State

Article 12 of Indian Constitution deals with definition of state. Article 12 says that unless the
context otherwise requires the term State includes the followings: -

1. The Government and Parliament of India, i.e., Executive and Legislature of Union.

2. The Government and Legislature of each State, i.e., Executive and Legislature of State.

3. All Local and other authorities within the territory of India.

4. All Local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India.

In the Context of article 12, “Authority’ means the power to make laws, orders, regulations,
bye- laws, notification etc., which have the force of law and the power to enforce those laws.

Local Authorities as defined in section 3(31) of General Clause Act, refers to authorities like
Municipalities, District Boards, Panchayat etc.

Other Authorities mean authorities exercising Governmental or Sovereign functions. It cannot

Article 13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights:

1. All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to
the extent of such inconsistency be void.
2. The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void.
3. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order,
bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India
the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other
competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part
thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas
 4. Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under
Article 368

Doctrine of separation or Severability

When a part of statute is declared unconstitutional then the question arises whether the whole
of the statute is to be declared void or only that part which is unconstitutional should be
declared as such. To resolve this problem, the Supreme Court has devised the doctrine of
separation. This doctrine means that if an offending provision can be separated from that which
is constitutional then only that part which is offending is to be declared as void and not then
the entire statute.
Doctrine of Eclipse
It is based on the principle that a law which violates or is inconsistent with fundamental rights,
will not be declared null or void ab initio but it becomes, only unenforceable i.e., remains in a
moribund condition. The term Eclipse in the doctrine means "It is over-shadowed by the
fundamental rights and remains dormant, but it is riot dead." It exists for all past transaction.
The inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by constitutional amendment. It exists for all past
transactions.
Bhikaji v State of MP AIR 1955:
The MP Government passed an Act in the year 1950 for nationalizing the motor transport and
the Act was passed before the commencement of the constitution. The statue was challenged
by the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. The Central Government amended
the Act that enabling the state to nationalize the motor transport. The apex court held that the
statue of Madhya Pradesh State of nationalizing the motor transport was cured by the 4th
Amendment Act 1955 and therefore the Doctrine of Eclipse has been applied and such Act is
valid.
Doctrine of Waiver

According to Doctrine of Waiver, a person, who is entitled to any right or privilege, can waive
off such right and privilege, if he does so with his discretion. This doctrine on the idea that a
person is the best judge of his interest under any legal liability, which he has the knowledge of
the results while intentionally abandoning the privilege of such right. But, the doctrine of
waiver does not apply to the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed under the constitution
of India. Thus, it is not open to a citizen to waive any of the fundamental rights conferred by
Part III of the Indian constitution. These rights have been put in the constitution not merely for
the benefit of individual but as a matter of public policy for the benefit of the general people.

Judicial Review

The Power of Judicial review have been conferred on Supreme court and High courts under
article 13 of the Indian Constitution. Judicial Review is the power of the court to pronounce
the constitutionality of the legislative acts which fall within their normal jurisdiction to enforce
and the power to refuse to enforce such as they find to be unconstitutional and void. Thus, it
can be said that a court by using power of judicial review may invalidate government’s laws
or acts which are against the provisions of the Constitution or in the interest of the individuals
of the society living in India. Thus, Judicial Review is the power of the court over non judicial
branches such as legislative and executive actions. In Keshavanand Bharati V. State of
Kerala AIR 1973 SC, Justice Khanna said that “ Judicial Review is an integral part of our
constitutional system and this power has been vested in High courts and Supreme court to
decide about the constitutional validity of the provisions of the statutes and if the statutes of
provisions of the statutes are found to be violative of any of the article of the constitution,
which are touchstone for the validity of all laws, the High court and Supreme court are
empowered to strike down the said provisions.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality before the law or equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. It states: "The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
Equality before law means equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law unless special
privileges in favour of individual is given, whereas equal protection of the laws means equal
laws implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances.

Carry forward rule

The Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 16(4) in T. Devadasan v. Union of India
(1964). In this case, the constitutional validity of the “carry forward rule” which was framed
by the government to regulate the appointment of people from the backward classes where state
services were involved, was at issue. This rule states that in case a sufficient number of
candidates belonging to the SCs and STs classes were not available for appointment to the
reserved quota, then the vacancies that remained unfilled would be treated as unreserved and
would be filled by the fresh available candidates; however, a corresponding number of posts
would be reserved in the next year for SCs and STs in addition to their reserved quota for the
next year. The result was to carry forward the unutilised balance and unfilled vacancies in the
second and third years at one time. In actuality, 68 percent of the vacancies were reserved for
SCs and STs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, had struck down the carry
forward rule, declaring it unconstitutional on the ground that the power vested in government
under Article 16(4) cannot be exercised in order to deny reasonable equality of opportunity
pertaining to matters of public employment for members of classes other than backward
classes. The Court said that recruitment must be considered each year, and the reservation for
backward communities each year should not be excessive enough to create a monopoly or
interfere unduly with other communities’ legitimate claims. Accordingly, the Court held that
the reservation ought to be less than 50 percent, but how much less than half would depend
upon the prevailing circumstances in each case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, overruled Devadasan v.
Union of India on the point and held the “carry forward rule” valid as long as it did not, in a
particular year, exceed 50 percent of vacancies. The 50% limit can only be exceeded in
extraordinary situations prevailing in a State, i.e., far-flung states such as Nagaland, etc.

After the above decision, Clause (4-B) was added after Clause (4-A) to the Indian Constitution
under Article 16 by way of 81st Amendment, 2000. It was added to the Constitution with the
intent that the backlog vacancies which could not be filled due to unavailability of eligible
candidates in a previous or preceding year, shall not be clubbed with the 50 percent reservation
for the SCs and STs and Other Backward Classes on the total number of vacancies in the next
year.

Article19: - Freedom of Speech

As per this article following rights are given under sub clause 1 to the citizens of India:
-

1. All citizens have the right