Imp Judgements

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="ImportantJudgements">Important Judgements</h2>

 

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
background-color:yellow;vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Case
name
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
background-color:yellow;vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Highlight
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
background-color:yellow;vertical-align:top;width:5.5736in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Remark
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Second
Judges Case 1993
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9812in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Judges
Collegium for appointment of Judges
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Judiciary
took over the power of appointing judges from the executive to itself,
holding that the government’s primacy in appointing judges would al
compromise the independence of the judiciary. 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India 2015
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
NJAC
unconstitutional
National
Judicial Appointments Commission
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6895in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Supreme
Court struck down the NJAC Act on the ground that it diluted the independence
of the judiciary which was part of the basic structure of the Constitution
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
AK
Gopalan Case 1950
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9368in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Preventive
detention do not violate FR
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.784in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Protection under Article
21 is available against only arbitrary executive action but not
arbitrary legislative action</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>However, Menaka Gandhi
Case 1978, protection against both are available </li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Berubari
Union Case 1960
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Preamble
not part of Constitution. 
However
some assistance derived from interpretation of preamble
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>President referred to SC
on implementation of Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union( a
thana, WB) and exchange of enclaves.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Parliament not empowered
to make agreements to cede a territory except by Constitutional
amendments</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case 1973
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Basic
structure
Judicial
review
Preamble
part of constitution
Reasonable
classification do not violate FR [Doctrine of Reasonableness] 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Doctrine of basic
structure of constitution - unalterable</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Judicial review is basic
structure</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Preamble is part of constitution and basic </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Constitution should be
read or interpreted in the light of grand and noble vision of Preamble</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>DPSP 39b and 39c shall not
be void on the ground of FR 14,19,31</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Indira
Gandhi vs Raj Narayan Case 1975 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Regarding
Election Disputes involving the Prime Minister and Purpose of 39th Amendment
of the Constitution
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
39th
CAA -Retrospective law- election of the Prime Minster and the Speaker cannot
be challenged in any court in the country. It can be rather challenged before
a committee formed by the Parliament itself. Indira Gandhi did this since she
was found guilty by Allahabad HC for malpractices in election (used govt
servants for election work). 
SC
verdict is Gandhi to continue but the amendment is stuck down
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
ADM
Jabalpur, 1976
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9993in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
During a national Emergency the citizen had no
recourse to her fundamental rights
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5541in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.9083in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Protection
of life and personal liberty
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Protection under Article 21 is available both
against the arbitrary executive action and arbitrary legislative action
.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include more
rights</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>This overruled the
judgment of Gopalan 1950 case where SC limited only to arbitrary
executive action</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.9083in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
SR Bommai Vs Union of India 1994
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Misuse of Article 356
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Art 365
should be invoked only as the last resort power given to President and when
the State’s Constitutional machinery had failed.</
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Samata judgement 1997
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9993in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Against
Leasing out scheduled areas to mining companies in AP
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7055in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
All
lands leased to private mining companies in the scheduled areas are null and
void.
Only
the State Mineral Development Corporation or a cooperative of the tribal
people could take up mining activity and that too in compliance with the
Forest Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act.
Samata,
NGO in AP.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Jagadambika pal case 1998
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9993in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Composite
floor test in assembly
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5541in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Kaiser-I-Hind
Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation (2002)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
President
application of mind in the cases referred from governor
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.643in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 Article 254(2),
that the words “reserved for consideration” means<
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> active application of mind by the President (why and
what) .<spa
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Granting of assent under Article 254
(2) is
not exercise of legislative power of President such as contemplated under
Article 123 but it is part of legislative
procedure. Procedure is always subjected to judicial review”</
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.9083in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
People
Union for Civil Liberties PUCL v. Union of India 2013
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
NOTA
introduced by EC
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5541in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Justice
J.S. Verma in December 1995
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9993in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Hinduism
is a way of life judgement
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7055in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
“Hindutv
or “Hinduism” during an election campaign not a corrupt practice i
iolation
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) since the terms
ordinarily refer not to religion but only to “a way of life”
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Mohammed
Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Muslim
husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife</
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5736in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 who is unable to maintain herself sim
ilar to
alimony
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
DC
Wadhwa Case 1986
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Repeated
ordinances [in case of Bihar]
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7055in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Held
that Exceptional power of law making through ordinance cannot be used as
substitute for the legislative power of the state legislature.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Justice
K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) 2017
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Right to Privacy 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7055in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
SC
upheld that right to
privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Jaya Bachchan v.
Union of India 2006
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Office
of Profit 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
SC widened Office
of Profit as “an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecun
ary
gain
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.9083in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
BP
Singhal Case 2010
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Governor

