Scribd
Upload
15 views5 pages

Constitutional Law - Case Laws

The document outlines significant case laws in Constitutional Law, categorized into various units such as Historical Perspective, Preamble, Secularism, Equality, Freedoms, Personal Liberty, Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles. Key rulings include the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, the enforceability of the Preamble, and the decriminalization of same-sex relations. The document emphasizes the balance between Fundamental Rights and state powers, highlighting the importance of personal liberty and social justice.

Uploaded by

sp.kumar220
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views5 pages

Constitutional Law - Case Laws

The document outlines significant case laws in Constitutional Law, categorized into various units such as Historical Perspective, Preamble, Secularism, Equality, Freedoms, Personal Liberty, Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles. Key rulings include the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, the enforceability of the Preamble, and the decriminalization of same-sex relations. The document emphasizes the balance between Fundamental Rights and state powers, highlighting the importance of personal liberty and social justice.

Uploaded by

sp.kumar220
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Constitutional Law - case laws

Unit 1: Historical Perspective

●​ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)​

○​ Topic: Basic Structure Doctrine​

○​ Facts: Kesavananda challenged Kerala's land reform laws affecting religious


institutions.​

○​ Held: The Basic Structure Doctrine was established, ruling that Parliament
cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.​

Unit 2: Preamble, Union, Territory, Citizenship, and State

●​ B. R. Ambedkar v. Union of India (1950)​

○​ Topic: Preamble Interpretation​

○​ Facts: Petitioners sought to treat the Preamble as a legally enforceable


provision.​

○​ Held: The Preamble reflects values but is not legally enforceable.​

●​ State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)​

○​ Topic: Alteration of State Boundaries​

○​ Facts: Rajasthan challenged Parliament's power to alter state boundaries


under Article 3.​

○​ Held: Parliament has the power to alter state boundaries under Article 3.​

●​ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980)​

○​ Topic: Enforceability of Fundamental Rights for Non-Citizens​

○​ Facts: Sunil Batra challenged his detention under preventive detention laws.​

○​ Held: Fundamental Rights, including personal liberty, are enforceable for


non-citizens.​
Unit 3: Secularism

●​ S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)​

○​ Topic: Secularism as a Basic Feature​

○​ Facts: The case concerned dismissal of state governments on religious


grounds.​

○​ Held: Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution; the state must


remain neutral toward religion.​

●​ Communist Party of India (M) v. Union of India (2005)​

○​ Topic: Separation of Religion and Politics​

○​ Facts: The case questioned the government’s involvement with religious


matters.​

○​ Held: The state must ensure separation of religion from politics, affirming
secularism.​

Unit 4: Equality and Social Justice

●​ State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (1983)​

○​ Topic: Validity of Reservation Policies​

○​ Facts: The petitioners challenged the failure to implement reservation


policies.​

○​ Held: Reservation policies are constitutionally valid for ensuring equality


and social justice.​

●​ M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)​

○​ Topic: Reservation in Promotions​

○​ Facts: Whether reservation should be applied in government promotions.​

○​ Held: Reservations in promotions are constitutional but must consider


administrative efficiency.​
●​ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)​

○​ Topic: Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations​

○​ Facts: Petitioners challenged Section 377, criminalizing consensual


same-sex relations.​

○​ Held: The Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations between


adults under Article 21.​

Unit 5: Freedoms and Social Control

●​ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)​

○​ Topic: Right to Personal Liberty​

○​ Facts: Maneka challenged the restriction on her right to travel abroad.​

○​ Held: Personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad; restrictions must
be reasonable.​

●​ Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950)​

○​ Topic: Trade and Commerce Restrictions​

○​ Facts: Challenge against restrictions imposed on freedom of trade under


Article 19.​

○​ Held: Trade restrictions must serve public interest and be reasonable.​

Unit 6: Personal Liberty

●​ Habeas Corpus Case (1976)​

○​ Topic: Suspension of Personal Liberty during Emergency​

○​ Facts: Challenge to detention during the Emergency.​

○​ Held: Personal liberty cannot be suspended arbitrarily; due process is


essential.​
●​ R. C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)​

○​ Topic: Property Rights under Article 19​

○​ Facts: The case dealt with the nationalization of banks.​

○​ Held: Property rights are not absolute and can be regulated in public
interest.​

Unit 7: Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

●​ Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)​

○​ Topic: Fundamental Rights as Basic Structure​

○​ Facts: Challenge against Kerala's land reform laws.​

○​ Held: Fundamental Rights are part of the basic structure and cannot be
amended.​

●​ Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966)​

○​ Topic: Preventive Detention and Personal Liberty​

○​ Facts: Challenge to preventive detention laws under Article 21.​

○​ Held: Preventive detention laws must adhere to constitutional safeguards.​

Unit 8: Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties

●​ Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)​

○​ Topic: Directive Principles vs Fundamental Rights​

○​ Facts: The case questioned if Directive Principles could override


Fundamental Rights.​

○​ Held: Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights.​

●​ Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)​


○​ Topic: Amendments to Fundamental Rights​

○​ Facts: The case questioned Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental


Rights.​

○​ Held: Fundamental Rights are unamendable and cannot be altered by


Parliament.​

●​ R. R. N. v. Union of India (1977)​

○​ Topic: State's Duty to Fulfill Constitutional Obligations​

○​ Facts: The case examined if the state could violate constitutional duties.​

○​ Held: The state must fulfill constitutional duties while respecting


Fundamental Rights.​

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy