MOD 1: INDIAN FEDERALISM

Federalism = political arrangement to reconcile national unity with maintenance of state

rights

Fiscal federalism = financial relations bw centre and state govts, as est by consti

Legislative federalism = dist of law making powers bw centre and state, as defined in consti

Types of Governmental Systems:

Unitary govt – single power – all power rests with central govt, eg. France, Spain

Federal govt – sovereign power is divided bw central authority and constituent regions,
usually by a constitution – each region retains some management of its internal affairs –
central govt has influence directly over individuals and regional units, eg. usa, India

Confederal govt – a union bw states or territories, creating a central govt w limited powers –
states retain supreme authority in all matters except those few deleted to central govt, eg.
original 13 united states

Autocracy – all power retained by one person, people have no right

Oligarchy – small group of people have all authority, usually based on wealth and power

Democracy– supreme power retained by people, exercised indirectly through system of

representation and delegated authority, periodically renewed. eg. usa, India

Features of Federal Form of Govt:

 Divided power
 National unity
 Citizens have more opportunities to be heard
 Services can be duplicated across multiple levels of govt
 Disputes occur bw national power and states’ rights
Dr. Wheare: federalism = method of dividing power so that general and regional governments
are each within a sphere co-ordinate and independent

Prof. Duchaech: gave 10 yardsticks to determine if nation is federal, they are

1. Major issues like foreign relations lie in central govt hands, state no power
2. No state can withdraw from federal union
3. Independent sphere of central authority
4. Amendment of consti (most imp)
5. States have indestructible identity and autonomy
6. Residuary power rests with union govt
7. Bicameralism / equal representation of unequal states
8. Supreme court – apex body
9. Clear division of powers bw centre and states
10. Diplomacy and defence – in hands of union govt

Nature of Indian Constitution – Federal and Unitary Features:

Federal:

 Dual govt
 Division of powers (given in consti schedule 7)
 Supremacy of consti
 Independent judiciary
 Bicameralism

Unitary:

 Strong centre
 Single citizenship
 Single consti
 Single integrated judiciary
 Emergency provisions (can modify consti into unitary)
 Centre can change names and boundaries of states
 Appointment of governors (by president), governor as agent of centre
 Integrated machinery (for election etc)
Legislative relations bw Centre and States

Chapter 1 of part XI – Art 245-254

Article 245 – territorial competence

(1) parliament may make laws for whole or any part of India, leg of state may make for
whole or any part of state
(2) no law made by parliament invalid on ground of extra-territorial operation

Article 246 - Subject Matter Competence

(1) parliament exclusive power to make laws w respect to any matter from List I (aka
union list) of 7th schedule (notwithstanding anything in clause 2 or 3)
(2) Subject to clause 1, legislative of state also has power to make laws w respect to any
matter in List III (aka concurrent list) of 7 th schedule (notwithstanding anything in
clause 3)
(3) Subject to clauses 1&2, state leg has exclusive power to make laws for matters under
list II (state list)
(4) Parliament can make laws with respect to any matter for any part of territory of India,
notwithstanding if it is in state list (in any of situations below)
(i) Article 249 – national interest - upper house passes resolution with 2/3
majority
(ii) Article 250 – during proclamation of emergency
(iii) Article 252 – Two or more States approach Parliament
(iv) Article 253 – international treaty or conventions
(v) Avoiding inconsistency
(vi) Accession of new states
(vii) In case of failure of consti machinery in states

 Union list – 99 subjects

 State list – 61 subjects
 Concurrent list – 52 subjects
Article 254 – inconsistency with central and state laws

(repugnancy arises only if both have competence over matter as per Art 246)

(1) Law by parliament will prevail, state law to the extent of repugnancy will be void
(2) If state acquired consent of president, state law will prevail

There must be existing repugnancy, mere possibility of repugnancy does not leads to any
conflict.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance:

 Pith = true nature of legislation, “in respect to what”

 Substance = whether the part in Q is essential / substantial
 Pith and Substance – true nature of legislation

If encroachment is incidental – allowed

State of Bombay v. Balsara = Bombay govt prohibited possession, sale and carrying of
liquor. Many ports in Bombay blocked – import from other countries also became diff –
encroachment of union list. But incidental so allowed

Karunanidhi v. UoI – 3-part test for checking repugnancy – direct repug, both cannot op in
same field without collision, statute making distinct and sep offence is not unconsti

