cer OCU CUM SR Ly EO RUE UNL lity Re ORR Le CUS ee ACS Ug PS TUES CW ae ae Uc WUE NTA-UGC-NET Examination Ter IS SCLC Cy FERS To WET Une CES LEST CCU Me | 1 ere @o ci ° Ve Oe ee MI DUAL CAMERAap —— See ste" Recent & Landmark CASE Laws. SOI Unis ayy SEE EO m LTTE Multiple Choice Questions cm Civil Judge, Higher Judicial Services & Prosecution Officer Examinations = CLAT, AILET and other LL.M Entrance Examinations ™ NTA-UGC-NET Examination m™ UPSC and State PCS Examinations m= Law Students, Lawyers and Law Professionals generally &: vw Ss Sy ¥ ES GSS ES Samarth Agrawal LESTE LLM, NET/JRE §. es oe Former Civil Judge (U.P. Judicial Service) @ S&S = (2013 batch) 3 CISA SESS F SEES OSES yy SLs + @ ¥. ‘S s Fad WER s _ REDMI NOTE 6 PRO @O MI DUAL CAMERAredroseal sights and rer surance and clint abuse of r| Ram fawaya Kapoor v. State 5 | AIR 1955 cee of Punjab, aoe Court reat that our Constitution has 7 Adopted the sytem of Pattamentay omen ‘ England. Hac principle is thatthe Prondent the Contin 4 slob wee esc cee pone 2 S.R. Bommai v. Union of india, scularism is t Scaan ; ae Sache 2 Aruna Roy v. Union of India, meaning and it, enti : ‘lop ie ‘ rat ' AIR 2002 SC 3176, expect towards different. roy Sendingand j 2 Bxcel Wear. Union Find, ‘Courts would give more weightage to he nalonalaadon {AIR 1979 50.28 and sate ownership hut the principles of atom shold DSS. Nakarav. Union of india, notbe interpreted and implemented to he etent tually AIR 1983 $C 130 ignores the interest of private ownership, Porter Suese Courriel thatthe basic purpose of sei previse decent stundard of if and socal secur m people 3”. Chandra Kumar v. Union of ladia, Supreme Couthat held that exchaionofjricion ofa ‘AIR 1997 Sc.1125 i unconstitutional, Judicial review the basic stactre of ¢he Constitution anditcan never be excluded. > SRBommal v. Union of india, Supreme Courthas expressed in majority opinion that AIR 1994 SC 1918 Indian Constitution is federal. > Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, “The federal principle or doctrine of separation of powers AIR 1955 SC 549 not incorporated in the Constitution in the strict and rigid form. 3 state of West Rengal v. Union of indi, Taian Cooston's not wuly Federal and Sees are nt AIR 1963 SC 1241 sovereign. Political sovereignty is distributed between Union and States with greater weightage in favour of the Union. jasthan v. Union is Indian Union is federal but the extent of federalism is largely So aatotly ear ae watered down by the needs of progress and development of iain San ‘country which has tobe nationally, politically and econom- cally coordinated and socially, intellectually and spiritually uplifted. win, “Though the federal principleis dominantin out © -iakdip Neat Diino Constitution and that principles one ofits basic features, but, se itis also equally true that federalism leansin favour of a strong centre or unitary power. PREAMBLE | " “The Supreme Court held that the Preambleis not the par > In Re Berubari Unioncase, the Constiution AIR 1960 SCS "The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is epee j erala, rn preamble of 2 Kesavanand Bani v. State of Ke Constitution, The court held that theP ra nee AIR 1973 SC1461 ‘ons of extreme importance and the ariksha Manthanjumer rights and redress : noe and elas third party insur seca 4s, abuse of” agreements, an Aik 2011 SC 1485 cant andar v. Sate OF Chactsgarh, > Ainz011 C283? Fajan Singh v Sate of Rajat 2 AIR 1955 SC845 2 Amar Singh iv. State of Rajasthan, ‘AMR 19585C 504 UNION & 7 Re Berubar's case, AIR 1960SC 858 ‘Babul v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC51 2 Maganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 C783 2 RG. Poudyalv. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804 _ ‘andi as ould be reed and interpreted inthe light ofthe ream id that the Proamble can be ar ‘Cout held tht Preamble isthe sam and subyasc “Supreme Cour Teatares of the Constitution. oe ctratel the view bein Resivanand: Bigg Sapte ed that Preamble isan integral part ofthe caseand held tha Constitution Supreme Cour held that the Constitution should be Sr cme TERRITORY | 1 Court has ruled that at any given point of Peeled Arie, yaliament to diminish the area of State does agreement could only be implemented by an amendment to the Constitution under Article 368. Ifthe State Legislature to which the Bill has been referred, ddoes not express its views within the period so specified or extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament even though the views of the State have not been obtained by the President. Ifthe State Legislature expresses its views within the time so specified or extended the Parliaments not ‘bound to acceptor act upon the views ofthe State Legislature ‘An agreement to refer the dispute to the tribunal does nor amount to cessation of territory and hence amendment of Constitution is not necessary. Even though the admission or establishment of a new Sate willbe on such terms and conditions asthe Parliament may think Fit, such conditions cannot be imposed which is against thebasic structure of the Constitution, e| vo! a, tema 5 CITIZENSHIP ise Dede Thion of tnd, 5 ade 1991, Sc356. Stealthae ition! a : ; Atanas Ubsta, ec ‘i aes = AIR oon an "Unk of ti, Supreme Cour ecognind that dh = ieee ns fundamental rights through shareh¢ ° re —— masiolee © Gaopare. Uhlan ond Segre Cont idee anim = (Bank Neonalintion ess ht of shareholders nd wel that of commgana te ; conn Sipe Osetslonet ae Reser . inespedng tape _ 2 Gaia ect Onl 6 Se Oe “The Supreme Court held that though a company is nota tp7ss032 Gibenbur sacle har sghtcaryonbwines shruphaperyofacompar : DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW i 2 Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC.128 D Bhikhajlv. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC781 2D Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, | AIR 1954 SC 728 2 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300 2 RMD.