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL in Hindi for Constitutional Law course. Download more important topics related with notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT PG Exam by signing up for free. CLAT PG: Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL
Description
Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL of Constitutional Law to help you remember important concepts with short tricks. Start learning for CLAT PG exam & improve retention with EduRev.
Information about Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL
In this doc you can find the meaning of Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides explaining types of Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, HC, Judicial Review & PIL tests, examples and also practice CLAT PG tests
Related Searches
study material, HC, Viva Questions, Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, Extra Questions, practice quizzes, pdf , HC, Previous Year Questions with Solutions, Semester Notes, Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC, Judicial Review & PIL, past year papers, video lectures, Judicial Review & PIL, Exam, shortcuts and tricks, Objective type Questions, Judicial Review & PIL, ppt, mock tests for examination, HC, MCQs, Summary, Sample Paper, Important questions, Free, Cheat Sheet: Judiciary: SC;