11/01

Nature of suit (criminal/civil)

Choice of jurisdiction- original and appellate

Different writs- habeas corpus, mandamus,

PIL

Habeas corpus
Is it referring to only criminal matters or can it extend to civil matters?

Role nici is temporary order that awaits the decision (part of main suit)

Jain havala case

18/01

Marbury v madison
CJ Marshall decision was not very radical, did not disturb the governmental set-up (did not want
to upset the system) nor did he want to compromise the integral system of

J Khanna - Indira Gandhi case

How the govt interfered - people who sided with govt were superseded in importance - cannot
separate judiciary from the government

Transferring of judges, appointment of judges, (originally belongs to CJ)- only some powers can
be delegated by the CJ

Ahmedabad Women Action Group

Idea of entertaining-nikah halala (polygamy)

While reading a judgment- should always read in the context of its past and contemporary im
Before Shah Bano - very progressive and clear judgement- muslim woman is entitlted to
compensation

If read in isolation- read about muslim divore act 1986- how act was enacted- rajiv gandhi govt.-
passed in 2 in the morning- not how a bill is passed- law is enacted-
2nd judgemtnt- Daniel Latifi- harmonious construction of Sec 3 and Muslim Divorce Act

Sabarimala
Gupta CJ
Continuing and becoming worse
Executive, Parliament and Judiciary are in a constant row
Executive is accountable to the legislature
President is head of executive- but now PM acts like a head of both

Are the judges really independent?

Ahmedabad Women Action Group

Idea of entertaining practices like - nikah halala, triple talaq- parliament’s job to make law- will
only interpret law- same court contradicted itself in the triple talaq case
Rule of stare decisis- judges can take a wrong decision then has the liberty to undo what they
have done
Can we compromise on the basic principles of law
Sole prerogative of the legislature- in a few years common man can also claim to have the
prerogative

Revati v UOI (1988)

Upheld CRPC 497
For women and not against her- punishing a man but not a woman for the same crime
Cannot entertain a matter that breaks the sanctity of a marriage

Soumitri Vishnu v. UOI

SC advocated the provision (497)

Joseph Shine v. UOI

Article 14, 19, 21 - have to include - 497 is not something we must have

Section 9
Saroj rani v. Sudarshan Kumar

Suresh Kumar Kaushal 2013

SC
Don't have to include the particular community in society

Navtej Singh Johar 2018

SC
Need the inclusive approach

SC has been coming up with judgements which are NOT easily attainable
picking cases on its whims,

Overreach of part of domain of executive

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan 1997
Sexual harrasment act 2016
16 years to come up with a law - on a matter that urgent

Judiciary is the last resort(hope)

Nirbhaya - judiciary intervened- no law

Everybody is interested in power - will try to maintain the status- even judges

19/01

Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar

Compensatory jurisprudence

Environmental jurisprudence
Environment assessment impact
Ranthambore wildlife sanctuary, Jaisalmer boat, central vista project (recent)
Taj mahal- yellowing- no construction in certain distance
Ganga pollution case
Tannery Case

MC Mehta case- absolute liability

Strict liability - evolved in Britain- ships- reservoir had burst out and spilled in flooding houses,
acts of god, accidents, etc.
Exception of strict liability- don’t apply in absolute liability
Example: if you store something hazardous and it causes damage- then the owner will be held
liable
Anything goes wrong- doesn’t matter how (act of god, accident)- person has to be held liable
Bhopal Gas Tragedy

if a decision is taken after proper consideration and if the people affected have been
compensated if there were any losses

Reasonability principle

ASIAD CASE
Commonwealth- Delhi- beautification- people thrown without notifying
Imposing something on the government. Which is not statutorily recognised
Who is to blame? - govt?- independent labourer?
According to torts- independent labourer is vicariously liable
SC- if independent labourer is vicariously liable- then even govt is vicariously liable
Because they are working for the govt ultimately- only through the independent labourer

Nandini Sundar Case

+Ramachandra guha
Were dismissed away when they went to visit lower strata people
Flag bearism- police brutality

Special Leave Petition- Tarunabh Khaitan

the idea is that they should be flexible enough to accommodate the different kinds of cases
Do you have a right to SLP? or is it merely a discretionary power
It can be a temporary order- but does it give you the right to SLP?- NO only in the hands of SC

Mathai v. George

20/01

SLP

Article 136 -SC has power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgement passed or
made by any court in India

Discretionary power to SC- it can accept or reject

Certificate of appeal given by high court to say your ordinary appeal is fit for supreme court
But in SLP, SC decides.

