ARTI CLE 12 Thecons t i t ut i onofI ndi ahasdefinedt hewor dSTATE f ort hepur pose ofPar t– I I IandPar tI V.
GAL V/S SUBODH DH GO OP PAL BOSE, I n STATE OF WEST BANGA t heSC observed t hatt he o bj e c tofPar tI I Ii st o pr o v i de pr o t e c t i o nt ot he r i ght s and f r eedoms ms guar ant eed undert hi s par tby t he i nvasi on of
m an Ri ghts,Di gni t y St at e.PartI I IandPartI V carryat heme meofHuma ofI ndi vi dualandal sooft heuni t yanddi gni t yoft henati on. i ve Obl i gati on oft heSt at e and Thesepar t sr espect i v el yasaNegat i ti ve nott oI nt er f er e wi t ht he Li ber t y oft he I ndi vi dual ,and Pos ot akes t e psf o rt hewe we l f ar eoft heI ndi v i dual . Obl i gat i onoft heSt at et
St at eunderAr t12 oft mponents: heco ns t i t ut i o n hasFourComp 1.T .TheGover nmentand Par l i ame mentofI ndi a Gov er nmentme means anydepar t mentori ns t i t ut i on ofdepar t ment ; Par l i amentshal lconsi stoft hePr esi dent ,t heHo HouseofPeopl eand Co unc i lo fSt at e . T nmentandLegi sl at ur eofeachSt at e. 2 . heGover St at eLe gi s l at ur e so fe ac hSt at eco ns i s toft heGo Go v er nor ,Le gi s l at i v e Counci l ,andLegi sl at i veAssemb mbl yoranyoft hem m. . A lLocalAut hor i t i es and; 3 . l I t me ans, Muni ci pal boar ds Panc hay at s, Body of Por t Com mm mi ssi oner ,and ot herl egal l y ent i t l ed t o orent r ust ed by t he gov er nment . herAut hori t i es wi t hi nt he t err i t ory ofI ndi a orundert he 4.Ot
cont r olofGovernme m entofI ndi a. Thefir s tt wocat egor i esi ncl udedt hel e gi s l at i v eande xecut i v ewi ngs oft heUni o n andSt at ei nal lt he i rpo ss i bl ev ar i e t i e s .The yar equi t e s pe c i ficands e l fe x pl anat o r y .
Judi ci alScr ut i ny
1
Thel e t t ert wo c at egor i es,par t i cul ar l yt hel as tar enotso speci fic andr equi r esome meexpl anat i on.Togi veawi derdi mensi on t oFR t he Judi ci ar y has i nt er pr e t ed “ St at e”i n di ffer entcont e xtatdi ffer e nt t i me.
PRI NCI PLE OF OF EJUSDEM GENERI RI S: vers i t yofMadr asv/sSant aBai,t I nUni heMa Madr asHi ghCour tev ol v edt he pr i nci pl eofej usdem generi si . e.oft hel i kenatur e.I tmeanst hatt hose aut hori t i es ar e cov er ed under t he expre ssi on ‘ ot her aut hori t i es whi ch per f orm gover nment alorsov er ei gnf unct i ons. I n Uj he Supr j am Bai v/s Uni on of I ndi a t eme me Court r ej ect ed t he
pr i nci pl eofej usdem generi s . I tobse r ve dt hatt her ei snocomm mmon ge nus be t weent heaut hor i t i esme nt i onedi nAr t i cl e12.Andbygi vi ngt her e f er e nce ofAr t19( 1)( g) ,andAr t298whi chcont em mp pl at edengageme mentofst at ei nt he per f orma manceofcomm mmer ci alact i vi t y ,and Ar t46 pr omo mot i on ofeducat i on or economi mi ci nt er est .
ast han St at eEl ect r i ci t y Board v/sMo Mohan Lal s I n Raj i twashel dt hatt o f ormi ng be St at e, i ti s not nec ess ar yt hat t he aut hor i t y mus t be per government alorsover ei gn f unct i ons. I t (
shoul di
)
Be
cr eat ed
by
t he
Cons t i t ut i on
of
I ndi a;
( i i)Havepowe wert oma m akel aws ws; D. Shet t y v/sI nt ernat i onalAi r portAut hor i t y,t I n R. heCour tl ai ddown fiv e
t es t s
t o
be
an
( a) Ent i r e shar e capi t al i s owned ( b)
Enj oys
ot her
aut hor i t y -
or managed
monopol y
by St at e.
s t at us.
( c) Depar t ment of Gov er nme ment i s t r ansf e r r e d t o Cor por at i on. ( d)
Funct i onal
c har ac t e r
gov er nme ment al
( e )De e pandpe r v as i v eSt at ec o nt r o l . 2
i n
essenc e.
Thel e t t ert wo c at egor i es,par t i cul ar l yt hel as tar enotso speci fic andr equi r esome meexpl anat i on.Togi veawi derdi mensi on t oFR t he Judi ci ar y has i nt er pr e t ed “ St at e”i n di ffer entcont e xtatdi ffer e nt t i me.
PRI NCI PLE OF OF EJUSDEM GENERI RI S: vers i t yofMadr asv/sSant aBai,t I nUni heMa Madr asHi ghCour tev ol v edt he pr i nci pl eofej usdem generi si . e.oft hel i kenatur e.I tmeanst hatt hose aut hori t i es ar e cov er ed under t he expre ssi on ‘ ot her aut hori t i es whi ch per f orm gover nment alorsov er ei gnf unct i ons. I n Uj he Supr j am Bai v/s Uni on of I ndi a t eme me Court r ej ect ed t he
pr i nci pl eofej usdem generi s . I tobse r ve dt hatt her ei snocomm mmon ge nus be t weent heaut hor i t i esme nt i onedi nAr t i cl e12.Andbygi vi ngt her e f er e nce ofAr t19( 1)( g) ,andAr t298whi chcont em mp pl at edengageme mentofst at ei nt he per f orma manceofcomm mmer ci alact i vi t y ,and Ar t46 pr omo mot i on ofeducat i on or economi mi ci nt er est .
ast han St at eEl ect r i ci t y Board v/sMo Mohan Lal s I n Raj i twashel dt hatt o f ormi ng be St at e, i ti s not nec ess ar yt hat t he aut hor i t y mus t be per government alorsover ei gn f unct i ons. I t (
shoul di
)
Be
cr eat ed
by
t he
Cons t i t ut i on
of
I ndi a;
( i i)Havepowe wert oma m akel aws ws; D. Shet t y v/sI nt ernat i onalAi r portAut hor i t y,t I n R. heCour tl ai ddown fiv e
t es t s
t o
be
an
( a) Ent i r e shar e capi t al i s owned ( b)
Enj oys
ot her
aut hor i t y -
or managed
monopol y
by St at e.
s t at us.
( c) Depar t ment of Gov er nme ment i s t r ansf e r r e d t o Cor por at i on. ( d)
Funct i onal
c har ac t e r
gov er nme ment al
( e )De e pandpe r v as i v eSt at ec o nt r o l . 2
i n
essenc e.
( f )
Obj e ct
of
Aut hor i t y
Aj ay Hasi av/sKh Khal i d Muj i bt I n heCour tobser ve dt hatt het es tt oknow whe t heraj ur i s t i cper s oni sSt at ei snothow i thasbeenbr oughtbutwhyi t hasbee nbr ought . ( g)
Cl ear anc e
of
fiv e
t es t s
on ofI ndi av/sR. C. Jai n I nUni ,t obeal ocalaut hori t y ,an aut hori t ymu must f ul fil l (
t he i
(
i i
(
i i i
(
f ol l owi ng
) ) )
Separ at e Funct i on Has
i v
i n power
)
l eg al
t es t se xi s t enc e.
a
defined
t o
r ai se
Enj oys
ar ea. f unds.
aut onomy .
(v)Ent r ust ed byast at ut ewi wi t hf unct i onswh whi ch areusual l yent r ust ed t o muni c i pal i t i e s . I nPr heSupre meCour thel dt hat em Gar gv/sExci seComm mmi ssi onerH. P.t when r ul e maki ng powe r of j udi ci ar y i s concer ned, i ti s St at e. Ot herj uri st ssayt hatsi ncej udi ci aryhasnotbeenspeci fical l yme ment i onedi n Ar t i cl e12,i ti snotSt he r e f o r ei ft heJudg eo rma mag i s t r at e sar eno tno t e at e,t
unct i oni ng as a Judi ci ary.Buti St at e whi l et her e ar ef ft hey ar e al so f unct i oni ng asAdmi ni st r at ort hen t hey wi l lbe t r eat ed asSt at e wi t hi n ef Just i ce of Hi Hi gh cour t shal lhave t he me me ani ng ofAr t12. The Chi f unct i ons i ndualr o l e: 1.Chi efJust i ceofHi ghCour t 2.Chi efAdmi ni st r at i veofHi ghCourt . I fany ci t i z en aggri ev ed by t he actoft he Chi efJust i ce ,whi l e he was f unc t i o n asc hi e fadmi ni s t r at o ro ft hehi g hc o ur tt he nt hatc hi e fj us t i c ehas nor eme medyandheshal lbet r eat edasaSt at eundert heAr t12.
CON ONCLUSI ON Thewor d‘ St at e ’underAr t i cl e12hasbee ni nt er pr e t edbyt hecour t sasper t hechangi ngt i mes. I thasgai nedwi dermeani ngwh whi chensur est hatPart I I I 3
can beappl i edt oal arge rext ent .Wehopet hati twoul dcont i nuet oext ent i t swi dt hi ncomi mi ngt i mes.
DOCTRI RI NES’ l i t y–( Postconst i t ut i onall aw ws s)Ar t13( 2) 1.Severabi Ar t13pr ovi dest hatAc ti sv oi dwhi c hi si nconsi s t entwi t ht hePar tI I I o ft hec o ns t i t ut i o n.Ar t13i sha v i ngafle x i bl enat ur e ;i tdo e sno tmake t hewh whol eActi noper at i ve.I tmakesi noper at i veonl ysuchpr ovi si onsof i t as ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h or vi ol at i ve of f undame ment al r i ght . Some met i mesval i dandi nval i dport i on oft heActaresoi nt ert wi nedt hat t he y cannot be se par at ed f r om one anot her .I n such cas es ,t he i nv al i di t yo ft hepo r t i o n mus tr e s ul ti nt hei nv al i di t yo ft heAc ti ni t s e nt i r e t y , t he r eas on i s t hat t he v al i d par t c annot s ur vi v e i ndependent l y .I n det ermi mi ni ngwh whet hert heval i dpart sofast at uear e s e v e r abl ef r om t hei nv al i dpar t s .I ni nt e nt i on oft heLe gi s l at ur ei st he det er mi ni ng f act or .I n ot herwor ds i ts houl d be asked whet hert he
4
l egi sl at ur ewoul d haveenact ed atal lt hatwhi ch survi vewi t houtt he par tf o undul t r av i r us .
The r ul e ofseverabi l i t y appl i esasmuch cl ause( 2)ast o Cl ause ( 1)ofArt13
Ji aLalv/sDel hiAdmi ni st r at i onAI R 1962
Theappel l antwaspr osec ut ed f oran offic eu/s19 ( f )oft heAr m Ac t 1878.I nf ac t ,s e c t i o n 29 o ft hi sAc tp r o v i de st hati nc e r t ai n ar e ai n whi c ht hepe t i t i onerdi dnotobt ai nanyl i censei nwhi c ht hepe t i t i one r was r es i di ng,i twas notnecessar yt o obt ai nt he sai dl i ce nse f or poss es si on firearm.Sec t i on 29 was chal l enged as ul t r a vi r us and unconst i t ut i onalas offendi ng Ar t14 and al so sec t i on 19( f )oft he Ar msAct1878ont hegr oundt hatt wosect i onswer enotse v er abl e,on t hequest i on ofsev er abi l i t yt heSC hel dt hatt hesect i on 29 of t he Ar msAct1878wasul t r av i r us.
2. Doctr i neofEcl i pse( Pr eConst i t ut i onalLaws)Ar t13( 1) Ar t13pr ov i dest hat anyl aw whi c h madebef or et hecommence me nt of cons t i t ut i on
mus t be consi st ent wi t h
t he part I I I of t he
c ons t i t ut i on.i fanys t a t uei si nc ons i s t e nc ewi t ht hepr o vi s i o nsofpar t I I Ioft heconst i t ut i onsuchst at ueshal lbecomevoi d.Att hesamet i me 5
such s t at ue shal l not be t r eat as Dead unl es si ti s abol i sh by Parl i ament .I twi l lbet r eat ed as dormantorr emai nsecl i psed t ot he ext enti tcomesundert heshadow oft hef undament alr i ght s. Re g ar di ngt hedo c t r i neo fe c l i psf e w po i nt sne e dt obec o ns i de r .
eConst i t ut i onalLaws, I ti she l dt obeappl i e do nl yt hePr andnott o bepos tcons t i t ut i onall aws.
Bhi kaj i v/sSt at eofMPAI R 1955 TheMPGov er nmentpass edan Acti nt hey e ar1950f ornat i onal i z i ng t he mot ort r ansportbef or e commence mentoft he const i t ut i on.The st at uewaschal l engebyt hepet i t i onerunderArt19( 1) ( g) . TheCent er Govt . Amended Act 1955 on 2741955 enabl i ng t he s t at e t o nat i onal i zet hemot ort r anspor t .ThatSC hel dt hatt hest at ueofMP t h sat eSt at enat i onal i zi ngt hemot ort r ansport1950wascur edbyt he4
AmendmentAct1955and t her ef or et heDoct r i neofEc l i ps ehasbeen appl i edandt hesuchActi sval i d.
