Constitutional Law 20 Marks Questions & Answers

1. A, an unemployed youth filed a writ petition in the supreme court praying for payment of an allowance by government on the ground that he was not provided with employment and it was a violation of his fundamental right to live with human dignity under article 21 of the constitution. the state denied any such right art 21. Decide.

Facts Involved in the Case:

Petitioner A is an unemployed youth.
A filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court.
The petition prays for an allowance from the government due to lack of employment.
A claim that the absence of employment violates his fundamental right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The state government denies that Article 21 encompasses the right to an allowance or employment.

Reasons of the Case:

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
A argues that the right to live with human dignity, as interpreted under Article 21, includes the right to basic necessities, which should extend to receiving an allowance when unemployed.
The state contends that Article 21 does not explicitly provide for the right to an allowance or mandatory employment by the government.

Example Case Law in a Speech of Public Meeting: “Ladies and gentlemen, let us consider the landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. This means that if the right to livelihood is taken away, the right to life is infringed. However, this does not imply an obligation on the state to provide employment or allowances directly but mandates the state to not impede access to livelihood.”

Questions Involved in the Case:

Does Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompass the right to an allowance for the unemployed?
Is the state’s denial of such an allowance a violation of the right to live with human dignity under Article 21?
Can the scope of Article 21 be interpreted to impose a positive obligation on the state to ensure employment or provide financial assistance to the unemployed?

Reference Cases:

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Addressed the right to livelihood as part of the right to life.
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996): Stressed that the right to live with human dignity encompasses the right to basic necessities.
PUCL v. Union of India (2003): The court ruled that the right to food, a component of the right to life, implies that the state must ensure food security.

Decision: The Supreme Court, while deciding on this case, may reason as follows:

Interpretation of Article 21: The right to live with human dignity is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. This right includes access to basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter.
State’s Obligation: Although the right to life includes the right to livelihood, it does not necessarily translate into a positive obligation on the state to provide employment or a financial allowance. The state must ensure that its actions do not deprive individuals of their right to livelihood.
Policy Consideration: Providing an allowance to the unemployed falls under the purview of socio-economic policies, which are determined by the legislature and executive. The judiciary can ensure that such policies do not violate fundamental rights but cannot mandate specific economic policies.
Conclusion: Therefore, while acknowledging the broad interpretation of Article 21, the court may conclude that the absence of a specific state-provided allowance for the unemployed does not constitute a direct violation of Article 21. The petition would likely be dismissed, but the court may urge the state to consider more robust social security measures.

This hypothetical decision respects the constitutional framework, emphasizing the separation of powers while acknowledging the broader interpretation of fundamental rights.

2. X a government employee was arrested and convicted in a criminal case by proper court. Basing on this without any departmental enquiry he was dismissed from his employment, is he has any constitutional safe guards regarding his employment.

Facts Involved in the Case:

X is a government employee.
X was arrested and convicted in a criminal case by a proper court.
X was dismissed from his employment without any departmental enquiry following his conviction.

Reasons of the Case:

The key issue is whether X’s dismissal without a departmental enquiry violates his constitutional safeguards regarding employment.
The legal framework governing the dismissal of government employees includes constitutional protections under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.
The necessity of a departmental enquiry before dismissal of a government employee is a crucial element in safeguarding employees’ rights against arbitrary action.

Questions Involved in the Case:

Does the conviction of a government employee in a criminal case justify dismissal without a departmental enquiry?
What constitutional safeguards exist for a government employee facing dismissal following a criminal conviction?
Are there any precedents or case laws that clarify the need for a departmental enquiry in such situations?

Example Case Law:

A pertinent case is Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 AIR 1416. In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, a government servant can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an enquiry if he is convicted in a criminal case. However, this is subject to the condition that the competent authority considers it necessary to impose such a penalty.

Reference Cases:

Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 AIR 369: This case highlights the principles surrounding the dismissal of a government employee and the need for a fair hearing.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 AIR 1416: This case explains the exception to the requirement of a departmental enquiry in cases of conviction for a criminal offense.
Union of India v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd., 1997 AIR 2287: Discusses the procedural safeguards and the importance of reasonable grounds for dismissal.