V K Sharma v. State of Karnataka – no repugnancy if both laws not legislated under same
entry, then apply pith and substance

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation = what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly

Administrative relations bw Centre and States

Can be studied under normal and emergency conditions

Several techniques of control of centre over states under normal conditions:

 Art 155-156 - president may appoint or dismiss state governors/ other dignitaries if
found guilty
 Directions can be issued by centre to states, if no comply - presidential rule imposed
 Art 258 – president, w consent of states, may entrust any union executive function to
states
  Art 262 - Water Disputes - parliament to adj, may also provide that sc or any other
court doesn’t have juris. **Inter-states water disputes act, 1956**
 Art 263 – inter states council – president can est
 Art 275 – Grants in aid
 Art 312 – all india services, eg. police
 Advisory bodies at union level – eg. national planning commission

Emergency Conditions – 3 conditions

 War / threat of war / internal rebellion – pres rule under Art 352
 Breakdown of consti machinery in state - pres rule under Art 356
 Grave financial crisis - pres rule under Art 360

Financial relations bw Centre and States

Both union and states need suff funds to discharge duties – elaborate provisions for dist of tax
and non-tax revenue + power of borrowing + grants in aid for states

State leg has power to levy any taxes enumerated in state list, subject to certain limitations

Art 268 – scheme of dist of revenue bw centre and states

Borrowing power of union unlimited – art 292

Borrowing power of states limited **govt of India Act 1935**

Emergency provisions (in part XVIII)

 Art 352 – national emergency

 Art 356 – State emergency
 Art 360 – financial emergency
Art 262 - Inter State Water Disputes

Art 262 – Inter state river water disputes act 1956 – River Board Act 1956

History:

 First regulated under 1919 rowlatt act – water was under provincial list
 Govt of India Act 1935 – signi change, water under federal list – barred juris of all
courts

Consti Art 262 – parlia may provide for adj, may provide that sc and all courts don’t have
juris

IRWDA Sec 4 – formation of water tribunal, Sec 11 – bars sc and all courts

Issues w IRWDA

 Extreme delay
 Tech knowledge on water sharing – requires experts
 Court interference
 Only states can raise issue under 262

Principle followed by tribunals – equitable share of each state

Re Cauvery Water Dispute 1993

 Bw Karnataka & TN
 TN got more water, then 50 yrs agreement expired
 TN said continue giving more cuz expanded agri, K said give more cuz population
increased
 SC did not adj, directed centre to set up tribunal
 Tribunal gave decision in favour of TN
 Much later in 2018 – SC decided that tribunal order was wrong, did not consider
drought years, by doctrine of prior appropriation, 75% given to K, some to TN, some
to others

Legal issue – whether SC intervention ok

 SC can decide issues under 136 and 131, but not subject matter of case
Article 370 – Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir

Came into force w consti – 26 jan 1950

J&K – only state to negotiate terms of membership w union

Art 370 – 6 sp provisions for j&k

 Exempted state from provisions of consti providing governance of all states, j&k own
consti
 Union power in j&k only for 3 subjects – defence, foreign affairs, communications
 If any other consti provisions to extent to j&k – prior concurrence of state required
 This concurrence = strictly provisional, to be ratified by state’s constituent assembly
 State govt’s auth to give concurrence- interim power till state consti assembly
convened
 President can abrogate or amend art 370 – but rec by state consti assembly necessary

Status of j&k – dual citizenship = national + ‘permanent residents’

Before aug 2019 – 3 docs governed j&k relationship w India – Instrument of Accession,
Basic Order, j&k consti

2023 – 5 judge consti bench unanimously upheld abrogation of 370

 MOD 2: PARLIAMENT OF THE UNION

Composition of Parliament - Art 79 = Lok Sabha (House of People) + Rajya Sabha (Council
of States)

Rajya Sabha composition - Art 80 – 238 elected + 12 nominated = total 250

Proportional representation & single transferable vote

Qualifications – citizen of India, 30+ age, any other laid down by parliament

Lok Sabha composition – Art 81 – 530 elected from states + 20 elected from UTs + 2 anglo
Indian community = total 552

