THEMES (IN TERMS OF PRIORITY ORDER)

• BASICS OF CONSTITUTION/ CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

• UNION AND STATE LEGISLATURE
• UNION AND STATE EXECUTIVE
• ELECTIONS
• CENTRE STATE RELATIONS
• JUDICIARY AND CRIMINAL LAW
• MOST IMPORTANT ACTS/BILLS
• BODIES (CONSTITUTIONAL>NON CONSTITUTIONAL >RANDOM )
TODAY’S TOPICS

➢FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP

➢UNION AND STATE LEGISLATURE
➢UNION AND STATE EXECUTIVE
POLITY AND GOVERNANCE WEIGHTAGE IN LAST 8 PRELIMS
50

45 44

40
36
35
32
30
30
26 26 26
25
22
20 18
16
15
15 13 13 13
12
10
6
5

0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Marks Questions
CITIZENSHIP
 DOMICILE, RESIDENCE AND CITIZENSHIP

• CITIZEN OF A GIVEN STATE IS A PERSON WHO ENJOYS FULL MEMBERSHIP OF POLITICAL

COMMUNITY OR STATE.
• DOMICILE – DOMICILE IN INDIA IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR ACQUIRING INDIAN
CITIZENSHIP.
• IT IS NOT DEFINED IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
• ORDINARILY, IT MEANS A PERMANENT HOME OR PLACE WHERE A PERSON RESIDES WITH THE
INTENTION OF REMAINING THERE FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD/PERMANENTLY.
DOMICILE, RESIDENCE AND CITIZENSHIP

• DOMICILE IS DIFFERENT FROM CITIZENSHIP. THE PERSON MAY POSSESS ONE NATIONALITY OR
CITIZENSHIP AND DIFFERENT DOMICILE.
• THEREFORE DOMICILE IS – RESIDENCE PLUS INTENTION TO STAY PERMANENTLY/INDEFINITELY.
• AND CITIZENSHIP = DOMICILE + OTHER CONDITIONS
 • Parliament shall have the power to make any provision
Article 11 with respect to the acquisition and termination of
citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

• ACCORDINGLY, THE PARLIAMENT HAS ENACTED THE CITIZENSHIP

ACT, 1955, WHICH HAS BEEN AMENDED IN 1957, 1960, 1985, 1986,
1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 AND 2019.
• THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 PROVIDES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
CITIZENSHIP IN FIVE WAYS: BY BIRTH, DESCENT, REGISTRATION,
NATURALISATION, AND THE INCORPORATION OF TERRITORY.
• AFTER THE ASSAM ACCORD IN 1985, AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE
IN 1986, WHICH INSERTED SECTION 6A, MAKING WAY FOR A SIXTH
WAY.
 • Born in India between 26th January 1950 to 1st July
1987 irrespective of nationality of parents.
• Born in India from 1st July 1987 to 3rd December 2004 if
By either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of
his birth.
Birth: • Born on or after 3rd December 2004 are considered
citizens of India only if both of their parents are
citizens of India or one of whose parents is a citizen of
India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the
time of their birth.

• Born outside India from 26th January 1950 to 10th December

1992 if his father was a citizen of India at the time of his
birth.
• Born outside India from 10th December 1992 to 3rd December
By 2004 if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of
his birth.
Descent: • Born outside India on or after 3rd December 2004 his birth is
registered at an Indian consulate within one year of the date
of birth or with the permission of the Central Government,
after the expiry of the said period.
 • A person (NOT ILLEGAL MIGRANT) can be registered as citizen by giving
an application to the central government if he/she belongs to any of
the categories:
• a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven
years before making an application for registration;
• a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or
Registration: place outside undivided India;
• a person who is married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident
in India for seven years before making an application for registration;
• minor children of persons who are citizens of India;
• a person of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as
citizens of India;
• a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was
earlier citizen of independent India, and is ordinarily resident in India
for twelve months immediately before making an application for
registration;
• a person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an
overseas citizen of India cardholder for five years, and who is
ordinarily resident in India for twelve months before making an
application for registration.
 • he is not a subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented
from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation;
By • if he is a citizen of any country, he undertakes to renounce the citizenship of that
Naturalisati country in the event of his application for Indian citizenship being accepted;
on through • Either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India throughout
application 12 months immediately before application;
• During the 14 years immediately preceding the said 12 months, he has either
to GoI if: resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India for not less than an
aggregate of 11 yrs.
• good character + adequate knowledge of a language in VIII Schedule
• In case of naturalisation, intends to reside in India, enter/continue in, service
under a GoI or an international organisation of which India is a member or under a
society/company/ body established in India.

By
Incorporati • If any foreign territory becomes a part of India, GoI specifies
on of the persons who among the people of the territory shall
Territory: become the citizens of India from a notified date.
 • he is not a subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented
from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation;
By • if he is a citizen of any country, he undertakes to renounce the citizenship of that
Naturalisati country in the event of his application for Indian citizenship being accepted;
on through • Either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India throughout
application 12 months immediately before application;
• During the 14 years immediately preceding the said 12 months, he has either
to GoI if: resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India for not less than an
aggregate of 11 yrs.
• good character + adequate knowledge of a language in VIII Schedule
• In case of naturalisation, intends to reside in India, enter/continue in, service
under a GoI or an international organisation of which India is a member or under a
society/company/ body established in India.

