LAW OF CONSTITUTION -1

SUBHEADINGS WE HAVE TO KEEP FOR PART-C:

---------------------------
1.BASIC FACTS OR FACTS
( Write the Facts in the question as it is )
2.ISSUES IN THE PROBLEM
( Write the question mark part of the line in the given question. Related grounds in the
Subject and sections )
3.REFERENCE CASE LAW
4.DECIDED CASES JUDGEMENT
5.DECISION OR CONCLUSION
(OR)
1.BASIC FACTS OR FACTS
2.ISSUES IN THE PROBLEM
3.RELATED GROUNDS
(* THIS PROBLEM RELATED TO WHICH TOPIC IN THE SUBJECT AND SECTIONS IN ACTS)
4.JUDGEMENT IN DECIDED CASES
( WRITE RELATED CASE LAW AND JUDGEMENT
5.DECISION OR CONCLUSION

MODEL PROBLEMS
Problem No. 1
A State Electricity Board constituted under Electricity (Supply Act), 1948 had taken action
against its employees. They approached the High Court for certain remedies for violation of
Fundamental Rights. It was contested by the Board that the Board is not “State” and hence not
amenable to fundamental rights. Decide.
Answer
Art. 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term ‘State.’ The term ‘State’ includes the following-

1.   The Government and Parliament of India, i.e., Executive and Legislature of the Union.

2.   The Government and the Legislature of each State. i.e., Executive and Legislature of States.

3.   All local or other authorities within the territory of India.

In Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857,  the Supreme Court held that
the expression other authorities is wide enough to include all authorities  created by the
Constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that the statutory
authority should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function. On this
interpretation, the expression  ‘other authorities’ will include Rajasthan Electricity Board.

Problem No. 2
A regulation was passed by the managing director of the Air India stipulating that the Air
hostess will be terminated from service on attaining the age of 35 or on marriage. This was
challenged by an Air hostess. Discuss the validity of the regulation.
Answer
In Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza , AIR 1981 SC 1829,  the Supreme Court held that the provisions
on pregnancy bar and the retirement and the option of the Managing Director were unconstitutional
as being unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
It upheld the validity of the provision prohibiting the Air Hostesses to marry within four years of their
service, as there was no unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the provision.

Problem No. 3
The State Government issued an order under Art 15(4) of the constitution reserving 68% of
seats to backward and more backward classes and 32% seats made available to the merit pool
in the Medical and Engineering Colleges. The validity of the order was challenged by a student
who had secured more marks than those admitted under the order. Decide.
Answer
 Art.15(4) reads - This article or clause (2) of Article 29 does not prevent the State from making any
special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

However, in  Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649, Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR
1964 SC 1823,  regarding the reserved 68% of the seats to the  backward and more backward
classes and 32% to the merit pool, the Supreme Court held that this sub-classification was not
justified under Art.15(4).
The Court observed that the main defect of the system adopted by the State was that under it 90%
of the population of the State was backward. This is inconsistent with Art. 15(4). The State would
not be justified ignoring altogether advancement of the rest of the society in its zeal to promote the
welfare of backward classes.

National interest would suffer if qualified and competent students were excluded from admission in
institutions of higher education. Speaking generally, the Court said, the special provisions should
be less than 50% how much less than 50% would depend upon the relevant prevailing
circumstances in each case.

In the historic Mandal Commission case,  the Supreme Court by 6-3 majority has held that the
sub-classification of backward classes into more backward and backward classes for the purpose
of Art. 15(4) and  16(4) can be done. But the reservation cannot exceed more than 50 per cent.
In State of A.P. v. V. Balram and K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka,  as regards the limit
of reservation, the Supreme Court, by majority, held that the total reservation shall not exceed
50%. This general rule can be relaxed in extraordinary situations for population living in far flung
areas of the country as it may be desirable to treat them differently.