Qualifications – citizen of India, 25+ age, any other laid down by parliament

No of seats depends on population of state, ratio same across india

Population for allotment of seats to state- as of 1971

Population for allotment of seats to a territorial constituency - as of 2001

Art 101 & 102 – vacation of seats & disqualification

a) member of both Houses of Parliament

b) member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State

c) member of either House of Parliament becomes subject to any of the disqualification s

mentioned in clause ( 1 ) or clause ( 2 ) of Article 102

d) resigns his seat by writing to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, and
resignation is accepted by the chairman or the Speaker

e) period of sixty days - member is without permission of the House absent from all
meetings, provided that in the said period, no account shall be taken of any period during
which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than 4 consecutive days
A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House
of Parliament-

a) office of profit under the Government of India or of any State

b) unsound mind + declared so by a competent court
c) undischarged insolvent
d) not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State
e) so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.

Office of Profit under the Govt

essentials = there shall be an office + office must yield profit + must be under govt

5 pointer test:

 Appointment?
 Removal?
 Remuneration?
 Functions?
 Government’s control over functions?
objective of disqualification - remove biasness towards executive + separation of powers

The objective of Office of Profit is that MPs and MLAs should be free to carry out their duty
fearlessly w/o being subjected to any kind of govt pressure – Ashok Kumar v. Ajoy Biswas

The mere influence which one gains by virtue of his/ her position as a member of a
committee which has no remuneration attached is not office of profit – Chander Nath v.
Jaswant Singh

Jaya Bachchan v. UoI - position of “Chairperson of the UP Film Development Council” = not
Office of Profit, emphasizing its honorary nature – because did not avail benefits

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN UK

1. Certain rights, privileges and immunities given to members of parliament

R. v. Elliot - free speech (sedition case)
 Later, in Bill of Rights: “Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”
Shows 2 main components - freedom of Speech + freedom to regulate its own
internal affairs- k/a exclusive cognizance
2. Qualified privilege applied to publication of parliamentary proceedings
Public interest outweighs any private injury that may take place
Stockdale v. Hansard - publications made under the authority of the House of
Commons will also be privileged
3. Publications of proceedings in newspaper – wason v. walter – protection only if fair
report, not partial/ biased/ intention to injure
4. Exclusive cognizance – Bradlaugh v. Gosset - the parliament will regulate its own
internal matters and no court can take cognizance in any such matter - “what is said
and done within the four walls of parliament shall not be enquired by the courts”

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN UK

1. Art 105 - Powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and
committees thereof
(a) freedom of speech
Kiran Jain v. Sanjeeva Reddy – defamatory remarks – but in walls of parlia and in
relation to discussion – privilege protected
PV Narsimha Rao v. State- bribe to vote against the no confidence motion –
bribe-givers – no privilege, bribe-takers – privilege if voted, no privilege if no vote
(b) no liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote
given in Parliament, no liable for publication by or under the authority of
parliament - Suresh Chandra v. Punit
(c) powers, privileges and immunities - as may from time to time be defined by
Parliament by law
(d) The provisions of clauses ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) shall apply in relation to persons who
by virtue of this constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in
the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in
relation to members of Parliament
Art 122 – Internal Autonomy

Punjab v. Sat Pal Dang - Speaker cannot act contrary to Law

Punishment for Contempt of parlia - Raja Ram Pal v. Hon. Speaker, Lok Sabha

Immunity from arrest

Conflict bw Parlia Privileges and FR

ANTI DEFECTION

DEFECTION = elected representative of one party joins another party without resigning
from his present party for benefits.

Political defection= act of an elected member quitting the political party there are a part of,
and joining hands with another political party.

Article 102(2) and 191(2)- Disqualification for MP and MLA’s

52nd amendment 1985 – 10th schedule – anti defection – for constitutional morality

Aim – To bring stability in the Indian political system

10th schedule provides presiding officers with the power to decide cases of defection – but
challenged for being partial and biased

Committees and commissions, including Dinesh Goswami Committee (1998), Commission

to Review the Constitution (2002) and the Law Commission (2015 ) recommended that
defection cases must be decided by the President or Governor for centre and states
respectively

But law states that the decision of presiding officer is final and not subject to judicial review
Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu -The High Courts and the Supreme Courts can exercise Judicial
Review under the constitution. But the Judicial Review should not cover any stage prior to
the making of a decision by the speakers/Chairmen.

Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu - main issue was whether the 10th schedule curtails freedom of
speech and expression and subverts the democratic rights of the elected members – held does
not violate any rights or freedoms.