By
Incorporati • If any foreign territory becomes a part of India, GoI specifies
on of the persons who among the people of the territory shall
Territory: become the citizens of India from a notified date.
 THE ASSAM CONUNDRUM: Here PIO means a
person who was
born in India or
Citizenship either of his
Assam Accord
(Amendment) Act, parents or any of
signed in 1985 his grandparents
1985
were born in Inida

• ALL PIOS WHO CAME TO ASSAM BEFORE THE 1ST JANUARY, 1966 FROM BANGLADESH AND WHO
HAVE BEEN ORDINARILY RESIDENTS IN ASSAM SINCE THE DATE OF THEIR ENTRY INTO ASSAM
SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CITIZENS OF INDIA AS FROM THE 1ST JANUARY, 1966.
• EVERY PIO WHO CAME TO ASSAM ON OR AFTER THE 1ST JANUARY, 1966 BUT BEFORE THE 25TH
MARCH, 1971 FROM BANGLADESH AND WHO HAS BEEN ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN ASSAM SINCE
THE DATE OF HIS ENTRY INTO ASSAM AND WHO HAS BEEN DETECTED TO BE A FOREIGNER SHALL
REGISTER HIMSELF.
• SUCH A REGISTERED PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A CITIZEN OF INDIA FOR ALL PURPOSES
AS FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DETECTION AS A
FOREIGNER.
• BUT, IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, HE SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS AS A CITIZEN OF INDIA, EXCEPTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Clause 6 of Assam Accord: It envisaged that

appropriate constitutional, legislative and
administrative safeguards, shall be provided to protect,
preserve and promote the cultural, social, linguistic
identity and heritage of the Assamese people.
FOREIGNERS ACT 1946
• THE MHA HAS AMENDED THE FOREIGNERS (TRIBUNALS) ORDER, 1964, AND HAS
EMPOWERED DISTRICT MAGISTRATES IN ALL STATES AND UTS TO SET UP
TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE WHETHER A PERSON STAYING ILLEGALLY IN INDIA IS A
FOREIGNER OR NOT.
• EARLIER ONLY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAD THESE POWERS.
• ONCE A FOREIGNER HAS BEEN APPREHENDED, HE /SHE IS PRODUCED IN THE
LOCAL COURT FOR STAYING ILLEGALLY UNDER THE PASSPORT ACT 1920 AND
FOREIGNERS’ ACT 1946.
FOREIGNERS (TRIBUNALS) AMENDMENT
ORDER 2019
• THE MHA HAS AMENDED THE FOREIGNERS (TRIBUNALS) ORDER, 1964, AND HAS
EMPOWERED DISTRICT MAGISTRATES IN ALL STATES AND UTS TO SET UP
TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE WHETHER A PERSON STAYING ILLEGALLY IN INDIA IS A
FOREIGNER OR NOT.
• EARLIER ONLY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAD THESE POWERS.
• ONCE A FOREIGNER HAS BEEN APPREHENDED, HE SHE IS PRODUCED IN THE LOCAL
COURT FOR STAYING ILLEGALLY UNDER THE PASSPORT ACT 1920 AND
FOREIGNERS’ ACT 1946.
FOREIGNERS (TRIBUNALS) AMENDMENT
ORDER 2019
• THE PUNISHMENT RANGES FROM IMPRISONMENT OF THREE MONTHS TO
EIGHT YEARS.
• ONCE THE ACCUSED HAVE COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCE, COURT ORDERS
THEIR DEPORTATION AND THEY ARE MOVED TO DETENTION CENTRES TILL
THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ACCEPTS THEM.
• THE AMENDMENT ALSO EMPOWERS INDIVIDUALS TO APPROACH
TRIBUNALS.
• IN THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, THERE WAS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, MINORITIES, TRIBAL AND EXCLUDED AREAS HEADED BY
VALLABHBHAI PATEL.
• WITHIN THIS, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SUB-COMMITTEE WAS HEADED BY J. B.
KRIPALANI WHICH CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, THEIR
EXTENT AND INCLUSION IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Part III- Fundamental

Justiciable Rights
Rights
Recommended
division of
Rights
Non- Justiciable Part IV- DPSPs
Rights
 Guaranteed by
Fundamental law of the
land.
Regarded as
Fundamental:
Essential for all round
development of individual.

Primarily Negative obligations against the State

Right Cultural and Right to

Right to Right to against Freedom of Educational Constitution
Equality Freedom Exploitation Religion Rights al Remedies
LAWS INCONSISTENT WITH FRS:
All laws inconsistent/ in derogation of FRs
Article 13 shall be void.
Supreme Court (Art. 32) Kesavananda Bharati
Judicial Review High Courts (Art. 226)
case- Basic Structure
Doctrine

Pre-constitutional enactments

Laws by Parliament/state legislatures or ordinances by

President/ Governors

Statutory instruments- rules, bye-laws, notification etc.

Non-legislative laws like customs or usages

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
• 77TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1995
INSERTED A NEW ARTICLE 16(4)(A) THAT EMPOWERS THE STATE TO MAKE A PROVISION FOR RESERVATION
IN MATTER OF PROMOTION TO ANY CLASS OR CLASSES OF POSTS IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE IN FAVOUR
OF SC/ST.
• 81ST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT 2000
INSERTED ARTICLE 16(4)(B).
IT WAS FIXED THAT RESERVATION CAN EXCEED ABOVE 50 PERCENT FOR SC, ST, OBC IF BACKLOG
VACANCIES COULD NOT BE FILLED UP IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF ELIGIBLE
CANDIDATES.
• 85TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT 2001
IT PROVIDED FOR ‘CONSEQUENTIAL SENIORITY’ IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION BY THE VIRTUE OF RULE OF
RESERVATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS BELONGING TO SC’S AND ST’S.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
No. Case Name: Important provisions:

