Module -2

Page no: 1
​ ​
 MODULE 2
ARTICLE 12
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws
Article 12 "In this Part, unless the Article 12 batata hai ki 1. R.D. Shetty v.
context otherwise requires, Fundamental Rights ke International Airport
‘the State’ includes the purpose ke liye "State" kaun Authority of India (1979)
Government and Parliament hoga. Isme Central
of India and the Government Government, Parliament, State 2. Riju Prasad Sharma v.
and the Legislature of each Governments, State State of Assam (2015)
of the States and all local or Legislatures, Local Authorities
other authorities within the aur Other Authorities include
territory of India or under the hote hain. In authorities ke
control of the Government of against Fundamental Rights
India." enforce kiye ja sakte hain.

CASE LAW 1: R.D. SHETTY v. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (1979)

Facts
The International Airport Authority invited tenders for running a restaurant at Mumbai Airport. The
contract was awarded contrary to the eligibility conditions. The petitioner challenged the action
alleging arbitrariness.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the International Airport Authority is an instrumentality or agency of
the State and therefore falls within Article 12.
Five Tests Laid Down by the Supreme Court
1.​ Financial Assistance by Government – If the entire share capital or a major portion of the
financial resources of a corporation is provided by the Government, it is a strong indication
that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State.
2.​ Deep and Pervasive State Control – If the Government exercises deep and pervasive control
over the management, policies and functioning of the corporation, the corporation may be
regarded as State under Article 12.

Page no: 2
​ ​
 3.​ Public Functions of Governmental Character – If the corporation performs functions of public
importance which are closely related to governmental functions, it is likely to be considered
an instrumentality of the State.
4.​ Transfer of Government Department – If a department of the Government is transferred to a
corporation and the corporation continues to perform the same functions, it indicates that the
corporation is an agency of the State.
5.​ Monopoly Status Conferred by the State – If the corporation enjoys a monopoly status which
is protected or conferred by the Government, it is a relevant factor in determining whether it is
a State instrumentality.
Significance
This case greatly expanded the meaning of "Other Authorities" under Article 12 and helped courts
determine whether government-controlled bodies are subject to Fundamental Rights obligations.

CASE LAW 2: RIJU PRASAD SHARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM (2015)

Facts
The issue before the Court was whether the Judiciary can be considered "State" under Article 12
of the Constitution.
Judgment
The Court clarified that the Judiciary is not expressly mentioned in Article 12 and its position
depends upon the nature of functions being performed.
Principles Laid Down
1.​ When courts perform judicial functions, they are generally not treated as State under
Article 12.
2.​ Judicial orders are ordinarily not challenged as violations of Fundamental Rights under
Article 12.
3.​ When courts perform administrative or non-judicial functions, they may be treated as
State.
4.​ Administrative decisions such as appointments, promotions and service matters may be
subject to constitutional scrutiny.
5.​ The distinction is necessary to preserve the independence of the Judiciary while ensuring
accountability in administrative matters.
Significance
Judiciary = Not State for judicial functions, but may be State for administrative functions.

Page no:3
 ARTICLE 13
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws
Article 13 Article 13(1): "All laws in force in Article 13(1): Constitution ke 1. Keshavananda
the territory of India immediately pehle ke laws agar Fundamental Bharati v. State of
before the commencement of Rights ke against hain to wo Kerala (1973)
this Constitution, in so far as they inconsistency ke extent tak void
are inconsistent with the ho jayenge. 2. Indira Nehru
provisions of this Part, shall, to Gandhi v. Raj Narain
the extent of such inconsistency, (1975)
be void."

Article 13(2): "The State shall not Article 13(2): State aisa koi law
make any law which takes away nahi bana sakta jo Fundamental
or abridges the rights conferred Rights ko chheen le ya kam
by this Part and any law made in kare. Aisa law void hoga.
contravention of this clause shall,
to the extent of the
contravention, be void."

Article 13(3)(a): "Law includes Article 13(3)(a): Law ka meaning

any Ordinance, order, bye-law, bahut broad hai. Isme
rule, regulation, notification, Ordinance, Rules, Regulations,
custom or usage having in the Notifications, Customs aur
territory of India the force of law." Usages bhi include hote hain.
Article 13(3)(b): "'Laws in force' Article 13(3)(b): Constitution ke
includes laws passed or made by pehle banaye gaye aur abhi tak
a Legislature or other competent repealed na hue laws ko "laws in
authority before the force" kaha jata hai.
commencement of this
Constitution."

Article 13(4): "Nothing in this Article 13(4): Constitutional

article shall apply to any Amendments Article 368 ke
amendment of this Constitution under kiye jaate hain aur unpar
made under article 368."

Page no:4
 Article 13 directly apply nahi
hota.

keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Introduction
The case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the most significant
judgments in the constitutional history of India. It is popularly known as the Basic Structure Case
because it established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the power of Parliament to amend
the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the
constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which affected the property rights of the
Mutt. During the pendency of the case, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional
Amendments with the intention of strengthening its power to amend the Constitution and
Fundamental Rights.

Issue Before the Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament possessed unlimited power
under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, or whether
there were any limitations on such power.

Judgment
The Supreme Court, by a majority of 7:6, held that Parliament has the power to amend any
provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, it cannot alter, destroy or
damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Thus, while the power of amendment is wide, it is
not unlimited.