Decision:

In the present scenario, although X was convicted in a criminal case, Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India provides that a government employee can be dismissed without a departmental enquiry if he has been convicted of a criminal offense. This provision acts as an exception to the general rule that a departmental enquiry is mandatory before dismissal. Therefore, X’s dismissal without a departmental enquiry, in this case, aligns with constitutional provisions, provided the competent authority duly applied its mind to the necessity of such action.

In conclusion, while the dismissal without a departmental enquiry is permissible in this context due to the conviction, it is crucial that such decisions are made with careful consideration and not arbitrarily. This balances the need to maintain discipline within government services and the protection of employees’ rights against unjust termination.

3. A a person belonging to open category secures more marks than b a person belonging to backward class, B got admission but A was denied admission into MBBS. A challenges Bs admission. Decide.

Facts Involved in the Case

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for gathering here today. We are here to discuss a crucial issue of fairness and equality in the education system. The facts of the case are as follows:

A, a candidate from the open (general) category, secured higher marks than B, a candidate from the backward class category, in the entrance examination for MBBS admissions.
Despite securing more marks, A was denied admission to the MBBS program, while B was granted admission.
A has challenged B‘s admission, raising concerns over the reservation policies and their implementation.

Reasons of the Case

The primary reasons behind this case revolve around the following:

Reservation Policies: The case questions the implementation of reservation policies designed to uplift socially and educationally backward classes. These policies reserve a certain percentage of seats for backward classes in educational institutions.
Merit vs. Reservation: The core issue here is the balance between merit-based admissions and reservations. A argues that despite achieving higher marks, their right to admission was overlooked due to the reservation policy favoring B.
Constitutional Validity: A‘s challenge also touches upon the constitutional validity of reservation policies, questioning whether these policies undermine the merit-based selection process.

Example Case Law

To illustrate this issue, let’s consider the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission Case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the reservation policy but introduced the “creamy layer” concept to exclude the more affluent members of the backward classes from availing these benefits.

Questions Involved in the Case

The case at hand raises several important questions:

Is the denial of admission to A, despite securing higher marks, a violation of their fundamental rights?
How should the balance between merit-based admissions and reservation policies be maintained?
Are the current reservation policies being implemented in a manner that ensures equality and fairness?

Reference Cases

In addition to the Indra Sawhney case, other relevant cases include:

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): This case reaffirmed the validity of reservation policies but emphasized the need for periodic reviews to ensure they serve their intended purpose.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): This case discussed the rights of private educational institutions in the context of admissions and reservations.

Decision

Given the complexities of this case, the decision would likely hinge on a careful examination of constitutional principles and precedents. The court would need to balance the need for social justice through reservations with the principles of merit and equality.

In conclusion, while reservations are crucial for uplifting historically disadvantaged groups, it is essential to ensure that such policies do not unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates from the open category. The court may decide to uphold B‘s admission but could also recommend a review of the current reservation policies to address such conflicts in the future.

4. National Emergency was imposed and all the fundamental rights were suspended by president declaration. A person was arrested without saying grounds of arrest. A contesting that his fundamental right to know his arrest and right to life and persona liberty was violated. Decide

Facts Involved in the Case

National Emergency Declaration: The President of India declared a National Emergency.
Suspension of Fundamental Rights: Following the declaration, all fundamental rights were suspended.
Arrest of Individual (A): A person named A was arrested without being informed of the grounds for the arrest.
Claim by A: A contested that his fundamental rights, specifically the right to know the grounds of his arrest and the right to life and personal liberty, were violated.

Reasons of the Case

National Emergency Context: Under the Indian Constitution, during a National Emergency, certain fundamental rights can be suspended to preserve national security and public order.
Suspension of Rights: Article 359 allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency, excluding Articles 20 and 21.
Arrest without Grounds: Typically, Article 22 mandates that the person arrested must be informed of the reasons for the arrest and must be allowed to consult a legal practitioner. However, this right can be suspended during an emergency.