When the constituent assembly was deliberating over SLP, they wondered if it would be too
much power to vest in one entity, but relied on the wisdom and responsibility of the judges.
Hence, it was adopted.

Original intent of having SLP was to ensure speedy justice.

Article 136 very important

When an slp is entertained- sc accept or reject the slp
Accepting will have consequences- SC Rules,2016 rule 21- procedural aspects
Form no. 28- structure on the basis of which slp can be filed
Rejects- problem arises
When rejected the case goes back down to the lower court
Speaking- rejecting with deliberation-gives reason , non-speaking- direct rejection- no reason
given
Either speaking or non-speaking- rejected outright

SLP vs ordinary appeal:

Unlike an appeal under 132, SLP is not a right, it's discretionary.
If SLP is rejected, case will still be heard in initial court and ordinary appeal can be made
HC permission not required for SLP

Doctrine of Merger
When a subordinate court gives a judgement- and SC alters,deletes or adds something to the
same matter- the subordinate court’s decision becomes void
SC decision is binding, cannot say they run parallel

Whenever slp filed- 1st stage is either approved or rejected- 2nd stage if accepted then sp is
converted to an appeal

Power to reverse the judgement when - appellate - slp is discretion- overturning cannot be
applied to slp

Doctrine of Merger applicability in an SLP case;

When SLP is accepted, it becomes a normal appeal. Once the case is decided, the doctrine of
merger applies. There is an exception to the application of the doctrine. If it is rejected (rejection
is a declaration of law), the doctrine of merger does not apply. If SC “dismisses” the case (not
reject)

24/01

Too much burden on court- heavy load of work/cases

Ordinary benches- cases

Courts have admits more petitions- due to the high profile- lawyers
But should be more unbiased

Statutory bodies/corporate bodies >> individuals cases

Constitutional matter priorities
Not giving reasoning for judgement

Court is not functioning as it is supposed to

Constitutional court- but doing everything else other than that
Backlog of cases due to admission of all kinds of cases- giving priority to statutory body cases
than to individual ones

Order no. 21
How to entertain slp in civil cases
How to entertain slp in criminal cases

In countries like us and australia- written briefs

Written briefs

Public hearings bring out a sense of losing a reputation

Written briefs- petitions would increase

Can have an appellate tier

Instead of focusing on external aspects of slp- should focus on the changes that the slp involves

Consti or appellate - should apply different

Deal with different matters- with discretions
Criteria according to which cases should be admitted

25/01

Curative Petitions
SC-guardian of fundamental rights
SC: “if you come with certain problems or error in imparting justice to me, i have to correct it”
ex debito justiciae-everyone has right to justice

2 methods for coming to SC-

Conventional method: filed in subordinate court, comes through appeal
Unconventional method: Constitutionally sanctioned (Art. 136) or extra-constitutional (curative
petition)
Curative petition is not mentioned in the constitution anywhere. Hence, extra-constitutional.

Ashok Hurra v Rupa Hurra-

What remedy do we have apart from a review petition to come to SC?
SC used Art. 142 (power to do complete justice) to form curative petition

Order XLVIII in SC Rules talks about curative petition.

If you have sufficient reasons for delay, SC may give you a grace period.
27/01

Forge the idea of curative petition- thia authority from art. 142

Mutual Divorce
Not contest the divorce- it is mutual
There is a consensus
There is an option to reconcile their differences- cooling off period 18 months
Only after that divorce is granted- indian family-
Judicial legislation- but work is only to interpret

Art 32, 36 and 142 are the basic structure of the constitution
Court should not go beyond the legal mandate according to the constitution, to do complete
justice
Without art 142- parliament has no authority to change the constitution

How does art 142 work?

