Trace Your Case

Menu

Category: Constitutional Law

Categories
Citizenship

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 783

ISSUE:

Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, violates Articles 14, 21, and 355 of the Constitution of India by granting special provisions for illegal immigrants in Assam?

Whether the classification under Section 6A, providing different cut-off dates for determining citizenship, is arbitrary and discriminatory?

Whether the influx of illegal migrants constitutes “external aggression” and “internal disturbance” under Article 355, requiring the Union’s intervention?

Whether a constitutional challenge to a provision after a delay of 27 years since its insertion is maintainable?

RULE:

The Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to protect the lives of citizens and their culture. In cases of violations of fundamental rights, any delay in filing the petition, by itself, cannot result in its dismissal.

Though delay can be a ground for denying relief under Article 32, there is no upper limit for such delay. The issue of maintainability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Citizenship

Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648

ISSUE:

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, is repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under Article 254 of the Constitution?

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution?

Whether the doctrine of eclipse can apply to post-Constitution laws infringing fundamental rights?

RULE:

The doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights.

Under Article 13, any post-Constitution law that contravenes fundamental rights is void ab initio, i.e., from its inception.

The test to determine repugnancy is that there must be a direct conflict between the provisions and that both laws should occupy the same field.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Reservations

B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129

ISSUE:

Whether the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018 (“2018 Reservation Act”), is constitutionally valid or not?

Whether a new statute introducing provisions similar to those struck down by the Supreme Court is invalid, when the grounds for striking down the previous Act have been cured?

Whether the principle of “efficiency of administration” under Article 335 of the Constitution is met by the 2018 Reservation Act?

Whether the concept of creamy layer applies to grant of seniority as a consequence of promotion on basis of reservation?

RULE:

Article 16(4A) of the Constitution permits the state to provide reservations in promotions for SC/STs if there is inadequate representation in services and such measures do not compromise the efficiency of administration.

Article 335 of the Constitution requires that claims of SC/STs be balanced with maintaining administrative efficiency.

Legislative actions addressing judicial decisions are valid if they correct the underlying basis of the court’s ruling without overriding it.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Reservations

E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394

ISSUE:

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (“the Act”), is violative of Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India?

Whether the Act is constitutionally invalid for lack of legislative competence?

Whether the subclassification of Scheduled Castes violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

RULE:

The classification of Scheduled Castes in the Constitution was meant to address the historically oppressed groups as a unified whole.

Any sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, for preferential treatment, would be discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Reservations

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

ISSUE:

Whether the order of the State of Mysore reserving 68% seats is justified under Article 15(4) of the Constitution?

Whether State governments have the authority to sub-divide backward classes into two categories – “backward” and “more backward” class?

RULE:

While adopting reservation to advance the weaker sections of society under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, care must be taken not to exclude deserving candidates from other communities from admissions to higher educational institutions.

Special provisions for reservations should generally be less than 50%. However, the exact percentage within this limit is in the domain of the State government to decide.

Special provisions under Article 15(4) of the Constitution can be made by the Union or State governments by executive order.

“Class” under Article 15(4) of the Constitution is different from “caste”.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Asymmetric Federalism

District Council of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills v. Miss Sitimon Sawian AIR 1972 SC 787

ISSUE:

Whether the provisions of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, which regulated the transfer, allotment, occupation, or use of land within the autonomous district, were within the constitutional authority of the District Council?

RULE:

District Councils have no plenary power of legislation. Their legislative powers are limited by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

Para 3 (1) (a) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution does not empower District Councils to legislate with respect to transfer of land.

The expression “the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart of land” does not take within its fold “transfer of land”

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Asymmetric Federalism

District Council of the Jowai v. Dwet Singh Rymbai, AIR 1986 SC 1930

ISSUE:

Whether the District Councils have the constitutional authority to impose royalty on timber extracted from private forests within its jurisdiction under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution?

RULE:

The law-making powers of District Councils are limited by the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.

The powers of District Councils are different from the plenary powers of the legislature.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Distribution of Legislative Competence

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072

ISSUE:

Whether the doctrine of pith and substance applies in cases of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution between Union and State legislations enacted under different entries of the same List of the Constitution?

Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, are repugnant to Sections 73, 74, and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under Article 254 of the Constitution?

RULE:

In order to decide whether there is any repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution between a Union legislation and State legislation, the doctrine of pith and substance is the appropriate test.

As per the doctrine of pith and substance, if the dominant intention of the Union and State legislation are different, then they cannot be said to be repugnant even if they refer to some allied subjects, as the subject matter is different.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Miscellaneous

Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State Of Assam, AIR 1961 SC

ISSUE:

Whether the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, 1954 (the Act) infringes the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution, particularly Article 301?

Whether it could be safeguarded by bringing it under the purview of Article 304 (b)?

RULE:

Doctrine of Freedom of Trade: The principle asserts that trade, commerce, and intercourse should be free across states without undue restrictions. The court analyzed whether the tax imposed by the Assam Act constituted an impediment to this freedom, as it affected the transportation of tea out of Assam.

Ultra Vires Doctrine: This principle was invoked to argue that the Assam Act exceeded the legislative powers conferred upon the state. The court assessed whether the Act conflicted with existing central laws governing tea production and distribution, thereby rendering it invalid.

Discriminatory Taxation: The court needed to determine if the tax unfairly favored local producers over those from other regions, thus constituting a violation of equitable treatment under law.

Public Interest Justification: The principle that taxation should serve public purposes was central to evaluating the legitimacy of the tax. The court considered if the tax could be justified as necessary for public welfare or if it primarily hindered free trade.

An Act is illegal if it violates the freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, such as the Assam (On the Goods Transported by Roads or Waterways) Tax Act, 1954.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Miscellaneous

Automobile Transport (Raj) Ltd. v. State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

ISSUE:

Whether Sections 4 and 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 violate the freedom of trade, commerce, and association guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution of 1949?

RULE:

Freedom of Trade and Commerce: The primary principle at stake is the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India as guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution. This provision establishes that trade should be free from restrictions unless justified under specific conditions.

Reasonable Restrictions: The court assessed if the taxation imposed by the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was a reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade.

Direct vs. Indirect Restrictions: The distinction between direct and indirect restrictions on trade was discussed. The court determined that the tax imposed did not directly obstruct trade but instead had an indirect effect, which was deemed permissible under Article 301.

Public Interest Justification: The court applied the doctrine that laws affecting trade must serve a public interest purpose. In this case, the need for road maintenance and development justified the imposition of taxes on transport vehicles.

Purposive Interpretation: The interpretation of Articles 301 to 304 was significant in this case, particularly regarding how these articles interact with each other concerning state powers to regulate trade and commerce.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here