Questions Involved in the Case

Does the President’s declaration of National Emergency justify the suspension of all fundamental rights?
Can the government arrest an individual without disclosing the grounds of arrest during a National Emergency?
Are there any limits to the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency, particularly with respect to the right to life and personal liberty?

Reference Cases

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This landmark case dealt with similar issues during the 1975 Emergency in India, where the Supreme Court held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended.
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964): The Supreme Court discussed the scope of suspension of fundamental rights during an Emergency.
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This case addressed the rights of individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention.

Decision

Based on the facts and the legal precedents, the decision would hinge on the interpretation of the constitutional provisions during an emergency. The Supreme Court, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, ruled that during a National Emergency, the right to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 remains suspended if such suspension is explicitly mentioned in the Presidential order.

Therefore, considering the legal framework and past precedents, it is likely that A’s contestation would not succeed during the period of Emergency, as the suspension of the right to know the grounds of arrest and the right to personal liberty are constitutionally permissible.

5. A was carrying on some profession in Andhra Pradesh. An officer of the state prevented A from carrying on the profession. A complaint that his fundamental right is Affected. Decide

Facts Involved in the Case

Party A was engaged in a professional activity in Andhra Pradesh.
An officer of the State took action to prevent Party A from continuing this professional activity.
Party A contends that this prevention has infringed upon their fundamental rights.

Questions Involved in the Case

Is the right to practice a profession a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
Did the State officer’s actions violate Party A’s fundamental rights?
What are the permissible grounds for restricting the practice of a profession under Indian law?
Is there a legitimate and legal basis for the State officer’s actions?

Reasons of the Case

Constitutional Right: Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, citizens have the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Reasonable Restrictions: Article 19(6) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public.
State Officer’s Authority: The legality of the State officer’s action must be assessed based on whether it was within the scope of law and whether it constituted a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

Example Case Law

Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950)

Facts: The State imposed restrictions on certain businesses, which were challenged as violating the right to practice any profession.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that any restriction must be reasonable and in the interest of the general public.

Reference Cases

Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989): Addressed the right to carry on trade or business on public streets.
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (1960): Discussed reasonable restrictions and the balance between individual rights and public interest.

Decision

In light of the facts and relevant case law, the decision must consider:

Validity of the Officer’s Actions: The officer’s actions must be justified as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).
Public Interest: If the restriction serves a significant public interest, it might be upheld as constitutional.
Nature of the Restriction: The restriction should not be arbitrary or excessive and must have a clear legal backing.

Conclusion

If the officer’s actions are found to be arbitrary or without a legal basis, Party A’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) has indeed been violated. However, if the restriction is deemed reasonable and in the public interest, then the actions might be upheld as constitutional.

6. X is a public servant was dismissed from his office. Reasons were not given for his dismissed. What are remedies available for X

Facts Involved in the Case

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing the case of Mr. X, a diligent public servant who has been dismissed from his office without being given any reasons for his dismissal. This abrupt action raises significant legal and constitutional questions under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the rights of public servants.

Reasons of the Case

To understand Mr. X’s predicament, let’s delve into the reasons for his dismissal. Unfortunately, in this scenario, no explicit reasons have been provided by the authority. This lack of transparency is itself a crucial point of contention, as it contravenes the principles of natural justice, which mandate that an individual should be informed of the charges against them and be given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Questions Involved in the Case

The critical questions we need to address here are:

What remedies are available to Mr. X under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution?
Does the failure to provide reasons for dismissal violate the principles of natural justice?
What are the legal precedents that can guide us in resolving Mr. X’s situation?

Reference Cases

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation of Article 311. Let’s consider a few examples:

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): This case emphasized that a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them, reinforcing procedural safeguards.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Although primarily dealing with personal liberty, this case underscored the importance of fair procedure and the need for reasons to be provided to ensure just administrative actions.
Khem Chand v. Union of India (1958): This case highlighted the importance of giving a reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend themselves against any allegations before a dismissal.