Problem No. 4
      Students of a particular religious sect studying in a school were suspended from the school
for refusing to sing National Anthem. It was found that they stood silently when the National
Anthem was sung by every other student. Parents moved the court complaining that such
compulsion and action violated their religious freedom - Decide.
Answer
In the National Anthem case, the Supreme held that there was no law under which their
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) could be curtailed.

The right under Article 19(1)(a) can only be regulated by law and on the grounds mentioned in the
Constitution and not by executive instructions. They did not commit any offence under the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, because they stood up respectfully when the
national anthem was being sung.

Accordingly, it was held that the children’s expulsion form the school was a violation of their
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) which also includes the freedom of silence.
The judgment of the Court will have far reaching consequences. It is likely to be interpreted as a
licence by all to disregard the national anthem which is the symbol of our national unity in the name
lf religion.

Freedom of speech and expression has nothing to do with a person refusing to sing the national
anthem. A review petition is pending in the Supreme Court against this decision.

Problem No. 5
A state law was passed for compulsory wearing of helmets by the drivers of two wheelers. An
affected person challenges the law as violative of his freedom of movement under Art. 19(1)(d)
Decide.
Answer
As per Art. 19(5) of the Indian Constitution, the affected person cannot challenge the law as
violative of his freedom of movement under Art. 19(1)(d).

As per Art. 19(1)(d), all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.

However, as per Art. 19(5), Art. 19(1)(d) cannot prevent the State from making any law imposing,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of such rights  in the interests of the general public.

Thus, as per Art. 19(1)(d), the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of
movement on the ground of “the interest of general public”.

In Ajay Canu v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 156,  the Supreme Court held that the rule of
compulsory wearing helmets was valid as it was made for the good of the people and imposed
reasonable restriction on the freedom of movement.

Problem No. 6
The Passport of ‘A’ was cancelled by a passport officer without assigning any reason of his
action under Sec. 10  of the Passport Act. ‘A’ challenged the action as unconstitutional and
violate of his fundamental right under Article 21. Decide.  
Answer
In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India  Air 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court held that the order
withholding reasons for impounding the passport was therefore not only in breach of statutory
provisions (Passport Act) but also in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the
maxim “ audi alteram partem”  .
Although there are no positive words in the statute (Passport Act) requiring that the party shall be
heard, yet the justice of the Common Law will supply this omission of Legislative.

 The power conferred under Section 13(3)(c) of the Act on the passport authority to impound a
passport is a quasi-judicial power. The rules of natural justice would therefore be applicable in the
exercise of this power. Natural justice is a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with
fairness and to secure justice. Fairness in action, therefore, demands that an opportunity to be
heard should be given to the person affected.

A provision requiring of such opportunity to the affected person can and should be read by
implication in the Passport Act, 1967. If such provisions were held to be incorporated in the Act by
necessary implication, the procedure prescribed for impounding passport would be right, fair and
just and would not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

It is, therefore, held that the procedure ‘established’ by the Act for impounding a passport is in
conformity with the requirement of Article 21 and is not violative of that Article.

Problem No. 7
‘A’ was sentenced to death, but his death sentence was not executed for 12 years and
therefore ‘A’ demands quashing of his death sentence under Article 21 of the constitution.
Examine the validity of his contention.
Answer
‘A’ cannot demand quashing of his death sentence under Art. 21 of the constitution, as his death
sentence was not executed for 12 years but can demand that his death sentence should be
commuted to life imprisonment.

In T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 643,   a two-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court held that delay in execution of death sentence exceeding 2 years would be
sufficient ground to invoke the protection of Art. 21 and the death sentence would be commuted to
life imprisonment.
In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1983 SC 465,  the three Judge Bench of the Court agreed
with this view that prolonged delay in the execution of a death sentence was an important
consideration for invoking Art.21 for judging whether sentence should be allowed to be executed or
should be converted into sentence of imprisonment.
Prolonged detention to await the execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and
unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo the wrong is to quash the death sentence.

However, the Court held that this cannot be applied as a rule in every case and each case should
be decided on its own facts.