Basic Structure Doctrine

The Court stated that certain fundamental features of the Constitution form its Basic Structure and
cannot be amended or destroyed. These include the supremacy of the Constitution, democracy,
secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law and the independence of
the judiciary.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment preserved the balance between the powers of Parliament and the authority of the
judiciary. It ensured that constitutional amendments could not be used to destroy the essential

Page no:5
identity of the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine continues to be one of the most important
principles of Indian Constitutional Law.

Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws

Article 13(1) "All laws in force in the Pre-Constitutional Laws: 1. Keshav Madhav
territory of India Constitution ke lagu hone se Menon v. State of
immediately before the pehle (26 January 1950 se Bombay (1951)
commencement of this pehle) jo laws exist karte the
Constitution, in so far aur jo Fundamental Rights ke 2. Bhikaji Narain
as they are inconsistent hain, wo poore ke Dhakras v. State of
inconsistent with the poore void nahi hote. Sirf Madhya Pradesh
provisions of this Part, inconsistency ke extent tak (1955)
shall, to the extent of partially void hote hain. Aise
such inconsistency, be laws beginning se void (void ab
void." initio) nahi maane jaate, balki
Constitution ke commencement
ke baad unenforceable ho jaate
hain.

1. Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay (1951)

The Supreme Court held that pre-constitutional laws which are inconsistent with Fundamental
Rights are not void from the beginning (not void ab initio). Such laws become void only from the
date on which the Constitution came into force, i.e., 26 January 1950. Therefore, past transactions
and liabilities arising before the commencement of the Constitution remain valid.

DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
2. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
The Supreme Court explained the Doctrine of Eclipse and held that a pre-constitutional law
inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not completely dead. It remains eclipsed or overshadowed
by the Fundamental Right and can revive if the inconsistency is removed by a constitutional
amendment or change in law. This case clarified the effect of Article 13(1) on pre-constitutional
laws.

3. Ambica Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1974)

In Ambica Mills, the Court recognized that a similar principle could apply even in the case of
post-Constitution laws. A post-Constitution law may be unenforceable against citizens whose

Page no:6
 Fundamental Rights are violated, but it may still remain operative against non-citizens or
persons who cannot invoke that particular Fundamental Right.

Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws

Article 13(2) "The State shall not make Post-Constitutional Laws: Yeh 1. Deep Chand v.
any law which takes away clause un laws par apply hota State of Uttar Pradesh
or abridges the rights hai jo 26 January 1950 ke baad (1959)
conferred by this Part and banaye gaye hain. State aisa
any law made in koi law nahi bana sakta jo
contravention of this Fundamental Rights ko chheen
clause shall, to the extent le ya kam kare. Agar aisa law
of the contravention, be banaya jata hai to wo
void." contravention ke extent tak void
hoga. Aise laws ko generally
void ab initio (nullity from the
beginning) maana jata hai.

1. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)

The Supreme Court held that a post-Constitution law which violates Fundamental Rights is void
from its inception. Such a law is a nullity from the very beginning and does not create valid rights
or obligations. Unlike pre-Constitution laws under Article 13(1), post-Constitution laws violating
Fundamental Rights cannot normally claim protection under the Doctrine of Eclipse. The Court
emphasized that Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making laws that abridge or take away
Fundamental Rights.

DOCTRINE OF SERVABILITY

Article / DEFINATION Meaning Case Laws

Doctrine

Page no:7
Doctrine of The Doctrine of Severability Agar kisi law ka koi hissa 1. R.M.D.C. v.
Severability means that if a law contains Fundamental Rights ke against Union of India
both valid and invalid hai aur usse baaki law se alag (1957)
provisions, the Court will try to kiya ja sakta hai, to sirf wahi 2. Romesh Thappar
separate the unconstitutional unconstitutional part void hoga. v. State of Madras
part from the constitutional part. Baaki valid provisions continue (1950)
If the invalid portion can be rahenge.
removed without affecting the Conditions: 1. Constitutional aur
working of the remaining law, unconstitutional parts distinct aur
only that offending portion will separable hone chahiye.
be declared void, while the rest 2. Legislature ka intention hona
of the law will continue to chahiye ki law invalid part ke
operate. bina bhi operate kare.

R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957)

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Severability. The Court held that when a
law contains both constitutional and unconstitutional provisions, the unconstitutional portion should
be struck down only if it can be separated from the valid portion. If the remaining part of the law
can function independently and reflects the intention of the Legislature, it will continue to remain
valid and enforceable. Thus, only the offending provision was declared void while the rest of the
statute was preserved.

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the unconstitutional provisions of the law were so
closely connected with the valid provisions that they could not be separated. Since the valid and
invalid parts were inseparable, the Court struck down the entire law. The judgment established that
when unconstitutional provisions form an integral part of a statute and cannot be severed, the
whole Act becomes invalid.

DOCTRINE OF WAIVER

Article / Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws

Doctrine

Page no:8
 Doctrine of Fundamental Rights Koi bhi vyakti apne Fundamental Rights 1. Behram v.
Waiver cannot be voluntarily give up (waive) nahi kar sakta. State of Bombay
surrendered, Ye rights sirf individual benefit ke liye (1955)
abandoned or nahi, balki public policy, individual liberty
waived by an aur social welfare ke liye diye gaye hain.
individual. Isliye inhe bargain away, abandon ya
surrender nahi kiya ja sakta.