Decision

In light of these precedents, Mr. X has several remedies available under Article 311:

Appeal to Higher Authority: Mr. X can appeal to a higher administrative authority within his department, requesting a review of the dismissal decision.
Judicial Review: Mr. X can file a writ petition in the High Court or Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, respectively. The courts can examine whether the dismissal was arbitrary or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Reinstatement: If the court finds the dismissal procedure flawed, it can order Mr. X’s reinstatement along with possible back pay and other benefits.
Seeking Reasons for Dismissal: Mr. X can legally demand the reasons for his dismissal. If the reasons are not provided, it strengthens his case for challenging the dismissal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. X’s dismissal without given reasons appears to be a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 311. He has several legal remedies at his disposal, from appealing to higher authorities within his department to seeking judicial review in courts. The principles established in landmark cases provide a strong foundation for Mr. X to challenge his dismissal and seek justice.

7. A legislation passed in the state legislature prohibiting drink in the state. X wants to question the validity of law. Dismiss.

Facts Involved in the Case

The state legislature has enacted a law prohibiting the consumption, sale, and distribution of alcohol within the state. X, a resident of the state, challenges the validity of this law, arguing that it infringes on individual rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

Reasons of the Case

X’s primary contention is that the prohibition of alcohol by the state legislature violates personal liberty and potentially other constitutional rights. The case revolves around the balance between state authority to regulate public health, safety, and morals versus individual freedoms.

Questions Involved in the Case

Does the state legislature have the authority to enact laws prohibiting the consumption and sale of alcohol?
Is the prohibition law a reasonable exercise of the state’s police powers?
Does the prohibition law infringe on constitutional rights, such as the right to personal liberty and privacy?

Reference Cases

State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries (2013): This case dealt with the state’s power to regulate alcohol under its police powers and affirmed that the state could impose restrictions on the sale and distribution of alcohol in the interest of public health.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case established the principle that any law affecting personal liberty must pass the test of reasonableness and must not be arbitrary.
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1995): The Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to prohibit or regulate the trade in intoxicating liquors, affirming the state’s power under Article 47 of the Constitution which directs the state to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks in the interest of public health.

Example Case Law in a Speech of Public Meeting

“Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a moment to reflect on the case of State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries. This landmark decision affirmed that our state has the authority to impose restrictions on alcohol to protect public health. Furthermore, the principle established in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka supports our legislature’s right to prohibit the trade in intoxicating liquors. Such measures are not only constitutional but also necessary for the well-being of our society.”

Decision

Based on the precedents and the constitutional provisions, the challenge posed by X to the validity of the prohibition law is not tenable. The state legislature has acted within its rights under the Constitution, specifically Article 47, which mandates the state to endeavor towards the prohibition of intoxicating drinks in the interest of public health and morality. The prohibition law is a legitimate exercise of the state’s police powers aimed at promoting public welfare.

Therefore, the challenge to the validity of the law is dismissed.

This decision reaffirms the state’s authority to enact laws that protect public health and moral standards, even when such laws restrict certain individual freedoms.

8. Open vacant site of a residential locality is reserved for a public park. The government has given that vacant site to a private party to construct multiplex. X a resident of that locality wants to challenge the decision of the government advise.

Facts Involved in the Case:

Site Description: The site in question is an open vacant land located in a residential locality.
Original Designation: The land was reserved for use as a public park.
Government Decision: The government has allocated this site to a private party for the construction of a multiplex.
Resident’s Concern: X, a resident of the locality, wishes to challenge the government’s decision.

Reasons for the Case:

Public Interest: The site was designated as a public park to serve the community’s recreational needs.
Legal Precedent: There may be legal precedents regarding the change of land use from public to private purposes.
Environmental Impact: Constructing a multiplex may have adverse environmental effects.
Urban Planning: Such a change could disrupt the planned urban development and community welfare.
Right to Environment: Residents have a right to a healthy environment, which can be compromised by the new construction.