DOCTRI NE OFECLI PSE Thi sbasi cal l yr el at est ot hef actt hatsomel awsar ehel dunc ons t i t ut i onalby t he cour t s.now i nt hi s scenari o,t he l egalposi t i on t hatr emai ns i st hat t hough t hel aw exi st si nst at ut ebooks,becauseofacourtdeci si on t heyar e i noper abl e. The r ef or e i n l aw t her e i s an ec l i pse cas t upon t hei r i mpl ement at i on.Howevert hi sdoesnoti mpl yt hatsuch l awsceaset oexi st , f oranot herdeci si on mayhol dsuch l aw val i dandi n whi chcaset heecl i pse cas tupon t hel aw woul dber emov edandi twoul dbei mpl ement abl eagai n. an e xampl e oft hi si s Sec t i on 309 oft he I ndi an PenalCode whi c ht he Supr emeCour ti nt hec aseo f .Rat l dasunconst i t ut i onal .however P i nam he i tr emai nedi nt heI PC andt her ef or ei twasunderecl i pse.Howev erwhen a case r an Kaur const i t ut i onalbench i nGi eve r sed t hi s deci si on and hel d Sect i on 309 as const i t ut i onal , t he ecl i ps e was r emov ed andi tbecauseoper abl eagai n.An exampl eofapr ovi si on whi chr emai nsi n ecl i pse pr esent l y i s of Se c t i on 301 whi c h has be en dec l ar e d asuncons t i t ut i onalbyt heSupr emeCour t .now t i l lt het i me t hi sde c i s i o ni sr e v e r s e do rt hepr o v i s i o ni sr e mo v e df r o mI PC,i twi l lr e mai n underecl i pse. 6
DOCTRI NE OF WAI VER The Fundament alr i ght s( FR)unde r Par tI I IAr t 12 t o 35 oft he c ons t i t ut i onar eco nf e r r e dt oe v e r yc i t i z e nofI ndi abyt heco ns t i t ut i o n. These c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s ar e notabsol ut e.The r e ar er easonabl e r e s t r i c t i o ni mpo s ebyt hec ons t i t ut i o n.Thepr i mar yobj e c t i v eoft he s e FR arebased on publ i cpol i cy .Ther ef or enoi ndi vi dualcan wai veoff suchRFr i ght s. Thedoct r i neofwai v erofr i ghti sbasedont hepr emi set hata pe r son i shi sbestj udgeandt hathehast hel i bert yt owai vet heenj oymentof such r i ghtasar econf er r edon hi m byt hest at e.Howev ert heper son musthavet heknowl edgeofhi sr i ght sandt hatt hewai ve rshoul dbe v ol unt ar y .
Bas hes hrNat hv/s I ncomeTaxcommi ssi onerAI R 1959SC 149 I nt hi s case t he pet i t i onerwhose mat t erhad been r ef er r ed t ot he I nve st i gat i on commi ssi oneru/s 5( 1)oft he Taxat i on ofI ncome Act 1947 wasf ound t ohav econceal eda se t t l ementu/s8 A t opayRs3 Lakhsi nmont hl yi nst al l ment s,by wayofarr earsoft axandpenal t y . I nt hemeanwhi l et heSC i nanot hercasehel dt hatsect i on5( 1)i sul t r a v i r est he c ons t i t ut i on,asi twasi nc ons i s t ence wi t h Ar t14. So t he appel l antcannothi swai veoffhi sFR. Concl usi on- I tmeans" aper sonf r om denyi ngorassert i nganyt hi ngt o t he cont r ar y of t hat whi c h has, i n cont empl at i on of l aw, been e s t abl i s he d ast het r ut h,e i t he rby t heac t sofj udi c i alo rl e gi s l at i v e officer s,orbyhi sowndeed,act s,orr epr esent at i ons,ei t herexpr essor i mpl i e d.
7
EQUALI TY BEFORE LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTI ON OF LAW EXPLAI N BOTH THE TERM UNDER ART14 Ar t14Decl ar es“t heSt at eshal lnotdenyt oanyper son equal i t ybef or e t hel aw ort heequalpr ot ect i onoft hel awswi t hi nt het err i t oryofI ndi a. ThusAr t14 used t het woe xpr essi on “ equal i t ybef or et heLaw”and “ equal pr o t e c t i o n oft hel a w”
i ve r i ght of an As suc ht hi sr i ght was c ons i der ed gener al l y a negat i ndi vi dualnott obedi scr i mi nat ei n accesst opubl i cofficesorpl acesori n publ i c mat t er gener al l y .I tdi d not t ake accountofexi st i ng i nequal i t i es ari si ngeve nf r om t hepubl i cpol i ci eswi t ht hatki nd ofunder t aki ngoft he r i ghtt oe qual i t y .
i t y bef ore t he l aw,i s a somewhat negat i ve Thi s fir s te xpr essi on equal concept sa whi c hi ss ai dt o behav et aken f r om Engl i s h common l aw,i decl ar at i on of equal i t y of al l per son wi t hi nt he t err i t ory of I ndi a, i mpl yi ng t her e by t he absence ofany speci alpr i vi l ege i nf avorofany i ndi vi dual . Everper son what eve rbehi sr ank orposi t i on i ssubj ectt ot he j ur i sdi ct i onoft heor di nar ycour t .Pr of .Di ce y ,e xpl ai nt heconceptofequal i t y asi toper at edi nEngl andsai d“wi t husev er yoffici alf r om t hePM downt oa c ons t abl eorc o l l e c t o roft ax e si sunde rt hesamer e s po ns i bi l i t yf o re v e r yac t do newi t ho utanyl e g alj us t i fic at i o nasanyo t he rc i t i z e n.
he equalpr ot ect i on oft he l aw Thesecond expr es si on t whi c hi sr at he ra i ti ve cor ol l ary oft he fir s tand i st o be t aken f r om US,i ti s a mor epos concepti mpl yi ngequal i t yort r eatmenti nequalci r cumst ances. 8
These t wo expr ess i on unde rt hi s ar t i cl et o make t he c onc ept ofequal t r eat mentabi ndi ngpr i nci pl eofSt at eact i on . Thewor dLaw i nt hef ormer expr ess i on i s used i n a gener i csensea phi l osophi calsense,wher eas t he wor d Laws i n t he l at t er e xpr essi on denot e ss peci fic l aws .I t has not e xpl ai ne dt hi ss t at e me ntanyf ur t he r ,buti tme anst hate qual i t yf o ral li st he l aw ors t andar dnor m oft hel and. Equalpr ot ect i onoft hel awsi snow bei ngreadasaposi t i veobl i gat i onont he St at et oensur eequalpr ot ect i on oft heLaws bybri ngi ngi nnecessarysoci al andeconomi c changessot hatev er yonemayenj oyequalpr ot ect i on oft he l awsandnobodyi sdeni edsuchpr ot ect i ons.
Under l yi ngPr i nci pl e Asnohuman be i ngar eequali n al lr espe ctt hesamet r e at me ntt ot he mi n ev er yr es pec twoul dr es ul ti n unequalt r eat ment .Forexampl et he same t r eat mentt oachi l d ast oan adul tort oaphysi cal l ychal l engeorheal t hy pe r s o n,wi l lr e s ul ti nune qualt r e at me nt .
he uni f ormi t y of Ther ef or et he under l yi ng pr i nci pl e ofequal i t yi s:not t t r eat mentt oal li n al lr espect , utr r eat ed equal l y b at herequalmustbet whi l eunequalmustbet r eat eddi ffer ent l y. Butt hi sdoesnotmean t heunequalt r eat mentf oral l ,whi l et hel at erArt i cl e oft hi spar t(Par tI I I )e s pe c i al l yAr t15and16, e qual i t yno to nl ypr ohi bi t e d unequalt r eat mentbuti tal so demands equalt r eat ment .Ther ef or e st at e mustnotonl yt r eatpeopl eunequal l ybuti tmustal sot akeposi t i vest epst o r e mo v ee x i s t i ngi ne qual i t i e s ,e s pe c i al l yt ho s ei ne q ual i t i e swhi c ht r e athuman be i ngl esst henhumanbei ng.
TestofVal i dCl assi ficat i on cl ef orbi dsthel egi sl at urecl assi ficat i on,buti tdoesnotf or bi d Thi sarti r easonabl e cl ass i ficat i on of person,obj ect s and t r ansact i ons by t he l egi sl at ur ef orthe pur pose ofachi evi ng speci fic ends.And di ffer ent i a
9
musthavearat i onalr el at i on t otheobj ectsoughtt obeachi evedbyt he Act . Ther e mustbe an nexus bet ween t he basi s ofcl assi ficat i on and t he obj ectoft heActwhi chmakest hecl ass i ficat i on. I nKedarNat hBaj ori aV/sStat eofWB I ts ai d The equalpr ot e ct i on oft he Laws guar ant eed by t he Ar t i cl e 14 oft he
hat al lt he Laws must be gener ali n Const i t ut i on does not mean t hatt he St at ei snol onger t o characteranduni ver sali n appl i cat i on andt havet hepowerofdi st i ngui shi ngand cl assi f yi ngper sonsort hi ngsf ort he pur pos eofl e gi s l at i on.
I nE. PYoyappav/sSt at eofTN Pr opoundedanew appr oacht oAr t i cl e14i nt hef ol l owi ngwor ds: Equal i t yi sadynami cconce ptwi t h manyaspec t sanddi mensi onsandi ti s cannotbecri bbed,cabi nedandconfinedwi t hi nt r adi t i onaland doct r i nai r e l i mi t s .Forapos i t i v epoi ntofv i e we qual i t yi sant i t he t i ct oar bi t r ar i ne ss .
I nManekaGandhiv/sUni on ofI ndi a Ar t i cl e14 s t r i ke satar bi t r ar i nessi ns t at eac t i on and ensur ef ai r nessand e qual i t yoft r e at me nt ,t hepr i nc i pl eofr e as onabl e ne s s,whi c hl o gi c al l yaswe l l asphi l o s ophi c al l yi san e s s e nt i ale l e me nto fe qual i t yo rno n ar bi t r ar i ne s s perv adesAr t i cl e14l i keabr oodi ngomni pr esence.
10
Amendmenti nConst i t ut i on-Ar t368andAr t13 Shankar iPr asadV/sUni on ofI ndi a
Saj j an Si nghV/sSt at eofRaj asht han
Gol aknat hV/sStat eofPunj ab
24th Amendment
Theor yofBasi cSt r uct ur e( KeshvanadBhar t iV/sSt at eofker al a)
42ndAmendment
Mi narvaMi l l sV/sUni on ofI ndi a
I nShankar Thecour thel dt hatt hewor d“ LAW”i nc l ause iPr asadV/sUOI 2 ofAr t13 di d noti ncl udet hel aw madebyt hePar l i amentofI ndi aunder Ar t368.The wor d“ LAW”i n Ar t13 mus tbe t aken t o mean Rul es or Regul at i ons makei nexer ci seofconst i t ut i onalpowerandt her ef oreArt13( 2) di dnotaffec tamendmentmakeunderAr t368. MeansAr t368super se dedt heAr t13.
Saj j an Si ngh v/sSt at eofRaj asht an-i nt hi scaset heSC al souphol dt he dec i si onwhi c hhasbee nmadei nShankar iPr asadV/sUOI .
11
Gol aknat hv/sSat eofPunj ab-Courthel dt hatArt13( 2) ,t hedefini t i onsof Law whi ch hasbeen i nt err el at edbyArt13( 2) ,i ti sj ust i fiabl eandi tshoul d bel aw. Thi si st hefir s tt i mewhe n cour tc hec kt hepowerofPar l i ame ntt oAmend t heconst i t ut i on whi ch hasbeen gi ven byAr t368 ofConst i t ut i on ofI ndi a,
r i ne ofpr ospecti ve OverRul i ng.SC ov and appl i ed t heDoct e rr ul e di t s deci si on i nt heaf or esai d casesand hel dt hatt heword“ LAW”i n Ar t13( 2) , i nc l ude se v e r ybr anc ho fl a w,whe t he ri ti ss t at ut o r yorc ons t i t ut i o nalame nd me nd. Andi ti sne ce ssar yAr t368r /w Ar t13( 2) .
24th Amendment s- t o i nt ac t hi s amendi ng power and t o s how i t s he supr emac y made t he 24th amendme nt si nt he const i t ut i on and add t wor d-Power -i nar t386–whi chi s Power& Procedure.And add anew cl ause4 i n Ar t13 w – hi c h pr ovi de nothi ngi nt hi sAr tshal lappl ytoanyamendmentt othi sar tmade t hat underAr t368. Keshvanad Bhar t iV/sSt at e ofKer al a- Scpr opound t het heor yofbasi c s t r uc t ur e .
42edAmendment–Addthecl ause4and5i nAr t368. Mi narva Mi l l s V/s UOI - Doctr i ne of basi c st r uct ur e, t hat i ti st he i l l ustr ati vel i stand nott heexhausti vel i st . ndCl A ause4& 5ofAr t368 de c l ar e dv o i d.
