Constitutional Law
All the statutes, rules and regulations governing the society, employment, public relations, rights and duties derive their power from the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the base document for any country. Indian Constitution has been framed by our Law Makers in the year 1949 and the same has been amended from time to time. The Fundamental Rights of Citizens have been protected as well as guaranteed only by the Constitution of India. All the statutory authorities derive their power only through the provisions of Constitution of India or through the statues or enactments legislated by exercising the Powers of Constitution. Thus, the Constitution of India is no longer a law subject, but a common subject. Every citizen should know the Constitution of India for exercising his rights and to perform his duties.
The Basic structure of the constitution of India cannot be altered even by way of amendment. Any Act or rules or regulations or any amendment in the Constitution itself will be tested before the Court of Law by ascertaining whether it alters the basic structure of the constitution. Top of all, the life and liberty of every citizen has been guaranteed by Constitution of India.
The constitutional matters and its various articles have been widely interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Courts on various occasions and thereby our Constitution of India has been fine tuned.
Constitutional Law
Dr.Shanthi Rengarajan v the Oriental Insurance Company
2018-4-MLJ 368
Medi-claim- Writ petition is maintainable as against repudiation of mediclaim, when there is no disputed question of facts.
The National Federation of the Blind Maharashtra and anr. .. Vs. The High Court of Judicature of Bombay (Bombay HC- 03-05-2018)
The High Court on its administrative side falls within the definition of State as per Article 12 of Constitution of India. But, on the judicial side, it is an independent body and not fall within the definition of State.
Union Public Service Commission Versus M. Sathiya Priya and others (SC) [13-04-2018]
The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body, i.e., the Selection Committee. The Courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and Others .v. S.N. Raj Kumar and Another (10-04-2018)
In the realm of Administrative Law ‘proportionality’ is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities and reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise – the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities4. De Smith5 also states that ‘proportionality’ involves ‘balancing test’ and ‘necessity test’. The ‘balancing test’ permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations.
K.S.Puttaswamy and another V. Union of India and others –
2017-10-SCC 1
Right to Privacy is a basic fundamental right. It forms an intrinsic part of Article 21 and freedoms guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India.
Rakesh Kumar Paul V. State of Assam – 2017-15 -SCC 67
In all cases where the minimum sentence is less than 10 years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment then Section 167(2)(a)(ii) will apply and the accused will be entitled to grant of ‘default bail’ after 60 days in case charge-sheet is not filed.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar – 2017-3- SCC 1
Art.213 and 123- Re-promulgation of ordinances is constitutionally impermissible.
Pratibha Ramesh Patel Versus Union of India & Ors. -2016-12-SCC-375
Having invoked a constitutional remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot, under Law, file another petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on identical set of facts for identical reliefs
Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by LRs & Ors. – 2017-2-SCC-629
Seeking votes in the name of Religion, Caste or community amounted to corrupt practice as per Sec.123 of Representation of People Act.
Independent Thought Vs. Union of India and another -2017-10-SCC 800
Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not.
Shayara Bano V. Union of India and others – 2017-9-SCC 1
Talaq-e-biddat or Triple Talaq cannot be treated as essential religious practice merely because it has continued for long. Practice of Talaq-e-biddat or Triple Talaq thus delcared illegal and setaside.
Deena Vs Union of India – 1983-4-SCC 645
Hanging by Rope for executing Death Sentence is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi – 1989 Supp(1)-SCC – 264
Execution of Death sentence by public hanging, held, violative of Article 21 being barbaric- Any Jail Manual providing for public hanging would be unconstitutional.
Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph [AIR 1963 SC 1561] , Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1581, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker [(1971) 1 SCC 442 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 195] and Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India [(1989) 3 SCC 537 : AIR 1990 SC 104]
There is presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject-matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, the intention is clear not to repeal the existing legislation.
Garnett v. Bradley [(1878) 3 AC 944 : (1874-80) All ER Rep 648 : 48 LJQB 186 : 39 LT 261 (HL)]
When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another.
A.G. v. Moore [(1878) 3 Ex D 276] , Ratan Lal case[(1989) 3 SCC 537 : AIR 1990 SC 104] and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka[(1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507 : AIR 1992 SC 81]
The continuance of the existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal being presumed, the burden to show that these has been repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act that the two cannot stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred.
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Delay beyond two years in executing death sentence, held, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration
Handcuffing of under Trial prisoners is not normally permissible and the same is permissible only in exceptional cases.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Right to Travel is a part of personal liberty. Such personal liberty cannot be deprived without reasonable opportunity to show cause.
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra – 1978-3-SCC 544
Court Shall forthwith furnish a free transcript of the judgment when sentencing a person to a prison term as per Art.21. – Where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer on his own, the State has to provide legal aid and the same is not charity, but a right flow from Art.21.
Murli S. Deora v. Union of India – 2001-8-SCC 765
Health Care- Smoking in public places is indirect deprivation of life without any process of law- Therefore non-smokers cannot be compelled to become helpless victims of pollution caused by cigarette smoke- Smoking, therefore, is prohibited in following public places.
M.Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another – 1999-3-SCC 679
Payment of Subsistence allowance to an employee during his suspension linked to his right to Life under Art.21.
