CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Relevant Relevant Article Key Issue Summary Judgement MANU ID

Topic

Equality of Article 16: It Discrimination on the Facts: Champakam Dorairajan, a brahmin girl from State Champakam Dorairajan
opportunity guarantees equality of basis of caste of Madras was denied admission in medical college even and Ors. vs. The State
in matter of opportunity for all after qualifying the elligibilty criteria, due to some of Madras (27.07.1950 -
public citizens in matters Government Order. She moved the Supreme Court and MADHC) :
employment employment under state claimed that she had been discriminated on the basis of MANU/TN/0014/1951
services her birth(caste).

Held: The Supreme court struck down the entire

government order and held that caste based reservations
was against Article 16(2) of the Constitution. Government
as forced to amend the constitution for the first time and
add 'clause 4 to Article 15'

Laws Articles 13: This article Whether First, Fourth Facts: The legal representaitves of the petitioner were I.C. Golak Nath and Ors.
inconsistent states that the State and Seventeenth claiming against an order that an area of 418 standard vs. State of Punjab and
with shall not make any law Amendment are accres and 9-1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the Ors. (27.02.1967 - SC):
fundamental which takes away or unconstitutional and petitioners under the provision of Punjab securityy of Land MANU/SC/0029/1967
rights abridges the inoperative as they Tenure Act. The petitions alleged against the provisions of
fundamental rigths of are violating Article 14 the said act where under the said area ws declared
the citizens. and Article 19(1)(f) & surpllus were void on the gound that it infringed their

Article 368: This article (g). rights under Article 19 & 14 of the constitution and filed a

states the Power of writ under Article 32 challenging that Constitutional First,

Parliament to amend the Fourth and Seventeenth Amendment are unconstitutional

Constitution and and inoperative as they are violating Article 14 and Article

procedure therefore 19(1)(f) & (g).

Held: The court held that 1st, 4th and 17th amendments
though abridged Fundamental rights were valid in the past
and are valid for the future. Further the court also held
that the powers of the Parliament are limited. The law
made by the Parliament shall not be such that infringes
and takes away the fundamental rights of the citizen
provided by the Constitution.

Abolition of Article 18: Abolition of Validity of titles and Facts: After independence rulers of various States were Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao
titles and Titles privileges was integrated with guarantee of payment of some amount Scindia Bahadur and
awards challenged known as privy purse along with 'gaddi' of State after Ors. vs. Union of India
some time order of 'derecognising' such rulers was passed (UOI) and Ors.
by President. Validity of said Order challenged in Supreme (15.12.1970 - SC) :
Court MANU/SC/0050/1970

Held: The Court abolished titles and privileges of India's

erstwhile princely rule. Also abolished privy purses of
India's erstwhile princely states

Equality Articles 14: 24th, 25th ad 29th Facts: The petitioner was the head of a Hindu Matt in a Kesavananda Bharati
before law Guarantees equality amendment were village in state of Kerala. He challenged the Kerala Sripadagalvaru vs. State
and Right to before law or equal challenged governement's attemots under two states land reforms of Kerala (24.04.1973 -
life protection of law. Article acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its SC) :
39A- Provides for free property without government interference. During that MANU/SC/0445/1973
legal aid. time major amendments to the constitution i.e. 24th, 25th

Article 21: No person and 29th, had been enacted by Indira Gandhi's

shall be deprived of his government. All these amendments were challenged under

life or personal liberty this case.

except according to Held: The Supreme Court gave power to Parliament to

procedure established amend any part of the Constitution. The Court further
by law added that such amendment shall not take away the
fundamental rights of the citizen which are provided by the
Constitution of India.

Special Article 329A: Provides Consitutional Validity Facts: Raj Narain was a political contender against Indira Indira Nehru Gandhi vs.
Provisions for Special provision as of 39th Amendment to Gandhi for Rae Bareilly and Mrs. Gandhi won the election. Raj Narain and Ors.
as to to elections to Constitution was After polling results Raj Narain filed a case against her (24.06.1975 - SC) :
elections to Parliament in the case of challenged contending that she performed election malpractices. The MANU/SC/0025/1975
Parliament Prime Minister and Allahabad High Court found her guilty. On appeal to
(Repealed) Speaker Supreme Court , the Supreme Court was going on vacation

[Repealed] so they granted a conditional stay. Thereafter emergency

was declared in the country due to internal disturbances.
In the meantime Indira Gandhi passed 39th Amendment
which introduced Article 329A which stated that election of
Prime Minister and Speaker cannot be questioned in any
court of law, and it can only be challenged before a
cmmitte framed by Parliament itself. Thus barring the
Supreme Court to decide the pending Indira Gandhi's
Case. Therefore, Constitutional Validity of 39th
Amendment was challenged.