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 Pariksha Manthan “Supreme Court observed that preConstitutional laws exists for all past acts, ic. prior to commencement of Constitution. Formulated the doarine ofelipse. The court held that under this doctrine the law is overshadowed by fundamental ight and remains dormant. “The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to pre-Constitutional laws and not to post ‘Constitutional laws. In Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) and Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of U.P. (1963) this view _| was endorsed by the court ‘Supreme Court modified is view expressed in. Deep Chand s ‘ase, MahendralalJein scaseand SairAbmed sase Thecourt held that post-constitutional laws, which are inconsistent ‘purposes. Doctrine of eclipseis applicable to post- constitutional laws as well The Supreme Court elaborately discussed the docttne of severability and held that when after removing the invalid potion what emins isa complete codethen theeisn0 necessity to declare the whole Act void.or rights a rearessah jee and claims arty insura ments, abuse of Ts 2 fieras0sc ies pecans tah se scheld that where the law authorize, resigns oP Fe both within and without the linge "Sto cover it py the Constitution and itis not postbley, roided byte Cm the whole law is to be struc Peat the two then the whol don, . es te in themselves and work.” ——emmenn ae | tub Schedule are complete in themssves and work Kiheer fig 1993 SCAl2 5 nehavranes Boal» Seat ig 1973SC 1461 ‘of eral 7, Chance Kumar v. Union of india, > AIR 19971125, 2 University of Madea v. Santa Bal AIR 1984 Mad. 67, > Hlecricty Board, Rajasthan v. Mokan Lal, AIR 1967 SC.1857 2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 $C 1331 ‘2 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v, The Intemational Aitport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 CONCEPT OF STATE calc biven tothe Supreme Court and the High Cour under Article 368. | faras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could only incre by wing the principe of cusdem ener Therefore it could only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions, ‘Supreme Court rejected the interpretation in Santa Bai's case and held that the expression ‘other authorities’ is wide snoush toincude all authorities created by the Constitution ‘or statute on whom the power is conferred by Jaw. It is ‘not necessary tht the authority must be engaged in performing covernmental or sovereign function, Supreme Court held that if the functions of the Cor Jations are of public importance and closely related to government functions then it should be treated as strumentality of government ive. ‘State’ within the meaning of Part III. Supreme Cour followed the broader test laid down in Sukhdev Singh scase The court laid down following test to determine whether a body ‘1S an agency or instrumentality of the State- (1). Financial resources of the States the chief funding source of the body. (2) Existence of deep and pervasive State control, essence, (Department of government is transferred to the de Court beld that 10th Schedule min para > Nareshy.s Seorene Coil atonal The oman mers rived wonly decree soc ail evi not : pomrive bodies have worked within the boundariey et dei eltve ins in making the equited laws bats ia imatnebrn nt, Seige Comtonsnd they donors aie ar sons of he Constaton con ez > Man 97 > M Al2 Naresh v. State of Maharasher, State oF AIR 1967 Sc 1 2 Rif Prased Shara v Snes of am, (2015) 9 sCC461 al ‘Reentand Landmark Ce Lm FUNDAMENTAL ofthe State and hence aS 12. The court observed d Person is crested but wy “The question whether the State’ oF not was considered by within the meaning of Arle ihetattnthow share us ben rough into xen come under the wed Supreme Cour did wrasse op ot expres ny definitive opinion on imate Iasi hateven the Courtssconatnnd cee ‘meaning of State Seok FS’ swt under Are 32 cannot bene 2 ish Cour spinnin ji onde. Te Sopteme Coun pained that ch dca orders canes be said ete Supreme Ca ut aegrcaly ha that cours whe acungom ea side, are not'State tinder Article Dot the tation When the cours cn purely admnitive «spac then they may aac the writ jricoon arte ‘imitate con Ther th eon fe postion amply clear that court while acing on ical ide ate not State’ ut they may atact the eappngs of Se shen they atin adminiseative capacity RIGHTS: GENERAL 2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of ladia, (4978) 180C 248 2M. Nagaraj . Union of India, AIR.2007 SC71 2 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of ‘Maharashira, (2011) 1 SCC64 2 Behram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123 ‘Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Commissiones, | ‘The Supreme Court observed that fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India and they protec the dignity ofan individual and create conditions in which evry human being can develop his personality to the Fillet extent. ‘The Supreme Court has held tat the Constiation bat confirmed the existence of fundamental rights and given them protection. Individuals posses certain basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason ofthe face that they are humans. ‘Supreme Court held that fundamental rights represent ‘basic values enriched by the people of India Itis to preserve and protect certain basic human rights against the interference ofthe State, The object isto ensure invilability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes. ‘Supreme Court clarified that person cannot waive his Fund mental Rights. This option is not available to him. These rights have not only been enshrined in the Constitution for personal interest but also for benefits of entire society AIR 1959 SC 149 > Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India “Writ under Article 32 not maintainable for enforcement of (2019) 3800 589 __| personal contractual rights > State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952SC 75 RIGHT TO EQUALITY iI ‘Supreme Court eld tha the expression Equal Protestion of Laws isa corollary to the expression itis difficult to imagine situation in the equal protection of law will not be vi before av. — == ~« ‘equality before aw and which the wolation of jolation of equality— - ~ ae le of Law embodied in Arie yyinsurance and clin eee emer ti ng aot etd co cacanenrivennn — | tint memes eae Supreme Court hel Sra tai set _ : ere to ave nexus between the bas of — It is important * eos a the abit of : icles ie to a single individu: spect _ > though it applies AIR 99 "That singleindividuaL may betreated.asa cas, The presumpion son who challenges the consitionaiy de hat la arbitrary and unceasonable as Naka v. Union of india, [AIR 1983SC 130 3 EP Royappa v. Sate of Tamil Nad, AIR 1974 SC $35, 2) Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashitra, AIR 19528C 123 2° State of Madras v. Champakam Dorarairsjan, AIR 1951 SC226 2. Balgjiv. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 2 TMA. Pai Foundation v. State of Kamataka, AIR 2003 SC.355 PA. Inamdar v, State of Maharashira, AIR 2005 SC 3226 Tegislation to State in order to help weaker sections of society. Artie 14 pels the atonal concep oF quality which based on reasonable classification. Supreme Court down a new concept of equality which is different from traditional concept of reasonable classification. Article 14 strikes s ind ensures fairness and avthe arbitrariness in State action a ‘equality of treatment. Principle of reasonableness pervades Article 14. ‘Supreme Court held that when a law comes within the probibition of Article 15 it cannot be validated by recourse to Article 14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification, ‘Supreme Court declared void the G.O. by Madras government which reserved seats in State Medical and Engineering Colleges for different communities on the basis of religion, raceand caste. Supreme Court nullified it because it classified students on the basis of caste and religion. "[ Supreme Court eld that Article 16(4) provision only confers discretion to make special provisions for backward classes of citizens, Supreme Court held that State could not make reservations (ofseats in admissions in privately run educational institutions and higher educational institutions, 7 ; Mottin Thakur v. Union of India, o Constitutional Amendment was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, The court however held thatthe benefits of reservations cannot be : __] given to creamy i © Prunati Rducational and Cuttral Trust v. the Union of india, AIR2014 5.2114‘State of Bihar v. Chandrestwar AIR 2014 80 3752 Patek, Bala v. State of Mysore s AIR 1963 SC 649 > Indira Sawhney v. Union oFtndia, AIR 1993 S477 2 Union of India v. Virpal Singh, AIR 1996 SC. 448 Revent and Larcmark Ce Ln Supreme Cour held that ee ld that in the cae of tate services the quality of opportunity means cua same class ofemployecs and not equa fof separate and wilepende before members of Sapree Court ld tha ‘ano eso nao Bo str acting spat dba sete a ete sci nal tc n the list of Backward Classes, Pein ‘Scope and extent of Artie 166) was examined thon byfopem nur Maoiiyentionatieeaun i sumasatized a follows: 1. Backward clas of tizen in Article te) can be iden chr buird omen mre onan bo on ‘ase slone cannot be the basis for consideration 2. Thecourtstruck down economicefiterion for reseration onthe ground that Article 164 doesnot mention it 3. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1), tis an instanceof classification, Reservation can be made under Article 16(2)- Court overrule its decision in Balaji ¥. State of Mysorein which twas hel that Article 16(4) isan exception to Article 16(, 4. Backward cases in Article 168) is not similar to socially and eluationallyaclard in Aide 144). tis much more than socially and educationally backward dass, Certain classes may not qualify for Article 15(4) but they may qualify for Arie 1(¢). Court overruled Bali's decision con this point in which it was held that backward classes of citizens under Article 16(4) is same as socially and ‘educationally backward classes 5. Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes. “Article 16(4) permits classification of backward lasses into backwacd and more backward classes. 7. Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent. In extraordinary situations it may be relaxed in favour of people living in far flung and remote areas of the country. 8. Court overruled Devadasan v. Union of India(1964) ‘and held that ‘carry forward’ ruleis valid provided it should not result in breach of 50% rule, 9, Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be made in promotions ‘Supreme Court held that caste criterion for promotion is violative of Article 16(4) ofthe Constitution. Seniority bberween reserved category candidates and general candidates would continue to be governed by their panel position prepared atthe time of selection, Acelerate promotion dors not give accelerated or consequential seniority The courted that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) does not mandate seniority cover general category as a matter of ight. Pariksha Manthan *=. met rat tae ne (4B of Article 19) were ch ovens (aayand Clouse (4 tetany ene 1d at A " Fs ga ntaie the bso somo tts Toto Ar ao rice 168) Avice a > Bennet Coles ‘sc 71 Aves searaton laws under Articles 16a) go> 2 ae AIR I979 SC 106 wen] Seas can make sof clear and certain fee) et UAE 16068) on packoardnes and inadequacy eg iano Ee calcd ad ney To representation a Sontag ake reservation State ean ration 5 fr collecting quantifiabh om See eae = of reamy layer has 10207 AIR I962 SG. aT 3 nk Ta Pav on of ind ot Worker 1 Sprann liopayesec 2 Teale kn ey ticle 17s available agains rive = mnt held tat right under Article Devin i ly Spr News Showing backwdnes 3 Repke IR 1982 SC 1473 weedisidual al = Doan nals Supreme Court held in ion ion Avail nad i “ 3 te” within Atti i” mb > Damayal ons oe if Transgender commun; ae saab Mabe = foci " ie es) should be treated as Third Xe either males nor females) © ima 8 coe they arcenited tesa ight ike anyother com nye jdentity includes any discrimination, exclusion, ce es cae transposing equality by the law or the equal protection of Jaws guaranteed under our Constitution. g Com [ RIGHT TO FREEDOMS = = 2 Alagaapuram R. Mohanta) v. Tamil Nach Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens (199 Legislative Assembly, AIR 2016 SC 867 only. 2 Bennett Goleman and Co. v. Union of India, | The Supreme Court held that the rights of shareholders with AIR 1973 $C 106 regard to Article 19(1)(a) were protected and manifested by 2B the newspapers owned and controlled by the shareholders through medium of corporation, —_— 2 D.C&GM.¥. Union of India, The Supreme Court held that writ petition filed by the 6 AIR 1983 $0 937 company for violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 is maintainable 2 Romesh ¥. aie ape State of Madras, Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and of press lay > at the foundation of all democratic organizations, Without fee politcal discussion no public education for the proper > Indian xpress Newspapasw UnlowoFa Functioning ofthe process of government ie possible. 