Grounds of defection:

 When any elected member “voluntarily gives up” his membership (“voluntarily –
Ravi Naik v. UoI) (can be from conduct – Ram Chandra Prasad Singh v. Sharad
Yadav)
 When any elected member votes or restrains from voting in such house in opposition
issued by their political party,

 however if prior permission within 15 days- not disqualified

 If a nominated member of the upper house joins any political party after 6 months
from the date on which he assumes his position.

 If any independent member joins any party

Exceptions:

 a complete merger of the political party- 2/3rd in favor of the merger (earlier 1/3 but
rectified in 91st amendment 2003)

 If a member goes out of his party as a result of a merger of the party with another
party.

The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha and Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, the
presiding officers of State Legislature shall not be disqualified under Anti-Defection law if
they quit their original party.

Defection begins from diff dates for diff types of members

 Members of political party – if vote/abstinence not condoned by party within 15 days

 Indep member – anytime after election
  Nominated member – if joins any party 6 months after nomination

Loopholes

 Power of speaker
 Judicial review
 No individual stand on part of members
 Problem with merger provision

Venkatachaliah commission: Defectors should be banned permanently, their vote should not
be counted in no confidence motion.

Constitution Review Commission (2002)- defectors should be barred from holding public
office or any remunerative political post for the duration of the remaining term.

Advantages:

 Greater stability in the body politic

 Facilitates democratic realignment of parties
 Reduces corruption and expenditure
 Gives recognition to the existence of political parties

Criticism:

 No differentiation between dissent and defection

 Discrimination between independent members and nominated members
 Decision making authority vested on presiding officer
 No time limit specified to decide the plea of disqualification
 MOD 3: UNION EXECUTIVE

Executive = P + VP + PM + CoM

PRESIDENT

Art 58 - Qualifications: Citizen + 35 age + qualified for LS + no office of profit

Appointment – elected by electoral college (MPs + MLAs – but no nominated members)

proportional representation by means of single transferable vote

Article 56 states that President shall hold office for a term of five years. On expiration of
term, continue to hold office till successor.

But may stop in middle from impeachment of resignation

Resignation given to VP then communicated to Speaker of LS

VP = substitute in case of death, resignation or impeachment or otherwise. Such vacancy

should be filled by election necessarily taking place within 6 months of office falling vacant.

Article 61 lays down the procedure for the impeachment of the President.

 Impeachment = if consti violated by P

 Charges can be initiated by either house of Parliament. It is in the form of proposal
contained in a resolution signed by not less than 1/4th of the total number of the
members of the House and moved after giving at least 14 days’ advance notice.
 Prior to initiating the resolution, a notice must be issued to the president informing
him of the charges- signed by 1/4th of the total members of the house
 Then the resolution should be passed by 2/3rd members of the House. Then the
charge is investigated by other House.
 After investigation if the house passes a resolution with 2/3rd majority declaring
than the charge is proved then the President is removed from the office.

POWERS OF PRESIDENT

 Executive powers (article 77) - appoints PM and on his advice other ministers of the
Union. All stay in office till pleasure of the President
  Military Powers: Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces of the Country. Declare
war and peace. Appoints Chief of Army, Navy and Air Force.
 Legislative Powers: President part of parlia. Summon and prorogue parlia, and
dissolve the Lok Sabha. President assents the bill. Appoints two Anglo-Indians to the
Lok Sabha. Nominates 12 members to the Rajya Sabha. Has Ordinance making power
u/ Art 123 – when the both the houses are not in session and the President is satisfied
that circumstances exist which render it to take immediate action.
 Pardoning Power:
Pardon = completely absolve the offender from all sentences and punishments
Commute = substitution of one form of punishment for another of a lighter character
Remission = reduction of the amount of sentence without changing its character
Respite = Awarding a lesser punishment on some special grounds
Reprieve = temporary suspension of death sentence for pending proceedings
Maru Ram v. UoI - Pardon power exercised on advice of the CoM
Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi - president’s pardoning power will be
examined on the facts and circumstances of each case
 Emergency powers:
Art 352: if the president is satisfied that the security of India is threatened by foreign
attack, armed rebellion or war
Art 356: the President satisfied on the report of the governor of the State that the
government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution;
Art 360: proclaim financial emergency as the financial stability of the nation is
threatened.
President may suspend certain rights during emergency.

