REPORT ON SEMINAR ATTENDED

Title: Landmark judgements that changed the paradigm in society with reference to Part III
of the Constitution

Date: 28 May 2020

First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Dilip Kumar Bandopadhyay , Acting Chairman, Amity
Law School Delhi for giving me the opportunity to attend the seminar on the Landmark
judgements that changed the paradigm in society with reference to Part III of the
Constitution. The seminar was very interesting and gave me the opportunity to understand
how the different judgements and the interpretations by the courts have helped in evolving
the society as a whole. I will briefly describe some key elements if the webinar:

The webinar was scheduled for an hour i.e. from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm. The webinar started by
opening speech of Bandyopadhyay sir . It was led by Hon’ble Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
, Hon’ble Judge, HC of Rajasthan, Mr. Aman Lekhi , Additional Solicitor General of India
and Sr. Advocate , Supreme Court, Mr. Siddharth Jain , Founder and Director of PSL Legal,
Delhi.

The first session was presentation by Hon’ble Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati. He started
with talking about Part III of the constitution of India. It is the fulcrum of the Indian
Constitution and really brings the changes and is maximum to talk about in the constitution.
He said Article 12 is a beautiful piece where the state is defined. He talked about that how the
courts had interpreted the words “Any other Authority” used under Article 12 and expanded
it. He laid emphasis on to ZEE Telefilms Judgement ( ZEE Telefilms Ltd. v UOI, 2005 SC)
in which a dissenting view was given by Justice Sinha that in times to come to enable the
fraternity to delve deeper into the definition of the state we have to expand the word any
other authority as far as possible. We have over the years evolved it and expanded it like LIC
or Universities or The Autonomous bodies like PSC all these came under Article 12 as we
have developed as a democracy.

He had also talked about Article 13 i.e. Judicial Review. There has been a tussle between
various organisations that how far can judicial review can be carried out and from that arose
the mighty judicial independence and the purview in which the judiciary actually operates in
these times. Power of judicial review has been evolved as we have travelled from Shankari
Prasad to Golaknath to the Keshavanada Bharti and so on. He further spoke about articles 14-
18. Article 14-18 are a delicate part of the Constitution and how it has shifted its paradigm
with the needs of the society like we travelled in public employment, equality in sex. A
beautiful line of demarcation has been drawn between the right of equals and the unequal. he
laid main emphasis on the Article 21 ( Right to Life ) of the Constitution. It is the Fulcrum if
the Constitution and here ss where a major paradigm shift has taken place. He gave the
example of the Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI ( 2018 SC) in which the Hon’ble SC has
decriminalised sec 377 partly by restoring the rights of sexual orientation LGBT community.
Then he talked the Adultery Judgement which was decriminalised as it was biased against the
women. At last, he talked about the Aruna Shanbuag Case, where the SC has allowed the
passive Euthanasia and the common cause Registered society v UOI where the SC has
recognised Right to die with dignity as his/her right to life and personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution and permitted the removal of life support system from terminally ill
and in incurable comas.

The Second session was presentation was by Mr. Aman Lekhi , Additional Solicitor General
of India and Sr. Advocate , Supreme Court. He started with talking about The Fundamental
rights Case ( Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela ) in which it was decided that FRs are
Amendable and yet paradoxically restored the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India .
After this the question arose that whether FRs come under the basic structure which was
cleared in Indira Nehru Gandhi Case. This case is also important as from these cases we have
established a separate mechanism for the PM of India and the court affirmed the Principle of
Equality and Judicial Review as the basic features of the Constitution. Then at the same time
came the ADM Jabalpur Judgement , in which it was held that Article 21 will not be available
in times of emergency. It led to the Amendment that Article 21 is unamendable. This in fact
is constituent recognition of the basic structure doctrine that there are certain basic features
which remain inviable. Further he talked about the three very important Judgements i.e. RC
Cooper v. UOI (1970), E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973) and Meneka Gandhi v.
UOI (1978). The RC Cooper was basically the basis for what held in Meneka Gandhi, it was
held that FRs cannot be read in isolation and have to be read together. This has incorporated
in Meneka Gandhi Case which bought in the principle of Reasonableness and therefore
incorporated the principle of due process. There is equal importance of EP Royappa
Judgement in which it was held that arbitration is the antithesis of the Democracy.

Further he said it was in the 1980s that the expansion of Article 21 has started. There has
been a series of the cases, from the Habaes Corpus Case to the Puttuswamy judgement
( Puttuswamy v. UOI, 2017 SC ) today there has been a huge paradigm shift in the society.
This has happened with the changing needs and values of the society. He said that a lot of
rights had been inferred from the Article 21 of the Constitution of the India for example,
Right to privacy which has been recognised in the Puttaswamy Judgement. The Puttuswamy
Judgement had also brought the Doctrine of Proportionality. He emphasised that when we
look at the concepts of the Fundamental Rights we should not be restricted to the words or
literal reading of them, we should look at the values and morals behind it. As the Constitution
is an organic document and means to endure for ages and that is why it cannot be interpreted
literally. The work of the Fundamental rights is to keep a check on the Arbitrariness. This can
be seen today also in the Covid Situation because as we see that there is some form of
authoritarianism as far as imposition is concerned. So at such times we have to interpret the
Fundamental Rights with respect to values and principles, balance them with DPSPs , read
them in totality and in fact use them to keep check on power as the SC has so far done.

The third session was presentation by, Mr. Siddharth Jain, Founder and Director of PSL
Legal, Delhi. He kept his presentation very brief and concentrated on interplay between the
judgements during the process of opening up and grooming of the Fundamental Rights. He
said that the FRs are the basic existential rights. The Constitution are made for the people and
people are not made for the Constitution. The underlying principle behind this is that the Law
is supposed to be change and evolve according to the times and needs of the society. It has to
follow the occurrence of the society and if it fails to do so it will die its own death. The
successive Judgments have given a wingspan to FRs which spread right from Cradle to the
Crate. It is also to be kept in mind that judgements that had left mark in the sense of time
were nor achieved in the first go. It is an organic process of deliberation, concurrence and
dissent and it takes time. He talked about the ADM Jabalpur Case which is famous for its
dissenting opinion of Justice HR Khanna and this dissenting opinion was later adopted by SC
in the Puttuswamy Judgement of 2017. So, the dissenting opinion does not mean that the
view was wrong, it is just dissenting opinion. The Judgements over the time had changed,
amended and altered with the various aspects of FRs. As in the year 2014 in NALSA
Judgement where SC has recognised transgenders as third gender, then, in the case of
Puttuswamy in 2017 where SC recognised the right to privacy and then in 2018 in the case of
Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI where the draconian and stigmatised sec 377 of IPC was
decriminalised. He concluded his presentation by emphasising that even when we are not
there, the society will keep on changing and the laws will evolve according the society.