Held: The Supreme Court relied on landmark judgement

of Kesvananda Bharti's case and held clause (4) of 329-A
as unconstitutional and further held that Rule of Law,
Democracy and Judicial Review are part of the basic
structure and no amendment can do away with them.

Laws Article 13: This article Whether the Tribunals Facts: A number of Special Leave Petitions were filed L. Chandra Kumar vs.
inconsistent states that the State constituted under Part forming a batch of matter bought before the Supreme Union of India (UOI) and
with shall not make any law XIV-A of the Court in his case owing to their origin to separate decisions Ors. (18.03.1997 - SC):
fundamental which takes away or Constitution of India of different High Court's and several different provisions MANU/SC/0261/1997
rights abridges the can be effective and enactments. These matters were basically pertaining
fundamental rigths of substitutes for the to the constitutional validity of sub-clause(d) of clause (2)
the citizens. High Court in of Article 323A and sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article
discharging the power 323B of the Constitution of India and also regarding the
of Judicial Review. constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
Question to decide in this case was whether the Tribunals
constituted under Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India
can be effective substitutes for the High Court in
discharging the power of Judicial Review.

Held: Supreme Court held that sub-clause(d) of clause (2)

of Article 323A and sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article
323B of the Constitution of India are unconstitutional and
further through Article 32 and the High Court through
Article 226 have the power to Judicial Review and no
amendment can curtail this power.

Laws Article 13: This article Validity of Preventive Facts: Gopalan was detained under a preventive detention A.K. Gopalan vs. The
inconsistent states that the State Detention Law law . He moved the court saying that his detention was State of Madras
with shall not make any law unlawful as it violated his right to personal liberty. (19.05.1950 - SC) :
fundamental which takes away or Held: The words 'personal liberty' used under Article 21 MANU/SC/0012/1950
rights and abridges the just meant procedural due process' and preventive
rRight to fundamental rigths of detention law under which Gopalan was detained was valid
Life the citizens. even if it violated his right to movement. This doctrine was
Article 21: No person commonly known as 'procedural due process'
shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty
except according to
procedure established
by law

Laws Article 13: This article Facts: In this case the petitioner concealed a huge Basheshar Nath vs. The
inconsistent states that the State amount of his income and his case was referred to Commissioner of Income
with shall not make any law investigating commission under Section 5A. In order to Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan
fundamental which takes away or avoid heavier penalty he agreed for settlement under and Ors. (19.11.1958 -
rights abridges the Section 8A. Meanwhile the Supreme Court in another case SC) :
fundamental rigths of held Section 5A as unconstitutional and violative of Article MANU/SC/0064/1958
the citizens. 14 of the Indian Consitution. The petitioner challenged the
enforceability of the settlement on this basis.

Held: This case established Doctrine of Waiver and

Supreme Court held that in Indian Consitution fundamental
rights cannot be waived of.

Equality Article 14: Guarantees Validity of transfer of Facts: The petitioner was a member of the Indian E.P. Royappa vs. State
before law equality before law or post was challenged Administrative Service in the Cadre of the State of Tamil of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
 equal protection of law Nadu. When the post of Chief Secretary of the state fell (23.11.1973 - SC) :
vacant the petitoner was selected for the post. But then MANU/SC/0380/1973
State government gave permission to the creation of a
temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning
Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary. After that he
was transferred and appointed to the post of Officer on
Special Duty.While the post of Chief Secretary was given to
a junior cadre officer to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a
writ petition under Article 32 asking a mandamus or any
other appropriate writ challenging the validity of the
transfer and alleged that such act was violative of Article
14 & 16 and was done in malafide exercise of power.

Held: The Supreme Court however dismissed the petition

but held that if any action is arbitrary, we shall assume
that it is opposed to equality.