2 (1585) 1 SCC 641 ‘on oflindia, | Supreme Court held that “freedom of press? means fc om interference from authority which would have * of interference with th ee nowppa content and cisculation ofa oF > 2 Bennet vm Coleman and Go. ¥. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 3 Express Newspapers Union of tnd AIR 1958 SC 578 na: > Sakal Papers Led. v. Union of ™ Td AIR 1962 SC 305 * 3 R Rajagopal v. Sate of Tamil Nadi (a9 6sccex2 3 Deviddas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharastra, (2015) 6SCC1 3D Damayanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966 Recentand Lacninark Case Las Spree Cou eld shat onde Sing he mati ipa ohcha nope eonatva totes prc ard expres Fretion of prom i te scones ne Supreme Cour held ha the pro or mune Rom laws of aation ad indus spglication The ord shel sopeag aisle pesent Sue oP servant arise SON) Sipe Crete rem ii Serene enacmee Use of obscene langage pins Rory epee personas cnmot bellowed nthe ame of asi From eres hnking cenit undr Arie 190X Supe Court el hath gto form atociation ero mpis thatthe pen forming he sociation Tele the egh continue to beswociated with ony thosenhom the olutay admit inthe sociation, Any lewby hich member arintodveed inthe voluntary wrchton withoucany option being vento the mens weep them out orany larch aes ews themes Spice nb have olutaiyjoined wil be alam iolaing Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR. 1989 SC 1988 3 Khoday Distilleries Led. v. State of Kamataka, (4995) 1 SCC574 Som Prakash v. State of U.P, AIR2004 SC 1896 > Godawat Pan Masala Products. Private Ltd. ¥. inion of India, AIR 2004 SC 4057 3 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SOC 324 2 Fare of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Quresbl DBR Haterprise v. State of U.P, AIR 1999SC.1867) the right to form the association. ‘Supreme Court held that hawkers have fundamental ight t0 ‘cary on trade on pavement of roals. However, their right is subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 1X6). Supreme Courtheld that a citizen has no right to carry on trade or business in liquors as beverage. The State has a powet to prohibit the manufacture sale, posession and distribution except in cases for medicinal purposes. Supreme Court held that lottery cannot be construed as tide ‘or busines within the meaning of Article 191g} Kecontains fan element of chance and therefore, itis a gambling. Supreme Court held that ban on sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rikshikes is valida iteontains vratriction. The reasonabiity must be construed from Point yew of cultural and religious background of th {own 5 Tpeld that ban on pan masala and guthka Supreme Court ‘containing tobacco to under age persons is not violative of Us Article 19(1)@)- Right to protests recognized sa fundamental right under the Constitution. This ight is rua in demos? swbich vests on the participation ofan informed iizenr7 governanct. Supreme Court held hat ban on slaughter of and other milch and: draught cattles jsnot viol ‘Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC212 Pariksha Manthan cows and calves ative of Article vl; ance and caine > =a y, third party insu , Cctv + agreements, abuse pec snd scr a reasonable restriction a5 coms and he, i 1 eee and at are take advantage oF 8 betel provision wage 5 en rome a ols i Gan an HORII” | perf lioraiveitmay beretcapeae~ | A Coy jeolaw is armel > panty. 3” Mancka Ga 30300 ‘AIR 1978 SC hance, AIR. 1954+ essential used of an offence; ‘mcP. Sharma vith *) Person must beac inst compl 2 ¢ rovision sa protection agai Ronis (fe (2) This 3 fusioe KS. a witness sion to give evidene om a protection sagainst compulsion 0B evidence pi, ‘AIR2017 5 himself 5 isle becewelifte formal custo, | = cm aorommisson ofan offence hasbeen leveled which mt Union of 3 RK Dalia v Delhi Amici 10 oo iin tans AIR 1962 SC1821 dee rroenaneismenionelinikeRasanxagy © Jocepi ‘A person whose m under Article 20, , ALP. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, ‘could claim the protection und Are. (954 $0300 Supreme Court held that interpretation of the phase toy, J wate of Bombay v. Kathi Kala, IR 1961 SC 1808 ‘given in MP. Sharma scaseis too broad. Tobe vitnag inne eqiralent to furnishing evidence. Self inctimination canonly mean conveying information based on personal knowledge ofthe person giving information and itcanngt_ Poop include the mechanical process of producing documents or —- giving finger impressions or blood samples etc. Olea Nandini. urtheld that protection of Article 20(3) is availble“ ~ Ghax > Satpathy v. PL. Dani, AIR 1977 SC 1025 | Supreme Court . from the stage of police interrogation. 2 Selvi. Sate of Kamatuka, AIR 20108C1974 | Lie detector tests should be administered only with the oad consent ofthe accused. In cas the consent ofthe accused isnot obtained then suc tests are violative of Article 209), Pu ° Pacis Cone Union Ternary of Del, | Supreme Court bel that right to liv not limited tomee an AIR 1981 $6746 animal existence. Its something more than just physical survival > Ri > iz ic aang ra ind Resauan Assocation | Supreme Cour had hat hex cannot be a total prohibition @ as Sem of Maharshi, of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the 5 Stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting A 2 ‘Bengal and others (2019) WP. (Civil) No, 306/2019 0m 11 bias.Recent and Landmark Cae Les VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY 1 AIR 1978 SC 597 ‘of india and Ors, ‘AIR 2017 SC.4161 2A LK. Gopalan v. Union of India, SIR1950S027 3 Mancka Gandhi v. Union of India, 3 Justice KS. Puttaswamy (td, Jand Ane. ¥. Union Verona liberty in Artie means ber satin eer Subtheme ie prove of aw: Law means sate mae uw and docs ‘not mean having element of natural justice. 7 Personal Liberty in Ailes of i sof widen amide and Corrs ate of gts Te procedure ea Fe erate coke cmv clements of principles of natural justice. . Tg Sop Co eth a inden ngeanon rece ie A sti ontled ME, Shatma’scateand Kharak inp scase Sit een the eld that ight to peiaeyis nota Fundamental ght . 