Relation bw P & CoM

42nd Amendment (1976): Made it mandatory for the President to act in accordance
with the Council's advice under Article 74(1).
44th Amendment (1978): Added a proviso allowing the President to request
reconsideration of advice, but must follow it after reconsideration.

Salary and allowances of the President fixed by parlia. current salary =Rs 1.5 L/ month

Rao Birendra Singh v. UoI - No case can be initiated against P, shall be against UoI
 MOD 4: SUPREME COURT

Art 124 - Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.— There shall be a

Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by
law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges.

 Composition: Chief Justice + 7 Judges (modifiable by law).

 Appointment: By President
 Tenure: Until age of 65 years.
 Resignation: Judge may resign to President.
 Removal: By Parliament address, proven misconduct/incapacity.
 Qualifications:
Indian citizen
5 years High Court Judge, or
10 years High Court advocate, or
Distinguished jurist (President's opinion).
 Oath: Administered by President before joining.
 Restrictions: Ex-judges cannot plead in Indian courts.

V broad jurisdiction + most powerful apex court in world

 Art 32 – enforce FR
- For violation of FR of indiv

 Art 129 – Contempt of Court

 Art 131 - Original juris for inter govt disputes

- For govt v. state(s), govt + state v. state, state v. state – but not for case related to
treaty/ agreement etc in operation
- For water disputes, for matters referred to finance commission

 Art 132-134 – appellate juris, highest court of appeal for all matters – civil, cri &
consti
132 - appeal to SC if HC certifies substantial Q of law for interpretation of consti
133 – civil – HC certify subst Q of law of general imp
 134 – criminal – HC reversed order of acquittal and gave death sentence OR If HC
withdrew case from subordi court and sentenced w death
OR if HC certifies that case is fit for appeal – substan Q of law
Certificate granted suo moto by HC or on application by aggrieved party

 Art 136 – extra ordinary appellate juris – SC itself grants sp leave to appeal – SLP –
only for gross miscarriage of justice – Haripada Dey v. WB but no new evidence or
plea

 Art 137 – power to review its own decisions

Corrects glaring omissions, grave errors, or judicial fallibility.
Does not reconsider the entire case, only corrects serious errors.
Exception to Stare Decisis - rule of following legal precedents.
Time Limit for Review Petition: Must be filed within 30 days of the judgment
Who Can File - Not limited to parties; anyone aggrieved by the judgment can file
Grounds for Review: Discovery of new important evidence, apparent mistake or
error in the judgment, any other sufficient reason
UoI v. Iron Ores Ltd - court laid down 9 principles on when review is maintainable

Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra – curative juris – whether aggrieved is entitled to any
relief
curative petition may be filed after review plea against final conviction is dismissed.
can be entertained if petitioner establishes violation of the principles of natural
justice
only for rare cases not regular

 Art 142 – make any order necessary in any case for complete justice
 Art 143 – advisory juris

A court of record is a court whose records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and they are
not to be questioned when they are produced in a subordinate court. This status ensures that
its judgments and orders are binding and serve as legal precedents.
Once a court is made a court of record, its power to punish for contempt necessarily follows
from that position. In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts are designated as Courts of
Record.

Basis for contempt of court:

 insinuations undermining judicial dignity.

 Prejudicing court against a party.
 Influencing public on pending cases.
 Attempting to sway judges' decisions, w flattery or veiled threat
 Scandalizing court with false accusations.
 Wilful disobedience of court orders

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines contempt and court powers.

Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders or undertakings.
Criminal Contempt: Includes:
 Scandalizing or lowering court authority.
 Prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings.
 Obstructing the administration of justice.
SC Power: Punishes contempt of itself and subordinate courts.

Exceptions that are not contempt:

 Innocent publications and its distribution

 Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings
 Fair criticism of judicial act
 Complaint made in good faith against the presiding officers of subordinate courts
 Publication of fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding
COLLEGIUM SYSTEM VS NJAC

 Collegium system

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior Supreme Court justices recommend
appointments and transfers. This system has been in place for many decades, but has been
criticized for being opaque and autocratic.

 NJAC

An independent commission that would have included members from both the judiciary and
the executive to appoint judges.

