CONSTITUTIONAL – II

CET: 2 class test

1. 10th august descriptive type 20 marks

2. 15th September 30 marks descriptive

1. ROLE OF INDIAN PRESIDENT

Is Indian president a rubber stamp or not ?

Sher sing v/s state of Punjab – cl

Article 74

Does 44th amend made any changes ? in the light of 44th consti

2. Election for president art 54

Who elects the president ? – member of legislative assembly , state, member of parliament
3. Ability for president (art 58)
- Citizen of India
- 35yrs min age
- Member of lok sabha
- Not should hold office of public
- Should not hold office of profit
- ( PARILAMENT prevention of disqualification act art102)

5th July

Election of the president

1. Who elects ? – art 54
2. Who contest? – art 58 apart from this there were new condition as well
- Qualification
- Nomination (presidential act 1952 )
- 1952 no deposition
- 1997 proposal was increased from 10 – 50 percentage
- Arti 62(1) in the event of occurrence of the office of his death the vice president shall
…bare act sec 4(4) , sec4(3) 62(2) of 1952
- Art 70
3. The presidential and vice president election act 19
4. Art 71(3)
5. Article 59 imp
6. Can vice president be a member of lok sabha – vice president is not a member of any
house.
7. Art 70
6th July

B. concerning in election
Who has the authority
1. After 11th article Article 17(1)(2)(3)
2. Sec 14(2) presidential and vice prisedential
3. Order 46 of the SC rules 2013
3 Rule to follow in order 46
- Rule 15 talk about preliminary hearing of election petitioner
- Rule 22 is the strength of the bench is of minimum 5 judges of 2005
- Rule 36 confirms the
Who can challenge the rule president, has locus standi
- A person who is neither a candidate nor a elector cannot challenge the election the
president
- Order 46, rule 7 of sc
- In section 14 of capital in 1972, the presidential and vicepresidential election act
-

Article 14(2):

By the reason of the fact by any candidate who has not withdrawn the candidate and who has
wrongly accepted

On what grounds the

Disputes concerning Presidential elections

○ Who has the authority to try elections petition?

§ Supreme court only, SC has original juris (A71)

○ Article 71- (11th amendment 1961--> 39th amendment 1975(emergency)---> 44th

Amendment, 1978 (refer to VN Shukla)( original article reinstated in 44th amendment and addition
of (4))

○ Order 46 of SC rules 2013- disputed concerning presidential elections and SC has

the power to adjudicate

§ Rule 15- Preliminary Hearing challenging the election of the President

§ PA Sangam Judgement SC rules 1966 rules-

§ 1966 Rules it was Rule 13 and now according to 2013 it is Rule 15

§ Rule 22- strength of bench minimum 5 judges

§ Rule 36- confers original jurisdiction on SC

○ *Compare 2013 rules with 1966 for comparision

 ○ Who has locus standi? Who can challenge the election of the president?

§ NV khare v. ECI-A person who is neither a candidate nor a elector could not
file a petition to challenge the election

§ Order 46, Rule 7, similar provision in PVPE 1974, Section 14A

Art 58 – presidential

- Presidential privilege - Art 361

Official acts personal act
1. Absolute 361(1)
361(2)- commercial proceeding
361(3)
361(4) – civil proceeding