Reasons:
1. Fundamental Rights individual liberty
aur social good ke liye diye gaye hain.
2. In rights ko bargain away ya abandon
nahi kiya ja sakta.
3. Waiver of Fundamental Rights public
policy ke against hai.

1. Behram v. State of Bombay (1955)

The Supreme Court held that an accused person cannot waive or surrender the protection of
Fundamental Rights. Even if a person voluntarily agrees to give up a Fundamental Right, such
waiver is not legally valid. The Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights are guaranteed by the
Constitution and cannot be abandoned by an individual's consent.

ARTICLE 14
Article Bare Act Meaning Case Laws
Language
Article 14 "The State shall Equality Before Law: Sabhi vyakti law ki nazar 1.R.K. Garg v. Union
not deny to any mein barabar hain. Koi bhi vyakti, chahe wo of India (1981)
person equality Prime Minister ho ya aam aadmi, law se upar
before the law or nahi hai. 2. Joseph Shine v.
the equal Equal Protection of Laws: Similar Union of India (2018)
protection of the circumstances mein sabhi logon ke saath
laws within the samaan vyavahar kiya jayega. Reasonable 3.E.P. Royappa v.
territory of India." classification allowed hai lekin arbitrary State of Tamil Nadu
discrimination allowed nahi hai. (1974)

Page no:9
 Test of Reasonable Classification:
1. Intelligible Differentia: Classification ka basis
clear aur understandable hona chahiye.

2. Rational Nexus: Classification aur law ke

objective ke beech reasonable connection hona
chahiye.

SCOPE :Applies to all

legal persons(companies and firms)
citizens
foreigners

1.R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and dismissed the challenge.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification.
The legislature may classify persons, objects, or transactions if the classification satisfies two
essential conditions:
1.​ Intelligible Differentia – The classification must clearly distinguish the persons or things
included in one group from those left out of the group.
2.​ Rational Nexus – There must be a reasonable connection between the basis of
classification and the objective sought to be achieved by the law.
The Court observed that economic and fiscal legislation should be given greater judicial
latitude because such laws deal with complex economic problems.

[Link] Shine v. Union of India (2018)

The Court held that the provision treated women as the property of their husbands and denied
them individual dignity and autonomy. It created an unreasonable classification between men and
women and therefore violated Article 14. The Court also observed that the law was discriminatory
on the ground of sex and violated Article 15. Further, it infringed a woman's dignity, privacy and
personal liberty protected under Article 21.

3.E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 14 and held that equality is opposed to
arbitrariness. The Court observed that whenever a State action is arbitrary, it automatically violates
Article 14. This judgment shifted the focus from mere classification to the broader principle of
fairness and non-arbitrariness.

Page no:10
 ARTICLE 15
Article 15 = Prohibition of Discrimination + Protective Discrimination

Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws

Page no:11
Article The State shall not discriminate Article 15(1) guarantees equality by prohibiting State of
15(1) against any citizen on grounds the State from discriminating against citizens Madras v.
only of religion, race, caste, sex, solely on the specified grounds. It ensures Champakam
place of birth or any of them. equal treatment and protection under the law. Dorairajan
(1951)

Article No citizen shall, on grounds only Article 15(2) prevents discrimination by both
15(2) of religion, race, caste, sex, the State and private individuals regarding
place of birth or any of them, be access to public places and facilities. It seeks
subjected to any disability to eliminate social disabilities and
regarding access to shops, untouchability-like practices.
public restaurants, hotels, places
of public entertainment, wells,
tanks, roads, etc.
Article Nothing in this article shall Article 15(3) is an exception to the rule against
15(3) prevent the State from making discrimination. It allows the State to make
any special provision for women special laws, reservations, and welfare
and children. schemes for women and children. The
objective is to protect and empower them and
ensure substantive equality.

Article Nothing in this article or Article Inserted by the 1st Constitutional Amendment
15(4) 29(2) shall prevent the State Act, 1951. It empowers the State to provide
from making any special reservations and welfare measures for socially
provision for the advancement of and educationally backward classes, SCs, and
any Socially and Educationally STs to achieve social justice and equality.
Backward Classes (SEBCs),
SCs and STs.

Article Nothing in this article or Article Inserted by the 93rd Constitutional

15(5) 19(1)(g) shall prevent the State Amendment Act, 2005. It enables reservation
from making special provisions for backward classes, SCs, and STs in
for the advancement of SEBCs, educational institutions, including private
SCs, and STs regarding their unaided institutions. Minority institutions are
admission to educational exempt.
institutions, including private
unaided institutions (except
minority institutions under Article
30(1)).

Page no:12
Article Nothing in this article or Article Inserted by the 103rd Constitutional
15(6) 19(1)(g) or Article 29(2) shall Amendment Act, 2019. It provides up to 10%
prevent the State from making reservation in educational institutions and
special provisions, including public employment for EWS citizens who do
reservation up to 10%, for not belong to SC, ST, or OBC categories. The
Economically Weaker Sections objective is to uplift economically weaker
(EWS) of citizens other than sections.
those covered under Articles
15(4) and 15(5).

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

The Supreme Court held that the Communal Government Order of the Madras Government, which
reserved seats in educational institutions on the basis of caste and religion, violated Articles 15(1)
and 29(2) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the State cannot discriminate against citizens
solely on the grounds of caste, religion, race, or community. This judgment led to the First
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which inserted Article 15(4) to permit special provisions for
socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs.

