Hey everybody!

I am Priya and you are watching to Finology

Legal.

In today’s video, we will know about landmark

cases of constitution.

For your better understanding I have categorised

these cases.

SO quickly bring your notebook and pen and

lets begin.

Also, if you any doubt regarding any case

discussed In this video, please let me know

in the comment section, I will be happy to

help.

Our 1st category is preamble.

So you tell me, what is the significance of

preamble?

Is it a part of the constitution?

Can it be amended?

Can any law be declared Ultra Vires,

only on the basis of preamble?

Lets know about these cases.

First case is Re Berubari.

In this case, Supreme Court said that preamble

is not a part of the constitution and because

of that reason, Preamble has no substantive

power.

Then we have Golaknath case.

In this case the Golaknath family owned 500

acres of land.

but the Land Tenure Act allowed them

to keep only a little portion of this 500

acres of land, rest shall be taken by the

government.

In this case, the Land tenure Act was challenged

It was argued that citizens have a fundamental

right to property, under Article 19.

Can fundamental rights be amended?

While answering this question, Supreme Court
said that the amending power of parliament

is not unlimited but limited.

Parliament cannot amend the fundamental right

of the citizens.

Then comes the most important, Keshvananda

Bharti case.

This case too discussed about restricting

government’s interference in citizen’s

Right to Property.

See, during 1971-72, some constitutional amendment took place as a result of which
of which 2 Kerala

Land Reform Acts were added in 9th schedule.

Those amendments were challenged in this case.

This case has 3 important points, which are very important

1. Supreme Court said that Parliament

can amend the whole constitution including fundamental rights;

2. But the basic

structure of the constitution cannot be touched/amended

Third, “basic structure” was defined & specified

in this case e.g. judicial review.

Then come Indra Nehru Gandhi case, which is

also known as the Election case.

Before this case, Allahabad High Court had

invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election because of corrupt practices.

This judgement of the High court was being

challenged in the Supreme Court.

As this case was being heard, Parliament passed

39th Amendment Act and inserted Article 329A

Now what does this article says?

It says that in matters related to elections,

Judicial review cannot be done.

Art 329A was challenged in this case.

Evaluating all of these things the Supreme

court said

that Democracy is the basic structure of the Indian constitution, which means free
& fair
election.

To continue this basic structure, rule of

law and judicial review are essential.

So, while striking down Article 329A, Supreme

Court said that

Rule of Law, Democracy and Judicial Review

are part of the basic structure

and no amendment can do away with them.

Finally we have case of Minerva Mills, where

with the help of Preamble - a relationship was established between FRs and DPSPs

Supreme Court said that there is no case of

superiority between Part III or Part IV;

both are complimentary to each

other.

In this case, the controversial 42nd amendment was striked down by the Supreme
Court

and it firmly held that judicial review

is a part of basic structure and cannot be amended.

Our 2nd category is fundamental rights which is discussed from Article 12 to 35.

Let have a look on some important articles

of this part.

Let`s begin with Article 13.

Article 13 talks about - what can be done

in case of violation of FRs

what can be done if any law is not respecting fundamental rights.

All the case laws related to Article 13 talk

on two issues:

1st, about Judicial Review

and 2nd about the doctrines related to Article 13

let's have a look - First we have Marbury v. Madison.

This is an important case as it created and established the concept of Judicial

Review

In this case, US Supreme Court said that the Courts have the power to do Judicial
Review on Legislative Actions.

The counterpart of Marbury v. Madison in India

is L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India.

In this case it was said that the SC through Art. 32 & the HC through Art. 226 have
the power of Judicial Review.

That means the SC & HC can judicially review the legislative actions.

SC also held that the power of JR under these 2 Articles is a part of the basic
structure of the constitution

and no amendment can curtail this power.

Now let`s talk about the doctrines.

These two cases, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

& Romesh Thapar

v State of Madras, talk about doctrine of severability.

For e.g. if rice and lentil grains

get mixed together, you can separate them.

This is what exactly these two cases talk

about.

Its said that if some part of an act

is unconstitutional and the rest is constitutional,

then only the unconstitutional

part should be striked off and constitutional part should be preserved.

Now lets see State of Gujarat v. Ambika Mills - it talks about Doctrine of Eclipse.

It was held that doctrine of eclipse is applicable

on citizens as well as non citizens.

3rd doctrine is Doctrine of Waiver.

You will find the mention of this doctrine

in topics like Article 21- Right to Life, Attempt to suicide, etc.

Doctrine of waiver refers to waving off your

rights.

US constitution allows the Waiver of some FRs.

In Basheshar Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner,

it was held that

unlike the US constitution, In India, waiver of FRs is not allowed.