1. Champakan Dorairajan Supreme Court observed that while Article 16(4) provides for
case (1951) reservations in favour of backward class of citizens, no such
provision was made in Article 15. Led to Parliament adding
Article 15 (4)
2. Indira Sawhney case • It upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but excluded the
(1993) advanced sections of OBCs (creamy layer) from it.
• Total reservation should not exceed 50% except in
extraordinary circumstances.
• Required establishment of a permanent statutory body to
look onto the demands of OBCs- NCBC in 1993.
• No reservation in promotion- over-ruled by 77th CAA in
1995.
• Carry forward rule should not violate the 50% ceiling
which was over-ruled by 81st CAA in 2000.
 No. Case Name: Important provisions:
3. M. Nagraj case (2006) For providing quota in promotion under Article 16, the states must
provide:
• quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs and STs.
• facts about their inadequate representation.
• overall administrative efficiency
• not breach the ceiling-limit of 50%or obliterate the creamy
layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
4. Jarnail Singh case (2018) • It held that Indra Sawhney does not allow for the collection of
quantifiable data as a pre-requisite for granting reservations
in promotions.
• The Bench clarified that the second condition of states giving
quantifiable data with respect to inadequate representation
still stands and that inadequacy of representation has to be in
relation to specific cadre and not in proportion to SC/ST
population in the State.
• The Court read creamy layer exclusion as an ingrained
principle of Equality and applies to SC/STs.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF FIRST BACKWARD CLASSES
COMMISSION (KAKA KARLEKAR COMMISSION-1953-
55)
1. UNDERTAKE CASTE WISE ENUMERATION OF POPULATION IN THE CENSUS OF 1961
2. RELATING BACKWARDNESS OF CLASS TO ITS LOW POSITION IN TRADITIONAL
CASTE HIERARCHY OF HINDU SOCIETY
3. RESERVATION OF 70 PERCENT IN ALL TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL
INSTITUTIONS FOR QUALIFIED STUDENTS OF BACKWARD CLASSES
4. TREATING ALL WOMEN AS A CLASS AS ‘BACKWARD’
5. RESERVATION IN JOBS
ARTICLE 19
Right under Article 19
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Assembly
Reasonable Restriction
• sovereignty and integrity of India,
security of the state,
• friendly relations with foreign states,
• public order, decency or morality,
• contempt of court,
• defamation, and
• incitement to an offence.
• sovereignty and integrity of India.
• public order including the maintenance
of traffic in the area concerned.
• Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code
(1973)
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.
ARTICLE 19
Right under Article 19 Reasonable Restrictions
Freedom of Association • sovereignty and integrity of
India,
• public order or morality.

Freedom of Movement • interests of general public

and,
• the protection of interests of
any scheduled tribe
Freedom of Residence • the interest of general
public,
• the protection of interests of
any scheduled tribes
ARTICLE 19
Right under Article 19 Reasonable Restrictions
Freedom of Profession • prescribe professional or
technical qualifications
necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on
any occupation, trade or
business; and
• carry on by itself any trade,
business, industry or service
whether to the exclusion
(complete or partial) of
citizens or otherwise
 1st Constitutional
Amendment Act 1951
1. Empowered the state to make special provisions for
the advancement of socially and economically
backward classes. (Article 15)
2. Provided for the saving of laws providing for
acquisition of estates, etc. (Article 31 A)
3. Added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reform and
other laws included in it from the judicial review.
(Article 31 B)
4. Public order, friendly relations with foreign states
and incitement to an offence.(Article 19(2))
 1st Constitutional
Amendment Act 1951
5. State trading and nationalization of any trade or
business by the state is not to be invalid on the ground
of violation of the right to trade or business.(Article 19
(6))
HARYANA QUOTA UNCONSTITUTIONAL –
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

• THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DECLARED THE 75% DOMICILE RESERVATION FOR
LOCALS IN HARYANA IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVING A MONTHLY SALARY OF LESS
THAN RS 30,000 AS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL.“
• THE BENCH OF JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA AND JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN SAID
THAT THE "LAW (THE HARYANA STATE EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL CANDIDATES ACT, 2020)
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PART-III OF THE CONSTUTITION.
HARYANA QUOTA UNCONSTITUTIONAL –
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

• The act was introduced in the state assembly in 2020.

• The court stated “freedom given under article 19 of the constitution of india could not be taken away and
the impugned provisions are falling foul and are liable to be declared unconstitutional as a wall could not
be built around by the state and the spirit and sole of the oneness of the constitution of india could not
be curtailed by the parochial limited vision of the state.“
• The term fraternity connoting a sense of common brotherhood is to embrace all indians and a blind eye
could not be turned to other citizens of the country irrespective of the state they belong to.
HARYANA QUOTA UNCONSTITUTIONAL –
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
• Grounds of judgement
1. There is a specific bar to the legislature of the state under article 35 not to make any laws in respect of the
matters which are under article 16(3).
2. Stating that the 75% reservation for the locals was discriminatory, the bench said, "it(state) cannot as such
discriminate against the individuals on account of the fact that they do not belong to a certain state and have a
negative discrimination against other citizens of the country.“
3. Violative of article 14 :
Stating that the legislation is violative of right to equality, the court referred to navtej singh johar and others vs.
Union of india in which the apex court held that, "...The miniscule minority having equal rights were being brushed
under the carpet and have a right to participate as a citizen and an equal right of enjoyment of living regardless of
what majority may believe and then only foundational promises of the constitution could be fulfilled."
HARYANA QUOTA UNCONSTITUTIONAL –
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
• Grounds of judgement
4. Violative of article 19(1)(d) and article 19(1)(g)
The court held that the the structure of the act as such would be violative of article 19 of the constitution of india and
article 19(5) is subject to regarding reasonable restrictions to the extent of right conferred for the interest of the
general public which could permit the state to make any law or for the protection of interest of any scheduled tribe.
Therefore, the act is imposing unreasonable restrictions regarding the right to move freely throughout the territory
of india or to reside and settle in any part or the territory of india.
5. Violation of constitutional morality
The bench said that the concept of constitutional morality has been openly violated by introducing a secondary status
to a set of citizens not belonging to the state of haryana and curtailing their fundamental rights to earn their
livelihood.
SEDITION LAW –SECTION 124A OF IPC
SEDITION LAW –SECTION 124A OF IPC

• Nearly a year after the supreme court stayed the operation of the sedition law, the
law commission of india has recommended that the provision be retained with
procedural safeguards and enhanced jail term.
• The 88-page report by the present or the 22nd law commission of india, headed by
former karnataka high court chief justice ritu raj awasthi, stated that the commission
had received a reference from the ministry of home affairs in march 2016, for a study
of the usage of the sedition law and suggest amendments, if any.
SEDITION LAW –SECTION 124A OF IPC

• By ruling that “it will be appropriate not to continue” with the offence of sedition till
the government reviewed the provision, the supreme court while testing the
constitutionality of section 124A of the indian penal code had raised the bar for the
government to invoke the provision.
• Although thomas macaulay, who drafted the indian penal code, had included the law on
sedition, it was not added in the code enacted in 1860.
• Legal experts believe this omission was accidental.
• In 1890, sedition was included as an offence under section 124a ipc through the special
act xvii.
SEDITION LAW –SECTION 124A OF IPC
• Several pre-independence cases involving section 124A of the IPC are against
celebrated freedom fighters, including bal gangadhar tilak, annie besant, shaukat and
mohammad ali, maulana azad and mahatma gandhi.
• Queen empress v. Jogendra chunder bose in 1891 –first case under sedition law.
• It is during this time that the most notable trial on sedition — queen empress v. Bal
gangadhar tilak — took place in 1898.
• The constituent assembly debated including sedition as an exception to the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed in the
constitution, but several members vehemently disagreed and the word is not included
in the document.
SEDITION LAW –SECTION 124A OF IPC

• The court also issued seven “guidelines”, underlining when critical speech cannot be
qualified as sedition.