ARTICLE 16
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws

Page no:13
Article There shall be equality of Guarantees equal opportunity to all Indra Sawhney v. Union of
16(1) opportunity for all citizens citizens in public employment. Every India (1992), popularly
in matters relating to citizen has an equal chance to known as the Mandal
employment or compete for government jobs. Commission Case.
appointment to any office
under the State.

Article No citizen shall be Prohibits discrimination in public

16(2) discriminated against in employment on specified grounds.
public employment on
grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, descent,
place of birth, residence
or any of them.

Article Parliament may prescribe Allows Parliament to make laws

16(3) residence requirements requiring residence in a particular
for certain public State or Union Territory for specific
employments. posts.
(exceptions to clause 2)

Article Nothing in this article shall Provides constitutional basis for

16(4) prevent the State from reservation in public employment for
making provision for backward classes.
reservation of
appointments or posts in
favour of any backward
class of citizens not
adequately represented in
State services.

A ) State may provide Inserted by the 77th Constitutional

reservation in promotion Amendment Act, 1995. Allows
for SCs and STs if they reservation in promotions for SCs
are not adequately and STs.
represented in services.

B ) Unfilled reserved Inserted by the 81st Constitutional

vacancies may be carried Amendment Act, 2000. Permits
forward and shall not be carry-forward of backlog vacancies.
counted in the 50%
reservation ceiling.

Page no:14
 Article Religious institutions may Allows religious institutions to
16(5) require office holders to appoint persons professing the
belong to a particular relevant religion.
religion.

Article State may provide up to Inserted by the 103rd Constitutional

16(6) 10% reservation for Amendment Act, 2019. Grants EWS
Economically Weaker reservation in government jobs.
Sections (EWS) in public
employment.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case.
Introduction: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) is one of the most important constitutional cases in
India. It is popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case. The case dealt with the validity of
reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a Nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court and is
considered a landmark decision on reservation policy in India.

Introduction of the Creamy Layer Doctrine: The Court introduced the concept of the Creamy Layer. It
held that within OBCs there are certain socially and economically advanced persons who have already
achieved a higher status in society. Such persons do not require the protection of reservation and
therefore must be excluded from its benefits. The Court stated that reservation should reach the
genuinely backward sections and not the advanced members of backward classes.

50% Ceiling Rule: The Court held that total reservations should generally not exceed 50% of
available posts. The 50% rule was considered necessary to maintain a balance between
equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) and reservation under Article 16(4).
Only in exceptional circumstances can this limit be exceeded.

Significance of the Judgment: The judgment became the foundation of India's modern reservation
policy. It upheld OBC reservation, introduced the Creamy Layer Doctrine, established the 50% ceiling
rule, clarified the meaning of backward classes, and balanced equality with affirmative action.

Held: The Supreme Court held that 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment is constitutionally
valid under Article 16(4). It introduced the Creamy Layer Doctrine, requiring exclusion of socially and
economically advanced members of OBCs from reservation benefits. The Court further held that
reservations should ordinarily not exceed 50% and that Article 16(4) does not generally permit
reservation in promotions.

ARTICLE 17
Page no:15
 Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws
Article 17 "Untouchability" is Article 17 abolishes State of Karnataka v. Appa
abolished and its practice untouchability completely and Balu Ingale (1995) –
in any form is forbidden. prohibits its practice in any Untouchability in any form
The enforcement of any form. Any disability imposed is unconstitutional and
disability arising out of on a person on the basis of punishable.
"untouchability" shall be untouchability is a punishable
an offence punishable in offence. The Article aims to Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna
accordance with law. ensure social equality, human (1958) – Explained the
dignity, and the eradication of scope of untouchability
caste-based discrimination. under Article 17.
Unlike Articles 15 and 16,
Article 17 has no sub-clauses.

State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale

Facts: Members of a Scheduled Caste were denied access to a public well by members of an upper
caste village community. The accused claimed exclusive rights over the well and prevented Dalits
from using it.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Article 17 abolishes untouchability in all its forms and any practice
based on caste discrimination is unconstitutional. The Court observed that untouchability is a grave
social evil that violates the dignity and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. It emphasized that
constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that promotes social justice and eradicates
caste-based discrimination. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused and reaffirmed the State's
duty to eliminate untouchability from society.
Significance: This case is regarded as one of the strongest judicial affirmations of Article 17 and the
constitutional goal of social equality.

Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna
Facts: The case involved allegations of discrimination and denial of access based on caste. The Court
had to determine the meaning and scope of the term "untouchability" used in Article 17.
Held: The Court held that the word "untouchability" in Article 17 does not refer to every form of social
avoidance or personal dislike. It specifically refers to the practice of untouchability arising out of the
caste system as it existed in India. The Court clarified that Article 17 is directed against caste-based
disabilities and social exclusions imposed upon certain classes of people.
Significance: The case is important because it clarified that Article 17 targets
caste-based untouchability and not all forms of social discrimination.
It helped define the constitutional scope of the term "untouchability."