12
The pr eambl e ofconst i t ut i on set soutt he mai n obj ect i ves,whi ch t he const i t ut i on maker s want ed t o achi eve.Di scuss t hi s st at ement .Can pr eambl ebeamendedunderAr t368oft heconst i t ut i on?( 2009)( 2008) . Q. What do you under st and by f undament al r i ght s? Di scuss wi t h r espect t o I ndi an Const i t ut i on. The gener al concept of f undament al r i ght s Ther i ght st hatar ebasi ct ot headv ance me ntoft hehuman r ac ear ecal l ed Fundament alRi ght s.Al lot herr i ght sar ederi vedf r om t heseri ght sasdi r ect i mpl i c at i onsora ppl i c at i o no ft he i rpr i nc i pl e s .I ti sanac c e pt e dbe l i e famong t hephi l osopher st hatt heseri ght sar enot hi ngbut" nat ur alhuman r i ght s" , whi c h di s t i ngui sh be t we en humansand ani mal sand whi c h hav ebeen so i ns t r ument ali n br i ngi ng humans f r om t he s t one aget ot he pr es entage . Amongal l ,t her i ghtt ol i f eand l i ber t yi scons i der ed t obet hemos tbasi c. Thehi s t or yof l eg al l yenf or c eabl ef undame nt alr i ght spr obabl ys t ar t sf r om Magna Cart a,whi ch wasa l i stofr i ght sext r act ed f r om Ki nd John by t he peopl eofEngl and i n 1214 AD. Thi swasf ol l owedbyt he" Bi l lofRi ght s"i n 1689 i n whi ch Engl i shmen wer egi ven cert ai n ci vi land pol i t i calri ght st hat coul dnotbet akenaway .Lat eron t heFr enchcompi l edt he " Decl ar at i on of t heri ght sofMan and oft heCi t i ze n"af t ert heFr ench Revol ut i on i n 1789. Themos ti mpor t antadv anceme nti nhi s t or yoff undament alr i ght socc ur r ed when t heUSA i ncor por at edcer t ai nf undament alr i ght si nt hef or m on " Bi l l ofRi ght s"i nt hei rconst i t ut i on by t hewayoffir st10 amendment s.These ri ght swer edeemed t obebeyond t hevagari esofpol i t i cs.Thepr ot ect i on by t heconst i t ut i on meantt hatt heser i ght scoul d notbeputt ovot eandwer e not dependent on t he whi ms of pol i t i ci ans or of t he maj or i t y . Af t e rt hi s,near l y al ldemocr aci e soft hewor l d hav egi v en a cons t i t ut i onal sanct i t y t o cer t ai n i nal i enabl e r i ght s avai l abl e t o t hei r ci t i zens.
13
Need f or Fundament al Ri ght s 1. Rul e of Law These r i ght s ar e a pr ot ec t i on t ot he c i t i z e ns ag ai ns tt he govt and ar e necess aryf orhavi ngt herul eofl aw andnotofaagovtoraper son.Si nce e xpl i c i t l yg i v e n byt hec o ns t i t ut i o nt ot hepe o pl e ,t he s er i g ht sdar eno tbe t r ansgressed by t heaut hori t y .Thegovt .i sf ul l y answer abl et ot hecourt s and i s f ul l y r equi r ed t o uphol d t hese r i ght s . 2. Fi r st f r ui t s of t he f r eedom st r uggl e Af t e rl i vi ngi nsubj ugat i onf orsuc hal ongt i me,peopl ehadf or got t enwhati s meantbyf r eedom.Theser i ght sgi vepeopl ehopeandbel i eft hatt her ei sno st oppi ngt ot hei rgr owt h.Theyar ef r eef r om t hewhi msoft herul er s.I nt hat sense,t heyar efir stf rui t soft hel engt hyf r eedom st ruggl eandbri ngasense of sat i sf act i on and f ul fil l ment . 3. Quant i ficat i on of Fr eedom Evenci t i zensi ngul fcount ri esorcommuni stcount ri esaref r ee.Thenhow i s ourf r eedom di ffer entf r om t hei r s?Thel i stoff undament alri ght si sacl ear measur ementf orhow f r eewer eal l yar e.Asanexampl e,ever yI ndi anci t i zen i nf r e et o pr ac t i c ea r e l i g i o no fhi sc ho i c e ,butt hati s no ts oi nt he g ul f count ri es.Ourri ghtt o speech and expr essi on al l owsust of r eel ycri t i ci ze t he gov t . but t hi s i s not so i n Chi na. Fundament al Ri ght s i n I ndi a Te c hni c al l y speaki ng,t he r i ght ss pe ci fie di n Par tI I I( Ar t 12 t o 35)of t hec ons t i t ut i o n ar et hef undame nt alr i g ht sav ai l abl et ot hec i t i z e nsofI ndi a. on ofI ndi a AI R 1978,J.Bhagvat I nt hecase ofMenaka Gandhivs Uni i has sai dt hatt heseri ght srepre sentt heval uest hatar echer i shed byt he peopl eoft hi scount rysi ncet hevedi cagesandar ecal cul at edt opr ot ectt he di gni t yofi ndi vi dualandt ocreat econdi t i onsi nwhi cheveryhuman bei ngi s abl et ode v e l ophi spe r s o nal i t yt ot hef ul l e s t .The s er i g ht sar ene c es s ar yf ora human be i ng f o r at t ai ni ng f ul ls oc i al ,i nt e l l e c t ual ,a nd s pi r i t uals t at us . These
r i ght s
can
be
gr ouped
i nt o
6
cat egor i es
-
1. Ar t i cl es 1418Ri ght t o Equal i t y Ar t .14 ensur es t hat al lc i t i z ens ar et r e at ed equal l y .I te nshr i nes t he pr i nc i pl eof" Eq ual i t ybe f o r el a w andEq ualpr o t e c t i o no fl a w" . Ho we v e r ,t hi s br i ngs us t o ani mpor t ant ques t i on. Shoul d peopl el i v i ng i n unequal ci r cumst ancebe t r eat ed equal l y? I nI ndi an Const i t ut i on,t he answeri sa 14
r es oundi ngno.Wehaveadopt edt hemant r aof" equalt r eat mentunderequal ci r cumst ances" .Thi si sr eflect edi n Art15,whi ch,whi l epr ohi bi t st hest at e f r om di sc r i mi nat i ng bet wee nt he ci t i z ens onl y on t he gr ounds ofCast e, Rac e ,Re l i g i o n,Se x,andPl ac eofBi r t ho ral loft he m[Ar t15( 1)] ,al s oal l o ws t hest at et omakespeci alpr ovi si onsf orWomenandChi l dr en[ Ar t15( 3) ]and f or Bac kwar d cl asses [ Ar t 15( 4) ] . Ar t .16 t akes t he same pr i nci pl ef ur t her t oe mpl oyment i n gov t .j obs. Ar t .17abol i shesunt ouc habi l i t yandAr t .18abol i shesv ar i oust i t l e ssuc has Rai Bahadur t hat used t o be gi v en i n t he Br i t i sh r ul e. nds l ey v Nat ur al Car boni c Gas Co, US SC The c ases ofLi 1910 r anj i tLalvUni on ofI ndi aSC AI R 1951 andChi arei mport antcases t hati l l us t r a t et hec onc e pto fe qualpr o t e c t i o no ft hel a ws .I nt he s ec as e s,t he SC ofbot ht he count r i es hel dt hatal lper sons si mi l ar l y ci r cumst anced shoul d be t r eat ed equal l y .Onl yl i ke shoul d be t r eat ed al i ke and t hus a r e asonabl e c l assi fic at i on c an be done. rSi ngh vsUni on ofI ndi a1982 Sev er alcasessuch asRandhi ( Equalpay f or equal wor k) i l l ust r at e t he pr i nci pl e of e qual i t y . The SC j udgment i nI ndr a Sawhney vs Uni on of I ndi a AI R i nc or po r at e st hee l e me nto ff ai r ne s si nde al i ngwi t hi ne qual i t i e si nt he 1993 soci et y ,whi l e bal anci ng t he aspi r at i ons oft he soci al l yf orwar d cl asses.
2. Ar t t i cl es 1922 Ri ght t o Fr eedom A ci t i z e n ofI ndi ai s gi v en f r eedom ofSpeec h and Expr essi on,f r eedom of Assembl y ,f r e edom of As soci at i on, f r eedom of Mov ement ,f r ee dom of Res i dence ,and Fr ee dom ofPr of es si on and Occ upat i on t hr ough Ar t .19. Ar t .20gi v espr ot ec t i on wi t hr e spec tt oc onvi ct i on ofoffens es.Thi si ncl udes t hepr i nc i pl e sof •
•
•
expostf act ol aw :A per soncan onl ybewi t hchar gedwi t han offence ofan act i on i ft hesai d act i on was i l l egalaspert hel aw oft het i me whent heact i onwascommi t t ed. doubl ej eopar dy:A per son cannotbechar gedwi t ht hesamecr i mei f hehasal r eadybeenpr oducedbef or et hecour tandave r di cthasbeen pronounced. sel fi ncri mi nat i on: A per son wi l l not be f orced t ot est i f y agai nst hi ms e l f .
15
Ar t .21,whi c hi st hemos ti mpor t antanddi v e r seofal lt her i ght st of r eedom, i st he Pr ot ect i on ofLi f e and Per sonalLi ber t y .SC i nMenaka Gandhiv
Uni on of I ndi a AI R 1978 was a l andmar k cas e t hat gav ewi de i nt e r pr e t at i o no ft hi sr i g ht .I nt hi sc as et heSC he l dt hathi sr i g ht i sno t onl yabouthavi nganyki nd ofl i f ebuta l i f eofdi gni t y .Thef r eedom i snot j us tphysi calbutment alas wel las spi r i t ual .Thi se ncompasse s sev er al
vant Si ngh v Ass.Passpor t r i ght s such asri ghtt ot r avel abr oad (Sat Offi ce AI R 1967)and r i ght t o pol l ut i on f r ee wat er and ai r (Subhash t her ,Cons t i t ut i on Amendment KumarvsSt at e ofBi harAI R 1991).Fur Act86,2002 makesf r eeandcompul s or ye ducat i on t oc hi l dr en unde r14a f undament al
r i ght .
Ar t .22 gi v espr ot ect i on f r om i l l egalar r es torde t ent i on.I tpr ovi dest hata per son mustbei nf ormed oft hegr oundsofarr es tassoon aspossi bl e, be al l owed t o speak t oal awye r of hi s choi ce ,and be pr oduce d bef or ea magi s t r at e
3.
Ar t
wi t hi n
24
2324
hr s
Ri ght
of
Agai nst
de t e nt i on.
Expl oi t at i on
UnderAr t .23,t hegovt .hasbannedt r adei n human bei ngs.Thi si ncl udes fles h t r ade and f or ce d wor k or wor k wi t hout pay ( beg ar sys t em) . Ar t .24 pr ohi bi t sc hi l dr en f r om bei ngempl oy ed i nf act or i esand haz ar dous c ondi t i o ns .
4.
Ar t
2528
Fr eedom
of
Rel i gi on
Unl i kes e v e r a lc o unt r i e so ft hewo r l d,wear ef r e et opr ac t i c e ,pr o f e s s ,and pr opagat e any r el i gi on underAr t .25.Ar t .26 al l ows us t o est abl i sh and mai nt ai ni ns t i t ut i o nsf o rr e l i g i o usandc har i t abl epur pos e s.I tal s og i v e st he ri ghtt omanageourownr el i gi ousmat t er s.Ar t .27pr ovi dest axbenefit sf or pr omot i on ofr el i gi on and art .28 pr ohi bi t sr el i gi ous t eachi ng i n govtand govt
5.
ai ded
Ar t
2930
Cul t ur al
sc hool s.
and
Educat i onal
Ri ght s
Ar t .29 al l owsanyse ct i on ofci t i z ensl i vi nganywher ei nI ndi a whohav ea di s t i nc tl ang uag e ,s c r i pt ,o rc ul t ur e ,t opr e s e r v et hes ame . Ar t .30 al l o ws mi nori t i es t o est abl i sh and mai nt ai n educat i onali nst i t ut i ons.To pr event 16
di scr i mi nat i on, howev er , art 29( 2) pr ohi bi t st hem f r om di scr i mi nat i on i nadmi ssi onsonl yont hegr oundsofr el i gi on,r ace,cast e,l anguage,orany of
t hem.
6.
Ar t
32
Ri ght
t o
Const i t ut i onal
Remedi es
Dr .Ambe dkar ,t hec hi e far c hi t e c to fo urc o ns t i t ut i o n,hass ai dt hatAr t i c l e 32i st hes oulofourc ons t i t ut i on.Al lt het al kofr i g ht si sus e l e ssi ft he r ei s nor e c our s eag ai ns tt he i rt r ans gr e s si o n.Unde rt hi sar t i c l e ,ac i t i z e ni sf r e e t o
go
t o
t he Supr eme Cour t
Scope
of
Wi dest
f or vi ol at i on
of hi s r i ght s.
Fundament al
Ri ght s
Possi bl e
I nt er pr et at i on
an vs St at e of Madr as AI R 1950 had hel SC i nA K Gopal dt hatt he v ar i ousr i ght sgi v enunderpar tI I It al kaboutdi ffer e ntt hi ngsandar enotbe i nt er l i nked. Thi s vi ew, howev er , has been r i ght l yr ej ect ed by t he SC
.Uni on of I ndi a AI R 1978 case.I i nMenaka Gandhi vs nt hi s case,J Bhagvat isai dt hatt herol eofSC shoul dbet oi nt erprett heseri ght si nt he wi des tpossi bl emannerand i ts houl d notat t enuat et heser i ght sbybei ng confined t ot hei r nar r ow defini t i on. Al lt hes er i ght s ar e not mut ual l y excl usi veandf orm an i nt egr at edt hemeoft heconst i t ut i on.JBegsai dt hat t he i rwat er smus tmi xt of or m a gr and flow ofuni mpeded and i mpar t i al j us t i ce. Thus,anyl aw t hatt akesawayt hel i f eorl i ber t yofaper son,mus t al so
s at i sf y
Nat ur al
t he
t es t
of
Just i ce
r eas onabl e ness
and
unde r
Due
ar t .