28/01

Article 142
If judiciary is going beyond its mandate to make laws - judicial overreach
Large docket - added responsibility -doesnt know the extent to which it is used
Gives a lot of power to judiciary in a democracy which can prove to be dangerous

Delhi judicial services association

136,141,142 is the basic structure of the constitution
Is the sc justified in saving for itself this power?

saves judiciary from times like the emergency

Examples of invocation of article 142:

Farm laws
Oxygen shortage in delhi
Grace period given to all plaintiffs due to covid
Dalit boy secured seat in IIT Bombay, but was unable to pay the fees. Went to cyber cafe and
tried to submit documents but could not pay fees. Requested at IIT Kharagpur too. The
Supreme Court gave him relief.
Ayodhya case
Bhopal gas tragedy - applicable precedent was rylands v fletcher but it did not apply liability to
anyone so SC used art. 142
Dissolving dead marriages - placed responsibility of the child up till 18 years on the father.
Nilabati Behera case - acquitted individual was in jail for longer period than even punishment
time, no applicable law, SC used 142

SC added art. 32, 136, 142 to basic structure in Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of
Gujarat. Judicial overreach? Protection from executive/administration?

Read-131, 132, 133, 134 (a), 143, 145

sunil batra
dk basu
Anil yadav v state of Bihar
Pucl v uoi
Narmada bachao andolan v uoi
Kapila v state of Bihar
vineet narayan v uoi
mc mehta v uoi
indian council for enviro legal action v uoi
rudul shah v state of bihar
sheela varsey v uoi
neelavati behera v state of odisha
kasturilal v state of up
vishaka v state of rajasthan
joseph shin v uoi
indian young lawyers association v uoi
shayara bano v uoi
chandrima das v railway authorities

Appointment of judges:

Art. 124
Acc. to the constitution, they are appointed by president in consultation w CJI.
Qualifications required - written (age, citizenship, etc) and unwritten (judgements, tax paid, etc)

S P Gupta v UoI (before 1993) - does president make appointments of judges or CJI whose role
is much more important?
Also dealt with transfer of judges, ambit of PIL.
Court: “CJI cant take a lead during appointment of judges, it is an executive appointment and
CJI can only be consulted. President should appoint.”
Executive appointment with consultation of CJI.

Idea of independence of the judiciary necessitates that the opinion of the CJI and senior judges
is taken into account during appointments.
Subhash Sharma v UoI (1991) - court stopped taking literal interpretation of art. 142. Said if you
allow the executive to interfere in this judicial process, it will amount to injustice.

B R Ambedkar- “With regard to the question of the concurrence of the Chief Justice, it seems to
me that those who advocate that proposition seem to rely implicitly both on the impartiality of the
Chief Justice and the soundness of his judgment. I personally feel no doubt that the Chief
Justice is a very eminent person. But after all the Chief Justice is a man with all the failings, all
the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have; and I think, to allow
the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of judges is really to transfer the
authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to veto is the President or the
Government of the day. I therefore, think that is also a dangerous proposition.”

SC Advocates on record association v UoI (1993) - 9 judge bench interpreted the word
consultation as concurrence. In the interest of the judiciary, executive can’t be allowed to have
so much power. If CJI and senior judges feel that someone is deserving or undeserving they
should appoint. A “collegium” (convention not written in constitution) should appoint judges.

Re Special Reference 1 of 1998 - Computerized the entire appointment mechanism. Collegium

will comprise CJI + 4 senior most judges.