Page no:16
 ARTICLE 18
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws
Article 18 Article 18(1): "No title, not being a Article 18(1): State kisi 1. Balaji
military or academic distinction, vyakti ko title nahi de sakta, Raghavan v.
shall be conferred by the State." except military ya academic Union of India
distinctions (jaise Major, (1996)
Article 18(2): "No citizen of India Doctor, Professor).
shall accept any title from any
foreign State." Article 18(2): Koi bhi Indian
citizen kisi foreign country se
Article 18(3): "No person who is title accept nahi kar sakta.
not a citizen of India shall, while he
holds any office of profit or trust Article 18(3): Jo vyakti
under the State, accept without the Indian citizen nahi hai lekin
consent of the President any title State ke under office hold
from any foreign State." karta hai, wo President ki
permission ke bina foreign
Article 18(4): "No person holding title accept nahi kar sakta.
any office of profit or trust under
the State shall, without the consent Article 18(4): State ke under
of the President, accept any office hold karne wala vyakti
present, emolument, or office of President ki permission ke
any kind from or under any foreign bina kisi foreign State se gift,
State." salary, reward ya office
accept nahi kar sakta.

BALAJI RAGHAVAN v. UNION OF INDIA (1996)

Facts
The constitutional validity of national awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma
Bhushan and Padma Shri was challenged on the ground that they amounted to "titles" prohibited under
Article 18.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that National Awards are not titles within the meaning of Article 18. They are
merely recognitions of exceptional service rendered to the nation.
Significance

Page no:17
The Court clarified that recipients of Padma Awards cannot use them as prefixes or
suffixes to their names. Therefore, National Awards do not violate Article 18.

ARTICLE 19
Fundamental Article 19(1) Restriction Clause Grounds of Restriction
Freedom Clause

Freedom of Speech Article Article 19(2) Sovereignty and Integrity of India,

and Expression 19(1)(a) Security of the State, Friendly Relations
with Foreign States, Public Order,
Decency or Morality, Contempt of
Court, Defamation, Incitement to an
Offence

Freedom of Assembly Article Article 19(3) Sovereignty and Integrity of India,

(Peaceful and 19(1)(b) Public Order
Without Arms)
Freedom to Form Article Article 19(4) Sovereignty and Integrity of India,
Associations, Unions 19(1)(c) Public Order, Morality
and Co-operative
Societies
Freedom of Article Article 19(5) Interest of the General Public,
Movement 19(1)(d) Protection of the Interests of Scheduled
Throughout the Tribes
Territory of India
Freedom of Article Article 19(5) Interest of the General Public,
Residence and 19(1)(e) Protection of the Interests of Scheduled
Settlement in Any Tribes
Part of India
Freedom to Practice Article Article 19(6) Interest of the General Public,
Any Profession, 19(1)(g) Professional or Technical
Occupation, Trade or Qualifications, State Monopoly in
Business Trade, Business, Industry or Service

Page no:18
ROMESH THAPPAR VS STATE OF MADRAS
Facts
The Government of Madras banned the entry and circulation of a political journal called Cross Roads,
edited by Romesh Thappar, under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. Thappar
challenged the order before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated his Fundamental
Right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Held
The Supreme Court held that the ban on the circulation of the journal was unconstitutional and violated
Article 19(1)(a). The Court ruled that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of
propagation of ideas and freedom of circulation, because without circulation, publication would have
little value. It further held that restrictions on speech can be imposed only on the grounds specified in
Article 19(2). Since the law authorized restrictions for the broader purpose of maintaining public order,
which at that time was not a ground under Article 19(2), the provision was declared void.

Significance
●​ One of the earliest and most important free speech cases in India.
●​ Established that freedom of the press is part of freedom of speech and expression.
●​ Recognized freedom of circulation as an essential part of free speech.
●​ The judgment led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which added "public order"
as a ground for imposing reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Page no:19
 ARTICLE 20
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws
Article No person shall be Provides protection against Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v.
20(1) convicted of any offence Ex-Post Facto Laws. A State of Vindhya Pradesh
except for violation of a person cannot be punished (1953) – Ex-post facto
law in force at the time of under a law that was not in criminal laws are prohibited.
the commission of the act, force when the act was
nor be subjected to a committed, nor can a
penalty greater than that heavier punishment be
prescribed at the time of imposed retrospectively.
the offence.

Article No person shall be Provides protection against Maqbool Hussain v. State of

20(2) prosecuted and punished Double Jeopardy. A person Bombay – Double jeopardy
for the same offence cannot be tried and (1953) applies
more than once. punished twice for the same only when there has been
offence. prosecution and punishment
by a judicial court.

Page no:20
Article No person accused of any Provides protection against Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.
20(3) offence shall be Self-Incrimination. An Dani(1978) – Right to remain
compelled to be a witness accused cannot be forced to silent is part of Article 20(3).
against himself. give evidence against
himself. State of Bombay v. Kathi
Kalu Oghad (1961) –
Fingerprints, signatures, and
handwriting samples do not
amount to self-incrimination.

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953)

In this case, the Supreme Court explained the scope of Article 20(1), which protects individuals from
ex-post facto criminal laws. The Court held that a person cannot be convicted for an act that was not
an offence when it was committed. Similarly, a person cannot be given a punishment greater than
the punishment prescribed at the time of the commission of the offence. The Constitution prohibits
retrospective criminal liability and ensures fairness in criminal justice.