14.
Pr ocess
I nMenakaGandhi ' scase,SC hashel dt hatanyl aw t hatt akesawayt hel i f e orl i bert yofa per son underart .21,mustbej ust ,f ai r ,and r easonabl e.I t mustsat i sf yt hepri nci pl eofnat ur alj ust i ce,whi chi sabasi ccomponent of f ai r pr oce dur e under Ar t .21.Whi l e Ar t 21 does not c ont ai nt he " due pr ocess"cl auseoft heAmer i canConst i t ut i on,t heeffecti st hesamebecause nat ur a lj us t i c ei sadi s t i l l at eofduepr o c es si . e .nat ur a lj us t i c escanonl ybe de l i v e r ed
Expandi ng
t hr ough
t he
r ol e
of
due
wri t
of
pr oce ss .
Habeas
Cor pus
ThecaseofSuni lBat r av s Del hiAdmi n AI R 1980 hasgi v e nt r eme ndous 17
powert ot hewr i tofHabeasCorpus.I tal l owst hej udi ci aryt oevenenf or ce t hef undament alr i ght si n apr i son.Eve n pri soner sar ehumansand mus t bet r eat e d wi t h di gni t y .The y cannotbe s t r i pped off oft hei rf undament al r i ght s,t hus meni al or f or ce d wor k wi t hout pay ,s ol i t ary confinement , degr adi ng puni shment ,i s notal l owed.Thi s case has al so al l owed peopl e whoar enotdi r ect l yi nv ol v edbuthav eanyki ndofi nt er es tt oappr oac ht he c our t .Theobj e c t i v ei st or e mo v ei nj us t i c ewhe r e v e ri ti sf oundi nt hes oc i e t y .
Absol ut eness
of
Fundament al
Ri ght s
" Yourf r ee dom endswher emyf r ee dom s t art s"i sa wel lknown say i ng.The const i t ut i on gi vesyou t heri ghtt o pr opagat eyourr el i gi on.Butdoest hat mean you shoul df orcemet ohearr el i gi ousact i vi t i esovert hel oudspeaker ? Thecons t i t ut i on gi v esy ou t hef r eedom ofs peec h and e xpr essi on.Butdoes t hatmean yo u can publ i sh and se l lpornogr aphy f r ee l yi n open mar ket ? Theset hi ngscl ear l yt e l lust hatno r i ghti sabsol ut e.I ndi an Cons t i t ut i on al so t akest hesame st and and speci fiest hel i mi t soft heseri ght s.These r i g ht se xt e ndo nl yunt i lt he ydono ta ffe c ts e c ur i t yo ft hes t at e ,publ i cor de r , and soci aldecency .The const i t ut i on al l ows r easonabl er est ri ct i ons t o be
an vsSt at e ofMadr as1950has pl aced on t heseri ght s.SC i nA K Gopal al so
he l d
t hat
Fundame nt al
Suspensi on
of
Ri ght s
ar e
Fundament al
not
abs ol ut e .
Ri ght s
Under ar t 358, f r eedoms gi v en under ar t 19 ar e suspended when t he pr es i dent pr ocl ai ms emer gency .Fur t her ,under art 359,pr es i dent may suspend t he ri ghtt o move court sf orvi ol at i on ofri ght s gi ven i n partI I I exce pt
Cr i t i cal
ar t
20
and
21.
Anal ysi s
I ndi an Const i t ut i on was wr i t t en af t er a t hr ough anal ysi s of exi st i ng c ons t i t ut i o no ft hewo r l d.Thef r ame r soft hec ons t i t ut i o n ha v ei nc or po r a t e d t hegood t hi ngsf r om al lt hepl aces.Assuch i ti smor ef ai rand consi st ent t hanr e l i g i ousbooks .I ti sf ort hef or e s i g htoft hef r a me r soft hecons t i t ut i on t hatt hecount r yi si nt egr at edand haspr ogr ess ed.Whi l et hef r amer shad 18
t houghtaboutal otoft hi ngs,t heonet hi ngt hatt heypr obabl ymi sse dwas t hes af e g uar dsag ai ns tt hede g r a di ngmo r a l i t yo fpo l i t i c i ans .
Q.Whatdoyouunder st andbyf r eedom ofspeechandexpressi on?What r est r i ct i ons can be appl i ed on i t ? Fr eedom ofspeechandexpr essi on i st hemostbasi cofal lf r eedomsgr ant ed t ot hec i t i z e nso fI ndi a.JPat anj al iShas t r ihass ai di nt hec as eo fRomesh ThapervsSt at eofMadr asAI R 1950 SC t hatf r ee dom ofspeec h andt hat o ft hepr e s sl a yatt hef o undat i o no fa de mo c r at i cso ci e t y ,f o rwi t ho utf r e e po l i t i c aldi s c us s i o ns ,nopubl i ce duc at i o ni spo ss i bl e ,whi c hi ss oi mpo r t ant f or t he pr oper f unct i oni ng of t he gov t . I tal l owsust of r eel yexpr essouri deasand t hought st hr ough anymedi um suchaspr i nt ,vi sual ,and voi ce.Onecan useanycommuni cat i on medi um ofvi sualr epre sent at i on such as si gns,pi ct ur es,or movi es.Fr eedom of speec h woul d amountt o not hi ng i fi twer e notpossi bl et o pr opagat et he i deas.Th us,t hef r eedom ofpubl i cat i on i sal socov er ed underf r eedom of speec h.Fr ee dom ofspeec hse r ve s4pur pose s•
al l o wsani ndi v i dualt oat t ai ns el ff ul fil l me nt .
•
as s i s t si nt hedi s c ov e r yo ft r ut h.
•
i tst r engt henst hecapaci t yofaper sont omakedeci si ons.
•
i tf ac i l i t at e sabal anc ebe t we e ns t abi l i t yands oc i alc hang e .
Thi sr i ghti snotonl yaboutcommuni c at i ngy ouri deast o ot her sbutal s o aboutbei ng abl et o publ i sh and pr opagat e ot herpeopl e' s vi ews as wel l . Thus,f r eedom ofspee c h and e xpr ess i on i sl i nked t ot hepeopl e' sr i ghtt o know.Fr ee dom ofspee chandexpr es si on i sabr oadt er m andencompass es seve r alt hi ngs.Thef ol l owi ngarei mport antcasest hathavedet er mi nedt he ext ent of t hi s r i ght f r om t i me t o t i me.
Ri ght
t o
Know
Prabhu Dat tvsUni on ofI ndi aSC AI R 1982 : SC hel dt hatr i ghtt oknow newsand i nf ormat i on aboutt hef unct i oni ngoft hegovt .i si ncl udedi nt he f r e edom of pr ess.
19
Uni on ofI ndi avsAss oci at i on f orDemocrat i cRef ormsSC AI R 2002:SC hel dt hatpeopl ehaveri ghtt oknow aboutt hecandi dat ebef or evot i ng.Thus, t hel aw pr ev ent i ng t heEl ect i on Commi ssi on f r om aski ngf oracandi dat es weal t h,asse t s,l i abi l i t i es,educat i on and ot he rs uc hi nf or mat i on,i si nv al i d. Ri ght
t o
t el l
and
pr opagat e
LI C vsManubhaiD Shah SC AI R 1992 :I nt hi scase,Manubhaiwr ot ean art i cl ei n LI C' smagazi e aboutt he pr obl ems wi t h LI Ct hataffect ed pol i cy hol der s.LI C publ i shedaresponset ot hatbutdi dnotgi veachancet opubl i c ar ej oi nder .SC hel dt hatLI C bei ngaSt at easperArt12,mustpubl i sh hi s r es ponse .I tal so hel dt hati tdoes notmean ev er y body has a r i ghtt o publ i sh i n a magaz i neand t hi sr i ghtshoul d be det er mi ned on a cas eby case basi s . Secr et ary ,Mi ni st aryofI& B vsCr i cketAss oci at i on ofBengalSC AI R 1995 :I nt hi s hi st or i cj udgment ,SC has hel dt hatone has t he r i ghtt o publ i ci zehi sexpr essi on aswel l .A gameofcri cketi san expr essi on andt he or gani z er s have a r i ght t o propagat ei t ev er y wher ei nt he wor l d. So Door dar shan mustpr ovi de i t s upl i nki ng f aci l i t i est o CAB f ort r ansmi t t i ng t hes i g nal souto fc ount r y .Ar t19( 2)do esno tal l o wr e s t r i c t i onson19( 1)( a) on t he gr ounds of c r eat i ng mono pol y of t he govt . Tat a Pr ess Lt d. vs MTNL SCC 1995 SC:I nt hi s cas e,SC hel dt hat commer c i al adver t i s ement i s pr ot ect e d under f r eedom of spee c h. Res t r i ct i ons
on
Fr eedom
of
Speech
and
Expr essi on
Eve r y human desi r est o do many t hi ngs.Howev er ,i n a ci vi lsoci et y such desi r es mustbe cur bed t o cer t ai n ext enti nr espectofsi mi l ar desi r es of ot herhuman bei ngs.Thus,no r i ghti san absol ut eri ght . Ar t19 ( 2)says t hatnot hi ngi nArt19( 1)( a)shal laffectt heoper at i on ofanyl aw orpr event t hest at ef r om maki ng anyl aw,i n sof arassuch l aw i mposesr easonabl e r est ri ct i ons on exer ci se oft he ri ghtconf err ed by t he sai d cl ause i nt he i nt er e stof•
s ov e r e i g nt yandi nt e gr i t yoft hec ount r y .
•
s ec ur i t yoft hes t a t e
20
•
f r i e ndl yr e l at i onswi t hf or e i g ns t at e s.
•
publ i cor der
•
dece ncyandmor al i t y
•
def amat i on
•
cont emptofcour t
•
i nci t ementofanoffence.
I nt heo r i g i nalv e r s i o no ft hi sar t i c l ese v e r alg r o undss uc h aspubl i co r de r , f r i endl yr el at i ons wi t hf or ei gn st at es,i nci t ementofan offences wer e not h ThapervsStat e t he r e .Af t e rt hehi s t o r i cj udg e me nti nt hec as eofRomes ofMadr asSC AI R 1950,t hes egr oundswer eadded.I nt hatcase ,Madr as Govt .pre ve nt ed t he ent r y an ci r cul at i on oft he new paper' Cr oss Roads' publ i shed by Romes h Thaper ,i nt hest at eofMadr as.I tar gued t hatt he ci r cul at i on of t he paper affec t s publ i c saf et y . Howev er , SC hel d t hat t hepubl i csaf et yf al l sout si det hescopeof19 ( 2)and t hust hegovtact i on wasi nv al i d.Thi sdeci si on pr ompt ed t hegovt .t oamend t hec ons t i t ut i on t o i nc l ude addi t i onal gr ounds as ment i one d abov e. I ti si mpor t ant t o not et hat t he curr e nt cl ause ment i ons t he wor ds " r e as o nabl er e s t r i c t i o ns " .Thus ,anyl a wr e s t r i c t i ngt hef r e e do m o fs pe e c h andexpr es si on mus tsat i sf yt hegr oundsment i onedi n 19( 2)andmustal so sat i sf y t he cr i t er i a of r easonabl eness. Reasonabl e r es t r i ct i on means i nt el l i gentcareand di scussi on t hatt he r est ri ct i on i s notbeyond whati s r equi r ed f or publ i ci nt er est .I t shoul d not be arbi t r ary and excessi ve. Fur t her ,t her est r i ct i on can onl ybei mposedbyl aw andnotbyexecut i veor de par t me nt al deci si on.
Test
of
r easonabl e
r est r i ct i ons
Spanni ngsever alcases,SC hasl ai ddownt hef ol l owi nggui del i nes: 1.I ti st hec our t sandno tt hel e g i s l at ur et hatwi l lde c i dewhe t he ral a w i sr e as onabl eo rno t .
21
2.Reasonabl emeanst hatt hel aw i snotarbi t r aryandt her est ri ct i on i s notbeyondwhati sr equi r edi npubl i ci nt er est .Thet i meanddur at i on o ft her e s t r i c t i o nc anno tbeunl i mi t e d. 3.Ther ei s no fixed s t andar df orr eas onabl enes s .Eac hc asemus tbe deci dedoni t sownmer i t s. 4.The r es t r i ct i on mustbe r easonabl ef r om subst ant i at i ve as wel las pr ocedur alst andpoi nt . 5.Rest r i ct i ons i mposed due t oi mpl ement at i on ofDi r ect i vePr i nci pl es maydeemedt ober eas onabl e. 6.Thet estofr easonabi l i t ymustbeobj ect i vei nt hesenset hati tdoes notmat t erwhataJudgeorCour tt hi nkswhati sr easonabl ebutwhat anor malr easonabl eper sonwoul dt hi nk. 7.The r es t r i ct i on musthave a r el at i on t ot he obj ectt hati s sought t hr ought hel aw andmustnotbee xces si ve . 8.I ti st he r easonabl enes s of t he r es t r i ct i on t hat a count has t o det ermi neandnott her easonabl enessoft hel aw i t sel f . 9.Res t r i ct i onmayamountt opr ohi bi t i on.