• In its guidelines on using the new, restrictive definition of sedition law, the court said
not all speech with “disaffection”, “hatred,” or “contempt” against the state, but only
speech that is likely to incite “public disorder” would qualify as sedition.
SEDITION IN BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA(BNS)
• Signaling a total overhaul of criminal laws in the country, union home minister amit
shah moved three new bills to replace “19th century laws.”
• Shah introduced the bharatiya sanhita suraksha bill, 2023 in lok sabha to replace
the indian penal code, code of criminal procedure and indian evidence act, and
referred the laws to a standing committee.
• The bill, among other things, seeks to reinvent section 124a of the indian penal code
that criminalises sedition as an offence “endangering sovereignty, unity and
integrity of india.”
SEDITION IN BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA(BNS)
• Section 150 of the bharatiya nyaya sanhita bill, 2023 deals with the offence of sedition. However,
it does not use the word sedition but describes the offence as “endangering sovereignty, unity
and integrity of india.”
• Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or
otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities,
or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and
integrity of india; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment
for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
SEDITION IN BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA(BNS)

• Explanation - comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or

administrative or other action of the government with a view to obtain their
alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the
activities referred to in this section.”
SEDITION IN BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA(BNS)
• THIS IS WIDER THAN WHAT THE 22ND LAW COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED IN JUNE — TO STRENGTHEN THE PROVISION BY
ADDING PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND ENHANCING JAIL TERM.
• THE COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED ADDING THE WORDS “WITH
A TENDENCY TO INCITE VIOLENCE OR CAUSE PUBLIC DISORDER.”
• THE REPORT ALSO DEFINED TENDENCY TO INCITE VIOLENCE AS A
“MERE INCLINATION TO INCITE VIOLENCE OR CAUSE PUBLIC
DISORDER RATHER THAN PROOF OF ACTUAL VIOLENCE OR
IMMINENT THREAT TO VIOLENCE.”
SECTION 152 OF BNS
Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of india.
• Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise,
excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or
encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of
india; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Explanation.––Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or
other action of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without
exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section do not constitute an
offence under this section.
RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF
BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT 2016
• The supreme court declared “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary” amendments introduced in the
benami transactions (prohibition) act 2016, which apply retrospectively and can send a person to prison
for three years even as it empowers the centre to confiscate “any property” subject to a benami
transaction.
• A three-judge bench led by then chief justice of india NV ramana declared sections 3(2) and 5
introduced through the benami transactions (prohibition) amendment act of 2016. The 2016 law
amended the original benami act of 1988. It expanded the 1988 act to 72 sections from a mere nine
sections.
• Section 3 (2) mandates punishment of three years’ imprisonment for those who have entered into
benami transactions between september 5, 1988 and october 25, 2016.
RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF
BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT 2016

• Article 20(1) mandates that no person should be convicted of an offence which was not in force
“at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence”.

• Section 5 of the 2016 amendment act said that “any property which is subject matter of a
benami transaction shall be liable to be confiscated by the central government.” The court held
that this provision cannot be applied retrospectively.
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?
Post office act 2023 was passed by parliament recently.
It repeals the indian post office act, 1898.
Features :
Exclusive privileges of the central government:
The act states that the post office will have the exclusive privilege of issuing postage
stamps but does not extend exclusive privilege of conveying letters by post, as well as
incidental services such as receiving, collecting, sending, and delivering letters.
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?

Post office act 2023 was passed by parliament recently.

It repeals the indian post office act, 1898.
Features :
Powers to intercept shipments :
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?
Post office Act 1898 Post office act 2023
An interception may be carried out on the Provides that the interception of a
occurrence of any public emergency, or in shipment being transmitted through post
the interest of public safety or tranquillity. may be carried out on the following
Such interceptions may be carried out by grounds:
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 WAS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT RECENTLY.
the central government, state (i) security of the state,
governments,
IT REPEALS THE or any officer POST
INDIAN specially (ii) 1898.
OFFICE ACT, friendly relations with foreign states,
authorised by them. (iii) public order, emergency, or public
An intercepted shipment can be detained or safety, and
disposed of by the officer in charge. (iv) contravention of the provisions of the
The officer also has powers to open, Bill or any other law.
detain, or destroy shipments carrying items An officer empowered by the central
prohibited under the Act or any other law. government through a notification may
carry out an interception.
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?
Post office Act 1898 Post office act 2023
An officer in charge of the Post Office may It removes the powers of examination.
examine a shipment if he suspects that it It instead provides that in such cases, the
contains goods which are prohibited, or are central government may empower an
liable to be paid duty upon. The officer officer of the Post Office to deliver the
POST OFFICE
must send ACTto2023
a notice WAS PASSED BY
the addressee PARLIAMENT
shipment RECENTLY.
to the customs authority or any
inviting him to attend the examination in other specified authority.
person or by agent. . The authority will then deal with the item in
question.
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?
Post office Act 1898 Post office act 2023
The Act specifies various offences and Does not provide for any offences or
penalties. consequences, except one.
For instance, theft, misappropriation or Amounts not paid or neglected by a user
destruction of postal articles by an officer will be recoverable as arrears of land
POST OFFICE
of the Post OfficeACT 2023 WAS
is punishable withPASSED BY PARLIAMENT RECENTLY.
revenue.
imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.
Sending certain prohibited items through
post is punishable with imprisonment up to
one year, a fine, or both.
POST OFFICE ACT 2023 – VIOLATING
RIGHT TO PRIVACY ?
Post office Act 1898 Post office act 2023
The Act exempts the government from Same Provisions retained
any liability related to the loss, mis delivery, However, it provides that instead of the
delay or damage to a postal article. central government, the Post Office may
This does not apply where the liability is prescribe the liability regarding its
POST OFFICE
undertaken ACT
by the 2023government
central WAS PASSED in BY PARLIAMENT RECENTLY.
services.
express terms.
Officers are also exempt from such liability
unless they have acted fraudulently or
wilfully.
 RIGHT TO SILENCE
• Right to silence emanates from article 20(3), which states that no one can be
compelled to be a witness against himself
• This protection is limited only to criminal Proceedings
• This right is not available to a person being interrogated under customs act, 1962,
Or foreign exchange management act, 1999, since the person is not “accused of
an offence” and isn’t entitled to a lawyer
• In nandini satpathy v. P.L. Dani case(1978), SC stated that compelling a person to
answer a question within the limits of the police station may result in a violation of
Article 20(3)
 RIGHT TO SILENCE
• Right to silence emanates from article 20(3), which states that no one can be
compelled to be a witness against himself
• This protection is limited only to criminal Proceedings
• This right is not available to a person being interrogated under customs act, 1962,
Or foreign exchange management act, 1999, since the person is not “accused of
an offence” and isn’t entitled to a lawyer
• In nandini satpathy v. P.L. Dani case(1978), SC stated that compelling a person to
answer a question within the limits of the police station may result in a violation of
Article 20(3)
ARTICLE 21 – SCOPE AND JUDGEMENTS