</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Governor removal by Centre can
be challenged in the courts on the grounds of arbitrariness or bad faith
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
M. Nagaraj vs
Union Of India 2006
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Test of backwardness of caste
not required 
 
 
Conditional Reservations in
promotions
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6722in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Once a caste was
included in the Schedule and a presidential order was issued, there was no
need for fresh adjudication of
their
backwardness
 
Upheld
the constitutional validity of reservations for SCs and STs to include
promotions with three conditions: 
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>quantifiable data on
the backwardness of SCs & STs </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>the facts about their
inadequate representation </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>the overall
administrative efficiency </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Jarnail
Singh vs Lachhmi Gupta Case (2018)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Reservations in promotions
(Flexible)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Supreme
Court allowed for grant of quota for promotions in the government jobs to SCs
and STs without the need to "collect quantifiable data" (provided
some flexibility in granting reservations in promotions)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Indira Sawhney judgment
1992 OR Mandal case<spa
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Reservations
to OBCs
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>27% reservation in
government jobs to socially and educational Backward Classes is
constitutionally valid</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Creamy
layer criteria</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Capped the reservation
limit to 50%.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Rejected the additional reservation of 10% for
poorer sections of higher castes</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>No
reservations in promotions for OBCs</li>
</ul>
 
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Kihoto Hollohan
Case 1993
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Anti-defection
law
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2215in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
 Presiding Officer decision is subjec
ted to
judicial review
<ul type=circle style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Court held that President
officer while deciding question under anti defection functions like a
tribunal. Hence, like other tribunals, it is subjected to judicial
review </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>However, Courts cannot
question the power of Presiding officer in deciding anti-defection.
Cannot direct speaker to take a decision</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Review only after decision
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8111in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
L
Chandra Kumar Case, 1997 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0576in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Tribunals
part of Judiciary system</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Tribunal appeals goes to
HC</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.602in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Exclusion
of jurisdiction of HC & SC w.r.t tribunal matters is unconstitutional 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Rojer
Mathew case 2019
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.984in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Speaker
certifying money bill
under judicial review 
Tribunal
members appointment
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.784in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.1993in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Qualification and
appointment rules w.r.t Tribunals</li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Qualification and
appointment rules w.r.t Tribunal members conferred primacy on
Government which is invalid </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Lack of judicial
dominance in the Search-cum-Selection Committee is in direct
contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and an
encroachment on the judicial domain</li>
<ul type=circle style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle'
lang=en-US>NOTE:
Except NCLAT, the selection committee for all other tribunals was
made up either entirely from personnel within or nominated by the
Central government or comprised a majority of personnel from the
Central government.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle'
lang=en-US>While
the selection committee for NCLAT consisted of two judges and two
secretaries to the Government of India, all other committees
comprised only one judg
e and
three secretaries to the Government of India.</li>
</ul>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Quashed Tribunal,
Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience
and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>However, Central Govt is
empowered to frame rules related to tribunals</li>
</ul>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Members of tribunals
should not be given rank and status akin to Constitutional
functionaries </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Issues delegated to Govt
for further examination</li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Central Govt must
undertake Judicial Impact Assessment to analyse </li>
<ul type=circle style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle'
lang=en-US>Via
media of merging of all tribunals into</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle'
lang=en-US>Inequitable
distribution of workload of different tribunals</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle'
lang=en-US>Whether
direct appeals should be provided to SC against tribunals or should
they necessary be first tested by high courts</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
 
Summary
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Judiciary must have an
equal say in the appointment of members of tribunals </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Speaker certifying Money
bill is under Judicial review</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Issues referred to larger
bench</li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>What are the scope and
nuances of money bill?</li>
</ul>
</ul>
 