The f ol l owi ng ar ei mpor t antcases t hathav e at t enuat ed t he sc ope oft hi s r i ght . nt hi scaseSC hashel dt hat CPI( M)vs Bhar atKumarAI R 1998 SC :I bundhscal l ed byv ar i ouspol i t i c alpar t i esar ei l l egalbec auset he ypr e v e nt t he ci t i z ens f r om exer ci si ng t hei r r i ght t o f r e edom. I
Ranj i tUdeshivsStat eofMah.AI R 1965 SC : I nt hi sc as e ,abo oks e l l e r was pr ohi bi t ed f r om sel l i ng book c ont ai ni ng obscene mat er i al . Hamdar d DawakhanavsUni on ofI ndi aAI R 1960 SC : I nt hi scase,SC hel dt hatobnoxi ous and f r audul entadve r t i si ng i s notpr ot ec t ed under f r e edom of s peec h. Cr i t i cal 22
Anal ysi s
Fr ee dom ofspee c h and expr es si on i si ndeed t he mos ti mport ant ofal l f r eedoms.However ,t oday,t hi sri ghti sbei ngrout i nel ysuppr essedundert he gui seofmoral i t yand decencyorpubl i corder .Even a sl i ghtcri t i ci sm ofa publ i cl e ade ro rpas tki ngc aus e st hepo l i t i c alpar t i e st oi nv o l v ei ndamag eof publ i cpr oper t y .Anybook t hatt al ksaboutpr obl emsi nar el i gi on i sbanned i nt henameofpubl i cor der .I ti sext r emel yunf ort unat et hatt heexecut i ve, i ns t ead of t he uphol di ng peopl es 'r i ght t o spee ch and expr es si on by pr ev ent i ng unsc r upul ous e l e ment f r om hur t i ng t he aut hor ,i s mor e i nt e r e s t e di ns t i fli ngt hev o i c ebybanni ngt he i rwo r ks .Bydo i ngt hi st he yar e no tdoi ngt he i rj obr e s pons i bi l i t y .
Q.How i st he i ndependence of t he j udi ci ar y ensur ed? Des cr i be t he var i ousj ur i sdi ct i onsoft he Supr eme Cour tofI ndi a.Expl ai nt he wr i t j ur i sdi ct i on of a Hi gh Cour t . What i s meant by Judi ci al Revi ew? I ndi ahasadopt edaf eder alconst i t ut i on wi t hdi st ri but i on ofpower sbet ween cent er and t he st at es . An i ndependent j udi ci ary i st he es se nce oft he f e de r a lc har a c t e roft hec ons t i t ut i on.I ti si mpe r a t i v et hatt hej udi c i ar ybe i mpart i aland i ndependentoft hel egi sl at i veand execut i vebr anchesoft he count ryt oensur et hef unct i oni ngoft hegover nmenti naccordancewi t ht he const i t ut i on.The supr eme cour t ,bei ng t he guardi an oft he const i t ut i on, ensur est hatt hef undament alri ght soft heci t i zensarenotvi ol at ed.Tol et t he j udi c i ar yf ul fil lt hi s bi gr e s pons i bi l i t ye ffic i e nt l y ,t he c ons t i t ut i o n has pr ovi ded sev er almeasur est hatensur et hei ndependenceoft hej udi ci ary . Howev er ,owi ng t ot he nat ur e ofI ndi an pol i t i cs,t her e havebeen sev er al at t empt s by t he govt .t o ext end i t s supr emacy ove rt he j udi ci ary and t o r educei t si ndependence. To under s t and t he dynami csbe t wee nt hegovt . and t he j udi ci ar y , we nee dt ol ook at t he pr ovi si ons pr es ent i n t he c ons t i t ut i on.
Composi t i on of t he Supr eme Cour t Ar t124 speci fiest hatt heSC wi l lbecompose d ofa Chi efJus t i c eand at most7ot herj udges .Thenumberofot herj udgeshasnow bee ni ncr ease dt o 25. Tobeappoi nt edasaj udgeoft hesupr emecour t ,aper s onmus tbeaci t i z en of I ndi a and a) has been a Judge of a Hi gh Cour t f or 5 yr s . b) has be en an adv oc at e o f a Hi gh Cour t f or 10 yr s. c) i n t he opi ni on of t he pr es i dent , a di s t i ngui shed Jur i s t . 23
Appoi nt ment of t he Judges The pr ocedur e ofappoi nt me ntoft he Chi efJus t i ce and ot herj udges has cr eat edal otofcont r over sybecausei ti st hekeyaspectoft hei ndependence oft hej udi ci ary .Art124speci fiest hatt heChi efJust i cei sappoi nt edbyt he pr esi dentaf t erconsul t i ng wi t ht he j udgesoft he supr eme cour tand t he hi gh cour t s.Fur t her ,t hatwhi l eappoi nt i ngot herj udges ,t heCJ mustbe c ons ul t e d.Thus ,t heco ns t i t ut i on c l e ar l yt r i e dt opr e v e ntt hee xe c ut i v ef r o m havi ng compl et e di scr et i onary power si nt he appoi nt mentoft he j udges. Unt i l1973,t heseni ormostj udgeoft hesupr emecour twasappoi nt ed as t he Chi efJust i ce .Howev er ,t hi s conve nt i on was broken when Just i ceAN Raywasappoi nt ed ast heCJ by pass i ng3 mor ese ni orj udges .Thi swas see n as a bl at antassaul ton t hei ndependenceoft hej udi ci ary .Thegovt . pl eadedt hatt hewor d" consul t "doesnotmean t hatt hepr esi denti sbound by t he adv i se. He i s f r ee t o make hi s own de ci s i on.
on ofI ndi avsSankal chand Set h,whi I n 1977,i nt hecaseofUni c h was r el at edt ot het r ansf erofaJudgef r om onehi gh cour tt oanot herunderart 222,SC hel dt hatt he Pr es i denthas t he r i ghtt o di fferf r om t he advi ce pr ovi ded by t he c ons ul t ant s. Judges Tr ansf er Case 1 avsUni on ofI ndi a,1982 I nt hecaseofS P Gupt SC unani mousl yagr ee d wi t h t he me ani ng of t he wor d ' consul t at i on' as de t er mi ned i n t he Sankal chand' s case .I tf ur t her hel dt hat t he onl y gr ound on whi ch t he deci si on oft hegovt .can bechal l engedi st hati ti sbased on mal afideand i r r e l e v antc o ns i de r a t i o n.I ndo i ngs o,i ts ubs t ant i al l yr e duc e di t so wnpo we r i n appoi nt i ng t he j udge s and gav e cont r ol t o t he e xe cut i v e. Judges Tr ansf er Case 2 es on Recor d Thi s mat t e r was r ai sed agai ni nt he cas e ofSC Advocat Associ at i on vsUni on ofI ndi a,AI R 1982.I nt hi scase,t heSC overr ul ed t he dec i si on oft he S P Gupt a cas e and hel dt hat i n t he mat t e r of appoi nt mentofj udgesofhi gh cour t sand supr emecour t ,t heCJ shoul d hav et he pr i mac y and t he appoi nt ment oft he CJ shoul d be based on seni ori t y .I tf ur t herhel dt hatt he CJ mustconsul thi st wo seni ormost j udgesandt her ec ommendat i on mus tbemadeonl yi ft he r ei saconse nsus among t hem. 24
Judges Tr ansf er Case 3 A cont r ov er sy ar ose agai n whe n t he CJ r ec ommended t he name sf or appoi nt mentwi t houtconsul t i ngwi t h ot herj udgesi n 1999.Thepr esi dent r e Pr esi dent i alRef er ence 1999)and a 9 sought adv i ce f r om t he SC ( me mber bench hel d t hat an adv i ce gi v en by t he CJ wi t hout pr ope r consul t at i on wi t h ot her j udges i s not bi ndi ng on t he govt . Asofnow,duet ot hedeci si on i n JudgesTr ans f erCas e2,t heappoi nt ment oft hej udgesi n SC and Hi gh Cour t saref ai r l yf r eef r om execut i vecont r ol . Thi si san i mpor t antf ac t ort hatensur et hei ndependenceoft hej udi c i ar y . The f ol l owi ng ar e ot her pr ovi si ons t hat wor kt owar ds t he s ame goal :
1. Fi xed Tenur e A SC Judgehasafixedt enur eunt i lr e t i r eme ntage.Hec annotber e mo v ed exceptbya pr esi dent i alor derpassedwi t h asi mpl emaj ori t yaswel las by 2/3 maj or i t y of eac h house of t he par l i ament pr es ent and v ot i ng. No j udge has ev er been r emov ed by a pr es i dent i alor der i nI ndi a.The pr oc ee di ngs t or emov e wer es t ar t e dt o Jus t i ce V Ramaswamy ,but t he mot i on was not appr ov ed be cause l ac k of r equi r ed maj or i t y . anI yervsA N Bhat t acharj ee1995,pr I nt hec as eofC Ramachandr e s s ur e wasputt het hel ocalbarassoci at i onont hej udget or e si gn.I nt hi scase,t he SC hel dt hatonl yt heChi efJust i ceoft heSC canbet hepr i memove roft he act i on agai nster ri ng j udges. Thus,af t ert hi scase,act i on agai nstj udges was al l owed onl y t hr ough i nhous e pr ocedur es of t he j udi ci ar y . 2. Sal ar y Thes al ar yoft hej udgesc annotbec hangedaf t ert heappoi nt me ntf ort hei r di sadvant age. 3. Jur i sdi ct i on of t he cour t s The j ur i sdi ct i on oft he SC c an be i ncr eased butnotdec r e ased i . e.t hei r powe r cannot be cur t ai l ed. 4. Ar t 121 No di scussi on aboutt hej udgesi nt hepar l i amenti sper mi t t ed as perar t 121 except f or t he di s cus s i on about hi s r emov al . 5. Ar t 129 and 215 Power t o puni sh f or i t s cont empt . TheSC andt heHi ghCour t shav et hepowe rt opuni shanybodyf orci vi land 25
cr i mi nal
c ont empt
of
i t sel f
under
ar t
129
and
215.
6. Ar t 50 Separ at i on of j udi ci ar y f r om execut i ve Ar t50 ur ges t he s t at et ot ake s t e ps t os epar at et he j udi ci ar yf r om t he exec ut i v e i n t he publ i c ser vi c e of t he s t at e. 7.Appoi nt mentoft hej udgesonl yaf t erconsul t at i onwi t hl egalexpert s. As di s cusse d abov e,t he exe cut i v e doe s not hav e unl i mi t ed power ov er appoi nt ment of j udge s. 8. Ar t 124( 7) Pr ohi bi t i on on pr act i ci ng bef or e any cour t Ar t124 pr ohi bi t sa r e t i r ed j udgef r om appear i ngand pl eadi ng be f or eany cour t or t r i bunal . Jur i sdi ct i ons
ofSupr eme
Cour t
Ar t 129 Cour t of Recor d SC i sacour tofr ecor dandhasal lt hepower si ncl udi ngpowert opuni shf or hiJudi ci alServi ce ci vi lorcri mi nalcont emptofcourt .I nt hecase ofDel Asso.vs St at e ofGuj ar at 1991,SC hel dt hatI tc an ev en puni s hf or cont empt of any subor di nat e cour t i n I ndi a as wel l . I nt he af t er mat h ofbabr imasj i d demol i t i on,UP CM Kal yan Si ngh was puni shed f orcont emptofcourtf orf ai l i ngt odel i veron hi spr omi senott o al l ow any cons t r uct i on i n di sput ed ar ea. Ar t 131 Or i gi nal Jur i sdi ct i on The SC has or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on i n any di sput e ar i si ng be t we en: a) Cent e r and one or mor e s t at es. b)Cent erand oneormor es t at eson onesi deand oneormo r es t at eson another. c. ) t wo or mor e s t at es. Underori gi nalj uri sdi ct i on,i ndi vi dual scannotbri ng a sui tagai n Govt .of I ndi a.Thesui tmusti nvol vesaquest i on ofl aw orf actonwhi chal egalri ght depends.Fur t her ,t hesui tcannotbebecauseofanycommer ci alr el at i on or pol i t i c al r el at i on be t ween t he t wo par t i es . at eofKar nat akavsUni on ofI ndi a 1978,SC hel I nt hecaseofSt dt hat t hes ui tfil e dbySt at eofKar nat akaag ai ns tt heGo v t .r e g ar di ngi t sobj e c t i o n t o t he appoi nt me nt of an i nqui r y commi ssi on i s mai nt ai nabl e. 26
on ofI ndi avsStat eofRaj ast han 1984,i I nt hecaseofUni twashe l dt hat a sui tt or ec ov er damages under Rai l way Acti s not mai nt ai nabl e.SC' s ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on i s not at t r act ed f or ordi nary commer ci al di sput es. The f ol l owi ng ar e some e xcept i ons under whi c hSC does not hav e j ur i sdi ct i on: 1.Any t r eat y ,cov enant ,sanad,agr ee ment ,orany such i ns t r umentt hat wase xecut ed bef or et hecommencementoft hecons t i t ut i on,and whi c hi s s t i l li no pe r a t i o no rpr o v i de st hatt hej ur i s di c t i o no fSC do esno te x t e nd t o suc h a di s put e. 2.Theparl i amentbyl aw mayr est ri ct i on t hej uri sdi ct i on ofSC i n di sput es r e l at e dt ous e ,di s t r i but i o n,orc ont r o lo ft hewat e roran i nt e r s t at er i v e ror r i v er v al l e y . 3. Any mat t er r ef er r ed t o t he Fi nanci al Commi ss i on. 4.Mat t er sr el at edt ot headj ust mentoft heexpensesbet weent hecent erand t he s t at e.