Read NJAC amendment act

Who appoints the CJI? No constitutional provision regulating this and therefore a convention
exists. Seniority convention say the senior most judge becomes the CJI.
After death of Justice Kaniya, Nehru tried to skip judges for appointment to appoint a specific
judge. Skipped judges threatened to reign and Nehru reconsidered. Attempt to violate a
convention.
Indira Gandhi superseded multiple judges to appoint a specific judge and all the skipped judges
reigned. She then also superseded justice H R Khanna and he also resigned.
Apart from this, seniority convention has been followed.

Seniority convention is the safest option so as to not damage the institution of judiciary. It is
acceptable to both, the executive and the judiciary.

SC advocates on record v UoI (2015)

Go through all these cases and seniority conventions properly.

Removal of judges in the higher judiciary

Article 124 (4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an
order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a
majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of
the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same
session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Authority to remove the judges is vested in both the houses of parliament

124(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for
the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).

Judges Enquiry Act of 1968

Significant but not very effective

Filing a motion
Rajya sabha - 50 people
Lok sabha - 100 people

Judges Enquiry Act gives power to chairman of the rajya sabha or speaker of the lok sabha, to
completely refuse to accept the motion
Venkaih naidu rejected the motion (in Deepak Mishra case)
No verifiable thesis to go ahead with the motion (VN in DM)
Kapil Sibbal said unless you appoint an investigation committee how can you tell if there is a
verifiable basis.
Justice ramaswamy(SC),
Justice Shamit Mukherjee

J Pardiwala threat of impeachment

Because he said - corruption and communal disharmony has plagued our country from a long
time
Impeachment is useless
No judge has been impeached

Investigation committee is convened

CJI, judges, distinguished jurisprudence
allegations are verified

2/3rd of members- voting or not

Despite the fact that he is guilty or not- if it is not proved on the floor of the houses- if the houses
don’t vote then judge will not be impeached

4/02
During the escape, the dissolution of Parliament. It will attach that finality to that decision
delivered by the, you know, to that to that guilt. That the person is accused of. Now what these
people have done is that all along, right? All along, they have either in the middle somewhere.
They have resigned or let's say the entire matter has been proved inquiry. Committee has
investigation committee has submitted the report and then finally it has come up before the

Houses of the parliament in the house of the parliament somewhere, you know, they did not get
the adequate number of votes. Right? So the person was free after that. So designation this
option of resignation and the problem with that of the house, of course, we cannot question any
of them because the person has got the right to resign at any point of time, even when the
proceedings are going against, right, but ESP, if we have a clause in the Constitution or in the
judges inquiry and that, and that

Will be pendency of the preceding. The judge cannot resign, then there is nothing like it, that is,
that would be a fantastic, you know, change in the way we look at judicial the removal of
charges, but probably that's not what our judges because they will, of course, side with the best
option. That is the most feasible option for them. So and you know, a few examples, listen to me
very carefully. I will wind up in another 10 minutes. All the first case that I intend to discuss is the
case of Justice V. Ramos in court judge now just as we ramaswamy he is a Supreme Court
judge and he had committed certain Financial. That's a misdeeds when he was the coach.

Tatiana. So the looks of admitted emotion and thereafter constituted this inquiry gravity under
the judges inquiry Act. Now this inquiry committee, it comprised. Three three people, one is
Justice. We be servants. Second one is Justice design from the Bombay high court and just a
string of parity who was considered as a distinguished, jurist was a retired judge. Okay. Now,
Report by the committee. Very interesting lie. Right? And what do we know? I know that? Yes,
ma'am. Please defeat the name of the three judges. Okay? The name of

Sour was the Supreme Court Judge. The next is due to Chief Justice this side. He was from the
Bombay high court, and the last person is just a o chinnappa Reddy, who was a retired
Supreme Court judgement. He was the distinguished jurist. Book was submitted, you know, by
the committee to this.

. A petition was filed before the court, right?