Equality Article 14: Guarantees Whether the pay scale Facts: In this case the issue to be decided was whether Randhir Singh vs. Union
before law equality before law or of the petitioner who the pay scale of the petitioner who was a driver in the of India (UOI) and Ors.
equal protection of law was a driver in the Delhi Police Force be same to that of the drivers of Delhi (22.02.1982 - SC) :
Delhi Police Force be Administration. It was held that the functions performed by MANU/SC/0234/1982
same to that of the both, the petitioner and other drivers is the same. however
drivers of Delhi it was contended that the duties of the petitioner are
Administration. onerous.

Held: The court directed to fix a pay-scale atleast on a par

for the petitioner and Delhi Police Force driver constables.

Equality of Article 16: It Whether reservation in In this case reservation in promotion is invalid but by 77th Indra Sawhney and Ors.
opportunity guarantees equality of promotion is valid Amendment was passed in 1995 nullyfying the effect of vs. Union of India (UOI)
in matter of opportunity for all this judgement. The said amendment added clause 4(a) to and Ors. (16.11.1992 -
public citizens in matters Article 16 because of which reservation in promotion is SC) :
employment employment under state valid. MANU/SC/0104/1993
services

Right to Life Article 21: No person Whether the petitions Facts: During emergency in India, Fundamental rights Additional District
shall be deprived of his are maintainable even were suspended i.e. nobody can go to court for invoking Magistrate, Jabalpur vs.
life or personal liberty if the right to move to the infringement of their fundamental rights. Emergency Shivakant Shukla
except according to court for the made such proclamations due to which many people were (28.04.1976 - SC) :
procedure established enforcement of detained under various laws. Few of them moved to High MANU/SC/0062/1976
by law fundamental right Courts seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus. The Governement
under Article 21 is said that since the right to move to court for the
suspended. enforcement of fundamental right under Article 21 is
suspended, the petitions are not maintainable.These cases
went to appeal to Supreme Court.

Held: Supreme Court refused to recognise fundamental

rights that citizens acquire since birth. In this case, court
held that during emergency, fundamental rights cannot be
enforced.

Right to Life Article 21: No person Whether non In this case Maneka Gandh's passport was impounded. Maneka Gandhi vs.
shall be deprived of his disclosure of reason to When she wrote to the Regional Passport Officer asking for Union of India (UOI) and
life or personal liberty impound the passport reasons to do so, the officer declined to state reasons Ors. (25.01.1978 - SC):
except according to breached the citing public interest. She filed a writ petition in Supreme MANU/SC/0133/1978
procedure established fundamental rights of Court stating that this act breached her fundamental
by law the petitioner? rights.

Held: Supreme Court said that Article 14, 19 and 21 are

interlinked and any such procedure which deprives life or
personal liberty under Article 21 then that procedure/law
shall satisfy the test of Article 14 & Article 19 as well. This
led to era of 'substantive due process'

Right to Articles 14: Whether the state was facts: The challenge in this case was to a notification of Miss. Mohini Jain vs.
Education Guarantees equality duty bound to provide June 1989, which provided for a fee structure, whereby for State of Karnataka and
before law or equal education, and that government seats, the tuition fee was Rs. 2, 000 per Ors. (30.07.1992 - SC):
protection of law. the private institutions annum, and for students from Karnataka, the fee was Rs. MANU/SC/0357/1992

Article 15: No that discharge the 25,000 per annum, while the fee for Indian students from

discrimination on state's duties were outside Karnataka, under the payment category, was Rs.
 grounds of religion, equally bound not to 60,000 per annum. It had been contended that charging
race, caste, sex or place charge a higher fee such a discriminatory and high fee violated constitutional
of birth. than the government guarantees and rights. This attack was sustained, and it

Article 21: No person institutions. was held that there was a fundamental right to education

shall be deprived of his in every citizen, and that the state was duty bound to

life or personal liberty provide the education, and that the private institutions that

except according to discharge the state's duties were equally bound not to

procedure established charge a higher fee than the government institutions.

by law Held: The Court then held that any prescription of fee in
excess of what was payable in government colleges was a
capitation fee and would, therefore, be illegal.