Composition = CJI + 2 senior judges + Union Minister of Law & Justice + 2 eminent persons
nominated by panel of PM, LO, CJI. To balance J & E power

The NJAC was established through 99th amendment act (2014), but was struck down by the
Supreme Court in 2015 as unconstitutional. The court ruled that the NJAC's involvement of
the executive in judicial appointments violated the independence of the judiciary.

Differences:

 Evolution

The collegium system evolved through Supreme Court judgments, while the NJAC was
introduced by an Act of Parliament.

 Criticism

The collegium system has been criticized for being opaque and autocratic, while the NJAC
was criticized for involving the executive in judicial appointments.

CASE EVOLUTION

 1950-1973: CJI seniority rule followed; bypassed in 1973 for Justice A.N. Ray.

 1955 Law Commission: Advocated merit, experience, and competence over

seniority.
  Issue: Revolved around "consult" in Article 124

 Judges Transfer Case I (1982) – S P Gupta v. UoI

established executive supremacy.
"Consultation" ≠ "concurrence"; President not bound by advice.
Final authority rested with the Council of Ministers.
 Judges Transfer Case II (1993) – SC Adv on Recd v. UoI
Overruled S.P. Gupta case; reduced executive influence.
CJI + 2 senior-most judges' opinions given primacy.
Seniority rule for CJI upheld to avoid bias or favoritism.
 Judges Transfer Case III (1999) – re Precedential Case
Clarified Collegium process for SC/HC appointments.
SC: CJI + 4 senior-most judges, consensus-based recommendations.
HC: CJI + 2 senior-most judges.
Guidelines non-compliance grounds for appointment challenges.
 4th judges case (2015) – my IRAC assignment

INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY INCLUDES

 Security of tenure
 Secured salaries
 Judicial privilege
 Contempt powers
 Separation of powers
 Appointment and removal
MOD 5: STATE LEGISLATURE
MOD 6: STATE EXECUTIVE
 MOD 7: HIGH COURTS

WRIT = formal order in writing issued by court, commanding to do or refrain from doing
some act specified therein.

Art. 32 – heart & soul of consti – Ambedkar

WRITS

Can be suspended only as per the provisions provided by the Constitution.

 Habeus corpus- to produce the body

Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate - wrongfully detained in a Darjeeling jail - court

may examine the legality of detention without the person being present before it
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration - Wider use of habeus corpus = to protect personal
liberties of arrested person
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar - Person detained even after 14 years of order of release -
Compensation was provided
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla which is also known as the Habeas Corpus case,
it was held that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended even during an
emergency (Article 359).

 Mandamus- to mandate

Essentials – must be a public duty, specific demand + refusal, clear right of

Praga Tools Corporation v. Imanual - mandamus might under certain circumstances

lie against a private individual if it is established that he has colluded with a public
authority

Syndicate v. UoI - has to be a demand and refusal of the demand for mandamus issue

 Quo warranto- to question, by what authority

Conditions – public office + created by statute/consti + substantive office + some

contravention of consti/ statutory instrument

Bheema Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh - Government pleader appointed

without fulfilling the required procedure
 Niranjan Kumar v. Uni of Bihar - Principal of the Private College- not public office

 Certiorari- to certify

Issued to inferior courts or quasi-judicial body

lower court or a tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its powers or committed
an error of law - it may transfer the case to itself or quash the order

 Prohibition- to prohibit

Prevents an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction – stay order

 Curative writ – to prevent gross injustice

Roopa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra – essentials = no more chances left, gross injustice,
exemplary cost – lacks merit

M C Mehta v. UoI - Court under Article 32 have enough power to grant compensation

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar - 14k compensation given

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir - 50,000 Compensation granted

Romesh Thappar v. Madras - SC emphasised that this Court is thus constituted the protector
and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights, and it cannot consistently with the responsibility so
laid upon it, refuse to entertain application seeking protection against infringement of such
rights.”

Kouchini v. Madras - Court will have to entertain petition under Article 32 even if the
alternate remedies are not exhausted.

Against whom a writ can be filed?

1. State as defined under article 12

2. private bodies in nature of state: environment

Who can file the writ?- locus standi?

1. all person- art 32

2. Aggrieved party

3. expanded the locus standi- representational, PIL

Art 226

Wider application by HC – enforcement of FR or any other purpose – consti rights as well

MOD 8: ELECTION & ELECTORAL REFORMS