Enf or cement of Fundament al Ri ght s Ar t 32 SC i st heguardi an oft heconst i t ut i on.I ti st hesupr emedef enderoft he peopl e' sf undament alr i ght s.Thi sposi t i on hasbeenenf or cedbyAr t32t hat g i v e n anyc i t i z e nt ope t i t i o nt heSC i fhi sf undame nt alr i g ht sar ev i o l at e d. TheSC i se mpowe r edt ogi v edi r e ct i ons ,or der s,orwr i t si ncl udi ngt hewr i t s of habeas co r pus, mandamus, pr ohi bi t i on, and ce r t i or ar if or t he enf or cement of t he r i ght s gi v en i n par t I I I . L Chandr aKumarvsUni on ofI ndi aAI R 1997 - Po we ro fj udi c i alr e v i e w v es t e di n HC by ar t226 and i n SC by ar t32 i s a bas i cf e at ur e on t he cons t i t ut i on and c annot be amended. Ar t 132 Appel l at e Jur i sdi ct i on Const i t ut i onal The SC i st he hi ghes tcour tofappeali nt he count r y .The wr i t s and t he dec r ee soft heSC r un t hr oughoutt hecount r y .A per son can appealt ot he SC unde ri t sappe l l at ej ur i s di c t i o ni fhei sno ts a t i s fie dwi t ht hede c i s i o no f t hel owercourt s. Art132( 1)al l owsan appealt obefil edi nt heSC i ft hr ee condi t i ons ar e sat i sfied: 1.Theorderappeal edmustbeagai nstt hej udgementofahi ghcour ti nci vi l , cr i mi nal , or ot her pr oce edi ngs . 2. The case i nvol ve s a ques t i on of l aw as t ot he i nt er pr et at i on of t he c ons t i t ut i on. 3.TheHi gh Cour t ,under134A ce r t i fiest hatt hecasebehear d byt heSC. 27
Kr i shnaswamy vs Gover ner Gener ali n Counci l1947 - I ft her ei sa di ffer enceofopi ni onamongHi ghCour t sandi ft her ei snodi r ectdeci si onby SC on t hatpoi nt ,i ti sasubst ant i alquest i on ofl aw t hatcan per mi tappeal i n SC. Ar t 133 Appel l at e Jur i sdi ct i on Ci vi l Anappealshal ll i et oSC f r om anyj udgement ,decr e e,orafinalor de ri nci vi l pr oceedi ngsofaHi ghCour tonl yi ft heHi ghCour tcer t i fiesunder134At hat 1.t hecasei nvol vesan subst ant i alquest i on ofl aw ofgener ali mport ance. 2.i nt heopi ni onoft heHi ghCour t ,t hesai dquest i onneedst obedeci dedby t he SC. Madan GopalvsStat eofOr r i sa1956 - Thepecuni aryval ueofadi sput e i si mmat er i al .Ther emaybemat t er swhi c hc annotbemeas ur edi n mone y butt he deci si on coul d hav ea f arr e ac hi ng effectand s uc hc ases c an be pe r mi t t ed t o be appeal ed i n SC. Ar t 134 Appel l at e Jur i sdi ct i on Cr i mi nal An appealshal ll i et o SC f r om anyj udgeme nt ,dec r ee,ora finalor deri n cr i mi nalpr oce edi ngs ofa Hi gh Cour ti nt wo way s - wi t h or wi t hout a cer t i fic at e f r om Hi gh Cour t . 1. Wi t hout Cer t i ficat e a)I ft heHi gh Court ,on appeal ,hasrev er sed an orderofacqui t t alofan acc usedand sent enc ed hi m t o deat h b)i ft he Hi gh Cour t has wi t hdr awn a case bef or ei t sel ff r om any subor di nat e co ur t and i n such a c ase has co nvi ct ed t he acc use d and sent enced hi m t o deat h. 2. Wi t h Cer t i ficat e I ft he Hi gh Cour t cer t i fies t hat t hi si s a fit cas ef or appeal t o SC.
Si ddheshwar Gangul y vs Stat e of WB 1958 -I nt hi s cas e SC i ss ued gui del i nesf ori ssui ngcert i ficat edunder134A.Amer equest i on off acti snot enough but i t mus t al s o i nv ol v e a s ubst ant i al ques t i on of l aw. Ar t135 Feder alCour t ' s( t heonet hatexi st edbef or et hecommencementof t he cons t i t ut i on) j ur i sdi ct i on t o be exer ci sed by t he SC. Ar t 28
136
Speci al
Leave
t o
appeal
by
SC
Unde rt hi sar t i c l e ,t heSC i sa ut ho r i z e dt og r a nt ,o ni t sdi s c r e t i o n,s pe c i al l eave t o appealf r om any j udgement ,decr ee,det er mi nat i on,sent ence,or order ,i nanycaseormat t er ,passedormadebyanycour tort r i bunali nt he t e r r i t or y of I ndi a. RamakantRaivsMadan RaiAI R 2004 -Pri vat epart ycan appealagai nst t heac q ui t t ale v e ni ft hes t at eg ov t .has n' t .SC c anno tr e f r ai nf r o m do i ngi t s dut yj ustbecauseapri vat epart yandnott hest at ehasappeal edagai nstt he o r d e r . Pri t am Si ngh vs Stat e AI R 1950 SC expl ai ned how t hi s di scr et i onary poweri st obeused-Si ncet hepoweri sexcept i onali sverywi de,i tmustbe usedspari ngl yandi nexcept i onalci r cumst ances.Beyondt hi spoi nti ti snot possi bl e t o f e t t er t he ex er ci se of t hi s power by any se tf or mul a.
Ar t 137Powe r t o r ev i e w i t s j udgeme nt . Under e xc ept i onal ci r cums t ance ,t he SC may r evi e w i t s j udge ment . Ar t 139 A Undert hi sart i cl et heSC hast hepowert owi t hdr aw bef orei t sel fanycaseor cases f r om Hi gh Cour t si fi tf eel st hatt hesecases i nvol ve st he same or si mi l arques t i on of l aw t hat i s of ge ner al i mpor t anc e. Uni on ofI ndi a vs SGPC 1986 - SC mayt r ans f eracas ef r om one Hi gh Courtt oanot herunderart136i fi tf eel st hatt hecasecannotbedeal twi t h f ai r l y i n one Hi gh Cour t due t o except i onal ci r cums t ances. Ar t 143 Advi sor y Jur i sdi ct i on Ar t143 pr ovi des t hati fatany t i me i tappear st ot he pr esi dentt hata que s t i o no fl a wo rf ac thasar i s e no ri sl i ke l yt oar i s eandt hatt heque s t i o n i sofsuch publ i ci mport ancet hatexpedi entopi ni on oft heSC i sr equi r ed, t hen hemayr ef eri tt ot heSC.TheSC,af t ersuchheari ngasi tmaydeem fit ,wi l lr eportbackt ot hepr esi dent .Under143( 2) ,t heSC i scanbeaskedt o gi v e opi ni on ev en on mat t er s not pe r mi t t ed unde r ar t 131. Ther ei snosi mi l arpr ov i si oni nt heAme r i cancons t i t ut i on.I nUS,t hecour t can gi v e r ul i ng onl y on concr e t e cases. e Ker al a Educat i on Bi l l1953,SC has i I nr nt er pr e t ed t hewor d" may"i n c l aus e1asi ti sno tbo undt og i v ei t sopi ni o n.I fi thasag oo dr e as o n,i tma y r ef use t o e xpr ess i t s opi ni on. eSpeci alCour t sBi l l1979 I nr case,SC hashel dt hatopi ni onsgi venbyi t under t hi s j ur i sdi ct i on ar e bi ndi ng on al l cour t s i n t he count r y . e Cauver y Di sput es Tr i bunal1992,SC decl I nr ar ed t hatt he or di nance 29
passed byt heSt at eofKarnat akat onotf ol l ow t heor deroft het r i bunalt o r e l e ase wat er t o TN, i s uncons t i t ut i onal .
A sput eandAdvi sor yopi ni on 1994,t I nt hel andmar kcaseo f yodhyaDi he SC r ef use dt o expr es si t s opi ni on on whe t her a t empl e exi s t ed on t he di sput ed l ocat i on bec ausei twas super fluous,unnec es sar y ,and f avor sa par t i cul ar r el i gi on. Ar t 141 Judgementoft he SC i s bi ndi ng on al lcour t s ,exce pti t sel f .I nt he c as e mmuni t yCovsSt at eofBi har .1955,SC hel ofBengalI dt hatt hepr i nc i pl e ofSt ar e deci si si s notan i nflexi bl er ul e ofl aw and cannotbe use dt o pe r pe t uat e er r or s. Wr i t
Jur i sdi ct i on
ofHi gh
Cour t s
The cons t i t ut i on gi v es wi de powe r st o al lHi gh Cour t st oe nsur et hat i nj us t i c e i s not t ol er at e d i n any s phe r e. Ar t 226 pr ov i des t hat not wi t hst andi nganyt hi ngi n art i cl e32 eve ryHi gh Courtshal lhavepower , t hr oug ho utt het e r r i t or i e si nr e l at i on t o whi c hi te x er c i s e sj ur i s di c t i on,t o i ssue t o any per son or aut hori t y ,i ncl udi ng i n appr opr i at e cases,any Go v e r nme nt ,wi t hi nt ho s et e r r i t o r i e sdi r e c t i o ns ,o r de r so rwr i t s ,i nc l udi ng wr i t si nt henat ur eofhabe asc or pus,mandamus ,pr ohi bi t i on,quowar r ant o and cer t i or ari ,orany oft hem,f ort he enf or cementofany oft he ri ght s conf er r ed by Par t I I I and f or any ot he r pur pose. I ti si mport antt o not et hatt hepoweri snotonl yt o enf or cef undament al r i ght sbutf oranyot herpur pose,whi ch makesi t spower sev en wi dert han Supr eme Cour t .Her e,any ot herpur pose means any l eg alr i ghtofl eg al dut y . aKumarvsUni on ofI ndi aAI R 1997,SC I n al andmar kcaseofLChandr hashe l dt hatt hepo we ro fj udi c i ar yov e rl e g i s l at i v eac t i o nv e s t e di n aHi g h Cour ti sabasi cf eat ur eoft heconst i t ut i on andcannotber emovedt hr ough cons t i t ut i onal ame ndment .
Locus St andi : Who can appl y I n gener al ,t he per son whose const i t ut i onalr i ghtorl egalri ghthas been i nf r i nged has t he r i ghtt o appl y .Howeve r ,due t oj udi ci alact i vi sm,t he " do c t r i neofs uffic i e nti nt e r e s t "hasor i g i nat e d.Ac c or di ngt ot hi s ,anype r s o n who i s ev en r emot el y affect e d can pe t i t i on t he Hi gh Cour t .I tal so al l ows publ i cs pi r i t e d pe r s o nst ofil eawr i tpe t i t i o nf o ranype r s o no rc l as si ft hat 30
per son orcl ass i snotabl et o do so hi msel fdue t o pove r t y orany ot her reason. on of I ndi a AI R 1991,SC hel I nABSK Sangh vs Uni dt hat ev en an unr egi st er ed t r ade uni on has r i ghtt o fil e a pet i t i on f or r edr essalofa common gr i ev ance. r man,Rai l wayBoar dvs.Chandr i maDasAI R 2000,SC I nt hec as eofChai hel dt hatan advocat eofCal .Hi ghCour thassuffici enti nt er es ti nmaki nga publ i c pl ace l i ke a r ai l way st at i on a saf e pl ace and so she has r i ghtt o demand c ompensat i on f ort hebangl ades hiwoman gang r aped by r ai l way empl oy ee s.
