LL.B.

IV Semester Examination June, 2021

Subject - Constitutional Law-II
Paper Code: LB-401
Time: 3 Hours Maximum Marks: 100
Instructions:
 All questions carry equal marks (25 marks).
 The question paper contains total 6 questions.
 Attempt any 4 question out of 6 questions.
 Answers may be written either in English or in Hindi but same medium should be
used throughout the paper.

Q1. The state „M‟ set up a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act for
undertaking research in crops such as rice and sugarcane. The Society initially received
considerable government funding and several buildings and assets belonging to the
government were also transferred to the Society. The membership of the Society earlier
comprised only government officials with the Agricultural Minister of the State as its ex-
officio Chairman. In recent years, state grants have reduced, and 60 percent of the budget of
the Society is contributed by the sales of high yielding seeds produced by it and fees charged
for training programmes. The membership has also expanded and representatives of several
private, large-scale commercial companies who buy its seeds in bulk are now members. The
Society has recently decided to rationalize its staff requirements and has decided to abolish
certain posts. The affected staff employed to run the Society‟s research departments and
experimental farms file a writ petition against the Society in the Supreme Court challenging
the arbitrary decision to abolish their posts as a violation of their rights under Article 14 of
the Constitution.
The Society raises a preliminary objection that a writ petition would not be maintainable
against it as it was not „State‟ under Article 12. Decide, giving reasons and citing relevant
precedents.

Q2. In order to make the public employment in the State more representative, State „X‟
enacts a law containing the following provisions:
(1) Reservation of an additional 20 percent of posts for “most backward” among the OBC
based on the report of a Commission set up for surveying the population and
identification of such “most backward” OBC groups. This additional reservation is in
addition to the existing 20 percent posts reserved for OBC and 15 percent posts for
SC/ST communities.
(2) Reservation of 15 percent of all promotion posts for SC/ST with the additional
stipulation that the principle of „consequential seniority‟ shall apply to such
promotions.
This law is challenged by a group of petitioners who allege their fundamental right to
equality of opportunity to public employment is adversely affected by such reservations.
Further, a group of intervenors representing the “most backward” OBC communities state
that they have a fundamental right to obtain reservations in order to ensure that they are
adequately represented in public employment. Discuss the constitutional validity of the law
made by State „X‟ and the contentions put forward in light of constitutional principles and
decided cases.

Q3. An ancient usage in the state „Z‟ provides that only the eldest son of a priest/pujari can
become the next-in-line priest of the denominational Hindu temple. The state „X‟ enacts law
providing that next-in-line succession will be replaced by open selection from persons well-
versed in conducting puja and ceremonies of such a temple. The law also indicates that the
priest so appointed can belong to any caste, and further that such priest appointed can be of
any gender.
A person belonging to the denomination challenges the law on the ground that while a priest
appointed can be from among qualified candidates, irrespective of caste, such a priest must
belong to the Hindu denomination to which the temple belongs. He also argues that only a
male candidate can be appointed a priest, and while women can enter the temple and worship,
a woman cannot be appointed as a priest.
Examine the constitutional validity of the law with reference to the fundamental right to
profess, practice and propagate religion, the fundamental right of religious denominations,
and the fundamental right to gender equality.

Q4. Due to the growing privatization of education in the country, Westeros amends its
Constitution and provides that all schools and colleges, whether owned by the Government of
Westeros or privately owned, whether receiving government funding or not, whether
established and administered by religious or linguistic minorities or not, are all are required to
provide 20% reservation in admission to students belonging to socially and educationally
backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, and an additional 6% seats are
reserved for economically weaker sections of students.
This constitutional amendment is challenged by a religious minority educational institution as
violating the basic structure of the Constitution and infringing their rights to determine the
intake students in their educational institutions. The Constitution of Westeros is similar to the
Constitution of India. What arguments will you put forward on behalf of the minority
educational institution to challenge the constitutional amendment. Discuss, citing relevant
case law.

Q5. The government issues a notification that in in view of misinformation being spread on
social media and the need to curb its use of social media for incitement to an offence and
threatening public order, internet services will be withdrawn from the state „Y‟ for a period of
three months.
Ms. B is a publisher of a newspaper and a frequent user of social media for putting forward
her views seeks to challenge this notification issued by state “Y” as infringing her
fundamental right to speech and expression. Based on judicial precedents and constitutional
provisions, advise Ms. B on the grounds to challenge the constitutional validity of this
notification.

Q6. “A law establishing procedure for curtailing personal liberty of a citizen must be in
consonance with the rule of justice, fairness and reasonableness.” Explain the overlap
between Articles 14, 19 and 21, as well as the development of the principle of proportionality
developed by the courts to test the validity of a law that impacts upon the personal liberty of a
person in India.