The concept of equality begins from Article

14 of the constitution.

This article contains two important principles

of equality; 1. Equality before Law

which holds that every person, whether he

is president or a common citizen, is equal in the eyes of law

2. Equal protection of law.

Which refer to protection afforded to or treatment
given to such persons who are at unequal/vulnerable position

Let`s begin our discussion n equality.

Lets assume that you are school Teacher and there are two students.

You provide two different papers to them.

There was no reason in providing them different

question papers.

You treated them unequally, just so, then

it would be a situation of unequal treatment.

But, it a student is in 5th standard and another

is in 10th standard.

Thus if the reason for differential treat

is their age or their intelligence, then it

would accepted as reasonable.

This is called intelligible differentia.

Now let`s move forward.

Now that you have differentiated between two

students, but provided same maths paper, would

it be right?

No, right.

Here we are talking about rational nexus.

Meaning that you differentiated between both

kids by using intelligible differentia, now

what is your objective?

To check that both students are able to solve

question papers meant for their respective

class and pass that, so you will provide them

paper of their respective classes.

This is called rational nexus.

Meaning that there is a link between the reason

of differentiation and the objective that

you wish to achieve.

Now lets look at these cases.

So the principle of intelligible differentia

we talked about, is also known as the old
doctrine of equality.it was propounded in

state of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara.

And the second principle of Rational description

was propounded in case of

Anwar Ali v. State of West Bengal.

So this case is attributed to old principle

of equality and this case is attributed to

the nexus test.

Then came

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu.

We received New doctrine of Equality from

this case, which is followed even today.

See, in this case Supreme Court said that

if any action is arbitrary, we shall assume

that it is opposed to equality.

A very important statement came out of this

judgement and that is “Equality is a dynamic

concept..

& Equality & arbitrariness are sworn enemies.”

Our final case is Randhir Singh v. Union of

India.

This was the case which introduced the concept

of equal pay for equal work.

Next is article 15.

Article 15 gives us 5 grounds and says that

discrimination cannot be done on these 5 grounds,

and It would be wrong to do that.

In addition, Article 15 provides that if there

is another rational or valid reason beyond

these 5 grounds, and you are discriminating

on that ground, it would be valid.

Come, let`s look at the important cases of

article15.

I bet you know and understand about the domicile

quota.

This was discussed in

D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P. in this case, it was
said that place of residence is a valid criteria

for classification.

If some college charges less fee to locally

domiciled students and more fee to students

coming from outside, it would be valid.

Then, we have these 3 cases which are very

important to understand article 15.

First we have Champkam Dorairajan v. State

of Madras.

Clause 4 was added to article 15 because of

this judgement, which provides special powers

to the state to make special provisions for

protection of SC/ST/OBC.

Now there is M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore,

Lets sum up the judgement in 4 simple points:

1. Reservation shall have a ceiling limit of 50% and it cannot exceed that.

Second they held that for purpose of reservation caste cannot be the sole criteria

reservation cannot be given solely on basis of caste,

You will have to consider social backwardness

among other things.

It was held that classification into “backward”

& “more Backward” is an invalid classification and cannot be done.

fourth, They held that art.

16(4) is an exception to art. 16(1)

Whatever was held in case of M.R. Balaji v.Union of India

maximium of it was overruled

in the subsequent cases.

Lastly, we have T. Devadasn case.

Carry forward rule was declared as invalid

in this case.

What is carry forward rule?

Suppose a college is accepting admission for

10 seats; 5 for general category and 5 for

reserved category.
Now only 2 out of 5 of the reserved category
seats are filled and 3 are left vacant.

So what would we do with these 3 seats?

You will think about adding it up in the next

year.

But if you add these seats to next year, reservation

quota will increase, meaning that what is

50-50 now would not remain the same.

That is why this case ruled that carry forward

rule is invalid.

After article 15, we have article 16,

which provides protection against 7 grounds of discrimination in employment

opportunities

The protection and rights provided under article 15 & 16 are very important for
any welfare state.

Dr. Ambedkar has called the rights under article

15 & 16 as “compensatory benefits”.

Let`s check out these 3 cases.

First, we have N.M.Thomas v. State of Kerala.

It was held that reservation in promotion

is valid.

Then we have Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari

v. Union of India.

In this case, while overruling the T. Devadasan case, SC held that the Carry
Forward Rule is valid!

Court also held that the ceiling limit of

50% is just a guide line, and if its required,the ceiling limit of 50% can be
exceeded as
well.

For example, in this case, the reservation

in this case reached upto 64% and it was held to be valid.

Then we have Indra Swahney v. Union of India.

While overruling judgement in N.M. Thomas case, it was held that reservation in
promotion is invalid.