The Court should consider whether the delay was due to the conduct of the convict (where he
pursues series of legal remedies), the nature of offence, its impact on the society, its likelihood of
repetition, before deciding to commute the death penalty into a sentence of life imprisonment.

Problem No. 8
The Dean of Government Medical College taking serious view of thee bad behaviour of a final
year medical student, dismissed him after following the principles of natural justice. The
dismissed student rushes straight to the Supreme Court for relief. Will the Supreme Court
entertain the students appeal.
Answer
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court has been constituted as a Protector and Guarantor of
Fundamental Rights  conferred by Part III. Once a citizen has shown that there is infringement of
his fundamental right, the Court cannot refuse to entertain petitions seeking enforcement of
fundamental rights. ‘Romesh Thapper Vs State of Madras,  AIR 1950 SC 124 at p. 126’.

Problem No. 9
A convict was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court and it was confirmed by the High
Court. The Supreme Court did not interfere in the lower Courts order. The prisoner filed a
mercy petition before the President of India to pardon him. The President rejected the mercy
petition without assigning any reason for doing so. Can the Court ask the President for his
reason.
Answer
In  Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653,  the Supreme Court held that the manner of
consideration of the petition lies entirely within the discretion of the President.
The Court need not spell out specific guidelines for the exercise of power under Art. 72. It is so
because the power under Art.72 is of the “widest amplitude” , and can contemplate a myriad kinds
and categories of cases with facts and situations varying from case to case.
The President cannot be asked to give reasons for this order. The power of pardon is part of the
Constitutional scheme. The order of the President cannot be subjected to judicial review on its
merits.

Problem No. 10
The executive of the State Government entered into a contract with suppliers for supply of
materials for the construction of Houses for the poor. Due to urgency, a lower division clerk
signed the contract without the knowledge of his superiors. Can the suppliers claim the amount
from the Government for the goods supplied.
Answer
As per Article 299, a contract is binding on the Government of India, if the following three
conditions are fulfilled that –

1.   It must be expressed to be made by the President or by the Governor of the State.

2.   It must be extended on behalf of the President or the Governor and,

3.   Its execution must be by authorized person and in authorized manner by the President or
Governor.

Failure to comply with these conditions nullifies the contract and renders in void and
unenforceable.

Problem No. 11
In order control a riot, police started firing. A bullet pierced the car and entered into body of the
driver who lost his life. The wife of the driver filed a petition to claim compensation. Will she
succeed?
Answer
The wife of the driver cannot succeed in her petition to claim compensation, because controlling a
riot by police is a sovereign function under Art. 300 of the Indian Constitution for which State is not
liable to pay any compensation.

In State of Orissa v. Padmalochan, AIR 1975 Orissa 41  the  Supreme Court held that the injuries
caused to the plaintiff by the police personnel with a view to disperse the unlawful crowd were in
exercise of the sovereign function of the State and hence not liable.

Problem No. 12
After the Assembly elections in a State, no party was in a position to form a Government. The
Governor fearing horse trading, recommended for dissolution of the Assembly. The Central
Government also advised the President to issue proclamation under Article 356. The
proclamation was issued dissolving the Assembly. Discuss the constitutional validity of the
President’s proclamation and Governor’s recommendation.   
Answer
Article 356 says that if the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of State or otherwise,
is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, he may issue a Proclamation.

The term “satisfaction” in Art. 356(1) does not mean the personal satisfaction of the Governor but it
is the satisfaction of the cabinet. The satisfaction of the President can, however, be challenged on
two grounds that-

1)   It has been exercised male fide

2)   It has been based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant grounds.

In these cases, it would be no satisfaction of the President.

In S.R Bommai vs. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918,  the Karnataka High Court held that the
proclamation issued under Art. 356 is not wholly outside the part of judicial scrutiny and the Court
can examine whether the reasons disclosed for issuing proclamation have rational nexus with the
satisfaction reached under Article 356.

By
Ch.Nagesh
aaradhyalaw.blogspot.in