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Prakash
Singh Case, 2006
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Police
reforms
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5736in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
NALSA
vs Union of India case 2014
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Transgenders
rights
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7152in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>transgender people should
be recognized as a third gender and enjoy all fundamental rights, while
also being entitled to specific benefits in education and employment</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Keisham
Meghachandra
Singh vs. the Hon</
’b
Speaker Manipur Legislative
Assembly,
2020
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Speaker's
adjudicatory powers relating to Anti defection law
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2055in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Recommended that
Parliament should rethink as to
whether disqualification petitions entrusted to Speaker
as a quasijudicial authority when suc
Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party
either de jure or de facto</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US> Parliament may seriously consider a
Constitutional amendment to setup a 
permanent Tribunal headed by a
retired Supreme Court judge or a
retired Chief Justice of a High
Court, or some other outside independent mechanism</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Kedar
Nath Singh vs State of Bihar 1962
 
SC
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.902in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Sedition
law (Section 124A)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7638in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2125in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>only a “viole
revolution” against the government attracts the charge of sediti
n.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>A free expression of
disapprobation against the ruling government's action with an intention
to better the condition of the people is not treason</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>It has to be against the
state, not against the government and also
there has to be a direct
incitement to violence. </li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.9083in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Supreme Court
of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case 2019
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Office
of CJI under RTI
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.5541in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h3>

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="Judgementsw.r.tMoneybill">Judgements w.r.t Money bill</h3>

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Mohd.
Saeed Siddiqui v. State of UP (2014)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Speaker
decision of money bill is not judicially reviewable
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.7055in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Speaker
decision to classify a draft statute as a money bill, was not judicially
reviewable, even if the classification was incorrect and argument is that
error is nothing not more than that the procedural irregularity
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.8888in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Rojer
Mathew case 2019
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.9166in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Speaker
certifying money bill
under judicial review 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:5.6368in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.1993in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Issues referred to larger
bench</li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>What are the scope and
nuances of money bill?</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h3>

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h3>

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="Judgementsw.r.tPreamble">Judgements w.r.t Preamble</h3>

 

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.4951in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Berubari
Union Case 1960
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.0722in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Preamble
not part of Constitution. 
However
some assistance derived from interpretation of preamble
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.9569in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
<ul style='margin-left:.2125in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;margin-top:
0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:0in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>President referred to SC
on implementation of Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union( a
thana, WB) and exchange of enclaves.</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Parliament not empowered
to make agreements to cede a territory except by Constitutional
amendments</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:1.4951in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Kesavananda
Bharati Case 1973
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.0972in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Preamble is part of Constitution and can be amended
subject to condition that basic structure is not amended
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.8791in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Constitution
should be read or interpreted in the light of grand and noble vision of
Preamble
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

 

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5' id="Judgementw.r.tconflictb/wFRandDPSP">Judgement
w.r.t conflict b/w FR and DPSP</h3>

<h5 style='margin:0in;margin-left:.375in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:11.0pt;
color:#2E75B5'> </h5>

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt;margin-left:.3333in' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5701in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1951
Champakam Dorairajan Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Accordingly
Parliament
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1967
Golaknath case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1971
Parliament counter
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1973
Kesavananda Bharati Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1976
42nd CAA
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1978
44rth CAA
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.5006in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1980
Minerva Mills case 
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="Judgementsw.r.tBasicStructureofConstitution">Judgements w.r.t Basic Structure of Constitution</h3>

 

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt;margin-left:.3333in' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1951
Shankari Prasad Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1967
Golaknath Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1971
24th CAA 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1973
Kesavananda Bharati Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1976
42nd CAA
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1980
Minerva Mills Case
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:2.3104in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
1981
Waman Rao Case
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="Judgementsw.r.tJudiciarylegislating">Judgements w.r.t Judiciary legislating</h3>

 

<div style='direction:ltr'>

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 valign=top style='direction:ltr;
border-collapse:collapse;border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:
1pt' title="" summary="">
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0097in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Suresh
Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation (2005)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.3729in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Under our Constitutional
scheme, Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign
power to enact laws
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0604in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0097in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1991)
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.3534in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
The
power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.2118in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
Making laws is the function of the legislature. 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0097in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:4.3534in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
<td style='border-style:solid;border-color:#A3A3A3;border-width:1pt;
vertical-align:top;width:3.0798in;padding:2.0pt 3.0pt 2.0pt 3.0pt'>
 
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</div>

 

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h2>

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h2>

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="MohammedAhmedKhanv.ShahBanoBegum1985">Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985</h2>

 

There is
no conflict between the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husbandâ

obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain
herself. Shah Bano had the right to be given maintenance money, similar to
alimony. 