You cannot provide for reservation in promotion.

But, 77th amendment was passed in 1995 nullifying the effect of this judgement

Clause 4 A was added to article 16. Because of the clause 4 A, reservation in

promotion is valid.

Now lets talk about article 19, which talks about freedom of speech & expression.

I will be discussing only these two cases related with this article.

First is Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, which we have discussed in the starting
of this video as well.

What happened in this case was that the petitioners used to publish a newspaper by
name of “cross roads”.

This news paper would review the activities and schemes of government of Madras and
criticise them.

What government of Madras did as a response was, on the grounds of public safety,
banned entry and circulation of the newspaper in state of Madras.

When this case reached to supreme court, it held that company’s right to
circulation is protected under article 19(1)(a).

they have the right of circulation, but no ground in name of “public safety” has
been laid down under article 19(2) i.e. the reasonable restrictions.

So you cannot impose ban on their circulation & entry

Article 19(2) was amended after this case and Public order,

and Public order, Security of State & Incitement to an offence, these three were
added to article 19(2).

Then we have Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India.

Supreme court while creating a distinction in this court held that

the advertisements do not come in the category of free speech, but it come in
commercial area/ commercial category.

Therefore, advertisement of any nature are not covered under article 19(1)(a)
freedom of speech, but under commercial speech, i.e under aspect of trade &
business.

Now lets see article 21, which talks about right to life & personal liberty.

There are a lot of cases relating to this on a specific article. But first lets
check these 3 cases.

And understand article 21.

Firsst is A.K.Gopalan case.

What happened in this case was that,

the petitioners were detained under Preventive Detention Act.

Preventing detention refers to detaining someone even before the crime is

committed, only on the grounds of suspicion.

This act was challenged by the petitioners under article 19 & 21.
Supreme court, taking a very narrow view in this case, held that

there is no connection between article 19 & 21.

Article 19 talks about very specific rights and protections while article 21 talks
about protection of very general nature.

Supreme court held preventive detention act to be valid and also held that words
used under article 21 in the Indian constitution

“procedure established by law” & words uses in US constitution, “due process of

law” both are different and cannot be interpreted in the same way.

A.K. Gopalan case is known for narrow interpretation of article 21.

Then we have ADM Jabalpur case.

In this case Supreme court refused to recognised fundamental rights that citizens
acquire since birth.

In this case, court held that during emergency, fundamental rights cannot be
enforced,

meaning that even article 21 cannot be enforced at time of emergency.

And thus, the writs under article 32, like habeas corpus cannot be enforced.

after these two cases we have the ray of sunshine i.e. Maneka Gandhi case.

It is known for the wider interpretation of article 21.

Lets revise the facts about case quickly

What happened In this case is that

passport office told Maneka Gandhi that she had to submit her passport within 7
days.

Maneka Gandhi wrote a letter and asked them to assign a reason as why she need to
submit her passport.

Ministry of External Affairs respond to them that because of public interest we

cannot assign you statement of reasons.

This order was challenged by maneka Gandhi under article 21.

In this case, while taking wider view, supreme court says that

article 14, 19 & 21 are interlinked and any such procedure which deprives life or
personal liberty under article 21

that procedure/ law shall have to satisfy the test of article 14 & 19 as well.

Additionally the Supreme court held that right too travel abroad is a fundamental
right and it is covered under article 21.

more importantly court held that if there is any procedure that deprives or
curtails life & personal liberty,
it is very necessary that such procedure is just fair and reasonable,

means, not arbitrary or fanciful.

It is necessary for it to be reasonable.

Thus these two cases, mainly A.K.Gopalan is know for a narrow view while

Maneka Gandhi is known for wider view.

Apart from these 3 cases,

we also have K.S. Puttaswamy case,

which we shall discuss in Recent Judgements."

lets see what other landmark cases are there for article 21.

These are also some important cases.

In case of Mohini Jain v. Case of Karnataka, right to education was established.

Hussainara Khatoon case established right to speedy trial.

Right to privacy was established in the case of PUCL v. Union of India.

And Olga Tellis & others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others is related with
right to livelihood.

Article 25 to 28 deals with minority rights and secularism.

Lets check these two cases

. First is S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.

We will discuss this case under topic of secularism and also while discussing the
topic of emergency

In this case supreme court held that

the concept of secularism in America and India are different.

. In India, Secularism is a basic feature and any law which infringes secularism
or amends it shall be invalid.

2nd case is Md. Hamid Qureshi v. State of Bihar It was held in this case that ban
on cow slaughter is not against secularism. Neither it is unconstitutional nor it
is against secularism because

it is not an essential practice of any religion.

Next category is judiciary.

See, appointment of Judges of Supreme Court is dealt in article 124 and

appointment of high court’s judges is dealt in article 217.