no criminal act

article 14
case laws
1. Buddam chaudary v state of bihar - The case of Budhan Choudhry v. State of
Bihar is not directly related to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. In this case, the
appellants were tried under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
allowed them to be tried by a Section 30 Magistrate and not by a Court of Session.
The appellants argued that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 of
the Constitution, as they were denied the benefit of committal proceedings before a
Magistrate and a trial before the Sessions Judge with the aid of the jury or assessors.
However, the Supreme Court held that Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
did not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that the Constitution does not assure unanimity of decisions
or immunity from merely erroneous action by courts or by bureaucracy. Therefore,
while the case is important in Indian constitutional law, it does not directly relate to
the interpretation or application of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Anwar ali case - In simple terms, the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar dealt with the West Bengal Special Courts Act, which allowed certain offenses
to be heard in special courts. The issue arose because there were no clear guidelines
 on which offenses would be tried in these special courts. The court found this lack of
clarity to be arbitrary. The concept of equal protection of the laws means that
everyone should be treated equally under the law, without discrimination. It allows
for reasonable classification based on valid differences. Those challenging a
classification must prove that it is not based on any reasonable grounds. When it
comes to classification, it should not overshadow the core principle of equal
protection. If classification is taken too far, it can undermine the principle of equality.
The Supreme Court has been cautious about excessive classification, as it can dilute
the essence of equality.
The case of Anwar Ali Sarkar under Article 14 of the Constitution of India revolves
around the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950. This
Act was challenged on the grounds of Article 14, which guarantees equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of
West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, held that the Act was unconstitutional as it provided
arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the State Government, which could lead to
unreasonable and biased actions. The Court ruled that such provisions violated the
principles of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws as enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. This case set a significant precedent in Indian
constitutional law, emphasizing the importance of reasonable classification and
ensuring that laws do not lead to discrimination or arbitrary actions by the stat
3. EP rayoppa v state of tamil nadu
The Supreme Court of India challenged the traditional concept of equality, which was
based on reasonable classification. The court introduced a new concept of equality,
which was protection against arbitrariness. The new concept was defined as equality
being a dynamic concept with many dimensions and cannot be cribbed, cabined, and
confined. The court also stated that equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness, and
when an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal, according to both political
and constitutional logic, and is therefore a violation of Article 14. The court identified
three cases where the doctrine of reasonable classification cannot be applied. The
first case is unreasonable classification, the second case is unreasonable classification
and arbitrary, and the third case is classification is reasonable, but the Supreme Court
declares the law unconstitutional on the ground of violation of Article 14 on the
grounds of arbitrariness. The court held that Article 14 is the genus, and Article 16 is
the species. Both articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. The court also stated that where the operative reasons for State
action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is
not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible
considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts.
14 and 16.In simple words, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the concept of
equality to include protection against arbitrariness. The court has emphasized that
equality is a dynamic concept that cannot be confined and that any arbitrary action
by the State is a violation of Article 14. The court has also clarified that the doctrine
of reasonable classification cannot be applied in certain cases, and where the State's
 actions are not legitimate and relevant, it would amount to mala fide exercise of
power and a violation of Articles 14 and 16

4. Menka Gandhi v uoi - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian
constitutional law, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1978. The case dealt
with the issue of personal liberty and the right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.In this case, the petitioner, Maneka
Gandhi, had her passport impounded by the Indian government without any prior
notice or reason being given to her. She challenged this decision in the Supreme
Court, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
the Constitution.The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the right to travel
abroad is a part of the fundamental right to personal liberty, which is guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further held that any restriction on this
right must be reasonable and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.The
court also held that the impounding of the petitioner's passport was arbitrary and
violated her right to personal liberty. The court observed that the right to personal
liberty is not only protected against arbitrary actions of the executive but also against
arbitrary legislation.The court further held that the principles of natural justice, such
as the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, apply not only
to quasi-judicial orders but also to administrative orders affecting personal liberty.The
court also held that the restrictions on the right to travel abroad, as provided under
the Passports Act, 1967, must be reasonable and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. The court observed that the power to impound a passport must be
exercised in a fair and reasonable manner, and any arbitrary exercise of this power
would be violative of the principles of natural justice.In conclusion, the Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law, which
has established the principle that the right to personal liberty includes the right to
travel abroad, and any restriction on this right must be reasonable and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. The case has also established the principle that
the principles of natural justice apply not only to quasi-judicial orders but also to
administrative orders affecting personal liberty.

The court also observed that Article 14 is not a guarantee against arbitrariness, but against
classification that does not follow the norms laid down by the Supreme Court about
classification. The court further held that reasonableness is an essential element of equality
or non-arbitrariness, which pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.The principles
laid down in the EP Royappa case were upheld and reiterated in subsequent cases, including
the case of J. Bhagwati, where it was held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state
action, and reasonableness is not only a philosophical but also a legal concept that pervades
Article 14.In summary, the EP Royappa case significantly expanded the scope of Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution, holding that equality is a dynamic concept that cannot be confined
within traditional limits and that any arbitrary state action violates Article 14. The court
further held that reasonableness is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness,
which pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence. These principles have been upheld
and reiterated in subsequent cases, including the case of J. Bhagwati.