• The supreme court has ruled that people have a “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate
change”, which should be recognised by articles 14 and 21 of the constitution.
• The judgment by a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B
Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was delivered on March 21 in a case relating to the conservation of the
critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).
5. Animal Welfare Board of India v Union
On 18 May, a Constitution Bench
of India led by Justice K.M. Joseph
Fundamental
Rights cannot be upheld the practice of bull-
extended to taming sports such as Jallikattu,
animals. as permitted by state
Article 14 and 21 amendments to the Prevention of
cannot be
extended to Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
TN, Karnataka, animals as this (PCA Act).
Maharshtra would amount to It also upheld bovine sports of
amendments to
Prevention of
Key judicial
adventurism
kambala in Karnataka and
Bailgada Sharyat in Maharashtra.
Cruelty against
animals act 1960
Outcomes
were valid.
Jalikattu is a
cultural practice
according to TN
legislature, we will
not go into it.
Personality Rights
• Delhi High Court protects Anil Kapoor’s Personality Rights.
• Court made an interim order to prevent the unlawful use of his name,
image and voice.
• Personality rights refer to the right of a person to protect his/her
personality under the right to privacy or property.
• These rights are important to celebrities as their names, photographs or
even voices can easily be misused in various advertisements by different
companies to boost their sales.
• Therefore, it is necessary for renowned personalities/celebrities to register
their names to save their personality rights.
• Personality rights or their protection are not expressly mentioned in any
statute in India but are traced to
• fall under the right to privacy and the right to property.
Personality Rights
• Right to publicity: Right to keep one’s image and likeness from being
commercially exploited without permission.
• ✓ It is governed by statutes like the Trade Marks Act, of 1999 and the
Copyright Act, of 1957.
Right to privacy: Right to not have one’s personality represented publicly
without permission.
• ✓ It is broadly governed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the
Supreme Court judgment in
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Case (2018).
Personality Rights
• Right to publicity: Right to keep one’s image and likeness from being
commercially exploited without permission.
• ✓ It is governed by statutes like the Trade Marks Act, of 1999 and the
Copyright Act, of 1957.
Right to privacy: Right to not have one’s personality represented publicly
without permission.
• ✓ It is broadly governed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the
Supreme Court judgment in
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Case (2018).
Right to Freedom of Religion –Places of
Worship Act
• “An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship
and to provide for the maintenance of the religious
character of any place of worship as it existed on the
15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”
Right to Freedom of Religion –Places of
Worship Act
• Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion, in full or part,
of a place of worship of any religious denomination
into a place of worship of a different religious
denomination — or even a different segment of the
same religious denomination.
Right to Freedom of Religion –Places of
Worship Act
• Section 4(1) declares that the religious character of a
place of worship “shall continue to be the same as it
existed” on August 15, 1947.
• Section 4(2) says any suit or legal proceeding with
respect to the conversion of the religious character of any
place of worship existing on August 15, 1947, pending
before any court, shall abate — and no fresh suit or legal
proceedings shall be instituted.
Right to Freedom of Religion –Places of
Worship Act
• The law has been challenged on the ground that it bars
judicial review, which is a basic feature of the
Constitution, imposes an “arbitrary irrational
retrospective cutoff date”, and abridges the right to
religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.
Available to all persons—citizens as well as non-citizens.