Page no:21
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
The petitioner brought gold into India without declaring it to customs authorities. The gold was
confiscated by customs officials, and later criminal proceedings were initiated against him. He
argued that this amounted to being punished twice for the same offence. The Supreme Court held
that Article 20(2) applies only when there has been both prosecution and punishment by a judicial
court. Since confiscation by customs authorities was an administrative action and not a judicial
prosecution, the subsequent criminal trial did not violate the rule against double jeopardy.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)

The issue before the Court was whether compelling an accused person to provide fingerprints,
handwriting samples, or signatures violated the protection against self-incrimination under Article
20(3). The Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) protects a person only from being compelled to
give personal testimony against himself. Fingerprints, handwriting specimens, signatures, and
physical evidence are not considered testimonial evidence. Therefore, obtaining such evidence does
not amount to self-incrimination and is constitutionally valid.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

Nandini Satpathy, a former Chief Minister of Odisha, was questioned by the police during an
investigation and refused to answer certain questions. The Supreme Court held that the protection
against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) extends not only to trials but also to police
investigations and interrogations. An accused person has the right to remain silent and cannot be
compelled to answer questions that may expose him or her to criminal liability. The judgment greatly
expanded the scope of Article 20(3) and strengthened the rights of accused persons during criminal
investigations.

ARTICLE 21 and 21(A)

Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws (with Year)

Page no:22
 Article 21 "No person shall be Article 21 guarantees Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug
deprived of his life or the right to life and v. Union of India (2011).
personal liberty except personal liberty to every
according to procedure person. The Supreme
established by law." Court has expanded its
scope to include the
right to live with dignity,
livelihood, privacy,
health, shelter, legal
aid, and speedy trial.

Article 21A "The State shall provide Inserted by the 86th Mohini Jain v. State of
free and compulsory Constitutional Karnataka (1992) – Right to
education to all children Amendment Act, 2002. Education is part of Article 21.
of the age of six to It makes education a Unni Krishnan v. State of
fourteen years in such Fundamental Right for Andhra Pradesh (1993) – Right
manner as the State children between 6 and to Education up to age 14 is a
may, by law, determine." 14 years of age and Fundamental Right.
imposes a duty on the Society for Unaided Private
State to provide free Schools of Rajasthan v. Union
and compulsory of India (2012) – Upheld the
elementary education. constitutional validity of the
Right to Education Act, 2009.

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

Facts
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at KEM Hospital, Mumbai. In 1973, she was brutally assaulted and
strangled, causing severe brain damage that left her in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for
decades. Journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking permission for
euthanasia (mercy killing) for Aruna.

Held
The Supreme Court rejected the plea for euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug's case, holding that the
hospital staff caring for her were her true "next friends" and they wished to continue her treatment.
However, the Court made a landmark ruling by recognizing Passive Euthanasia in India under strict
safeguards.

Page no:23
 Passive euthanasia means withdrawal of life-support treatment to allow a natural death, whereas
active euthanasia remains illegal. The Court also laid down guidelines requiring approval from the
concerned High Court before passive euthanasia could be permitted.
Significance
●​ First case in India to recognize Passive Euthanasia.
●​ Distinguished between Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia.
●​ Laid down judicial guidelines for withdrawal of life support until Parliament enacted a law.
●​ Became the foundation for the later decision in Common Cause v. Union of India, where the
Supreme Court recognized the Right to Die with Dignity and validated living wills.

Important Case Laws for Article 21A

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
The petitioner challenged the capitation fee charged by private medical colleges in Karnataka. The
Supreme Court held that the Right to Education is an essential part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
The Court observed that without education, an individual cannot effectively exercise other
Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the State has a constitutional
obligation to provide educational opportunities to its citizens.

Held: The Right to Education is a Fundamental Right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
The Supreme Court reconsidered the decision in Mohini Jain and clarified the scope of the Right to
Education. The Court held that every child has a Fundamental Right to free education up to the age of
14 years. After the age of 14, the State's obligation depends upon its economic capacity and
development. This judgment formed the basis for the insertion of Article 21A through the 86th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.

Held: Free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 years is a Fundamental Right under Article
21.

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012)

The constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE
Act) was challenged by private schools. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act and held that
providing free and compulsory education to children between 6 and 14 years is a constitutional
mandate under Article 21A. The Court also upheld the requirement that private unaided non-minority
schools reserve 25% of seats for children from economically weaker sections.

Held: The Right to Education Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid and Article 21A makes free and
compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years a Fundamental Right.

Page no:24
 ARTICLE 22
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws (with Year)
Article No person who is arrested Gives an arrested person the Joginder Kumar v.
22(1) shall be detained without right to know the grounds of State of Uttar Pradesh
being informed of the grounds arrest and the right to consult (1994) – Arrest cannot
of arrest and shall not be a lawyer. be made routinely;
denied the right to consult and reasons must exist.
be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice. Khudiram Das v. State
of West Bengal (1975)
Article Every person arrested shall Protects against illegal – Grounds of detention
22(2) be produced before the detention by requiring must be communicated
nearest Magistrate within 24 production before a effectively.
hours of arrest and shall not Magistrate within 24 hours.
be detained beyond that
period without the authority of
a Magistrate.

Article Clauses (1) and (2) shall not Provides exceptions to the
22(3) apply to enemy aliens and safeguards available under
persons arrested under Article 22(1) and 22(2).
preventive detention laws.

Article No preventive detention shall Prevents indefinite preventive

22(4) exceed 3 months unless detention without review.
approved by an Advisory
Board.

Article The detained person must be Ensures fairness in

22(5) informed of the grounds of preventive detention.
detention and given an
opportunity to make a
representation against the
detention order.

Article Facts considered against Exception to disclosure

22(6) public interest need not be requirements in preventive
disclosed to the detained detention cases.
person.