Bad. Now, along with the Lok Sabha, even the inquiry committee has lost its right to proceed an
energy charge, you agree. Do you agree to this proposition? Raise your hand if you do. Along
with the looks of our, if the log summarized resolved, then the Proceeding is the report of the
proceedings and was be prepared by the inquiry committee was not submitted to the speaker.
You know, that means that the speak the report will automatically dissolve along with the looks
of a, because they are limited. Emotion came up from the lips of do. You agree to this particular
proposition? And so did the report due to this speaker know?
So what happened in that case, you should get deserve none because like the report should not
report has to be submitted to the speaker. Now on the report, if it, if it gets submitted to the next
house, even then the process should carry on. But now another point to be taken note of this
that this this starting of the proceeding, is a prerogative of the house. And when, as the earlier
how started the procedure it could be, so that

Other holsters not. Want to start the procedure if it would have been in that place. So that's why
this process should not be allowed. This should be dissolved and if the house wants, then they
get started afresh. The good but the Supreme Court decided on the you know, given that will
have just Advanced a few minutes ago, your previous argument. That is a set that when it
comes to the inquiry committee. The inquiry committee is an independent. We just conducting
investigations or inquiry on the, you know, where our city of the allegations that have been made
against a judge. It has got nothing to do with the dissolution of the yolks.

Is dissolved. It is dissolved. Right? And the report has got nothing to do with it. So the report, I
mean, the investigation committee, they continue to the procedure, right? The continue with will
continue with the procedure and then gradually gradually there. After what they did was that the
court now, the Supreme Court itself was of the opinion that it does not affect the process
cleaning with and firstly because the inquiry committee, as I said coming separate identity.
Argument to a committee or anything like that. It was an independent committee that is
constituted by the speaker under that is inquiry activity. Was a let's say, you're starting to the
authority. And therefore, the parliaments Parliament will come into the picture. Only, when the
motion for removal is accepted, after the report is submitted try to understand this part. The said
that the parliament has not yet come into the picture. The parliament will come into the picture
building motion for removal is accepted after the report is submitted.

After this, the process of inquiry was again, restart. Okay, and here again, again, there was a
Twist, like this was such a complicated case that, I mean, the more than the entire proceeding,
the removal proceeding, probably the Supreme Court and to entertain so many positions with
regard to this entire process. Now, the second drink petition was filed by the wife of a judge.

And she went and told the court that

So because I want out, so Supreme Court asks, then why we want to say that I want to report
because in case I think that there is some problem in it. I can go to the court, Megan come to
you. Of course. I can come to the Supreme Court in hooking up our to judicial review a decision.
I do understand, apply your mind. He's saying that I I intend to have

So that I can come up to the court and Oak its jurisdiction to judicially with you. Supreme Court
says,

Why? Supreme Court says that it's a, if the report suggests that you are not guilty. Right, then.
Nobody will have to take any pain in this case. Neither. The mind is not the judge, nor the
parliament, nor the sorry. So, unhappy. But if the person is held guilty and the remote is placed
before the parliament leads. Supreme Court says, That we can allow Division and beauty. Only
when you take a copy of the report, that sort of it.

But you cannot come to us in Booking the Judicial review jurisdiction. So the white was like then
when guy company after my husband is thrown out Supreme Court said yes. If the judge is,
right, if the judge is removed, and there is a formal order by the part. That these are the
grounds. We are convinced of, you know, such and such thing. And on top of that. Of course,
the proceedings have been held the majority, supermajority requirement that proceeding is
going to help. Then finally, we decide that. Okay, let's remove them. So we'll put cells only, then
you can come to us, invoking artwork, right? Or you woken up to the stick should be judicially
review maths. Okay, because ultimately, the process ends in the remover.

Maybe question. To float. Hey Supreme Court again is right. Okay now go. Now the matter
comes up before the Parliament and it isn't be Parliament that basically. Yes. Could you please
repeat the sc's reasoning for not taking up? The review right now or like only other the mobile so
in do so, so just just White.

Mom, you're not audible. I don't know if it's only for me though.

Am I audible to you? No, no Mom. You like the last? Yeah. So, so I was talking about this
petition that was filed by. Justice ramaswamy's wife. And the petition said that, we want a copy
of the report so that we can go to the Supreme Court. We can come to you again and we can
question the authority of this report and invoke your judicial review jurisdiction. Supreme Court
says that I have no problem in giving you the report, but you cannot come to me. Invoking my
jurisdiction to judicial review manners. You can come to me. Once the entire After the person,
the removal order.