Scope of Ar t 226 appavsNaggapa,AI R 1954,SC hashel I nt hec as eofBas dt hatt heart226 conf er swi depower st oremedyi nj ust i cewher eeveri ti sf ound.Ar t226says, " . . . o rwr i t so rt heki nd o f . . . " ,whi c h me anst hati ti sno tl i mi t e do nl yt he ment i oned t ypesofwri t s.I tcan i ssueor der sor der sofany ki nd t hatt he si t uat i on mayrequi r e.Thus,i tmakest hescopeofAr t226al otwi dert han ar t 32. Cour t Mar t i al and ar t 226 I nasi gni ficantcase( whi chcase?) ,Del hiHi gh Cour thel dt hats ect i on 18of I ndi a Ar my Acti snotbeyond t hesco pe ofHi gh Cour t .Whi l eHi gh Cour t maynoti nt er f er ei nt hesent enceawardedi nacour tmart i al ,suchan or der cannotbe ar bi t r ary and mal a fide.Thus,i ti s open t oj udi ci alr ev i ew. on ofI ndi avsR K Shar ma,AI R 2001 I nt hecaseofUni SC hashel dt hat cour tshoul dnoti nt er f er eonl yon compassi onat egr ounds.Onl ywhent her e i sape r v e r s e ne s so rgr o s si nj us t i c eo nt hef ac eo fi t ,t he r ec an bej udi c i al r e v i e w. Di sput e bet ween pr i vat e par t i es No Jur i sdi ct i on I nMohan Pandey vs Us dt hatt he ha RaniRaj gar i a SCC 1992,SC hel ext r aor di naryj uri sdi ct i on ofHi gh Courtcannotbeexer ci sed i nt hepri vat e part y di sput es r el at i ng t o pr opert y ri ght s unl ess t her ei s a vi ol at i on of s t at ut or y r i ght s by s t at ut or y aut hor i t i es . Nat ur al Just i ce Na t ur alJus t i c ei s no te x c l us i v e l yt he pr i nc i pl eo fa dmi ni s t r at i v el a w.The cour t sar eal so bound by t hesamepr i nci pl e.Ever y admi ni st r at i veact i on mustbesuppor t edbyr easons.Ther easonsmus tber ec or dedt oensur et hat t her e i s no ar bi t r ar i ness. 31
Ter r i t or i al ext ent of wr i t j ur i sdi ct i ons Ar t226 i mposes t wo l i mi t s on HC' s wr i t .Fi r s t ,i tcan r un onl yi nt he t er r i t ori al j ur i sdi ct i on of t he Hi gh Cour t and sec ondl yt he per son or aut hor i t y mus t l i e i n t hat j ur i sdi ct i on. ect i on Commi si on ofI ndi avsVenkat aRao,AI R 1975 SC I nt hec as eofEl hel dt hatMadr asHi ghCour tcannoti ssueawr i tt oECIbecausei ti sbased i n New Del hi and so i s out of i t sj ur i sdi ct i on. The l aw commi ss i on r ecommended t hatt heseareser i ousl i mi t at i onsand t heydef eatt hevery pur poseoft hi sart i cl e .So i twasamended by 15t h amendmenti n 1963. Hi gh Cour tcan now i ssueawr i tev en t oacent r alaut hor i t yi ft hecauseof act i on i n whol e or par t ar i se s i n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on. palKumarBasuSCC 1994,i I nt hecaseofONGC vsUt twashe l dt hatt he avermenti nt hepet i t i on di d notdi scl oset hatapartoft hecauseofact i on ar osei nt hej ur i sdi ct i on ofCal cut t aand soHi gh Cour tdoesnothaveany j ur i sdi ct i on t o ent er t ai n t he wr i t pe t i t i on. Di scr et i onar y Remedy -Not to be exer ci sed i f al t er nat er emedy i s a v a i l a b l e Ther eme dyav ai l abl ei n 226 i sadi scr e t i onar yr eme dyand t heHi gh Cour t hast hedi s c r e t i o nt oac c e pto rr e f us eape t i t i o n.I ng e ne r a l ,i far e me dyi s avai l abl eel sewher e,wri t sunder226aredi scour ages.However ,t hi sdoesnot mean t hatany r emedy avai l abl ecan bea gr ound f ornotent er t ai ni ngt he pe t i t i onunder226.Ther emedymustbeeffec t i v eandsuffici ent .I nt hecase V l aswamyv I G Pol i ce,Madr as1982,SC hel o f el dt hatt her eme dyunder Pol i ce Rul es ofTN was notsuffic i entand s o Hi gh Cour twas wr ong i n di smi s si ng t he pe t i t i on. Effect of Laches or del ay Reme dy under226 shoul d be s oughtwi t hi n ar eas onabl et i me.Howe v e r , Hi gh Courtmayacceptapet i t i on i st her ei sar easonabl ecausef ordel ayi n se e ki ng j us t i c e. Pov er t y has bee n hel d t o be r easonabl e gr ound. Judi ci al Revi ew bur y vs The conce pt of Judi ci al Re vi e w s t ar t ed f r om t he case ofMar i nt heUSA.I nt hi scase,j ust i ceJohn Marshal lhel dt hat Madi son i n 1800 j udi ci ar y has i nher entpowe rt or e vi e w act i ons by l egi s l at ur e ev en i fno expl i c i t pr ovi s i on i s gi v e n i n t he cons t i t ut i on.
32
I ndi an Si t uat i on Byadopt i ngawr i t t en const i t ut i on andan i ndependentj udi ci ary ,I ndi ahas pr ovi dedt herul eofl aw i nst eadofrul eonment ot heci t i zens.However ,t he rul eofl aw wi l lber ender ed usel essi ft hel egi sl at ur ei sabl et omake l aws t hatv i o l at et hef undame nt alr i g ht so ft hec i t i z e n.Thus ,t hec o ns t i t ut i o ni n Ar t13haspr ovi dedt hej udi ci ar ywi t ht hepowert or e vi e wl awsmadebyt he l egi sl at ur e. Thi s i s cal l ed Judi ci al Re vi e w. Ar t13 says: 1 A . l ll aws i nf or ce i nt he t er r i t or y ofI ndi ai mmedi at el y bef or et he commencementoft hi sConst i t ut i on,i nsof arast heyar ei nconsi st ent wi t h t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s Par t , shal l ,t o t he ext e nt of suc h i nc ons i s t e nc y ,bev oi d. 2.TheSt at eshal lnotmakeanyl aw whi ch t akesawayorabr i dgest he r i ght sconf er r ed by t hi sPar tand any l aw madei n cont r ave nt i on of t hi sc l aus eshal l ,t ot hee xt e nto ft hec ont r a v e nt i on,bev oi d. 3.I nt hi sar t i c l e ,unl e s st hec ont e xto t he r wi s er e q ui r e s , — o
o
( a) “ l aw” i ncl udes any Or di nance , or der , byel aw, r ul e, r e g ul at i o n,no t i fic at i o n,c us t o mo rus ag eha v i ngi nt het e r r i t o r y ofI ndi at hef or c eofl aw; “ l awsi nf orce”i ncl udesl awspassedormadebyaLegi sl at ur eor ot hercompet entaut hori t yi nt he t err i t ory ofI ndi a bef oret he commencement of t hi s Const i t ut i on and not pr e vi ous l y r epeal ed,not wi t hst andi ngt hatanysuchl aw oranypartt her eof ma yno tbet he ni no pe r at i o ne i t he ra tal lo ri npar t i c ul arar e as .
4.Not hi ng i n t hi s ar t i cl e shal l appl yt o any amendment of t hi s Const i t ut i onmadeunderart i cl e368.
aKumarvsUni on ofI ndi aSC AI R 1997 I nt hecaseofLChandr hel dt hat t hepowerves t edi nSC byar t32andHi gh Cour tbyart226overl egi sl at i ve act i on
Doct r i ne
i s
a
of
bas i c
f eat ur e.
Sever abi l i t y
AK Gopal an vs St at e of Madr as SC AI R 1950 : Onl y se ct i on 14 of 33
Pr ev ent i v e
de t ent i on
ac t i s
Doct r i ne
v oi d
and
not t he
of
whol e
ac t .
Ecl i pse
Bhi kaj ivs St at e ofMP SC AI R 1955:Appl i e st o pr e c ons t i t ut i o nall a w Deep Chand vs St at e ofUP SC AI R 1959:Does notappl yt o pos tcons t i t ut i onal
l aw.
St at e of Guj r at vs Ambi ka Mi l l s SC AI R 1974 : Appl i es t o post cons t i t ut i onal
l aw
f or
nonc i t i z ens .
i e st o Dul ar e Lodh vs3r d addi t i onaldi st r i ctj udge SC AI R 1984:Appl pos t
Doct r i ne
c ons t i t ut i onal
l aw
of
as
we l l .
Wai ver
Basheshar Nat h vs I ncome t ax commi ssi oner SC AI R 1959 :Ci t i z en cannot
Meani ng
wai v e
of
r i ght .
Law
Kes havanand Bhar at i vs St at e of Ker al a SC AI R 1973: Rul e s and r e gul at i ons made underl e gi s l at i v e powe r and
not ame ndment s .
Q.What i st he pr ocedure f or amendi ng t he const i t uti on? On what gr oundsanamendmentmaybehel dul t r avi r esbyt heSupr emeCourt ? A r i gi dc ons t i t ut i on i samus ti n af eder alsys t em ofgov er nanc e.I n caseof I ndi an const i t ut i on,i thas been argued t hati ti s notr i gi d enough.That t her e hav e been 93 amendment si nl ast50 ye ar s pr ov est hi sf act .As a co mpari so n, t her e hav e bee n onl y 27 ame ndment si nt he c ons t i t ut i on ofUSAi nt hepast200year s.Thi shasbeendonedel i ber at el yt oensur et hat t heconst i t ut i on can bechangedaspert heneedsoft het i mes.However ,t o pr ev ent exc es si v ec hange s on t he whi ms oft he r ul i ng par t y ,s uffici ent saf eguar ds hav e been put . Thepr ocedur eofamendi ngt hec ons t i t ut i on i sgi v en i n Ar t i cl e368.I tsays t hatt heparl i amentcanamendt heconst i t ut i onunderi t sconst i t uentpower . A bi l lmus tbe pr es ent ed i n ei t herhous e oft he par l i amentand mus tbe appro ve d by a maj or i t yofeac h house sand notl es st han 2/3 maj or i t yof each housepr esentandvot i ng.Af t ersuch appr ovalt hebi l li spr esent ed t o 34
t hepr esi dentf orhi sassent ,upon whoseassentt heconst i t ut i on shal lst and amended as pert hepr ovi si onsoft hi sar t i cl e.Howev er ,i ft heamendment se ekst omakeachangei n •
Ar t i c l es54,55,73,162,or241
•
Chapt er4ofpart5,chapt er5ofchapt er6,orchapt er1ofpart11
•
anyoft hel i s t si nt he7t hs c he dul e
•
r e pr e s e nt at i o no ft hes t at e si nt hepar l i ame nt
•
i nt hi sar t i c l ei t s el f
t hebi l lmus tal s ober at i fie d byno tl e s st han hal fo ft hes t at e sbe f o r ei ti s pr esent ed
t o
t he
pr es i dent
f or
hi s
as sent .
Foramendi ngar t i cl es5,169,or239A,onl ya si mpl emaj ori t yofbot ht he house s
Power
of
of
t he
t he
par l i ament
par l i ame nt
t o
amend
i s
t he
r equi r ed.
const i t ut i on
Ther ehasbeenal otofcont r ov er s yont hepoweroft hepar l i amentt oamend t hec ons t i t ut i o n. Ar t i c l e13 o ft heo r i g i nalc ons t i t ut i on s ai dt hatt hes t at e shal lnotmakeanyl aw t hatt akesawayorabr i dgest heri ght sgi ve nt ot he ci t i zensi n PartI I Iand anysuch l aw madei n cont r avent i on oft hi sart i cl e shal lbedeemed voi dt ot heext entofcont r ave nt i on.Thus,i tsee med t hat par l i amentcannotamend t he const i t ut i on i n a way t hatt akes away t he f undament al
r i ght s
of
t he
ci t i z e ns.
Shankari Thi sl ogi cwas fir s tt es t e d by t heSupr emeCour ti nt hecaseof Pr asadvsUni on ofI ndi aAI R 1951.I nt hi scase ,anamendmentt oaddart 31A and 31B t ot heconst i t ut i on waschal l enge d on t hegr ound t hatt hey t ake away f undament alr i ghtoft heci t i z ensand t her ef or e notal l owed by art i cl e 13. I t was ar gued t hat " St at e" i ncl udes par l i ament and " Law" i ncl udesConst i t ut i onalAmendment s.Howev er ,SC r ej ec t ed t hear gument s andhel dt hatpowert oamendt heconst i t ut i oni ncl udi ngf undament alr i ght s i sgi vent ot heparl i amentbyart368andt hat" Law"i sart13r ef er sonl yt o 35
or di nar y
l aw
made
unde r
t he
l e gi s l at i v e
power s.
j an Si ngh vs St at e ofRaj .AI R 1965,SC f I nt hecase ofSaj ol l owed t he j udgementgi v en i nt hecaseofShankar iPr as ad and hel dt hatt hewor ds " amendmentoft heconst i t ut i on"meansamendmentofal lpr ovi si onsoft he c ons t i t ut i on.
ak Nat h vs St at e ofPunj ab,AI R 1971,SC Howev er ,i nt he case ofGol r eve r sedi t spr evi ousj udgementandhel dt hatparl i amenthasnopowerf r om t hedat eoft hi sj udgementt oamendpartI I Ioft heconst i t ut i onsoast ot ake awayanyf undament alr i ght .I thel dt hat" amendment "i sa l aw asmeant unde r
ar t
13
and
so
i s
l i mi t ed
by
ar t
13( 2) .
Toov e r comet hej udgementi nt hecaseofGol akNat h,t hepar l i ame ntadded anot hercl ausei n art13by t he24t h amendmenti n 1971 I tsay st hatt hi s art i cl edoesnotappl yt ot heamendmentoft heconst i t ut i on doneunderart 368. A si mi l ar cl ause was added i n ar t 368 f or cl ar i t yi nt he same amendment ,whi c h say st hat amendme ntdone unde r ar t368 shal lnot come
unde r
t he
pur vi e w
of
ar t
13.
havanand Bhar at i Thi samendmenti t sel fwasc hal l engedi nt hec aseofKes vsSt at eofKer al aAI R 1973.I nt hi sc as e ,SC r e v e r s e di t sj udg e me ntag ai n and hel dt hat " Law" i n ar t 13 onl y me ans or di nary l aw made under l egi sl at i vepower ,The24t h amendmenti sonl ycl ari f yi ngt hatposi t i on and so i ti s val i d.Howev er ,i tf ur t herhel dt hat" amendment "means t hatt he ori gi nalspi ri toft heconst i t ut i on mustr emai ni nt actaf t ert heamendment . Thus,t hebasi cs t r uc t ur eorf eat ur e soft hecons t i t ut i oncannotbec hanged. Accor di ng t o C J Si kr i ,t hebasi cs t r uct ur eoft hecons t i t ut i on i ncl udesSupr emacyoft heJudi ci ary ,democr at i cr epubl i c,secul ari sm,separat i on of power s among j udi ci ary ,l egi sl at i ve,and t he execut i ve,and t he f eder al c har act e r
of
t he
c ons t i t ut i on.
Thi sj udgement was de l i v er ed by 7: 6 maj or i t y and i s one oft he mos t i mport antj udgement si nt hehi st oryofi ndependentI ndi a.Theeffectoft hi s j udgementc an be seen i nt he c ase of I ndra Sawhney vsUni on ofI ndi a 36
1993,wher eSC pr ev ent edt hepol i t i ci ansf r om r unni ngamoki nt hemat t er ofr e s er v at i o n.I tt hi sc as ei the l dt hati nc l us i onofc r e amyl a y erv i ol at e st he f undame nt alr i g hto fe qual i t y ,whi c hi sa bas i cf e at ur eo ft hec ons t i t ut i o n andsoi t si ncl usi oncannotbepermi t t edevenbyconst i t ut i onalamendment .