Example Case Law:

In the landmark case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991), the Supreme Court of India held that the conversion of a public park into a private nursing home was invalid. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining open spaces for public use and ruled against the alteration of land use that was initially intended for public utility.

Questions Involved in the Case:

Legality: Is the government’s decision to allocate a public park site to a private entity legally valid?
Procedural Fairness: Was the decision made following proper procedures, including public consultation?
Public Interest: Does the change in land use serve the public interest or compromise it?
Zoning Laws: Are there any zoning laws or regulations that restrict such a change in land use?
Environmental Considerations: What are the environmental implications of constructing a multiplex on this site?

Reference Cases:

Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991) – Conversion of public park land for private use was invalid.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for protecting the environment and public spaces.
Tata Housing Development Company v. Goa Foundation (2003) – Highlighted the necessity of adherence to zoning laws and environmental protection.

Decision:

Based on the precedents and the reasons outlined, X has a strong case to challenge the government’s decision. The following steps can be advised:

Filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL): X should file a PIL in the appropriate court challenging the government’s decision.
Grounds for Challenge:

Violation of public trust doctrine, as the land was reserved for public use.
Lack of procedural fairness and public consultation in the decision-making process.
Potential environmental hazards and disruption of the community’s well-being.
Inconsistency with zoning laws and urban planning regulations.

Interim Relief: Seek an interim injunction to halt any construction activity until the case is resolved.
Engaging the Community: Mobilize community support to emphasize the importance of the public park and garner public opinion against the construction of the multiplex.

In conclusion, the decision to allocate the public park site for a multiplex can be legally contested on several grounds, and X should proceed with legal action to protect the community’s interest and environmental well-being.

9. The president of india dissolved the legislative Assemblies of some states under article 356 in the absence of a report from the governors of the respective states. Is the action of the president Valid.

Facts Involved in the Case

The President of India dissolved the Legislative Assemblies of several states under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution without receiving reports from the Governors of the respective states.

Reasons of the Case

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if he or she, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, is satisfied that the governance of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The critical point in this case is whether the President’s decision to dissolve the Legislative Assemblies without a report from the Governors is valid.

Example Case Law in a Speech of Public Meeting

In the public meeting, I would say: “Ladies and Gentlemen, let us recall the landmark case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). This historic Supreme Court decision established that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It emphasized the need for the President to have tangible material to justify the imposition of President’s Rule. The court held that the dissolution of a state legislature without substantial grounds, especially in the absence of a Governor’s report, would be invalid.”

Questions Involved in the Case

Does the President have the authority to dissolve Legislative Assemblies without a Governor’s report?
Is the action taken by the President justifiable under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution?
What are the constitutional safeguards against the misuse of Article 356?
How does the judiciary review the use of Article 356?

Reference Cases

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of Article 356 and stated that the use of Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): This case discussed the scope of Article 356 but upheld the power of the President to dismiss state governments.
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India (2006): This case reinforced that the proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, particularly if the grounds for invoking it are found to be malafide or based on irrelevant considerations.

Decision

In light of the principles established in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case, the President’s action of dissolving the Legislative Assemblies without a Governor’s report would likely be deemed invalid. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the imposition of President’s Rule must be based on concrete and verifiable material. The absence of a Governor’s report weakens the justification for such a drastic measure and can be seen as a violation of constitutional propriety and the federal structure.

Therefore, based on constitutional principles and judicial precedents, the dissolution of the Legislative Assemblies by the President, without a report from the Governors, would be considered invalid and an overreach of executive power.

10. Andhra pradesh government has introduced personal loans without interest to the weaker sections. After some time the government has stopped the schemes without giving notice to the public . A woman organization challenged the validy. Advice.

Facts Involved in the Case:

The Andhra Pradesh government introduced a scheme providing personal loans without interest to the weaker sections of society.
After some time, the government abruptly stopped the scheme without any prior notice to the public.
A women’s organization has challenged the validity of the government’s decision to stop the scheme without notice.

