constitution of india- imp case laws

Chintamana Rao v State of MP

the constitutionality of Madhya Pradesh act which empowered the government to prohibit all persons residing in certain areas from engaging in manufacture of bidis was challenged. in this case, the prohibition was held to be unreasonable because it was of excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of public.

University of Madras v Shanta Bai

it has been held that university is also an authority

Bashsheshar Nath v CIT

it was held in this case that it was not open to citizens to waive any of the fundamental rights. Any person aggrieved by the consequence of the exercise of any discriminatory power, could be heard to complain against it

Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India

right of freedom of speech and expression is not a license to misinterpret the order of the court and presenting only on e sided picture tending to ridicule the picture. this is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions may be imposed.

Philips Alfred Malvin v Y J Gonsalvis

right to life includes those things which make life meaningful. for instance, the right of a couple to adopt a son.

Re: Angur Bala Parui

the Calcutta high court held that the electricity authorities being state within the meaning of article 12, their actions can be judicially reviewed by this court under article 226 of the constitution

AK Gopalan v State of Madras

a very narrow meaning was given to the expression. "personal liberty" confining it to the liberty of the persons, ie- of the body of a person

Golaknath v State of Punjab

the petitioner challenged the validity of punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 and the Mysore land reforms act. the Supreme Court revising its earlier decisions in Dhanasri Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases contended that the parliament had no power to amend fundamental rights.

24th Amendment

to nullify the effect of golaknath judgement, parliament passed the constitution (24th amendment) act in 1971 introducing certain changes and amended the fundamental rights. the act declared that the parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights under article 368.

Yusuf Abdul Aziz v The State of Bombay

" adultery" unequal provisions in the ipc wrt men and women. court declared: the constitution itself provides for special provisions with regard to women and children.

Ram Kishan Dalmia v Justice Tendulkar

1. article 14 prohibits class legislation but does not forbid classification 2. conditions for permissible classification: a. there should be clear differentiation between people who are included and people who are excluded for the classification. b. the classification should have rational nexus with the purpose of that classification. 3. the classification maybe founded on different basis, namely geographical, or according to objects, or occupation or the like. 4. there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles

Secy. of state of Karnataka v Umadevi

Adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the constitution and since the rule of law is the core of the constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passingg an order upholding a violation of article 14.

A K Gopalan v State of Madras

Doctrine of Severability: if after separating the invalid part, the valid part is capable of giving effect to the legislatures intent, then only it will survive, otherwise the court shall declare the entire law as invalid.

Golaknath case

Even constitutional amendments are void to the extent they contradict with the fundamental rights.

A R Antualy v R S Nayak

It was held that a court can be considered as a state under article 12 only if it exercises non judicial functions

R D Shetty v International Airport Authority and Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib

Supreme Court has pointed out that corporations acting as instrumentality or agency of the government would become "state" if: 1. the entire share capital of the corporation is held by the government. 2. the financial assistance of the state is so much as to meet the entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated by the government character 3. the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is conferred or protected by the state. 4. the state exercises deep and pervasive control in the corporation 5. the functions of the corporation are of public importance and are closely related to government functions 6. if a department of the government is transferred to the corporation.

Kharak Singh v State of UP

The expression "Personal liberty" is not limited to bodily restraint or to confinement to person only

Haroobhai v State of Gujarat

The gujrat high court held that the president is "state" when making an order under article 359 of the constitution

42nd amendment act, 1976

done during the period of emergency and gave unlimited amending powers to parliament by removing the exception of the basic structure of the constitution. as a result, parliament can amend the constitution even by altering its basic structure

Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan

initially Supreme Court was of the view that no part of our constitution was unamendable and that the parliament in compliance with the requirements of article 368 may amend any provision of the constitution, including fundamental rights

Shankari Prasad v union of india

initially Supreme Court was of the view that no part of our constitution was unamendable and that the parliament in compliance with the requirements of article 368 may amend any provision of the constitution, including fundamental rights

Electricity board, Rajasthan v Mohan lal

the Supreme Court has held that "other authorities" will include all authorities created by the constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law and it is not necessary that the authority should engage in performing government functions

Minerva Mills v Union of India

the Supreme Court was convinced that the basic structure of the constitution should be preserved and the unlimited power given under 2nd amendment act should not prevail.

Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala, 1973

the constitutional validity of the 24th amendment was challenged and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24 th amendment holding that parliament can amend any part of the constitution including the fundamental rights. but the court made it clear that the parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the constitution.

Satwant Singh Sawhney v Assistant Passport Officer

the right to travel abroad is included within the expression "personal liberty" and therefore, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law. Since a passport is essential for the enjoyment of this right, the denial of a passport amounts to depravation of personal liberty.