These rights are subject to public order, morality, health

and other articles in Part III of the Constitution.
• The State is permitted to:
(a) regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or
other secular activity associated with religious
practice; and
(b) provide for social welfare and reform or throw open
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus.
• Article 25 also contains two explanations: one,
wearing and carrying of kirpans is to be included
in the profession of the Sikh religion; and two, the
Hindus, in this context, include Sikhs, Jains and
Buddhists.
AMU minority status
• The supreme court (february 1) concluded the hearings in the case to decide if
aligarh muslim university (AMU) can claim minority status under article 30 of the
constitution.
• The seven-judge bench will also decide if the decision in s azeez basha v union of
india (1967), where the court held that amu was not a minority institution, should
be overruled.
AMU minority status
• In 1967, in S azeez basha v union of india, the supreme court held that AMU was “established” through
the enactment of a law, the aligarh muslim university act, 1920.
• This meant, according to the court, that amu does not qualify for minority status as it was not
established by the muslim community.
• In 1967, in s azeez basha v union of india, the supreme court held that amu was “established” through
the enactment of a law, the aligarh muslim university act, 1920.
• This meant, according to the court, that amu does not qualify for minority status as it was not
established by the muslim community.
 NCMEI
• The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) Act has been
enacted to safeguard the educational rights of the minorities enshrined in Article
30(1) of the Constitution.
• The Commission is a quasi judicial body and has been endowed with the powers of a
Civil Court for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act. The
commission has three main roles namely adjudicatory, advisory and
recommendatory.
 NCMEI
• Powers of the Commission includes deciding all questions relating to the status of
any institution as a Minority Educational Institution (MEI).
• It also serves as an appellate authority in respect of disputes pertaining to Minority
Status/ No Objection Certificate (NOC).
• Educational institutions aggrieved by the order of refusal to grant Minority Status
Certificate/No Objection Certificate by the competent authority of State/UT, can
appeal to the Commission against such orders.
• The Commission has the power to cancel the minority status of an educational
institution granted by an Authority or Commission, on grounds laid down in the Act.
 NCMEI
• The Commission also has powers to call for information while enquiring into the
complaints of violation or deprivation of the educational rights of the minorities.
• Where an enquiry establishes violation or deprivation of educational rights of the
minorities, the Commission may recommend to the concerned Government or
authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or such other action against the
concerned person or persons as it may deemed fit.
• As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sisters of St. Joseph of
Cluny v/s The State of West Bengal and Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 772, this Commission has
both original as well as appellate jurisdiction.
 UTTAR PRADESH BOARD OF MADRASA
EDUCATION ACT, 2004,

• March 22 – Allahabad High Court holds UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 as
unconstitutional
• April 5 – Supreme court stays the order saying it would impinge on future course
of education of nearly 17 lakh students.
 UTTAR PRADESH BOARD OF MADRASA
EDUCATION ACT, 2004,
• In its order, the High Court held the Act unconstitutional on the ground that it
violated “the principle of secularism” and fundamental rights provided under
Article 14 of the Constitution
• The court went through the madrasa syllabi and said the law is “violative of Section
22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956”, as madrasa students are only
required to study Islam and its doctrines to progress to the next class. .
ARTICLE 30- RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND
ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
•The term "minority" is not defined in the indian
constitution. However, the constitution recognises
only religious and linguistic minorities.
•Currently, the linguistic minorities are identified on a state-
wise basis thus determined by the state
government whereas religious minorities are determined by
the central government.
 All minorities shall have the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of
their choice.

44th Amendment provided that compensation

Article 30 grants the amount fixed by the State for the compulsory
following rights to acquisition of any property of a minority
minorities: educational institution shall not restrict or
abrogate the right guaranteed to them.

In granting aid, the State shall not

discriminate against any educational
institution managed by a minority.
 Includes the right of a minority to impart education to
its children in its own language:

Institutions that seek Institutions that seek only Institutions that neither
recognition as well as aid recognition from the State seek recognition nor aid
from the State- and not aid- from the State-
Subject to the regulatory Subject to the regulatory Free to administer their
power of the state with power of the state with affairs but subject to
regard to syllabus regard to syllabus operation of general laws
prescription, academic prescription, academic like contract law, labour
standards, discipline, standards, discipline, law, industrial law, tax law,
sanitation, employment of sanitation, employment of economic regulations, and
teaching staff and so on. teaching staff and so on. so on.
 • Ordered by the court to a person who has detained another
Habeas person, to produce the body of the latter before it to examine the
cause and legality of detention.
Corpus-
• It can be issued against both public authorities as well as private
‘To have individuals.
the body • It is not issued where the (a) detention is lawful, (b) the
of’ proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, (c)
detention is by a competent court, and (d) detention is outside
the jurisdiction of the court.
• It is a command issued by the court to a public official asking
him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to
perform.
• It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an
inferior court, a tribunal or government for the same purpose.
Mandamus-
• It cannot be issued (a) against a private individual or body; (b)
‘We
to enforce departmental instruction that does not possess
Command’ statutory force; (c) when the duty is discretionary and not
mandatory; (d) to enforce a contractual obligation; (e) against the
president of India or the state governors; and (f) against the chief
justice of a high court acting in judicial capacity.
 • It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to
prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a
Prohibitio jurisdiction that it does not possess.
n- ‘To • Can be issued only against judicial and quasi- judicial
forbid’ authorities.
• It is not available against administrative authorities, legislative
bodies, and private individuals or bodies.