Concl usi on Dur i ng Cons t i t uent As se mbl y Di sc uss i ons, i t was not e d t hat r i gi d const i t ut i ons s uc h as t hat of USA cause a l ot of pr obl ems and i s undesi r abl e.Dr .Ambedkarsai dt hatflexi bl ef eder at i on i sa di st i ngui shed f eat ur e of t he const i t ut i on. I nt he hi ndsi ght ,i t can be sai dt hat t he saf eguar ds t o pr ev ent t he spi r i t of t he const i t ut i on wer e not enough. Pol i t i ci anshavet i meandagai nshownt hatt heycanmodi f yi teasi l yt oserve t hei r
v ot e
based
pol i t i cs.
Q.Expl ai nt heemer gency pr ovi si onsoft heconst i t ut i on.Whatdo you underst and by procl amat i on of Emer gency? Descr i be var i ous types. Whatar et he effect s ofemer gency on f undament alr i ght s? Whatar e t heeffectsofemer gency ari sen outoft hef ai l ur eoft heconst i t ut i onal machi ner yi n a st at e? What changes have been made by t he 44th amendment r egar di ng emer gency pr ovi si ons? Emer gencyi sauni quef eat ur eofI ndi an Const i t ut i on t hatal l owst hecent er t oassumewi depower ssoast ohandl especi alsi t uat i ons.I nemer gency ,t he c e nt e rc an t ake f ul ll e g i s l at i v e and e x e c ut i v ec ont r o lo fa ny s t at e .I tal s o al l owst hecent ert ocurt ai lorsuspendf r eedom oft heci t i zens.Exi st enceof emer ge ncy i s a bi gr eason why academi ci ans ar e hes i t antt o cal lI ndi an const i t ut i on asf ul l yf eder al .Emer gencycan beoft hr eet ypes-Duet owar , e xt e r nalag gr e s s i o no rar me dr e be l l i o n,f ai l ur eo fc ons t i t ut i o nalmac hi ne r y i n a st at e,or financi alemer gency .Howeve r ,t echni cal l y ,Pr ocl amat i on of Emer gencyi sonl ydoneupon ext er nalaggr essi on orar medr ebel l i on.I nt he s e condc as e ,i ti sc al l e d Pr e s i de nt i alRul e ,andi nt het hi r dc as ei ti sc al l e d " Pr ocl amat i on of Fi nanc i al Emer ge ncy:
Pr ocl amat i on of Emer gency Ar t352s ayst hati ft hePr es i denti ssat i sfie dt hatagr av eemer ge ncye xi s t s wher e by t he secur i t y ofI ndi a orany par tofI ndi ai st hr eat ene d due t o out si deaggre ssi on orar medr ebel l i on,hemaymakeapr ocl amat i on t ot hat 37
effect r eg ar di ng whol e of I ndi a or a par t t he r eof . Howev er ,sub cl ause3 say st hatPr es i dentcan makesuch a proc l amat i on onl yupon t hewr i t t en advi seoft heUni on Cabi ne t . Such a pr ocl amat i on mus tbepl ace dbef or eeac h houseoft hepar l i amentandmus tbeappr ov ed byeac h hous ewi t hi n onemont h ot her wi set hepr oc l amat i on wi l le xpi r e. An e xpl anat i on t o ar t 352 says t hat i ti s not nec essar yt hat e xt er nal aggr essi onorarmedr ebel l i onhasact ual l yhappenedt opr ocl ai m emer gency . I tc anbepr o cl ai me de v e ni ft he r ei sapo ss i bi l i t yofs uc ht hi nghappe ni ng . •
•
ner va Mi l l svsUni on ofI ndi a AI R 1980,SC I nt hecaseofMi he l d t hat t her ei s no bar t o j udi ci al re vi ew of t he val i di t y of t he pr ocl amat i on ofe mer ge ncy i ss ued by t he pr es i dentunder 352( 1) . Howev er ,c our t ' s power i sl i mi t ed onl yt o exami ni ng whet her t he l i mi t at i o nsc onf e r r e dbyt hec ons t i t ut i o n ha v ebe e no bs e r v e do rno t .I t c an c he c ki ft he s at i s f ac t i o no ft he pr e s i de nti sv a l i do rno t .I ft he s at i s f ac t i o ni sbas e do nmal afideorabs ur do ri r r e l e v antg r o unds ,i ti s nos at i s f ac t i onata l l . Pr i ort o 44t h amendment ,dur at i on ofemer ge ncy wast wo mont hs i ni t i al l y and t hen af t erappr ovalby t he houses,i twoul d cont i nue i ndefini t el yunt i lended byanot herprocl amat i on.Howeveraf t er44t h amendment ,t he per i od i sr e duced t o 1 mont h and t hen 6 mont hs af t e rappr o v al .
Effect s of Pr ocl amat i on of emer gency Thef ol l owi ngar et heeffe ct sar i s i ngoutofpr ocl amat i onofemer gencyi nar t 352. Ar t353 1.execut i vepoweroft heUni on shal lext end t ogi vi ngdi r ect i onst oany s t a t e . 2.par l i amentwi l lge tpowert o make l awson subj ec t st hatar e noti n Uni onl i s t . 3.i ft heemer gencyi sdecl are donl yapartoft hecount ,t hepower si n1 and2s hal le x t e ndt oanyo t he rpar ti ft hati sal s ot hr e at e ne d.
38
Ar t 354 Pr ovi si onsofart268t o279,whi charer el at edt ot axat i on,can besubj ect ed t o exc ept i onsas dee m fitby t hepr es i dent .Eve r yl aw such madeshal lbe l ai d bef or e eac h house of t he par l i ament . Ar t 355says t hati ti st he dut y oft he Uni on t o pr ot ectSt at es agai nst ext er nal aggr es si on. Ar t 358 Whi l epr ocl amat i onofemer gencydec l ar i ngt hatse cur i t yofI ndi aoranypar t oft het e r r i t o r yo fI ndi ai st hr e at e ne dduet owaro re x t e r nalag gr e s s i o n,i si n oper at i on,t hest at eshal lnotbel i mi t edbyart19.I not herwords,govtmay make l awst hatt r ansgr es supon t hef r ee domsgi v en underar t19 dur i ng such emer gency .Howev er ,such a l aw wi l lce aset ohavee ffec tassoon as emer ge ncy ends.Fur t her ,ev er y such l aw or ver y ex ec ut i v e act i on t hat t r ansgr ess es upon f r ee doms gr ant ed by ar t19 mus tr ec i t et hati ti si n r el at i on t ot he emer ge ncy ot her wi se ,i tc annotbe i mmune f r om ar t19. I tal sosayst hatanyact sdoneoromi t t ed t obedoneundert hi spr ovi si on cannot be c hal l e nged i n t he court s af t er t he e nd of eme r genc y . hak vsUni on ofI ndi aAI R 1978,SC hel I nt hecaseofM M Pat dt hatt he r i ght sr i ght sgr ant edby14t o19ar enotsuspendeddur i ngemer ge ncybut onl yt hei roper at i oni ssuspended.Thi smeanst hatassoon asemer gencyi s over ,ri ght st r ansgressed bya l aw wi l lr evi veand can beenf orced.I nt hi s case,ase t t l ementt hatwasre achedbef or eemer gencybet ween LI C and i t s empl oy ee s was r ender e d i neffec t i v e by a l aw dur i ng e me r ge nc y . Af t er emer gencywasover ,SC hel dt hatt hepr evi ousset t l ementwi l lr evi ve.Thi si s be cause t he eme r gency l aw onl ys uspended t he oper at i on oft he exi s t i ng l aws.I tcannotcompl et el y wash away t he l i abi l i t i es t hat pr eexi st ed t he emer ge ncy . Ar t 359 Thi sar t i c l epr ovi desaddi t i onalpowert ot hepr esi dentwhi l epr ocl amat i onof emer ge ncy i si n oper at i on,usi ng whi ch t he pr es i dentc an,by an or der , decl ar et hat t he r i ght t o move any cour tf or t he enf or cement ofr i ght s conf err edbypartI I Iexceptart20and21,shal lbesuspendedf ort heperi od t he pr ocl amat i on i si n oper at i on ofa short erperi od as ment i oned i nt he o r de r .Fur t he r ,e v e r ys uc hl a wo re v e r ye x e c ut i v eac t i o nr e c i t et hati ti si n r e l at i on t o t he e mer ge nc y . 39
ngh vs St at e of Punj ab AI R 1964, SC I n t he c ase ofMakhan Si di st i ngui shedbe t wee nart358and359ass hownbel ow: Ar t358 Fr ee domsgi ve nbyar t19ar esuspended.
Ar t359 Fundament alr i ght sar enotsuspend t oenf orcef undament alri ght s.
Anyac t i onsdoneoromi t t edt obedonecannotb A e nyac t i ondonebyt hel egi sl at ur eor chal l engedevenaf t ere mer gency . suspensi oni sover . Ar t19i ssuspendedf ort heper i odofe me r ge ncy . Effect i v eal lov ert hec ount r y .
Ri ghtt o mov ecour t si ssuspended t hepr ocl amat i onoft hepr esi dentt or Maybeconfinedt oanar ea.
Ar t83( 2) Whi l et hepr ocl amat i on i si n oper at i on,t hepr esi dentmayext end t henor mall i f eoft heLok Sabhabyoneye are ach t i meup t oa per i od not exc e edi ng bey ond 6 mont hs af t e r pr oc l amat i on c eases t o e xpi r e. Pr ovi si ons i n case of f ai l ur e of const i t ut i onal machi nery i s St at es Ar t 356say st hat i f ,upon t he r eportoft he Gove r nor ofa s t at e,t he pr e s i de nti ss at i s fie dt ha tt hego v t .o ft hes t at ei scanno tf unc t i o n ac c o r di ng t ot hepr ovi si onsoft heconst i t ut i on,hemay ,by pr ocl amat i on,assumet o hi msel fal loranyoft hef unct i onsoft hegovt ,oral loranyoft hepower s v es t e di nt hegov er nor ,oranybodyoranyaut hor i t yi nt hes t at eexceptt he l e g i s l at ur eo ft hes t at e .Thepo we roft hel e g i s l at ur eo ft he s t at es hal lbe exer ci se d by t he aut hor i t y of t he par l i ament . Under t hi s ar t i c l e, pr es i dent c an al so make such i nc i dent al and consequent i alpr ovi si onswhi charenecessaryt ogi veeffectt ot heobj ect i ves oft he pr ocl amat i on.Thi si ncl udes suspensi on ofany pr ovi si on oft hi s const i t ut i on r el at i ng t o any body or aut hor i t y i n t he s t at e. Howeve r ,t hi sar t i cl edoesnotaut hori zet hepr esi dentt oassumet hepower s v es t e d i n t he Hi gh Cour t s .
Ar t357 pr ovi dest hati nt hecaseofpr ocl amat i onunderart356
40
•
•
•
parl i amentcan conf erupon t hepr esi dentt hepowerofl egi sl at ur eof t hes t at et o make l awsort hepowert o del eg at et hepowert o make l awst oanybodyel se. t heparl i amentort hepr esi dentcan conf erpowerori mposedut i eson t heUni onorUni onofficer sorUni onaut hori t i es. pr esi dentcanaut hori zet heexpendi t ur ef r om t heconsol i dat edf undof t hest atpendi ngsanct i onofsuchexpendi t ur ebyt heparl i ament .
I mpor t ant i nst ances of i nvocat i on Thi sar t i cl ehasbeeni nv okedov erahundr edt i mes .
of
Ar t
356
1.Di ssol ut i onof9st at eassembl i esi n1977byJanat aPart ygovt . .
at e ofRaj ast han vsUni on ofI ndi a Thi swasc hal l enged i nt hecaseofSt AI R 1977.I nt hi sc as e ,SC he l dt hatt het hede c i s i o no ft hepr e s i de nti sno t onl ydependenton t her eportoft hegover norbutal soonot heri nf ormat i on. Thedeci si on i se nt i r el y pol i t i caland r es t swi t ht hee xe cut i v e .So i ti snot unc o ns t i t ut i o nalpe rs e .Ho we v e r ,c o ur t sc an v al i dat et hes at i s f ac t i o no ft he pr esi dentt hati ti snomal afide. 2.Di ssol ut i onof9st at eassembl i esi n1980byCongr esspart ygovt . 3.Di ssol ut i onofBJPgovti nMP,HP,andRaj .i n1992.
on ofI ndi a AI R Thi s was c hal l enged i nt he c ase ofSR Bommaivs Uni 1994. I nt hi s case SC hel dt hat sec ul ar i sm i s a basi cf eat ur e of t he const i t ut i on and a st at egovt .can bedi smi ssed on t hi sgr ound.I tf ur t her obser vedt hatnopart ycan si mul t aneousl ybear el i gi ouspart yaswel lasa pol i t i c al par t y . Fi nanci al Emer gency Ar t360pr ovi de st hati ft hepr esi denti ss at i sfiedt hatas i t uat i onhasar i sen wher e byt hefinanci alsecur i t yofI ndi aort hecr e di tofI ndi aorofanypar tof I ndi ai st hr eat ened,hemaymakea decl ar at i on t ot hateffect .Undersuch si t uat i on,t he execut i ve and l egi sl at i ve power s wi l lgo t ot he cent er . Thi s ar t i cl e has ne v er been i nv oked. Changes made by 44t h Amendment 44t h amendment subs t ant i al l y al t er ed t he emer ge ncy pr ovi si ons oft he const i t ut i on t o ensur et hati ti s notabused by t he exe cut i veas done by 41