5. RD Shetty v union of India

Justice Bhagwati emphasized that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution aims to prevent
arbitrariness in government actions because any action that is arbitrary inherently goes
against the principle of equality. The doctrine of classification, according to Justice
Bhagwati, is a tool used by the judiciary to assess whether a legislative or executive
action is arbitrary and, consequently, a violation of the equality guarantee under Article
14. If the two conditions for classification are not met, meaning if there is no reasonable
basis for treating different individuals differently, then the executive action would be
considered arbitrary and would fail to uphold the equality principle enshrined in Article
14. In simple terms, Justice Bhagwati highlighted that Article 14 ensures fairness by
requiring that government actions are not random or discriminatory but are based on
rational and justifiable grounds to treat individuals equally under the law.

R.D. Shetty v. Union of India is a case that dealt with the interpretation of Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. In this case, the petitioner challenged the decision of the
International Airport Authority to award a contract for running a second class restaurant
and two snack bars at the International Airport in Bombay to the fourth respondent, on
the grounds that the tender process was arbitrary and discriminatory.The Supreme Court
of India held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness
and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be
based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory. The principle
of reasonableness and rationality, which is legally as well as philosophically an essential
element of equality, must be followed by the State in entering into relationships,
contracts, or otherwise with third parties. The State cannot act arbitrarily, but its action
must conform to some standard or norm that is rational and non-discriminatory.In this
case, the Supreme Court found that the International Airport Authority's decision to
award the contract to the fourth respondent was arbitrary and discriminatory, as the
tender process was not transparent and fair. The Court held that the rule inhibiting
arbitrary action by the Government must apply equally to corporations, and they cannot
act arbitrarily in entering into relationships, contracts, or otherwise with third parties. The
Court also emphasized that the principle of equality embodied in Article 14 requires that
the State must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, and its
action must be based on some rational and relevant principle.In conclusion, R.D. Shetty v.
Union of India is an important case that clarified the scope and application of Article 14
 of the Indian Constitution. The case established that the principle of equality embodied
in Article 14 requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some
rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory. The Court emphasized that
the principle of reasonableness and rationality is an essential element of equality and
must be followed by the State in entering into relationships, contracts, or otherwise with
third parties. The case also highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in
the tender process and the need to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory actions by the
Stat

6. Ajay hasia v khalid mujid

the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi is a landmark judgment delivered
by the Supreme Court of India in 1981. The case dealt with the scope of Article 12 of
the Indian Constitution, which defines the term "State" and the extent of the High
Courts' power to issue writs under Article 226.The petitioners in this case challenged
the admission process of a college, which they claimed was arbitrary and
unreasonable. The college had allocated a high percentage of marks for oral
interviews, which the petitioners argued were conducted in a superficial manner,
lasting only 2 or 3 minutes.The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the
allocation of 33% marks for oral interviews was arbitrary and unreasonable, and
therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that any
action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality, and the
doctrine of classification is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the
legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore a denial of
equality.Further, the Court laid down a six-factor test to determine whether a body is
an instrumentality or agency of the State for the purposes of Article 12. These factors
include whether the share capital of the corporation is held by the Government,
whether the financial assistance of the State meets almost the entire expenditure of
the corporation, whether the corporation enjoys a state-conferred or state-protected
monopoly status, whether there is deep and pervasive state control, whether the
functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to
Governmental functions, and whether a department of Government has been
transferred to a corporation.The case also clarified the limitations of the High Courts
in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held
that merely because a juristic entity may be an "authority" and therefore "State"
within the meaning of Article 12, it may not be elevated to the position of "State" for
the purpose of Article 226. The Court further observed that the concept of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and
is a golden thread which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution.
The case in question is about the allocation of marks for an oral interview in an admission
process. The Supreme Court of India held that the allocation of 33% marks for the oral
interview was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the candidates were interviewed for only 2 or 3
minutes. The court further held that the allocation of more than 15% marks for the interview
would be arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The
court's decision was based on the principle that an action that is arbitrary necessarily
involves negation of equality, and the doctrine of classification is merely a judicial formula for
determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore
a denial of equality. If the two conditions of classification are not satisfied, then the executive
action would be arbitrary and in denial of the guarantee of equality under Article 14