3 josice KS: Pataswamm = 7 : "55 Fray Oana. | Aad we Supreme Coun uphald ‘hon of ne te scenn raat Tending down and ’ Sas ingore 1 “@nin)ssco3? Of as fea Coc (2019) 3SCC345 ‘of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 > _Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union seTSnSL Cour held tat it violated women's ight to digit td hence it infinged Ail 2 sro Homosexual acts ate constitutional: Supreme Court sone Section 377 oflndian Penal Code, unconstitutional eof as it criminalizes homosexual acs between consenting adults ‘Non payment of minimum wages Supreme Cour held that eae payment of minimum wags is violation of Article 21. 2 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Tight to ivihood: Supreme Court held that right to fe AIR 1986 SC 180 include right to livelihood also. D> Ghameli Singh v. State of UP. (1996)2SCC59 Tightto shelter: Spreme Court eld that ight wo shelter jea fundamental right under Article 21. > Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Ts roduetive choices: Supreme Court held that right to Adminsitration, AIR 2010SC.235 ‘make reproductive choices (decision to produce child or ‘not) js included in Article 21. ‘Parmanand Katara V- Union of India, ‘Right to health: Supreme’ ‘Court held that all doctors AIR 1989 SC 2039 (private or government) are obliged to extend medical ae injured inmeditely without asking for formalities > Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Right to sleep: Supreme Court held that right sleep isa Union of india, ear rental right sits biological and sential elemess of (2012)5SCC1 basic necessities of life. 2 George Varghese ¥: rate Bank of Cochin, | Arest of iudsme debtor Supreme Court held that Aise0 '$C470 ari od detention of honest judgment d610% absence ae pf failure to pay despite suficient means isviclative | of Article 21. Neera Chaudhary v. State of MP. Bonded labour Supreme Cour held that bonded labour ‘AIR 1984 SC 1099 en be identified and rebbilitated 2 Gian Kaurv. State ‘of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC OB Right to die Supreme ‘Court held that right to life’ does not include ‘right tod > Passive euthanasia: Supreme Curr hheld that in certain cases passive euthanasia is allowed.na fevorce esa iability, third party (Laden ler: Supreme Court heig J ail, a Ranta Sint fener Po Peon gh of certain agreements, union — | Sdeermination of ree cma rae ste nen Coon ld at wl mp Fewer 2 anal eee Gilde Peakieaanenccwraaay Real ‘motional abuse al ax Union ota na ertadia 09 iin nice TE Supreme Cour held hace Vellore C4 2 este! Bishtto fse esa oP chet fees Inca, 1996 AiR 2011 8 & a aid is part anc —__ Ses “ot neaharasbi free upreme Courtheld that righty“ 3 _ Mobil al manne —_—| Fi ee eed icine SS tone ‘ : 2 Me gnc SHS of pitiat, needy trial is 2 Unni Krist senses —— > ‘pusstnars Raton 21 me Court held that fas ah ears a sition Spee our te i of Punjals, Judes fair investi y sate ine wt: Supreme Coun hag 7g alo del ith ons Kesings > Nim envi nl of eee paivadniiawion ——_—_| Kepineundarils juloffends Arica, Syne of Delhi adi that kes fing: Supreme Court held that aes oye 2 SerMOSC IST ‘Right against handeu nhuman,apbitaryandnteanay ce inka. Dati Anat ee aaaroneknkeet % AK Ke 2 ee Hancting sould be AIR 1980 SC present danger of e839 ee chads Supreme Cour held th hind deme methods ar some cae ihid doped method by plies Weave ofA, 3 Rishon Singh v Sate of Rpts useof thi ARBRE os Ting in public places Supreme Court direaay ‘Ban on smoking in public places: nr ‘oF India, ATR 2002 SC 40} sment to issue orders banning smoking in publ 2 Mas Der Con de oaaeaeata oeccdie eae non-smokers Publick Supreme Court held that execution of ‘ublic hanging: Su eo ae rablic hanging iviclaive ofAwidea Feat AER + rope: Supreme Court held that hanging by Ind 2° Deena v. Union| lansing br sone rope does not violate Article 21. TLV. Vathocswaranv, State of Tunil Nad, Dalavinexeusion of death sentence: Supreme Courthdd Sc 2 tM. ¥ AIR 1981 SC 643, that delay in execution of death sentence is violative of Article a 21 ‘9 Nilabati Beha v. State of Orissa, ‘Custodial orture/death: Supreme Court awarded (1993) 2800746 compensation to the family of deceased who die in police custody due to beating, ° PA Bisuy, Sate of W.B,AIR19750610 | Supreme Court lid down guidelines to be followed by “avestizating agencies in cases of arrest and detention, > Jesinder Kumar v, Sate of UP, Supreme Court laid down (1994) 4 SCC 260 guidelines regarding arrest of Persons during investigation, od tenet ot violation of Article 21: Supreme Coun held that courts have power to award compensation in —BPrOHate cases of violation of Article 21 Prevention of sexual harassment, Supreme Court laid down Buidelines to p 8 "event sexual harassment of worki in workplace. _—e SP) eke MI DUAL CAMERARecent and Landon Cte La MC. Mebta ¥. Unon of lad Shira Food Fertilizer cam), (1986) 2 SOC 176 Indian Counc for Enviro-Legal Action ¥. Unkon| oF Inca, (1996) $SCC212 Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SO 650 ‘Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 ‘Unni Krishnan v. State ofA. {193)1 SOCAS 3) State of Tamil Nada v. K. Shyam Sundae, 2o1n)sscc737 DAK. Roy. Union oF india, AIR 1982SC710 3 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC324 3 _KS. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case), (2019) 1 SOC 1 Aric 2. Consquerly, Supreme Cor so gers ition ering wparpefcrorenmens enone “Supreme Cours held that right vo edocation alleen fundamental right lowing rom Article 2 Supreme Cont held that right wo edueaion va fardamental right flowing from Article 21 but ight to free education valable tothe children until they complete the age of 14 ‘years. After thatthe obligation of State to provide education [eubject to economic capacity and development. ‘Supreme Court held that the right to education should be extended to have quality education without discrimination ‘on the ground of economic, social and cultural backgrounds Supreme Court lid down following guidelines relating to arrest under preventive detention law (1) After detention the Family members of detenue should ‘beinformed about detention and place of detention; (2). Detenu must be detained in a place where he habitually resides unless in certain exceptional circumstances detention at other place i feasible Detenue must be entitled to books, writing materials, ‘own food and visits from family and friends, “He must be kept separate from those who are convicted, ‘Treatment of punitive character should not be meted out to him. ° @ 6) Tthereis a confic of wo rights qua individuals under ‘Article 21 then in such a situation the test of larger public interes i required. Privacy ensures that a human being can lea life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusions. All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as beinginherent par of ight to privacy. Only those matters over which there would be ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected by Article 21. Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not limited to ‘Article 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part Il of the Constitution. Privacy is also. recognized as a natural ‘right which inheres in individual and is thus, inalienable. Privacy is both negative and positive concept. As a negative concept it restrains the State from committing an jntrusion upon life of personal liberty of citizens. As positive obligation it impose an obligation on the Stats To take all necessary measures to protect the privacy ofan individual. ‘Good and just social order is one which respects dignity. Dignity isto be treated as‘empowerment or right 10 developme: Pariksha Manthan o1 redressal consumer Fights «Definitions joce and claims at bili, eid party #OSara 1s, abo sa of certain agreement sat aot TON TAT INST EXPLO! son wh provide GAT AGAIN ald hat re Puupose of Part Ill of the Constitution. = ee supreme Cour frien minim wane = ap a Pa can bad onr nomi > 2 UR 198 Supreme Court numeration isviolatve oft _ ortndia TRIES uc paying proper okie Sone ‘Deena Une Supreme nloyment of chien in Construction eee eee eka " 3 ep i ioe SC™) ae rel in hide bdow bee = ae [emcee ai ae re cour laid down guidelines to pron Swen toon ects works. Te te sonoma ad ON : IM OF RELIG! Supreme (tion, Indian Constitution embodies Pit, amiss sowed and ress every religion equally chat sudy of religion inschooln a> - Sipe Go ed dat yf lignin 3 Aruna Ray: Union ond AR 2002 SC3175 |e pilopsy ofthe Consinon Sei spilt ie meaning ie evelping ude and espec towards diferent religions = ‘Supreme Court held that offer of prayer or worship is a s por 2 Ismail Farugul v. Union of India, religious practice but offering at every location where such ESCO) abe offered would not be an essential religious pee = practi \upreme Court held that no person can be allowed to > Ro 2 Church of God Cull Gospel) of India v. Supreme Court ne rete ie KRM Welle Association, ‘create noise pollution or disturb the peace of others whi ‘AIR 2000 C2773 ‘xetcisng religious freedom. Religious prayers through loudspeakers are not an essential element of any religion, > t > SP. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 Supreme Court held that teligious denominations ‘must satisfy the following requirements: (1) Itmust bea collection of inc iduals who. havea system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their — spiritual well being. 2 2) Iemust havea common organization, (3)_It must be designated bya distinctive name, > Indian Young lawyers, - Ales he Tomer Co eae Right to freedom of religion is not absolute and must be 019) 1150C4 harmonized with other liberties and freedoms, and is subject ‘constitutional morality Deity may be aj hs ome Misti person for purpose of religious laws lof asserting property rights nota penn fore lowever, deity is2 Frank Anthony Public School Employees “Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311 3 Frank Anthony Publie School Employees ‘Association v. Union of India, NIRA987 SC311 3 7:MA. Pal Foundation ¥. State of Karnataka, (2002) 800 481 Reentand Landmark Cae Ls CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS Supreme Cout held hae of ging spel isto mimeo sven eying Trashed ar epuory nears aimed a mag ‘education, without nullifying management's wae ‘permissible. ee Supreme Gaur lak down the flowing (a) State iseobe regarded a unit for ete ‘as well as religious minority. eeicesiape Thoututes which recive ai rom th tate could be @ subject to government rales and elation ‘In respect of unaided institutions only regulaion which the government may pis recding he qlieaions sd minimum condition of eligibility of teaches and peincpal Taations of ecopnition and afiliaion by ot 03 Denrd or Univesity is tobe complied wih seeded institution has to admit reasonable number fof aomminorty student (6) Minor insinton may haveits own procedure and aro of admission but the procedure must be ft ® «@ © and transparent. 3 iaamic Academy of Education v. State of Supreme Court held that educational institutions an have ‘Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697 rr ow fee structure but there must be no profitering and capitation fee cannot be charged RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION | Supreme Cours protector and guarantor of fdas ain applications seeking > Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 rights and it cannot refuse to enter ringement of such rights protection against int move to Supreme Court can be Chand Garg v. Excise Gommissiones, > Prem UB, AIR 1963 SC996 > Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 sc14s7 > Rupa Ashok Husa V. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC.1771 3 Renlizer Conporation Kamgat Union Y Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 "The Fundamental Right to appropriately described as cornerstone of the democratic efice raised by the Constitus assigned to it the courts play tl ‘ve and it must always regard it as Fondamental right zealously and vigilant “When the matter has bee Court under Article 226 the principle of res indicat Tn order to correct the gross mis cannot be challenged again, the petition o seek second review Tm appropriate cases it becomes ness ae enes offal rights and social obligations and broader view of question of 10cus cou of the final order _| proceedings Pariksha Manthan jon. In discharging the duties the role of sentinel on the aut lemn duty to protect the ma heard and decided by the High the writunder Article 32 isbarred by carriage of justice which twill allow curative 20 change the social andi to initiateseus rights and redressal itty, thir party insurance tat of certain agreements ® _ inde sper angus tent > Amin sc nn 2 sp Guyer AIR 1982 SC re eh a | a 2 seal ‘AIR2000: 3 1 Ghandta