Why. Because constitutionally speaking? It is ultimately the Parliament and not that investigation
on inquiry committee that has the authority to remove a judge. So always I have to remember
that. It is basically aiding the process. Feeling quite E committee is primarily aiding the process.
If it's not a concrete, you know, I mean think that that can be question for the court. If there is a
problem. We will definitely catch the report also, but we will question the report only when the
removal order is passed. Are you understanding? Only when the removal order is burned
because the removal is based on the inquiry committee report. We are ready to question that
but not at this stage.

Not at this stage because today, if I say that anindita has taken a decision based on what let's
say, a man has told her. So a man was conducting the investigation. So among you has
conducted an investigation filed, a report helped frame to the government, given it to our leader.
Now, on and beta is the Constitutional authority to decide the map another decides adversity
and self. Okay, let's remove this fellow from sure, but she does this on the basis of a month's
report. But remember a man's report came out key economic for being judicially. Begin.
Fix the position. A month's report will be relevant only when anindita has decided to remove the
judge.

Am I clear to you now?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Okay. Is anyone saying something? I just had one doubt. So when we had said that the judge
can be given an advocate to represent him, but where would that Advocate representative?
Because this So, Woody in the parliament? I couldn't hear you for the last 10 15 seconds. So,
where would that Advocate? Be presenting the arguments? Because this is not there in a code
phrase, Advocate will be presenting the argument before the investigation of them. Okay. Thank
you.

7/02

Judiciary is not supposed to

How do we come to a conclusion that india is parliamentary

Collective responsibility-

Nominal position- art 74- president- council of minister headed by the prime minister- aid and
advice while discharging such duties
President has to be convinced by the governors report

8/02

the legislature makes the and the executive primarily executes the law, and in order to execute
that law whatever is required, it does.
The executive powers will extend the legislative power. That means a legislative power.
walk up till the next 10 miles from here. The executive power will also continue for those
terrifying zones. It cannot go beyond what the legislature has stated.
What are such cases? Where there is no legislation already. There is no legislative mandate,
how will things work in that case? Constitution to guide.

So, whatever the executive has to do the executive has to follow.

Judicial review
save the Constitutional validity of the same. Can be questioned. Now, there are so many things
that may be judicially, do judicial review, in general?
Now, review can be of anything that has a constitutional link, right? So it can be, The review of a
legislation, it can be the review of J and executive action. It can be the review of a constitutional
amendment

let's say in cases of policymakers or let's say with respect to You know, political decisions, the
courts generally don't like to interfere right? Because that amounts to entering into a political
Thicket.
Political questions. Listen. And those are brought before the board. The courts. Generally don't
Don't dig deeper into it because these are matters best left to the Parliament and the
exhilarating. To decide.

Constitutional conventions are documents which are our practices, which do not have a
constitutional basis. They are not written down anywhere in the Constitution. If their convention
is that, you have to invite the leader of the majority party to form the government. It is nowhere
written in the constitution of India.

This is a convention or let's say the concept of zero hour. We all know that there are different
hours, right? question hour, we have a zero hour. questions have been recognized by the rules
of the house.

These things have developed as a matter of practice as a matter of convention and generally
codes are not empowered to question them.
But yes, cannot question them means what if it is established? The courts cannot even let's say
what would you call it recognized? That enforceability is a different issue.

The Calcutta High Court, you came up with a decision. Mukul Roy,Member of the BJP. But later
on, he switched sides and he again joined the TMC. Now in the process. So initially, he was a
member of the general goals later on. He joined the body and then again, he switched back.

A well-established convention over 50 to 60 years. There is a rule that. A person who belongs to
the ruling party. Will become a member of such a or let's say, a certain Community like Public
Accounts committee. So that has been the conventional. There was a certain qualification and
such people will be allowed to share such communities like the Public Accounts committee, but
when this person was appointed as the chair of the Public Accounts committee,

He had been disqualified and the disqualification proceeding was already pending.