Right to Articles 14: Legal Aid to under trial facts: The case dealt, inter alia, with the rights of the Hussainara Khatoon and
Legal Aid Guarantees equality prisoners on habeas under trial prisoners on habeas corpus petitions which Ors. vs. Home
before law or equal corpus petitions disclosed a state of affairs in regard to administration of Secretary, State of
protection of law. justice in the State of Bihar. An alarmingly large number of Bihar, Patna
Article 39A: Provides men and women, children including, were behind prison (09.03.1979 - SC) :
for free legal aid. bars for years awaiting trial in courts of law. The offences MANU/SC/0121/1979

Article 21: No person with which some of them were charged were trivial, which

shall be deprived of his even if proved, would not warrant punishment for more

life or personal liberty that a few months, perhaps a year or two, and yet they

except according to remained in jail, deprived of their freedom, for periods

procedure established ranging from three to ten years without even as much as

by law their trial having commenced.

Held: The Court ordered immediate release of these under

trials many of whom were kept in jail without trial or even
without a charge.The Court in this case observed that
State cannot avoid its constitutional duty to provide for
speedy trial and directed for enforcement of right to
speedy trial as a fundamental right.

Right to Articles 19: Freedom Whether telephone Facts: The Petitioner highlighted the incident of telephone People's Union of Civil
Privacy of Speech and tapping is an invasion tapping which was permissible under section 5(2) of Liberties (PUCL) vs.
Expressions to one's privacy Telegraph Act and contended unless such tapping comes Union of India (UOI) and

Article 21: No person under reasonable restrictions put up by Article 19 of the Ors. (18.12.1996 - SC):

shall be deprived of his Indian constitution it is infringing right to privacy of MANU/SC/0149/1997

life or personal liberty people.

except according to Held: The court directed the authorities to maintain

procedure established records of the intercepted messages and limited the terms
by law of usage of such records to Section 5(2) of the Act and
provided for a review committee

Right to Articles 14: Whether court is Facts: In this case the Municipal Corporation decided to Olga Tellis and Ors. vs.
Livelihood Guarantees equality under a duty to evict the pavement dwellers and those who were residing Bombay Municipal
before law or equal provide alternative for in slums in Bombay. To this the inhabitants claimed that Corporation and Ors.
protection of law. eviction of slum such act deprived their right to life. The question which (10.07.1985 - SC) :

Articles 19: Freedom of dwellers? arose in this case was whether right to life inlcudes right to MANU/SC/0039/1985

Speech and Expressions livelihood? Constitution does not provide for an absolute

Article 21: No person embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty.

shall be deprived of his Under Article 21, such deprivation must be in accordance

life or personal liberty with the procedure established by law. No one has right to

except according to encroach on trails , pavements or sidewalks which is

procedure established reserved for public use.

by law Held: The court refused alternative site for expelled

inhabitants however the State Government assured Court
that alternative would be provided to slum dwellers who
were caused to be evicted.

Right to Article 21: No person Constitutional Validity Facts: Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
Privacy shall be deprived of his of Aadhaar Card Aadhaar and struck down provisions which rendered it and Ors. vs. Union of
life or personal liberty mandatory to link Aadhaar number with Bank Accounts, India (UOI) and Ors.
except according to cell phone connections and school admissions. Additionally, (26.09.2018 - SC) :
procedure established held that all matters relating to an individual cannot be MANU/SC/1054/2018
by law classified as inherent part of right to privacy and only
those matters over which there would be a reasonable
expectation of privacy are protected by Article 21.
Right to life Article 21: No person Whether Right to die is Facts: In this case people who were suffering from chronic Common Cause (A
includes shall be deprived of his a fundamental right ? diseases were at the end of their natural life span and Regd. Society) vs. Union
Right to Die life or personal liberty were deprived of their rights to refuse cruel and unwanted of India (UOI) and Ors.
except according to medical treatment, like feeding through hydration tubes, (09.03.2018 - SC) :
procedure established being kept on ventilator and other life supporting machines MANU/SC/0232/2018
by law in order to artificially prolong their natural life span. It was
further pleaded that it was a common law right of the
people, of any civilized country, to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and no person could force him/her to
take any medical treatment which the person did not
desire to continue with.

Held: The Court in this case recognized right to die with

dignity as a fundamental right