What procedure has been laid down under these articles?

Article 124 says thatfor appointment of supreme court judges,

president would consult Chief Justice of India and other judges as he may deem
necessary

For appointment of judges in high court,

president shall consult chief justice of india, the governor of the state and the
chief justice of that state.

Now what is the meaning of world consultation in both of these articles. We have 3
landmark verdicts for this.

1st is S.P.Gupta v. Union of India. Supreme Court of India held that

thatword “consultation” held in article 124 (2) & 217(1) does not mean concurrence
but

it means that it is not necessary that president must consult chief justice of
India or necessarily ask for his recommendations

and it only means exchange of views.

It was also held that if there is any disagreement between Chief Justice of India &
president,

the ultimate power shall remain with union government

And not the chief justice.

This case is also known as First Judges case where the supreme court acted against
its own self interest.

After 11-12 years of this came the Second Judges case.

This case overruled First judges case and while discussing the meaning of word
consultation upheld that

if there is a conflict between Chief Justice of India & President, Chief Justice’s
opinion shall be given more importance.

By this judgement of 1993, supreme court took its power back from the Union
Government and held that

the advice of Chief Justice of India is binding on the president.

Then there is Third Judges Case where supreme court held that meaning of
consultation is not just Chief Justice’s opinion

Consultation would mean opinion of 4 justices of India along with opinion of the
Chief Justice of India.

Next category is emergency.

In the topic of emergency, amendments are more important than the cases.

Lets look at two different cases.

First is Minerva mills v. Union of India.

Before Minerva Mills, through 38th, 39th, & 42nd amendment

many provisions related with emergency were changed.

The situation after 42nd amendment was that,

if the President is satisfied that on certain ground

if the President is satisfied that on certain ground

then that ground could not be brought under judicial review.

President’s satisfaction was considered absolute satisfaction.

No question or review was allowed

In case of Minerva mill v. Union of India, the court held that

the ground on which president is proclaiming emergency can be subjected to judicial

review.

SC & HC can evaluate that ground and if that ground is found to be malafide,
irrelevant or absurd,

there is no meaning to satisfaction of the president and the emergency would become
invalid.

2nd case is S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.

Ramjanmabhoomi case happened just before this case

and hence also of questions regarding secularism were raised.

Answering them, supreme court held that

Secularism is a basic feature in the Indian constitution.

In addition, while answering to the issue of emergency, Supreme court held that

power that president has, to proclaim emergency, is not absolute.

That power is conditional.

The pre requisite to this condition is that

there must be some relevant ground on whose basis you wish to proclaim emergency

If the ground is not relevant there is no value of President’s satisfaction and the
emergency shall be invalid.

Thus, because of these two cases, president’s satisfaction can be a subject of

judicial review.

Next category is of amendments article 368.

Be careful that when you are studying the topics of amendment or are reading
related cases
also read cases related with article 13.

Because almost similar questions have raised in both of these.

For example, the questions that were raised regarding article 368 were that

if parliament has unlimited power to amend?

Can parliament amend the fundamental rights?

And if it can, can such amendments be subject to judicial review?

Lets have alook on these cases and find out the answers.

First we have Shankari prasad case where 1st amendment act was challenged.

By this amendment act, article 31 A 31 B were inserted.

Supreme court held in this case that

the parliament has unlimited power to amend and can amend any part of constitution
if it so wants, even the fundamental rights.

Same judgement was followed up in Sajjan Singh’s case where

17th amendment was challenged.

Supreme Court repeated that yes, parliament has complete power to amend and can
amend any part of the constitution.

Same amendment was challenged in the Golaknath case

the supreme court gave a different judgement in this case.

Overruling the above 2 cases, it was held that

that parliament does not have unlimited power, but limited power.

And parliament can never amend fundamental rights of the citizens.

So, in Golaknath case it was held that Parliament does not have power to amend the
fundamental rights.

After Golaknath Judgement, Parliament brought 24th amendment.

And adds clause 3 to article 13.

Article 13 (3) says that whatever amendments are happening through article368,
cannot be made subject to judicial review.

This very 24th amendment, through which article 13 (3) was added to the
constitution was challenged in

Keshavananda Bharti case.

While overruling Golaknath’s judgment, the supreme court held in this case that

Parliament has wide powers to amend but those powers are not unlimited, but
limited.

If it wishes, parliament can amend the whole constitution including the fundamental
rights

but the basic features of the constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.

I hope that you liked this video.

If yes, then subscribe to my channel.

In next video, we will discuss about some of the important recent judgement of few
previous years.

For more information, you can follow me on my Instagram page,

that’s it for now, see you in the next class, bye-bye!