Reasons of the Case:

Promissory Estoppel: The government made a promise by introducing the scheme. Beneficiaries might have altered their position based on this promise.
Legitimate Expectation: Citizens developed an expectation that the scheme would continue, based on the government’s initial promise.
Violation of Natural Justice: Abruptly stopping the scheme without notice may be seen as a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability: Government schemes should be transparent, and the abrupt cessation without notice could be deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Example Case Law in a Speech of Public Meeting:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here to address the grave issue of the Andhra Pradesh government’s abrupt cessation of the no-interest loan scheme for the weaker sections. In the landmark case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. Just as in this case, where procedural fairness and legitimate expectations were violated, our challenge stands on similar grounds. The government must be held accountable for its promises to the people.”

Questions Involved in the Case:

Did the government violate the principle of promissory estoppel by abruptly stopping the scheme?
Were the principles of legitimate expectation infringed upon by the government’s actions?
Did the cessation of the scheme without notice constitute a breach of natural justice?
Is the government’s action arbitrary and lacking in transparency?

Reference Cases:

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India: Emphasized the importance of fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies: Dealt with the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Navjyoti Co-Op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India: Highlighted the concept of legitimate expectation.

Decision:

Based on the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and natural justice, the court is likely to rule in favor of the women’s organization. The abrupt cessation of the scheme without notice is a violation of these principles. The government may be directed to either reinstate the scheme or provide a valid and transparent rationale for its termination, ensuring that affected parties are given adequate notice and reasons for the cessation. The decision will underscore the necessity for the government to act fairly, transparently, and accountably, upholding the trust of its citizens.

11. The telephone calls of x a political opposition leader were tapped by Y a cbi officer. Advice x about his constitutional rights.

Facts Involved in the Case

Parties Involved:

X: A political opposition leader.
Y: A CBI officer.

Incident:

The telephone calls of X were tapped by Y without X’s consent.

Reasons of the Case

Violation of Privacy: The act of tapping the telephone calls could be a violation of X’s right to privacy.
Abuse of Power: The CBI officer might have abused his power by tapping the calls without proper authorization.
Legal Authorization: Determining whether the telephone tapping was done following due process and legal requirements.

Questions Involved in the Case

Was the telephone tapping legally authorized?
Did the tapping violate X’s constitutional rights, specifically the right to privacy?
What remedies are available to X under the law?

Example Case Law in a Speech

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s reflect on a landmark case that sets a precedent for the issue at hand: “People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India” (1997). In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that telephone tapping by the government, unless done under specific circumstances and proper authorization, constitutes a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court laid down stringent procedural safeguards that need to be followed to ensure the protection of individual privacy.

Reference Cases

PUCL v. Union of India (1997): Highlighted the necessity of proper authorization and procedural safeguards in telephone tapping.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): Recognized the right to privacy as implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

Decision

Based on the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, X’s constitutional rights may have been violated if the telephone tapping was not done following the due process of law. X should be advised to:

File a Complaint: Lodge a formal complaint with the higher authorities in the CBI.
Approach the Courts: Seek redress by filing a writ petition in the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, respectively.
Demand an Inquiry: Request a thorough inquiry into the matter to establish the legality of the telephone tapping.

Advising X About Constitutional Rights

X, you have the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The telephone tapping by the CBI officer could be a severe infringement on this right unless it was done following the established legal procedures and with proper authorization. You are entitled to challenge this action in court and seek a remedy for any unlawful infringement of your rights.

12. Govt of andhra pradesh passed an order that, all the posts of the corporation visakhapatnam be filed by local residents of visakhapatnam only. examine the constitutional validy of this order.

Facts Involved in the Case:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order stipulating that all positions within the Visakhapatnam Corporation be filled exclusively by local residents of Visakhapatnam.
The order aims to prioritize local employment and ensure that job opportunities within the corporation are reserved for individuals residing in Visakhapatnam.
This directive potentially restricts employment opportunities for qualified candidates from other regions of Andhra Pradesh or other states.