• It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to

transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the
Certiorari- order of the latter in a case on rounds of excess of jurisdiction or
‘To be lack of jurisdiction or error of law.
Certified/ • It can be issued against judicial, quasi-judicial authorities and
informed’ administrative authorities (since 1991).
• It is also not available against legislative bodies and private
individuals or bodies.
 • It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of claim
of a person to a public office.
• It can be issued only in case of a substantive public office
Quo- of a permanent character created by a statute or by the
Warranto- Constitution.
‘By what • It cannot be issued in cases of ministerial office or private
authority’ office. Unlike the other four writs, this can be sought by
any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved
person.
Legal Aid
• People Eligible for free legal aid :
1. a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
2. a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in article 23 of the
Constitution
3. a woman or a child
4. a person with disability
5. a person under circumstances of underserved want such as being a victim of a
mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or
industrial disaster;
6. an industrial workman
7. in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause
(g) of section2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, or in a juvenile
home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
1986, or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the
meaning of clause (g) of section2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987
Legal Aid
• People Eligible for free legal aid :
8. Those persons who have annual income of less than the amount
prescribed by the respective State Government, if the case is before any
court other than the Supreme Court, and less than Rs. 5 Lakhs, if the case is
before the Supreme Court
Evolution of Basic
Structure Doctrine
 1. Article 31A and 31B was introduced which
supports 9th Schedule, by this any act in this
schedule can’t be void .
2. The SC ruled that the power to amend the
Constitution under Article 368 also included
Shankari Prasad the power to amend fundamental rights and
case (1951) that the word “law” in Article 13 (8) includes
only an ordinary law made in exercise of the
legislative powers and does not include
Constitutional amendment which is made in
exercise of constituent power.
3. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment will
be valid even if it abridges or takes any of the
fundamental rights.
 1. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: It says
that you need to constitute the provision of the
constitution in such a way that fundamental rights
and DPSP go hand in hand so this was there to
avoid the situation of conflict while enforcing
DPSP and Fundamental rights.
2. The Court held that hat there is no inherent
Kerala Education
conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the courts
Bill case (1958) while interpreting a law should attempt to give
effect to both as far as possible i. e. should try to
harmonize the two as far as possible.
3. The court further said that where two
interpretations of the law are possible, and one
interpretation validates the law while other
interpretation makes the law unconstitutional and
void, then the first interpretation which validates
the law should be adopted.
 1. Six judges in an 11 judge bench of
Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
Parliament’s power to amend
Constitution is also legislative power
under Article 245, so that even a
Golaknath case constitution amendment was also a law
(1967)
within the purview of Article 13 (2).
2. The court ruled that the Parliament
cannot take away or abridge any of the
Fundamental Rights, which are
‘sacrosanct’ in nature and can’t be
amended for the implementation of
DPSPs.
 1. New Clause (4) added to Article 13 to
provide that provisions of Article 13 will
24th not apply on any amendment made
Constitutional under Article 368.
Amedment Act 2. Amended Article 368 to state that
1971 Parliament has power to amend any part
of the Constitution.
3. Made it obligatory for President to give
assent to a constitutional amendment
bill.
 1. Word ‘Compensation ‘ replaced by
‘amount’ in Article 31 (2)
2. Introduced New Article 31 ( C ) : If any
law is passed to give effect to Article
25th 39(b) or (c) of DPSP, it cannot be
Constitutional challenged on the ground of violation of
Amendment Act
the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19
1971
and 31.
3. No law containing a declaration for
giving effect to such policy shall be
questioned in any court on any ground
that it does not give effect to such a
policy.
 1. After the Golaknath case, the Parliament sought to
supersede it by amending Article 368 through 24th
and 25th CAA (added Article 31 C).
2. It asserted that Article 368 is not ‘law’ within the
definition of article 13 and CAA will not be open
Kesavanand to question even if they affect the fundamental
a Bharati rights.
case (1973) 3. Decision by a full bench by 13 judges- upheld cl. 4
of article 13 added by 24th CAA that nothing in
this article shall apply to any amendment made
under Article 368. But second part of article 31 C
was seen as violative of judicial review.
4. Further it overruled Golaknath judgment and
accepted that Fundamental Rights can be
amended by the Parliament.
• Parliament reacted to this judicially innovated doctrine of ‘basic structure’ by
enacting the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). This Act amended Article 368 and
declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament
and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including
that of the contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.
1. It invalidated this provision as it excluded judicial review which
is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
Minerva 2. Parliament cannot, under article 368, expand its amending power
Mills case so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the
(1980) Constitution or to destroy its basic features.
3. Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the harmony
and balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles.

Waman 1. Supreme Court clarified that it would apply to constitutional

Rao case amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (i.e., the date of the
judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case).
(1981)
Basic Structure Doctrine:
• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Unity and sovereignty of India
• Democratic and republican form of government
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of power
• Individual freedom
• Rule of law
• Judicial review
• Parliamentary system
• Rule of equality
• Harmony and balance between the Fundamental Rights and DPSP
• Free and fair elections
• Limited power of the parliament to amend the Constitution
• Power of the Supreme Court of India under Articles 32, 136, 142 and
147
• Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023

• In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in

the K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case
• Following this, the Justice Srikrishna Committee (established by the
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)) proposed
the initial draft of the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill in 2018
• DPDP Act aims to regulate the processing of digital personal data while
ensuring individuals' right to protect their data and the need to process it
for lawful purposes
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
• It protects digital personal data (that is, the data by which a person may
be identified) by providing: obligations of Data Fiduciaries, rights and
duties of Data Principals, Financial penalties for breach of rights, duties,
and obligations
• Act shall apply to the processing of Personal Data in India, including both
online and digitized offline data
• It will further extend to the processing of such data outside India relating
to the offering of goods or services in India
• Personal Data may be processed only for the specified purpose and after
obtaining the consent of the Data Principal (individual)
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
• Obligations of Data Fiduciaries :
(i) make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data,
(ii) build reasonable security safeguards to prevent a data breach,
(iii) inform the Data Protection Board of India and affected persons in the
event of a breach, and
(iv) erase personal data as soon as the purpose has been met and retention is
not necessary for legal purposes (storage limitation).
In case of government entities, storage limitation and the right of the data
principal to erasure will not apply.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
• Rights and duties of data principal:
• An individual, whose data is being processed (data principal), will have
the right to:
(i) obtain information about processing,
(ii) seek correction and erasure of personal data,
(iii) nominate another person to exercise rights in the event of death or
incapacity, and
(iv) grievance redressal.
• Data principals will have certain duties.
• Punishment for false complaints is also defined.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
• Significant data fiduciaries:
Certain data fiduciaries may be designated as significant data fiduciaries.
Certain factors must be taken into regard such as:
(i) volume and sensitivity of personal data processed,
(ii) risks to the rights of data principals,
(iii) security of the state, and
(iv) public order.
• These entities will have certain additional obligations including:
(i) appointing a data protection officer, and
(ii) undertaking impact assessment and compliance audit.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
Exemptions:
• Rights of the data principal and obligations of data fiduciaries (except
data security) will not apply in specified cases.
• These include:
(i) prevention and investigation of offences, and
(ii) enforcement of legal rights or claims.
• The central government may, by notification, exempt certain activities
from the application of the act.
• These include:
(i) processing by government entities in the interest of the security of the
state and public order, and
(ii) research, archiving, or statistical purposes.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
• For individuals with disabilities or below eighteen years of age, their
consent will be provided by their parents or legal guardian
• It shall not apply to the Personal Data: (i) For any personal or domestic
purpose or (ii) Is made or caused to be made publicly available by the
Data Principal
• The Bill allows transfer of personal data outside India, except to
countries restricted by the central government through notification
• Data Protection Board of India: Will be set up by the central government
as a civil court with Original jurisdiction. Board members will be
appointed for two years and will be eligible for re-appointment
• The Appeals against the decisions of the Board shall lie with the
Telecommunications Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
• Penalties: Rs 200 crore for non-fulfilment of obligations for children, Rs
250 crore for failure to take security
 7th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1956
1. Abolished the existing classification of states
into four categories i.e., Part A, Part B, Part C
and Part D states, and reorganised them into 14
states and 6 union territories.
2.Extended the jurisdiction of high courts to
union territories.
 7th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1956
3. Provided for the establishment of a common
high court for two or more states.
4. Provided for the appointment of additional and
acting judges of the high court.(Article 224)
 9th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1960
1. Facilitated the cession of Indian territory of
Berubari Union (located in West Bengal) to
Pakistan as provided in the Indo-Pakistan
Agreement (1958).
 9th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1960
1. Facilitated the cession of Indian territory of
Berubari Union (located in West Bengal) to
Pakistan as provided in the Indo-Pakistan
Agreement (1958).
 19th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1966
1. Abolished the system of Election Tribunals
and vested the power to hear election petitions
in the High Courts.
 24th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1971
1. New Clause (4) added to Article 13 to provide
that provisions of Article 13 will not apply on
any amendment made under Article 368.
2. Amended Article 368 to state that Parliament
has power to amend any part of the
Constitution.
3. Made it obligatory for President to give assent
to a constitutional amendment bill.
 25th Constitutional
Amendment Act 1971
1. Word ‘Compensation ‘ replaced by ‘amount’ in
Article 31 (2)
2. Introduced New Article 31 ( C ) : If any law is
passed to give effect to Article 39(b) or (c) of
DPSP, it cannot be challenged on the ground of
violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles
14, 19 and 31.
38Constitutional
th