Right. Now, the question before the court was whether it's a right decision or not? Though they
did not come up with a Convent, you know, concrete decision as to where he stands. But what
the court did was the court said that anything which is done in contravention of Constitutional
Convention. See generally the ideal.
The courts must refrain from entering into and probably that's what we call judicial overreach.
So anyway, we come back to, you know, the basics of the parliament and the executive, how
they operate and how things work.

And everything goes on in a very, we are now. Of course, there has to be a procedure that is
generally followed. And for that, we have separate rules of procedure. Will put the house, will
prescribe.

passing of bills. It's with regard to passing bills.

Let's say, either in the Lok Sabha, if it's a money Bill, it has to reach it in the Lok Sabha right
with respect to money bills and actually must be read, adjustable does not have any power.

The President also plays a big role here because once it is passed, a bill is passed in both. The
houses, finally goes up to the president, for the presidential veto is very, very limited. When we
compare it. So, in India basically when you send the till he has to sign it. If he thinks it, she will
not sign it. He will send it back with his recommendations.

Those recommendations houses may or may not consider direct lineage and will again, send it
back to me once then back to it. So the president is also an integral part of the parliament. Right
of the legislative process.
A private member will also retain for example, when it comes to, one equal or let's say an
ordinary so many different. There, it goes through several readings. So many stages are there
through which a bill should pass.

PR legislative research- website- Will you do all the updates as to what proceedings, a team
player? So if you go through these reports and these important traits, you will see that from the
last two decades steady decline in no. of bills being passed.
In one session they decide on one bill- not parliamentary
Parliamentary committees

President who signs the bills is also the head of the executive- overlap
Conflict of interest- although not that prominent

Executive is exercising more power over the legislature

Although it is only a smaller part of the parliament

State of Bombay vs R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (AIR 1957 SC 699)

Lottery- State of maharashtra- through newspapers- going to other states
Other state- taxes the game- earning revenue from people of other states
SC- there is a definite reason for a state to go beyond its territory
Doctrine of territorial nexus
Doctrine of territorial nexus says that laws made by a state legislature are not applicable outside
the state, except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object.
If it goes beyond the territory- should be reasonable
Read articles 245-250

10/02

Union list
State list
Concurrent list

State list has specific laws but does not contradict the union laws
Theory of repugnancy
According to Article 254(1), if any provision of a state law is repugnant to a provision in a law
made by the Parliament, which the Parliament is competent to enact, or with any existing law
regarding any matter in the Concurrent List, then the Parliamentary law would prevail over the
State law.
It will be of no importance whether the Parliamentary law was enacted before or after the State
law. To the extent of repugnancy, the State law will be void.

State cannot make laws beyond its territory. It can but only if it can prove nexus
Example of rajasthan lottery case
State of Bombay vs R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (AIR 1957 SC 699)

Article 247

Power of Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment
of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any
existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List

Shows how centralized the constitution can be

Article 248

(1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated
in the Concurrent List or State List.

(2) Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in
either of those Lists.

Union can make laws on a matter enumerated in the state list

Article 249
Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States
has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and
voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make laws
with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List specified in the resolution, it shall be
lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect
to that matter while the resolution remains in force.

(2) A resolution passed under clause (1) shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one
year as may be specified therein:

Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of any such
resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause (1), such resolution shall continue in force
for a further period of one year from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have
ceased to be in force.

(3) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the passing of a resolution
under clause (1) have been competent to make shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease
to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in
force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said
period.

Notwithstanding- because it’s related to national interest

Power resting in the hands of Rajya Sabha- so as to not overburden the Lok Sabha- also more
representation to states

Resolution dies first then after 6 months law also dies- because it’s a temporary arrangement
If it exists with a state law- state law becomes overshadowed
Once the resolution ceases- law also does- not permanent

15/02

Article 252