Page no:25
 Article Parliament may prescribe Gives Parliament power to
22(7) circumstances and maximum regulate preventive detention
periods for preventive laws.
detention.

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)

In this case, Joginder Kumar, a young advocate, was taken into police custody for questioning and
was detained without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. His family members were also not
informed about his whereabouts. The Supreme Court observed that the power to arrest does not
mean that the police can arrest a person whenever they wish. Arrest should not be made in a routine
or arbitrary manner merely because it is lawful to do so.

Held: The Supreme Court held that an arrest must be based on reasonable justification and necessity.
The police must have valid reasons for making an arrest, and the arrested person's relatives or friends
should be informed about the arrest. The Court emphasized that personal liberty under Articles 21 and
22 must be protected against arbitrary police action.

Keyword: No Arbitrary Arrest + Reasons for Arrest + Inform Relatives.

Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975)

Khudiram Das was detained under a preventive detention law. He challenged the detention order on
the ground that the reasons for his detention were not properly communicated to him, thereby
preventing him from making an effective representation against the detention.

The Supreme Court held that preventive detention is a serious restriction on personal liberty and
therefore constitutional safeguards must be strictly followed. The grounds of detention must be
communicated clearly, fully, and in a language understood by the detenue so that he can effectively
challenge the detention order.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) becomes
meaningless unless the grounds of detention are communicated properly and effectively. Failure to do
so makes the detention unconstitutional.

Keyword: Preventive Detention + Effective Communication of Grounds + Right to Representation.

Page no:26
 ARTICLE 23 and 24
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws (with Year)
Article Traffic in human beings, Prohibits human trafficking, People's Union for
23(1) begar and other similar begar (forced labour without Democratic Rights v. Union
forms of forced labour are payment), bonded labour, of India (1982) – Payment
prohibited and any and all forms of forced below minimum wages
contravention shall be an labour. Applies against both amounts to forced labour.
offence punishable by law. the State and private Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
individuals. Union of India (1984) –
Bonded labour violates
Article 23.

Article Nothing in this article shall The State may impose

23(2) prevent the State from compulsory service such as
imposing compulsory military service, social
service for public purposes service, or national service,
without discrimination. provided there is no
discrimination based on
religion, race, caste, or
class.

Article 24 No child below the age of Prohibits child labour in M.C. Mehta v. State of
14 years shall be factories, mines, and Tamil Nadu (1996) –
employed in any factory, hazardous occupations. It Child labour in hazardous
mine, or hazardous seeks to protect children industries prohibited.
employment. from exploitation and People's Union for
dangerous working Democratic Rights v. Union
conditions. of India (1982) –
Employment of children in
prohibited work violates
Article 24.

Page no:27
Important Case Laws (Held)
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
This case is popularly known as the Asiad Workers Case. The Supreme Court held that payment of
wages below the minimum wage prescribed by law amounts to forced labour under Article 23. The
Court observed that economic compulsion forcing a person to work for less than minimum wages is a
form of forced labour prohibited by the Constitution.

Held: Any labour extracted through economic compulsion or payment below minimum wages violates
Article 23.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of bonded labourers working in stone quarries under inhuman
conditions. The Court held that bonded labour is a violation of Article 23 and human dignity under
Article 21. It directed the government to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded labourers.
Held: Bonded labour is unconstitutional and violates Article 23.

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

The Supreme Court examined the employment of children in hazardous industries, particularly match
and firecracker factories. The Court held that employment of children below 14 years in hazardous
occupations is prohibited under Article 24. It directed the State to ensure compulsory education and
rehabilitation of child labourers.

Held: Child labour in hazardous industries violates Article 24 and children must be provided
educational opportunities.

Page no:28
 ARTICLE 25 -28
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws (with Year)
Article 25(1) Freedom of conscience and Guarantees religious Rev. Stainislaus v. State of
the right freely to profess, freedom to all Madhya Pradesh (1977) –
practice and propagate persons. Right to propagate religion
religion, subject to public does not include the right to
order, morality, health and convert another person by
other Fundamental Rights. force, fraud, or inducement.

Article State may regulate State can regulate

25(2)(a) economic, financial, political secular aspects of
or secular activities religion.
associated with religious
practice.

Article State may make laws for Promotes social

25(2)(b) social welfare and reform reform and temple
and for opening Hindu entry.
religious institutions to all
classes and sections of
Hindus.

Article 26(a) Every religious Religious groups can

denomination has the right establish institutions.
to establish and maintain
institutions for religious and
charitable purposes.

Article 26(b) Right to manage its own Religious

affairs in matters of religion. denominations can
manage religious
affairs.

Article 26(c) Right to own and acquire Religious

movable and immovable denominations can
property. own property.

Page no:29
Article 26(d) Right to administer such Administration of
property according to law. property subject to
law.

Article 27 No person shall be State cannot force

compelled to pay taxes for citizens to support a
promotion or maintenance religion through
of any particular religion or taxation.
religious denomination.

Article 28(1) No religious instruction shall Religious instruction

be provided in educational prohibited in fully
institutions wholly State-funded
maintained by State funds. institutions.

Article 28(2) Religious instruction may be Exception to Article

imparted in institutions 28(1).
administered by the State
but established under an
endowment or trust
requiring such instruction.

Article 28(3) No person attending a Protects freedom of

State-recognized or conscience of
State-aided institution shall students.
be required to participate in
religious instruction or
worship without consent.