7. Mithu singh v state of Panjab

The case of Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) dealt with the constitutionality of
Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandated the death sentence for a
person who commits murder while undergoing imprisonment for life. The Supreme
Court of India, by a majority of 4:1, struck down Section 303 of the IPC as it violated
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.The court held that the classification
made between persons possessing black money and others was necessary and not
arbitrary. It was a practical and real classification made between persons having black
money and persons not having such money, and this de facto classification was
clearly based on an intelligible differential, having a rational relation with the object
of the Act. The validity of a classification has to be judged with reference to the
object of the legislation, and if that is done, there can be no doubt that the
classification made by the Act is rational and intelligible, and the operation of the
provisions of the Act is rightly confined to persons in possession of black money.The
Act providing for issue of Special Bearer Bonds was therefore enacted with a view to
mopping up black money and bringing it out in the open, so that, instead of
remaining concealed and idle, such money may become available for augmenting the
resources of the State and being utilized for productive purposes so as to promote
effective social and economic planning.The minority opinion by Justice Gupta stated
that there can never be a complete separation of law and morality, and the concept
of reasonableness does not exclude notions of morality and ethics. He did not see
how it could be disputed that in the circumstances of a given case considerations of
morality and ethics may have a bearing on the reasonableness of the law in question.

ARTICLE 15 CASES
1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab- The case is about a rule that grants a
special allowance to women principals in a wing of the Punjab Educational
Services, which was challenged on the grounds that their male
counterparts were not given the same benefit despite both performing
identical duties. The constitutional validity of the rule was challenged
under Article 16(2) of the Indian Constitution, which states that reservation
of posts or appointments for any backward class is permissible but not for
women. The petitioner argued that reservation for women would amount
to discrimination on the ground of sex in public employment, which would
be violative of Article 16(2).However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court
upheld the rule under Article 15(3), which allows the State to make special
provisions for women, holding that even though the discrimination was
based on the ground of sex, it was saved by Article 15(3). The court also
held that Article 15(3) could be invoked for construing and determining
the scope of Article 16(2).In simple words, the case is about a rule that
gives a special allowance to women principals in Punjab Educational
Services, which was challenged on the grounds that male counterparts
were not given the same benefit. The court upheld the rule under Article
15(3), which allows the State to make special provisions for women, even
though it is based on the ground of sex.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B.Vijay Kumar- In 1984, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh noticed that women were not getting their due share of
public employment. To address this issue, the government extended
reservations for women in public services to a specified extent. The rules
created for this purpose included provisions for giving preference to
women in direct recruitment to posts for which they are better suited than
men, and for reserving at least 30% of the posts in each category of O.C.,
B.C., S.C., and S.T. quota for women in direct recruitment to posts for which
women and men are equally suited.The rules were challenged on the
grounds that they were violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the
Constitution and affected all male unemployed persons in the State.
However, the rules were held to be valid. The portion of sub-rule (2) that
was struck down by the court was the last portion containing the words
"and they shall be selected to an extent of at least 30% of the posts in each
category of O.C., B.C., S.C., and S.T. quota".The Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the rules on the grounds that the State, by virtue of Article 15(3),
is permitted to make special provisions for women, thus clearly carving out
a permissible departure from the rigors of Article 15(1). The court also held
that the power conferred under Article 15(3) is not whittled down in any
manner by Article 16, and that posts can be reserved for women under
Article15 (3) as it is much wider in scope and covers all state activities.In
conclusion, the rules created by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in
1984 to extend reservations for women in public services were held to be
valid by the courts, and the State's power to make special provisions for
women under Article 15(3) was upheld.