Reasons of the Case:

Equality and Non-Discrimination: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This order might be seen as discriminatory towards non-residents of Visakhapatnam.
Freedom of Movement and Residence: Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution protect the right of citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. The order may violate these fundamental rights.
Public Employment and Equal Opportunity: Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Reserving jobs exclusively for local residents could be viewed as a violation of this provision.

Questions Involved in the Case:

Does the order by the Government of Andhra Pradesh violate the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws under Article 14?
Is the order infringing upon the freedom of movement and the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India as protected by Article 19?
Does the reservation of jobs for local residents in the Visakhapatnam Corporation violate the provisions of Article 16 regarding equality of opportunity in matters of public employment?

Example Case Law:

Dr. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984): This case addressed the issue of domicile-based reservations in medical colleges and emphasized the need for national integration and the constitutional mandate of equality. The Supreme Court held that while some reservations for local candidates might be permissible, they cannot completely exclude candidates from other regions.
Sunanda Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995): The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down a state order reserving engineering seats for local candidates, ruling it unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Reference Cases:

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Pradip Tandon (1975): The Supreme Court examined the criteria for valid reservations and held that classification should be reasonable and should not violate Article 14.
Rajendran vs. State of Madras (1968): This case dealt with reservations in educational institutions and emphasized that reservations should not infringe on the fundamental right to equality.

Decision:

In light of the constitutional provisions and the precedents set by the Supreme Court, the order by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is likely to be held unconstitutional. The order violates Article 14 as it discriminates against non-residents without a reasonable basis. It infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 by restricting freedom of movement and residence. Furthermore, it contravenes Article 16, which ensures equal opportunity in public employment. Therefore, the order would likely be struck down as it does not align with the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution of India.

13. A was arrested by police and he was not in formed the grounds of his arrest. Advice A?

Facts Involved in the Case

A was arrested by the police. During his arrest, he was not informed of the grounds or reasons for his detention. A seeks advice regarding the legality of his arrest and his rights in this situation.

Reasons of the Case

The core issue here revolves around whether the police adhered to the legal requirement of informing an arrestee of the grounds for their arrest. According to constitutional and statutory provisions, informing a person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right.

Questions Involved in the Case

Was the arrest of A lawful?
What are the legal requirements for a lawful arrest?
What rights does A have when arrested?
What remedies are available to A if his rights were violated?

Example Case Law

In the landmark case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994), the Supreme Court of India held that it is mandatory for the police to inform the arrested person of the reasons for their arrest as soon as practicable. This case emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals during arrest and detention.

Reference Cases

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): This case outlined guidelines for arrest and detention, stressing the need for transparency and procedural safeguards.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994): As previously mentioned, it highlighted the requirement for informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (US Case): Established the principle that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights before police questioning.

Decision

Based on the facts of the case and the relevant legal precedents, it can be concluded that A’s arrest was not lawful. The police failed to inform A of the grounds of his arrest, violating his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, A has the right to challenge the legality of his arrest and can seek remedies including:

Filing a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the unlawful detention.
Seeking compensation for the violation of his rights.

14. The workers of famine relief work were paid less than minimum wages. Do you think that any constitutional rights are violated?

Facts Involved in the Case

In this case, workers engaged in famine relief work were compensated at a rate lower than the established minimum wage. This raises concerns regarding the compliance with constitutional protections and statutory requirements ensuring fair labor practices.

Reasons of the Case

The primary issue is whether paying workers below the minimum wage during famine relief work violates their constitutional rights. The constitution guarantees certain protections to workers, including the right to fair wages and non-exploitative work conditions.

Questions Involved in the Case

Does the payment of less than minimum wages to famine relief workers constitute a violation of their constitutional rights?
What specific constitutional provisions or labor laws are breached by paying these workers below the minimum wage?
Are there any exceptions or justifications that could potentially allow for wages below the minimum standard in emergency situations like famine relief?