Kumar v. Union of india, AIR 1997 SC 1125 [ DIRECTIVE 2 Raab Singh v. Union of fc, AIR 19625C 879 2 State of Macias v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 228 . ap tani oe ls action’ public inter proceeding is arto iis > UN Rio Indira G a a e comtot pom on Fights OF a ee oc approach thecourt econ ne I aaaiones Staguecem re tec mi ntact come, Jed mae tee Mecemonreeneraning ily the Petits should be prima fic ing ty 3, Thecourts sire contents of the petition before eaten ape hat the Piva re 4. The court ad anust be ive Priority ove othe public inter A gue moive behind fling PL Bae ald ensre that pestion fled by busy © or raeous considerations and ulterior Fic be couraged by imposing exemplary casts or by adopting methods to curb such frivolous 2 Ram jawaya Rap AIR 1955 5C 500 a 2 Hargovind » Ra 3 Ram jawaya Ka AIR 1955854 > Shamsher si ‘AIR 1974 SC costsor by petitions. TJridiction of High Court under Article 226 and Supreme Court under Article 32 isinviolable basic structure of the Constitution. PRINCIPLES a Supreme Court held that directive principle of equal pay forcqual work is nota fandamental right but since it isa constitutional goal itcan be enforced through Article 32. ‘Supreme Court held that in case of conflict between Fundemental Rights and Directives Principles, the Funda mental Rights would prevail > UN.Raos > SP.Anar (1996) 65 > BP.Si 2 ReKerala Education Bill, AIR 1957 SC956 > Keshvananca Bharti v. Sate of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 2 Minerva Mill v. Union oF india, AIR 1980 SC 1789 which is the basic feature. = 4 Pariksha Manthan + beinterpreted and applied together. ‘Supreme Court held that though directive principles cannot override fundamental rights nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fandamental rights the court may take into account directive principles and adopt a principle of harmonious contruction, Supreme Court held that fundamental rights and directive Principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social {evolution and establishment ofa welfare State and they can 2 2 Rame AIR? Supreme Court held that giving absolute primacy to the directive principles disturb the harmony of the ConePn ou sof Ethe | DUN. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 C1002 > BP. Singhal v. ‘Tinion of India, (2010) 6 SOC.331 2 > Kehar Singh v. Union of India, of right 2 Shamsher Singh v. State of Panjab, (AIR 1974 SC2192 Js the sadafction of Counc of Ministers the President or Governor generally “Anil 74(1) ie mandatory and th cannot exercise exective power wit the Council of Ministers. tis eset Ministers under Article 74(1) even at time ofthe People has been dissolved or term expited 3 SP Amand v. FLD. Deve Gowda, the President to appoint person who sagt member of ether House of Parliament sa Minis, ster subject to the possibility of his ort ofthe Majority of members of EXECUTIVE > UN Raov. UN, Rao v. Inia Gandbh ARAVA SE Y002 | Supreme Coun har he errant TI ea sod ole ofthe Counc of Min Ther thedinaltion f Lak Sabha the Counc of Misses oer not ceae to held the office > Ram fawaya Kapur. Sate of Pa AIR 1955 SC 549 ee 1D Hangovind v. Raghuukuk AIRI979 SC 1109 3 Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 povernmental fan judicial Ranetions arc taken confined tothe administration of| includes the determination of government policies, maintenance of law and order, foreign poli ction requires the satisfaction ofthe their personal satisfaction. It ho aid and advise “Whenever the Constitu “Article 75(8) permits (1996) 6SCC734 including Prime Minis commanding the supp the Lok Subba ‘Governors cannot be dis “The expression ‘requ Governo ‘Prasad v. Union of India, not in exercise of his: “AIR 1989 SC653 | Pardonis order. “The pardon power Miner Een Supreme Court hel thatthe President hasbeen made 3 formal or constitutional head ofthe executive and the real Crcuutive peers ate vested in the Council of Ministers Supreme Court held that the office of Governor ofa State tr dotan employment under the Central government. Itisan Thdependent constitutional offce and is not unde ‘Control of of subordinate the Central overament. ‘Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of ions that remain after legisative and the way, Executive power isnot awsaleady enacted but it President of Governor, itis not erefore, the President ithout the ad and advice of alto havea council of =xbitrarily on the ground rat had lostconfidence in him and policies and ideologies. edt in Article 163(1) signifies thatthe tionary Owe 0 oso. The Governor could discretion do anything which ¥3s "The court has the power tO when itis mala ide missed that the central governme hhedoes not agree with its ‘AIR 2006 SC980 could exercise his dsr theres a compelling necesity to prohibited to be done. the validity of his action an actof grace and cannot resident cannot beasked is open to judicial grounds ike ‘son-application of ins hen the House ly when examine pe demanded as a matter to give reasons forhis ‘ew on limited 4, mala fide, atbiteariness Bspaey, ts, abuse of domin=m* certain agreements, abu pono cose bas wn erations ete. Pardoning POWEr Canney, jrcelevant consider sed apbierl. a “Court held tas while exercising the patdoning ot molff od 5 Koma a Faker v Coverinctt of And 2 RPMS AIR 206 SC 3385 as Supreme Cour eld that pardoning powers of Biden ticle 72 and of Governor oes litical reasons, “Cnuban v. Union of lini, © 1938001 z Dic. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987)1 SOC378 2 LEGISLATURE 2 SP.Anand. HD. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC272 2 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013)7 SCC 653 > RK. Garg v. Union of India, (1981)4 SCC 675 2 BR. Kapoor y, State of Tamil Nadu, 2001(6) SCALE 309 coovvcrs amounted to ‘torture’ and itis a sufficient bais in Jeclt to commute death sentence to life imprisonment. at successive re-promulgation of Sap oo ie empt to ge the Bills posed by th ‘Assembly would amount to fraud on Constitution and the ‘ordinance so repromulgated is liable tobe struck down, It held that the exceptional power of law making through ordinance cannot be used as a substitute for the legislative a lature Leveson vere homuged in State of Bihar and al of them were kept alive by re-promulgation without being brought before Legislature. The court held it ‘subversion of democratic process’ and ‘colourable exercise of power’ and held it amounted to fraud on Constitution. Supreme Court held that a person who is not a member of cither House of the Parliament can be appointed by the Prime Minister for six months. Convicted Members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assemblies will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal The power to promulgate ordinances is a power exercisable only when both Houses of the Parliament are not in session and it as been conferred ex necessitate riein order to enable the executive to meet an emergent situation, This power to Promulgatean ordinance is co-extensive with the power of Parliament to make laws and the President c Ordinance which Parliament cannot enact in Aminis -annot issue an. to a law. 2 In Re K 2 Jaya AIR? CC Ur Al s >Recent and Landmatk Case Ls PV. Nasi mha Rao v. State, AIR 1998 SC2120 3 InkeKes Ta Re Keshav Singh, AIR 1965 SO748 > Jaya Bachchan v. Union of india, “AIR 2006 SC2119 Scope of protection of sone of mmuniyaiabe othe Memes senna = ine ical rose is available to them against all a - ‘and criminal proccedings or anything said or cel Fr ofthe pen toca mem ‘to speak their mind in Parliament freely and feaslewly. it Thc between provision under Anicle 98208 ining to urdamental amare oreaave thea confit bythe mental ight waraneed Tn case of con! the provisions pe will have tobe made! option of the rule ofh 194 and 105 are subject to Fund vunder Articles 21 and22 “An ‘office of profit isan office which i eapable of yielding profit ora pecuniaty gain. Nature of payment must be considered a snare use of the word "honorarium will not tke the a matter of substance rather than form. The ‘payment out of the purview of profit JUDICIARY \ 2 Union of India v. Sankalchand. ee a Seth, “The Supreme Qourt held that‘consutaion’ means full and Treas consultation. edocs notmea concurrence a he we Presidents not bound by such consultation, 5.P. Gupta ¥. ‘Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (Aso owe as Judes ods taster cv) Ne Supreme Court ed withthe pinionin Senalcend sease. “Thinsneant shat execs had supemacr in PSS iudaes. 2 SC. “Advocates on Record Association ¥. (Alo known as 2" Judges asd Supreme Court overruled the Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441 decision in SP. Gupta ‘scase, The courthheld that in the matters of appointment of judges ‘of Supreme Court and High Cours the Chief Justice of India should have PETES > [Presidential reference, AIR 1999 SC} (A now as Jade cas Supreme Os et sultation process tobe adopted by the Chief Justice of india requires. consultation, of plurality of judges. > Supreme “Advocates-on-Record Supreme Court delare both the 908 ‘Constitutional ‘Association v. Union of India, Anvendment as well 5th NJAC Ach 2504 runconsti> (2015) AIR SCW 5457 tutional and void. Consequenti te ‘ollegium system became operative again. > ve Kerala Education Bill, AR 1958 SC956 Supreme Courthas hel thatthe courts nat bound to angwer a reference made‘ it bY the President, > Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahat, Supreme Court held that jurisdiction ofSupreme COE ‘AIR 2014 SC476 ander Astiee 129 8 independent ofthe provisons of Contempt of Court Ac 197 Supreme Court held that “ander Article 129 the Supreme Court has power t© punish a person for the contempt of se as well ats subordinate courts: nconsumer rights and rearessal fo nce and eli yey, did pasty sue certnin agreements, wise °° _. in nero odie “cecum ra el ae Supreme CoUrcan dep fg i supe Court Mr eexpression‘ALGQUES within ofthat i prensa al courts eX2¢ SUE Cogn i Cli eis not bound by ec = neameeas 2 amc! in 1955501 “of sae 2 for sscce!4 ‘Rania, “pan v. Pradeep Kuma ° il Appeal No. "3613 of 2016 on 10.02.2019 cine of India & OF8. 5 Anil Kumar v. Union’ (201) 4scC276 papa astok Hur ¥. Ashok Mura, ‘AIR 2002 SC.1771 LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS L > AIL Wadia v. Commissioner of fncome 2%, AIR 1949 FC 18 > Sate of Bombay v. RM.D.C, AIR 1957 SC699 2 Javed v, State of Haryana, “AIR 2003 SC 3057 2 RD. Joshi v. Ajtt Mills, AIR 1977 C2279 2 Prafilla Kumar, Bank of Commerce, AIR 1947 PC 60 Khulna, —— State ‘of Bombay v, EN, Balsara, AIR 1951 SC318 | Yoriksha Manthan waseava| a pratt 5 me my Ferefore, SUPT ] Ke. aa ane it enay Feverseit aor co Anice 227 Challenging Judicial Orgy wd i not under Article 226. The Supreme ee wether Ae ene SR jterated that Wi rile India seeking writ of certiorari againg, ‘by evil courts is not maintainable Court ri (@onascess Constitution o judicial orders passed vot hele that State Legislature cannot enactlgy Sopreme Court el that Sats ABS Mac uation cs Sroreme Court observed that no authority can claim, To rt compiy witha udement = under Supreme Court's inherent powe, jofa decision which has become view petition under Article 137, 5 “cannot make extraterritorial laws excep, t connection between the Stateand the 3 Javed v. State {AIR 2008 SC.30 ‘Acarative petition can be filed, seeking review final after the dismissal of > Atiabari T ‘The State Legislature: st winen theres sufficient co subject mater of legislation. 3 supreme Court held that extraterritorial legislation can’ object sought t be achieved and the State seeking to achieve them, The connection must be real and not illusory. “Supreme Court held that the Constitution gives autonomy to the Centre and the States within their respective fields. The legislation of one State cannot be held to be discriminatory against citizens simply because Parliament or State Legislatures of other States have not chosen to enact similar 2 State > Autc laws am Supreme Court held that the entries in the list must be aiven wide meaning implying all ancillary and incidental powers:The court held that punitive measures for enforcing social legislation is ancillary measures, ‘The court held that a clear-cut distinction is not possible between the legislative powers of the Union and the State Legislatures because they are bound to overlap. In ascertaining, the pith and substance ofthe Act the court must consider (@) the object of the Act, (b) the scope of the Act and (6)_the effect as the whole, The court held the Bombay Prohibition Act, as valid because the pith and substance of the Act fell in State List ah itincidentally encroached upon the Union List,