Amendment Act 1975

• Made the declaration of emergency by the president non-
justiciable.(Article 352,356,360)
• Made the promulgation of ordinances by the president,
governors and administrators of union territories non-
justiciable.(Article 123,213,239B)
• Empowered the president to declare different proclamations
of national emergency on different grounds
simultaneously.(Article 352)
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• Added three new words (i.e., socialist, secular and integrity)
in the Preamble.
• Scope of Article 31C was expanded to all Directive
Principles of State Policy
• Inserted Article 31D that provided for saving of laws in
respect of anti-national activities and the formation of anti-
national associations. “Anti-national activity” from being
challenged under Article 14,19,31.
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• Inserted Article 32 A - provided that the Supreme Court will
have no jurisdiction to decide the constitutional validity of
a State law in any writ proceedings under article 32 unless
the validity of a Central law is also in issue in such
proceedings.
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
New Directives Under part IV
1. Article 39 f children are given opportunities and facilities
to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity.
2. Article 39A -Equal Justice and Free legal Aid
3. Article 43 A – Participation of workers in management of
industries
4. Article 48 A – Protection of environment and forest and
wildlife
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• Inserted Part IV A – Article 51A - 10 Fundamental Duties
• Article 74(1) – Explicitly state that President shall act on the
aid and advise of C.O.M
• Freezing the allocation of seats in Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha as per 1971 census till 2000.
• Duration of Lok Sabha and Assembly changed from 5 years
to 6 years.
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• Provision related to Quorum removed from Article 100 and
Article 189.
• New Article 131 A - Supreme Court with exclusive
jurisdiction as regards determination of the constitutional
validity of Central laws.
• Article 144A – Minimum size of bench in such a hearing is 7
and 2/3rd judges must agree on constitutional invalidity.
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• High Court power to issue writs under Article 226 restricted.
• Minimum size of bench in such a hearing is 5 and 2/3rd
judges must agree on constitutional invalidity.
• Article 311 – No second opportunity to civil servant to make
representation at awarding stage.
• Article 312 – Creation of All India Judicial Service by a
parliamentary law
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• Article 323A and 323 B- Tribunals
• Article 352 –Emergency can be declared in whole as well as
part of country.
• Article 356 – Emergency can be renewed for one year at a
time
• Article 368 – No Constitutional Amendment shall be called
in question in any court on any ground
42 nd Amendment Act
1976
• 5 entries shifted from state list to concurrent list
1. Administration of justice, constitution and organisation
of all Courts except the Supreme Court and the High
Courts.
2. Education
3. Weights and measures except establishment of standards
4. Forests
5. Protection of wild animals and birds
43Constititutional
rd

Amendment Act
1. Restored the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the
high courts in respect of judicial review and issue of writs.
2. Deprived the Parliament of its special powers to make laws
to deal with anti-national activities.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
• Right to property removed from fundamental rights
(Article 19 and 31 )and moved it to Article 300A.
• New DPSP (Article 38)
“State shall strive to minimise inequalities in income and
endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities”
• Restored jurisdiction of Supreme Court to enquire into
disputes regarding President/Vice President/PM/Lok Sabha
speaker elections.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
• Empowered the President to send back once the advice of
cabinet for reconsideration.
• Terms of Lok Sabha and Legislative assembly were restored
to 5 years.(83,172)
• Omitted the reference to British House of Commons in
parliamentary privileges(105 and 194)
• Distinguished jurists not eligible for appointment as High
Court Judges
• Writ jurisdiction of High Courts restored(Art 226)
• Deleted the provision making satisfaction of President and
Governor final in issuing ordinances.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
Restored power of superintendence of High Courts over
tribunals.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
Changes to Emergency : (National Emergency)
➢Internal Disturbance replaced by armed rebellion.
➢No proclamation of National Emergency without written
recommendation of Union Cabinet.
➢Approval of N.E – within 1 month of proclamation.
➢Approval by special majority- (Article 368 vaali)
➢Approval needs to be renewed every 6 months.
➢Lok Sabha through simple majority can pass resolution to
revoke proclamation.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
Changes to Emergency : (National Emergency)
Article 19 will be suspended only in case of emergency by
external aggression or war.
Article 20 and 21 can never be suspended during National
Emergency
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
Changes to Emergency : (State Emergency Art 356)
➢Approval of Six months at a time.
44Constitutional
th

Amendment Act
Changes to Emergency : (Financial Emergency )
➢Proclamation may be revoked or varied by subsequent
proclamation.