Reference Cases

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Also known as the Asiad Workers Case, this case dealt with the payment of minimum wages to workers engaged in the construction of facilities for the Asian Games. The Supreme Court ruled that non-payment of minimum wages amounted to forced labor, violating Article 23 of the Constitution.
Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983): This case specifically dealt with the payment of minimum wages to workers employed in famine relief projects. The Supreme Court held that paying less than minimum wages was a violation of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 and the right against exploitation under Article 23.

Decision

In the context of the aforementioned case laws and constitutional provisions, paying less than the minimum wage to famine relief workers would indeed violate their constitutional rights. Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits forced labor, which includes work for wages less than the statutory minimum. Additionally, Article 21 ensures the right to life with dignity, which is undermined by paying insufficient wages.

Example Case Law in a Speech of Public Meeting

“Friends, let me remind you of the landmark case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court stood firm against the injustice of paying less than minimum wages. The Court declared that not paying the statutory minimum wage constitutes forced labor under Article 23 of our Constitution. Similarly, in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court reinforced that paying famine relief workers less than the minimum wage violates their right to life with dignity under Article 21. These rulings highlight that no matter the circumstances, every worker deserves fair compensation for their labor. It is our duty to ensure these constitutional protections are upheld.”

Conclusion

The payment of less than minimum wages to workers engaged in famine relief work is a clear violation of constitutional rights. The relevant case laws establish a strong precedent that such practices infringe upon the right to life with dignity and protection against exploitation. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that all workers, regardless of the circumstances, receive at least the minimum wage guaranteed by law.

15. Hawkers have no fundamental and legal rights to occupy the parts of public streets for doing their business. Examine it with citing leading case law.

Facts Involved in the Case

The issue revolves around whether hawkers have any fundamental or legal rights to occupy parts of public streets for conducting their business activities. Public streets are intended for use by the general public, and any unauthorized occupation can lead to obstructions, safety hazards, and infringement of the rights of other citizens.

Reasons of the Case

The reasons behind examining this issue include:

Public Interest: Ensuring that public streets remain free from obstruction for the safe and convenient use of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
Legal Framework: Determining whether existing laws and constitutional provisions support or restrict the occupation of public streets by hawkers.
Rights and Responsibilities: Balancing the rights of hawkers to conduct business and earn a livelihood with the rights of the public to use the streets freely.
Urban Management: Addressing issues related to urban management, such as cleanliness, orderliness, and the efficient use of public spaces.

Example Case Law: Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989)

In the landmark case of Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989), the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether hawkers have a fundamental right to occupy public streets. The Court held that while hawkers have the right to carry on their trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public. The Court emphasized that public streets are primarily meant for the use of pedestrians and vehicular traffic and not for private business purposes.

Questions Involved in the Case

Do hawkers have a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution to occupy public streets for business purposes?
What legal restrictions can be imposed on the occupation of public streets by hawkers?
How should the rights of hawkers be balanced with the rights of the general public?
What precedents and case laws provide guidance on this issue?

Reference Cases

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Supreme Court recognized the right to livelihood but also stated that it must be balanced with the state’s duty to ensure public safety and order.
Bombay Hawkers’ Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Court discussed the need to regulate street hawking to prevent obstruction and maintain public order.
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989): Affirmed that while hawkers have rights under Article 19(1)(g), these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Decision

The decision in the Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee case clarified that hawkers do not have an absolute fundamental or legal right to occupy public streets. The right to trade and carry on business does not extend to using public streets, which are meant for the general public’s use. The Court upheld that the state can impose reasonable restrictions to ensure public safety, convenience, and the free movement of traffic and pedestrians.

In conclusion, while hawkers have the right to conduct business, this right is not unfettered. The occupation of public streets by hawkers is subject to regulations that balance their right to livelihood with the broader public interest. The Supreme Court’s rulings in the referenced cases provide a framework for understanding the limits of these rights and the necessity for regulation in the interest of public welfare.

Constitutional Law Questions & Landmark Case Laws for 20 Marks Exams