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

The constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the
Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 was challenged. These laws prohibited religious
conversions brought about by force, fraud, or inducement. The petitioners argued that the right to
"propagate" religion under Article 25 included the right to convert another person.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that Article 25 guarantees the right to profess,
practice, and propagate one's religion, but it does not grant a fundamental right to convert another
person. The Court observed that if a person has a right to convert another, it would infringe upon
the freedom of conscience of the person being converted. Therefore, the State can validly enact
laws prohibiting conversions by force, fraud, or inducement.

Held: The right to propagate religion means the right to spread or transmit one's religious beliefs,
but it does not include the right to convert another person by force, fraud, or inducement.

Keyword: Propagate ≠ Convert | Anti-Conversion Laws Valid | Article 25 (Freedom of Religion).

Page no:30
 ARTICLE 29 and 30
Article Bare Act Language Meaning Case Laws (with Year)
Article Any section of citizens Protects the language, script, and State of Madras v.
29(1) residing in the territory of culture of minorities as well as Champakam
India having a distinct majority groups having a distinct Dorairajan (1951) –
language, script or culture culture. Protection against
of its own shall have the discrimination in
right to conserve the educational institutions.
same.

Article No citizen shall be denied Prohibits discrimination in

29(2) admission into any admission to State-maintained or
educational institution State-aided educational
maintained by the State or institutions.
receiving State aid on
grounds only of religion,
race, caste, language or
any of them.

Article All minorities, whether Grants religious and linguistic

30(1) based on religion or minorities the right to establish and
language, shall have the manage educational institutions.
right to establish and
administer educational
institutions of their choice.

Article Compensation must be Protects minority institutions from

30(1A) paid if minority institution arbitrary acquisition.
property is acquired by
the State and such
acquisition should not
destroy minority rights.

Page no:31
Article The State shall not Minority institutions cannot be
30(2) discriminate in granting denied State aid merely because
aid to educational they are minority-run institutions.
institutions on the ground
that they are managed by
a minority.

ARTICLE 32
Page no:32
 Type of Writ Meaning When Issued? When Not Issued?

Habeas Corpus "You have the body" – 1. When a person is 1. When detention is
Relief from unlawful wrongfully detained.2. lawful.2. When detention
detention or Against both private is ordered by a
imprisonment of a individuals and public competent court.3. In
person. authorities. contempt proceedings of
a court or legislature.4.
When detention is
outside the court's
jurisdiction.

Mandamus "We Command" – 1. Legal right of petitioner 1. Against the President

Directs a public exists.2. Right has been or Governor.2. Against
authority to perform its infringed.3. Demand for private individuals.3.
mandatory/public duty. performance of duty has Against State
been made.4. Authority has Legislature.4. Against
failed to perform a ministerial officers acting
mandatory duty. under superior orders.

Quo Warranto "By What Authority" – 1. Public office is in 1. Against a private

Questions the legality of question.2. Office is created corporation.2. Against a
a person's claim to a by the Constitution or a private office.
public office. statute.3. Person is not
legally entitled to hold the
office.

Prohibition "To Stop / Prohibit" – 1. When a lower court acts 1. When acting within
Issued by a superior beyond jurisdiction.2. When jurisdiction.2. Mere
court to prevent a lower it acts contrary to law.3. mistake of fact or law.3.
court or tribunal from When it exercises Against administrative
exceeding its jurisdiction it does not authorities.
jurisdiction. possess.

Certiorari "To Be Certified / To Be 1. Lack or excess of 1. Against purely

Informed" – Transfers a jurisdiction.2. Violation of administrative or
case or quashes an natural justice.3. Error ministerial orders.2.
order of a lower apparent on record.4. When no jurisdictional
court/tribunal. Against judicial or error exists.
quasi-judicial authorities.

Page no:33
 Official Language
Chapter Article Subject Main Provision

Chapter I – Article 343 Official Language of the Hindi in Devanagari script shall be
Language of the Union the Official Language of the Union.
Union English to continue for official
purposes for the first 15 years from
commencement of Constitution.

Article 344 Commission and President may appoint a

Committee on Official Commission and Parliamentary
Language Committee regarding progressive
use of Hindi and restrictions on
English.

Chapter II – Article 345 Official Language of State State Legislature may adopt any
Regional language in use in the State or Hindi
Languages as its official language.

Article 346 Communication between Communication between States and

States and Union the Union shall ordinarily be in the
official language of the Union.

Article 347 Special Provision relating President may recognize a language

to Language spoken by a section of the
population of a State if sufficient
demand exists.

Chapter III – Article 348 Language of SC & HC Proceedings, judgments, Acts and
Language of Bills shall be in English unless
Supreme Court Parliament provides otherwise.
and High Courts
Article 349 Special Procedure for Special procedure for enactment of
Language-related Laws laws relating to language during the
initial period after commencement of
the Constitution.

Chapter IV – Article 350 Language for Any person may submit a

Special Representation of representation for redress of
Directives Grievances grievances in any language used in
the Union or State.

Page no:34
Article 350A Facilities for Instruction in States should provide adequate
Mother Tongue facilities for instruction in the mother
tongue at the primary stage for
linguistic minorities.

Article 350B Special Officer for President appoints a Special Officer

Linguistic Minorities to investigate matters relating to
safeguards for linguistic minorities.

Article 351 Development of Hindi Union shall promote the spread and
Language development of Hindi so that it may
serve as a medium of expression for
all elements of India's composite
culture.

Page no:35