 

 

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act
was adopted in May 1986 and nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment in th
Shah
Bano case. 

 Divorced woman or woman who lost her sp
ouse,
If unable to maintain herself

<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Magistrate has power to order
to pay her maintenance by her relatives</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>If no relatives, then
magistrate has power to order to pay her from state wakf board</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>This made that husband is
obliged only to pay alimony till iddat period only</li>
</ul>

 

This law
brought by Rajiv Gandhi to appease minority voters which nullified supreme
court judgement

 

The
message the entire episode was sensitive issues are better handled by the
Supreme Court, that will be of greater benefit.

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h2>

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="dummy"> </h2>

 

 

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="SabarimalaJudgement">Sabarimala Judgement</h2>

 

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="WhatisSabarimalaJudgement">What is Sabarimala Judgement</h3>

 

Supreme court allowed women irrespective of their age to
enter Sabarimala temple by striking down the provisions of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 by 4:1 majority.

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="History">History</h3>

<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Rule 3(b) of the Kerala
Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 states
that “Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a plac
of
public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any
place of public worship.” which implies that entry of women aged be
ween
10 and 50 years (child bearing age) is prohibited</li>
</ul>

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="ConstitutionalprovisionsandJudgesrationale">Constitutional provisions and Judges rationale</h3>

<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>SC judges remarked </li>
<ul type=circle style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Practice of excluding
women did not constitute an “essenti
religious practice”</l
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Places of public
worship must be open to all
sections and classes of Hindus,
notwithstanding any custom or usage </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Right of women to enter Sabarimala
was guaranteed under Article 25(1) [all persons are equally entitle
d to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate
religion]</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Morality
used in Articles 25 and 26
referred to constitutional morality which includes
the values of justice, liberty, equality
and fraternity</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Barring menstruating
women from entering
the shrine is violative of Article 17 (abolition of
untouchability). </li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Therefore, the
prohibition of entry of women into Kerala is violative of Articles 17, 25
and 26 and hence abolished.</li>
</ul>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Dissenting judges view</li>
<ul type=circle style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Sole woman judge, Justice
Indu Malhotra, who dissented, reasoned, </li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>“<sp
style='font-weight:bold;font-family:"Nirmala UI";font-size:11.0pt'>Issues of deep religious
sentiments should not be ordinarily
be interfered by the court. The
Sabarimala shrine and the deity is
protected by Article 25 of the Constitution
of India and the religious
practices cannot be solely tested on the basis of Article 14.
 Notions
of rationality cannot be invoked in
matters of religion... What constitutes
essential religious practice is
the religious community to decide,
not for the court. India is a diverse
country. Constitutional morality
would allow all to practise
their beliefs. The court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved
person from that section or religion"</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>

 

 

<h3 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12.0pt;color:#5B9BD5'
lang=en-US id="Conclusion">Conclusion</h3>

It is interpretative and is under review by a larger SC
bench

 

 

 

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="DoctrineofReasonableness">Doctrine of Reasonableness </h2>

Also Reasonable classification

 

Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973

 

In case of affirmative action in reasonable
differentiation/discrimination 

 

<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Test of reasonableness</li>
<ul type=disc style='margin-left:.375in;direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:embed;
margin-top:0in;margin-bottom:0in'>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Classification must be based
on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from those that are left out of group</li>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US> and the differentia must have a rational
nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the executive or legislative action
under challenge</li>
</ul>
<li style='margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;vertical-align:middle' lang=en-US>Citizenship Amendment Act
(2019)</li>
</ul>

 

 

<h2 style='margin:0in;font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.0pt;color:#2E75B5'
lang=en-US id="DoctrineofProportionality">Doctrine of Proportionality </h2>

State restrictions vs Fundamental rights 

Ex: Banning internet in Kashmir after revocation of Article
370 is against Right to Freedom